Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2009[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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 29 August 2009 [1].

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article, on one of the most crucial conflicts in Byzantine history, went through a thorough and productive WPMILHIST peer review, while no major problems were raised during the subsequent A-class review. I therefore feel the article is in very good shape in terms of content, citations, style, etc, as well as covering the new alt text requirement. Constantine ✍ 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's good to see a history article here. I'm kind of new and will try and do my best to review this soon, but one thing I notice dis that lots of the images are stacked to the right. I think that th e Manual of Styles allows for images to be left aligned under level 2 headings, so you can stagger them more and it will make it look more attractive and wieghted. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I moved the images around a bit. How does it look? Also awaiting the review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - Based entirely on prose, I've not much knowledge of the Romans.

Lead:

  • Despite this seeming victory, Kantakouzenos was forced to abdicate and retire as a monk in 1354, following another civil war, although he remained active as a counselor until his death in 1383. - I comprehend it, but the phrasing is awkward. I would remove the first clause, and perhaps replace it, though I have no suggestions.

Background:

  • In 1341, the once-mighty Byzantine Empire was in a state of flux: restored to its capital and a measure of power under the energetic Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1259–1282), its strength waned under his successor, Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328). - Cite please
Otherwise, the prose is outstanding and I support. ceranthor 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed both points (hopefully). As you say you are unfamiliar with the subject, I would greatly appreciate your opinion on the comprehensiveness of the material covered. Did any points remain unclear? Are there any places where you feel I should elaborate more? On the whole, was the article accessible and understandable? Regards, Constantine ✍ 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per te criterion 1a of the FAC list. The prose looks pretty good but I'am concerned about the overall readability, which is rather low. I think this is in part due to some rather convoluted sentences that should be broken up and excessive textual fluff, which breaks down the flow. Spme examples:
    • "The Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347 was an internal conflict within the Byzantine Empire between John VI Kantakouzenos, who crowned himself emperor as John VI, and the regency for the infant son of Andronikos III, John V Palaiologos, which was headed by the Empress-dowager Anna of Savoy, the Patriarch John Kalekas, and the megas doux Alexios Apokaukos. " That really should be broken down; stringing all that info with commas just doesn't work. How about cutting it off after John V. Palaiologos? Only one or two of the members of the regency are mentioned later on in the lead, and only one (as I see it) is really important and can be introduced when he's killed off.
    • There's some locations where cutting down fluff will help, for example "As the chief aide and closest friend of Emperor Andronikos III, Kantakouzenos initially assumed the regency for John V, doing so upon Andronikos' death in June 1341." → "As the chief aide and closest friend of Emperor Andronikos III, Kantakouzenos initially assumed the regency for John V, doing so upon Andronikos' death in June 1341."
    • Also, random aside comme t, are the dates adjusted for modern gregorian calendars or are these still Julian dates? If the latter, perhaps a footnote would be nice to explain the difference to relative newbies, or just an inline parenthetical aside.
    • "The consequences of this prolonged conflict were nothing short of disastrous for the Empire, which had regained a measure of stability under Andronikos III."
    • Another aside, why is there a ref for the last sentence of the lead? It's covered in the body which means it doesn't need a citation.

I think running the article through Tony1's redundancy exercises are a good idea, I hear he's a good copyeditor too. Martin Raybourne (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll try to run through the prose tomorrow. As for the Gregorian calendar, since it was not adopted until two centuries later, it is irrelevant here. Constantine ✍ 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have engaged in some copyediting, both in terms of reducing redundancies and on streamlining some awkward sentences. I will go over it again, just in case. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Prose needs a polish, especially as the topic is very convoluted, with nearly all those involved unknown to most English readers. I agree with the comments above; also the "given that..."s should be rephrased; was it new that the magnates in Thrace "now" administered in a "fuedal manner", & so on. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have rephrased the phrase on the "feudal manner". I am afraid that I cannot go into more details in the article itself for reasons of balance. In short, the Byzantine state had always exercised tight control over the provinces and especially the tax revenue generated by them. This centralized bureaucracy broke down, both as a result of war and as the result of Kantakouzenos' dependence on the nobles, who essentially became autonomous barons in their lands, rarely heeding what Constantinople had to say or paying the taxes that were needed to sustain (or rather, revive) the imperial administration, army, navy etc. If there are any other obscure areas, please tell me. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid I have to agree that this interesting and informative article has multiple prose issues that could do with a thorough copyedit. I wish I had more time at the moment to do a line-by-line listing, but it would take a lot of time and space. I would advise that you contact a copyeditor from the Guild of Copy Editors and see if one will do a speedy run through of the article. Xandar 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 29 August 2009 [2].

Mumbai[edit]

Nominator(s): Hometech (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page


I was trying to save it but it got demoted a few months ago. Trying once again... Hometech (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but has several problems:

  • "A white tomb seen at night" The image is not that of a white tomb at night.
  • "A fountain as seen at night" is not informative enough. What does the fountain look like?
  • "A map of the Indian city of Mumbai marked by yellow and green colours" gives little info about what the map conveys to the sighted reader. Please describe the layout of Mumbai (e.g., the peninsula) in the alt text, rather than mentioning irrelevant details like colors.
  • "A graph showing temperatures temperature and rainfall of the Indian city of Mumbai using red and blue lines" has a similar problem. What does the graph tell the reader about temperature and rainfall, at first glance? Details of color are unimportant and should be removed: what's important is what the rainfall and temperatures are.
  • "Likewise for "Map of Maharashtra showing location of Mumbai" and "Map of India showing location of Maharashtra"
  • "A skyscraper photographed from the bottom" focuses too much on technical details in producing the image ("photographed from the bottom"; please remove this) and too little about what the skyscraper looks like. There's no need to describe the skyscraper in gory detail, but some detail (e.g., number of stories) should be given.
  • Similarly, remove "Black and white photo of".
  • "Residential skyscrapers" is too vague. Again, it doesn't have to be long, but 2 words is too short.
  • "a court building amid trees". First, the word "court" is not immediately obvious from the image and should be removed. Second, there's not enough detail about what the building looks like.
  • File:1st INC1885.jpg lacks alt text, as do twelve other images Twelve images lack alt text (click the "alt text" button of the toolbox at the upper right of this review page to see them).
  • "A building with clock towers at night" is vague and incorrect; that photo was taken during the day.
  • Other alt text entries that are too vague or incorrect: "A red bus with black signboard", "A bustling hall inside an airport" (that hall is almost empty; it's not "bustling"), "A brown building"
  • Alt text containing phrases that are not obvious from the image and should be reworded or removed: "town hall", "idol", "Skyline at Cuffe Parade, the Rajabai Clock Tower, the Taj Mahal Hotel, Nariman Point & Gateway of India", "Seal of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai".
  • A few of the smaller images appear purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=" as described in WP:ALT. The attempt to do that with the seal did not work; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page.

Eubulides (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • UPDATE I did all changes. But some images like India map are not even writen down in the infobox. Hometech (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • These are most likely generated by templates. Can you give the specific names of the images that have the problems? Eubulides (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • India flag and map. Hometech (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Thanks. The flag is not a problem, since it uses "|link=" (see WP:ALT #When to specify). I will look into the infobox to see what the problem with the map is; please don't worry about that for now. I reviewed the new version, struck the items that were fixed, and have some followup comments below. The following phrases cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image, and should be reworded or moved to the caption or removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify): "tomb", "goddess". "Indian dresses" should be "Indian dress". Eubulides (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I have added alt text support to {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} and have fixed most of the alt text problems in the that template's use in Mumbai, including the map alt text mentioned above. Please fix the remaining alt text problem in the infobox, by filling in its new skyline_alt= parameter (currently blank). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I edited the Mumbai tourist template so alt is now done, I hope. Hometech (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • The above items that are not crossed out (the 3rd and 4th bullets) still have problems. (File:Maharastra-stub.svg still had alt text, but I fixed that.) One other thing I noticed with your edit: the same image of women lighting crackers is repeated, once in the collage and once alone. That's odd; one instance should be removed, to avoid the repetition. Eubulides (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • I fixd the alt in map and graph. But wehy remove the dancing women image? As if an img is exclusive for template and can't be used in any article! Hometech (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • I see it's been removed from the collage; thanks. I guess it's OK to repeat it in the template. I fixed the problems with the 3rd and 4th bullets. Eubulides (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Why is there nothing in article about cityscape and landmarks? You only extremely briefly mention one or two chuches and a stadium or two in other sections. One of the first things I would want to know is an overview of the most notable churches/temples/colonial buildings roads and streets etc. Why is the cityscape section missing? The article tells me ptactically nothing about architecture and cityscape in the city. You should definately add a new section on cityscape and highlight many of the notable landamrks and roads and analyse the architecture. Obviously it should be a nice summary and then spread out into sister articles like Architecture of Mumbai, List of roads in Mumbai etc but it is essential in my view you give information about cityscape. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) *Shoo! Mumbai doesnt even have that much eyepopping architecture (U must be a Roman or Londoner). We've mentiond whatever is notable. Roads arent anything great! Fierce policing is needed in these FACs to get rid of demands made against scope the topic. Hometech (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :Fine then, don't expect it to be repromoted then. Ignoring 3 million google hits is pretty ignorant. Major roads and streets whether you think they "are not that" or not should still be mentioned. I've just created an article on Architecture of Mumbai which makes this main article look far from comprehensive. All I ask for is a summarized paragraph. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanded Hometech (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Much better now, flows very well and might I say you did a very good job of writing a nice summary. My major concerns have been met now. Nicely done. I was going to suggest that you sub head the culture section to make the information easier to find it took me a while to find it! No objections though, oh just one, remove falling rain, not a reliable source for anything other than coordinates, trust me I know from experience, please remove that as a source but for coordinates use a US government source, falling rain is compiled using the geonames database I believe, use that instead. World gazetteer is an excellent site but its is compiled by an amateur. I would use a government source. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kensplanet has responded to these issues on gazeter below. Hometech (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed Hometech (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information added in the above refs. Hometech (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no doubt that this Web site is the best source on the Internet for getting location information of any place in the world. It can be grouped as a "very good" Web site. under World Gazetteer section. KensplanetTC 07:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave these sources out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I hate to do this since the article has seen considerable work since its FAR, but it still needs significant improvement in prose, organization and flow of ideas and content in paragraphs and sections, relative weight, selection of images etc before it can be promoted to FA. This is a placeholder comment; I'll expand on it with examples over the next couple of days. Abecedare (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Ridiculous FAC rules and process Anyone can oppose near the end (for no clear reason) and get away with it? One day has passed by without your valid reasons. I hope you respond or else this Oppose will be gone straightaway. Hometech (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Supporting and opposing" in WP:FAC says "If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. ... Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." I'm not sure about YellowMonkey's oppose (talk with Monkey about the sources etc.) but if Abecedare doesn't come back like in a few hours, that'll just be ignored by the FAC people. Do allow those few hours, though: many FACs have taken days or weeks longer. Shouting at editors and rules with big bold letters like this just makes you look silly along the way—if the article looks good and has some support and just a stray unexplained oppose, you'll get your star. --an odd name 16:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Follow up on my oppose above. Here are examples of issues with the article that need to be addressed:
    • Due weight and comprehensiveness concerns:
      • The section Toponym is unduly long - comparable to Geography and Economy sections - and needs to be summarized/split off.
        • Well, the Toponymy section is not long. It appears to be because of the bleeding infobox. KensplanetTC 11:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • More than half of the city population lives in slums, and here is the complete coverage on the topic,
        "About 60% of Mumbai's population lives in slums. Dharavi, Asia's second largest slum[193] is located in central Mumbai and houses 800,000 people. Slums are also a growing tourist attraction in Mumbai."
      The last sentence is completely undue, and bordering on silly, emphasis on a novelty news item. Instead, the article needs at least a couple of paragraphs worth of content on the economy, demographics, sanitation and water issues, demolition and rehousing programs etc as they relate to slums.
      I have removed the last sentence. But, however I still do not agree with you. Mentioning those details will unnecessarily make the section lengthy. It would be very kind of you if you give us an example of a city FA where such details are included. KensplanetTC 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This is simply a matter of due weight How can an article on a city be balanced if it doesn't adequately describe how 60% of its population lives ? Note that I am not arguing that a proportional fraction of the article should be devoted to the slums, since honestly, the richer population in a city has a far greater influence in defining its history, economy, infrastructure and culture, but some basic information must be provided. As for what exact topics should be covered, that is best determined by looking at how books on the topic of Mumbai and/or housing/slums in Mumbai address the issues. The list of topics I mentioned above are mere suggestions. As for article length - yes it is an issue, but there are several peripheral and much less important details in the article that can be easily excised to keep it readable - I'll list some in the second round review if needed. Abecedare (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The description of the suburban rail transport network is quite good and correctly calls it the "backbone of the city's transport". However one can read the whole article without learning anything about the over-congestion and deaths on the rail network, which are certainly two of its notable features. Ditto for road transport.
        • I have mentioned about traffic congestion, overcrowded trains, and rail deaths in the Transport section. KensplanetTC 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Mumbai is a prominent hub for smuggling, organized crime [3], [4], prostitution and spread of AIDS (see 2007 discussion) in India. These issues at least deserve a sentence or two each in the article.
      • No discussion of air and water pollution and related respiratory problems ?! We don't need to make the article into a denunciation of the city, but an encyclopedic article on Mumbai needs to discuss these issues.
    • Grammar and prose issue: The article needs a thorough copyedit. I'll list below only a few obvious examples.
      • " ...there are six major lakes that supply water to the city, such as Vihar, Lower Vaitarna, Upper Vaitarna, Tulsi, Tansa and Powai." Such as is incorrect when all six lakes are listed.
      • "The rich literary traditions of the city have been set internationally by Booker Prize winners Salman Rushdie, Aravind Adiga, ..."
        • Done
          • How are Rushdie, Kipling and Adiga product or representative of, or highlighting, Mumbai's "rich literary tradition" ? Abecedare (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "Contemporary art is well-represented in both government-funded art spaces and private commercial galleries." What does "well-represented" mean in this context ?
        • Done
      • "With its unique topography, Mumbai has one of the best natural harbours in the world, ..." What does "unique" mean in this context ? Isn't every city's topography "unique" ? What does "best natural harbour" mean ? How is that objectively measured ? (If it is an opinion, it needs to be attributed)
      • "Electricity is distributed by Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) in the island city, a consumption of 3,216 GWh," ...
        • Done
      • The tense use in some places is inconsistent.
        • Show me those "some places". I dont approve of such vague comments. Hometech (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Flow issues I think this is the most significant issue with this article (In FA terms, the prose is far from "brilliant"). Some sections, such as History and Climate are in reasonably good shape, while others, such as Politics and Utility services, read as an unconnected collection of factoids. For example, the Politics section starts with the 1885 Indian National Congress session. The next sentence jumps to the Shiv Sena formation in 1960s and the next two deal with 1968, 1973, and 1985 BMC elections and 1989 Assembly (the term hasn't even been defined in the article). The remaining section is in the same vein, and the reader has no idea why these particular details are being mentioned while other are being excluded. Similarly, the Utilities section contains a lot of raw statistical and logistical information, culled from 16 different sources, but little context about the availability and quality of the infrastructure and services. I cannot imagine a review article on the utilities in Mumbai, that doesn't discuss those issues.
    • References There is not a significant WP:RS or WP:V concern with the article. However many sections seem to have been sourced piecemeal and hence fail to provide adequate context (see my comments about the flow above). The post hoc referencing also results in use of sub-par non-authoritative references in some cases. For example, "Mumbai has one of the best natural harbours in the world" is referenced to a throwaway sentence in the book Environment, health and sustainable development, where it appears in a section discussing slums! Using a few authoritative sources to write each section results in superior content and reading experience.
    • Images I have several concerns about the image selection in the article (note: I have discussed some of these issues on the article talk page previously):
      • Why are images of Gateway of India, Rajabai tower and Taj Mahal hotel repeated in the page ?
        • Working
      • What encyclopedic purpose does the large image montage in the infobox serve ?
      • Why is File:Mumbai skyline B&W.jpg, a black and white, filtered image used on the page instead of a clearer, coloured image ? The image may be aesthetically pleasing but is not a good choice to illustrate the subject in an encyclopedia. Similarly, File:Highcourt.jpg doesn't illustrate its subject too well.
        • Done
      • By my count there are about 4 images of Mumbai skyline and about 4 images of Gothic architecture on the page. On the other hand there are no images of slums or Art Deco architecture on the page - two notable features of the city.
      • Finally, some of the image captions need to be improved. For example, "Bollywood is based in Mumbai", "Ganesh Chaturthi, a popular festival in Mumbai", "The Elephanta Caves are UNESCO World Heritage Site." etc fail to tell the reader what is shown in the images themselves.
        • Done
Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment from a significant editor: After analyzing Abecedare's comments, I think the article still needs to improve in some areas. It is impossible to resolve these issues now. We are almost at the end of FAC. The article anyway won't be promoted, with 1 Support from Dr. Blofeld, 1 Oppose (pending) from YellowMonkey, and 1 Strong Oppose from Abecedare. So, all I would like to say is "better luck next time." KensplanetTC 09:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 29 August 2009 [5].

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie[edit]

Nominator(s): ATC . Talk 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It has been through many copyedits, and has received a WP:GAN. Now I think it fits the criteria as a featured article. I originally nominated it on June 23rd, but was on vaction for a month, so I had to withdraw the nomination. I am ready to nominate it again. Thanx! ATC . Talk 13:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I recommend excluding the non-free images from the "Plot" section because per WP:NFC, screenshots should be for critical commentary, and these images appear to be decorative. The "Plot" section is a description of the topic at hand and not commentary about it. Judging from the real-world context surrounding the film, I'm not sure if any non-free image besides the identifying "cover art" poster is appropriate for the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply I removed the pictures as requested. Could you clarify what "cover art" means exactly? Thanx! ATC . Talk 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NFC says images are acceptable as "cover art" to identify a topic. For example, a book's article will show the book cover, an album's article will show the album cover, and a film's article will show the poster. That's why the image in the infobox is okay. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please click the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper left of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Eubulides, I think I understand, but not exactly how to "alt text" the photo's description?; I saw the review page. Also, Erik, I got rid of the photos displaying the commentary, that was also displaying cover-art.

Please see WP:PIC for how to add alt text to ordinary images (the first example uses alt text). Please see {{Infobox film}} for how to add alt text to the infobox's image. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I know someone personally, her name is Toni Seawright, and her son, Qaasim Middleton, stars as the guitarist for the show, and Seawright is sending me photos of production, herself, Qaasim, filming, etc... I am waiting for them and should get them soon. Seawright's article was in bad shape and almost deleted, until I fixed it up. I'll be adding some to the film as well, because I will be getting photos for that too, because she gave me permission. Thanx! ATC . Talk 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make sure that the person who holds the copyright, usually the photographer, not the photograph owner, gives permission for them to be uploaded. If they do, get them to send it to Wikimedia by WP:OTRS, or get them to email you permission, and you can send that to OTRS, otherwise you might find that it gets removed, or you'll have to use it per the WP:NFCC. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

I don't have time to do a big review at the moment, but as this is a kids topic, which is under-represented by good and featured content, here's what I saw on a quick read through:
  • The first sentence is heavily linked. Try to reduce some of them. I think those easter-egg type links ([[2005 in film|2005]]) are a waste -- no body will be inspired to click on it. Perhaps add it to a See also section?
  • There's some guideline somewhere (I've lost it at the moment) about not wikilinking consecutive words. In the first sentence again, we have rock-mockumentary family comedy film. Can any of these be done away with, perhaps moving them to the body of the article or just rearranging the words?
  • "the other band members prefer to perform the cellist Thomas's composition" - I think the "the" and the "s" after the apostrophy should be removed to read "the other band members prefer to perform cellist Thomas' composition"
  • "Rosalina (DiMeco)" You should probably add the actress' first name here and wikilink, since it's the first time we see it. Then you can remove it from the "The film also features..." sentence. Same for when you mention Thomas. Who plays this character?
  • "We're 'the naked brothers band!'" -- does this need to be in single quotes? I'm not sure, please check
  • "dorky" -- can we get something more encyclopedic? WP:TONE It may be a kids movie, but ou shouldn't resort to their language
  • The refs in the first paragraph aren't necessary. It's all mentioned and cited again in the body.
  • "drinking and spilling cans of the soft drink all over himself." I don't think you can drink a can of soda all over yourself ;)
  • "milkaholic." -- reverse the punctuation
  • "the film ends with fireworks[4] that spell out "The Naked Brothers Band."" any reason for the mid-sentence placement of the reference?
  • "When Nat—who lives in Lower Manhattan" -- does this mean now, or when he was 4? If it refers to the present will it be updated when he moves, and how will you know when he does?
  • "We're the naked brothers band!" earlier you put this in single quotes, now its italicised? Is there a need for either? At least be consistent
  • Perhaps a {{see also}} to The Naked Brothers Band (band) at the Development section? I feel that too much of this is about the development of the band, rather than the development of the film
  • I don't think car needs wikilinking. It doesn't add to the context or understanding of the article, and most, if not all, readers of this article will be aware of what one is so it can be safely removed
  • Check WP:NC for songs, I think "it" in "That's How it Is" should be capitalised
  • "Got No Mojo," "Hardcore Wrestlers (with Inner Feelings)," "I Need You," "Sorry Girl," and "If There Was a Place to Hide." "Rathskeller Polka," "Rathskeller Waltz," "Naked Party Polka," and "Naked Tango." "Crazy Car," "Motormouth," "That's How It Is," "Hardcore Wrestlers with Inner Feelings," and "Rosalina." punctuation (," and .") needs reversing
  • Add {{clear}} at the end of the awards section. The quote box is causing the section title for the References to be pushed into the center of the screen at some resolutions.

That's all I have for now. Enjoyed reading it, well done Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Okay thanx for your requests for improving the article for FAC status, User:Matthewedwards. I did most of them, but you asked me a good question about why there is a reference tag in the mid-sentence, the last part of the sentence I, unfortunately, can't find a source for it. Should I delete the phrase: that spell out "The Naked Brothers Band", if their is no source for it, or maybe even, a {{fact}} tag if their is no source to be found?—This is part of a comment by ATC (of 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]

Technically, it's doesn't need a citation because the film itself is the citation for plot; however, it looks bad if the final sentence of a paragaph (especially the last paragraph of a section) isn't referenced. I looked at the reference, which says "The film’s happy ending culminates with a familiar, impromptu concert on the roof that ends with fireworks", so you could do something like that. Adding a fact tag will mean the article will not become Featured. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also a few others I'm confused about: that sentence about Nat who lives in Lower Manhattan; Nat was born in Los. Angeles, and moved to Lower Manhattan a few weeks later, where he lived at the time; his father introduced him to Jazz music and The Beatles; he still and did live at Lower Manhattan at the that time. How do you think I should re-word it so it is clearer?—This is part of a comment by ATC (of 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]

You need to say that he lived there at the time then. It's currently in the wrong tense. A reference would be necessary, too. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and, their wasn't much more in development then what I put, but actually, as I think of it their is an unreliable resource online, it was a blog on the "BillyBlog" website. It was a mother explaining about, in NYC in mid-2004, going out with her family for dinner on her birthday. Outside of the restaurant, she saw a filming crew and a lady came up to her, walking to her as if "her prayers have been answered." She said her name was Polly Draper and was the star of "Thirtysomething", and that she was filming a mock documentary about her sons' real life band. Draper asked if her two 7-year-old daughters could be extras in the film. Their was more to the story, should I add it or not?; they had a big part in it for half of a second. ATC . Talk 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So this is an actual interview with the Naked Brother's mother? If so, an argument could be made that as a primary source it could be used, but I'm not entirely sure about that. Check with one of the reference folks. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Matthewedwards, I think you misinterpreted what I said about the blog on "BillyBlog"; their was no interview with Polly Draper. What happened was their was this two sisters, about the age of 7 or 8, I'll have to look at it again to clarify, and their mom wrote an article about it - when I say "their mom", I do not mean Polly Draper, but the sisters' mom, who wrote it, with clips of the scene she was talking about from YouTube, in addition to her blog. Also, okay, I will ask Toni, if she could clarify that I could use the photos, and contact the photographer, for copyright legal reasons, and then I have to contact WikiMedia to confirm the permission of using the pictures. ATC . Talk 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then no. Any old body can claim to have been approached to appear or to have their kids appear. Unless it appears in a reliable source, or from an interview with Draper or a casting director, it's no good. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also what is your opinon on how I reworded " "The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie" is a rock-mockumentary family comedy film about a children's rock band." TO " "The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie" is a family film, in the genre of a mock documentary parody; it's also in the style of a rock documentary, spoofing a children's rock band.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ATC (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, still a bit of a problem. It sounds repetitive now, because of the "mock documentary"/"rock documentary" and "parody"/"spoof" thing. I'll try to think about an alternative overnight. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, User:YellowMonkey and User:Steve have helped me type a lot of the article, I'll ask one of them. Thanx! ATC . Talk 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have an idea, why don't I just revise the sentence to: "The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie" is a family film, in the genre of a mock documentary parody, spoofing a children's rock group." Let me know what you think when you get the chance. All the best, ATC . Talk 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds okay. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the http://www.curtainup.com/gettingintoheaven.html source link to http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm?int_news_id=3686. ATC . Talk 19:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found a more reliable resource, it was a {{cite news}} tag. What do you think? ATC . Talk 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ealdgyth,
I found and changed all of the non-reliable sources to reliable ones accept for this one: http://blogcritics.org/video/article/dvd-review-the-naked-brothers-band/. Though, the site might not be so reliable; a professional author wrote it, it explains more here: http://blogcritics.org/writers/ann-hagman-cardinal/.
If I could find another source, I would but some information aren't referenced anywhere else, or some reliable sources have inaccurate information, e.g. All Media Guide says that the band was called The Silver Bullets, but it wasn't it was The Silver Boulders; though I can't find a source explaining about The Gold Boulders, even that blogcritics article is wrong, and other sources that are reliable say that it was called The Golden Boulders, which is wrong. I actually don't know what to about The Gold Boulders situation.
ATC . Talk 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments, round 2

  • See if you can provide context to readers, so instead of "Originally an independent film before being taken up by Nickelodeon, it premiered on the channel on January 27, 2007" you could do "... Cable television channel Nickelodeon..." phrasing on that sentence needs tightening, too. "being taken up" is a bit lazy.
  • "The film stars Nat Wolff and Alex Wolff, real life brothers who portray themselves. The film is based on the real life band that Nat formed with his best friends in preschool." the two sentences repeat "The film", "the film" and "real life", "real life". Try "The film stars brothers Nat and Alex Wolff portraying themselves, and is based on the band that Nat formed with his best friends in preschool"
  • "In the film, the brothers' are able to manage their superstardom until the former wants to perform a song he wrote about his crush" -- who is the former? It uses "in the film" again
  • "Nat wrote all of the songs performed in the film" how about "Nat wrote all of the songs from the soundtrack"?
  • "Filming took place in mid-2004 in New York City, with scenes filmed in the family's real life apartment." repeates filming/filmed. Consider "Principal photography took place in mid-2004 in New York City, with scenes filmed in the family's real life apartment.", although again, there is the term "real life"
  • "(in which Draper starred)" can this be de-parenthesized?
  • "The band features ... and manager Cooper." Is Cooper actually part of the band?
  • "The film is presented in documentary format, with cameras that follow the siblings through their stage performances and private lives. Typical themes depicted in the movie involve the management of relationships within the group, particularly issues revolving around musical disputes, romance between band members, and fame.[6] John B. Williams is responsible for signing the band to Who's the Man records, the label that brought the group to fame." It's a bit unclear as to whether this is a documentary, a fictional story produced in a documentary format, or what. Is John B. responsible for signing the band in real life, or in the film?
  • "The film starts out with" --> "The film begins with" or "opens"
  • "After the show, the members explain how they started as a band" do they discuss this among themselves as just regular conversation, or are they explaining it as part of the documentary, to the camera or interviewer? It doesn't really matter, because the entire sentence can be removed without harming the rest of the synopsis
  • "Jesse Cook (Jesse Draper)" why is the actress's name being given here, but none of the other actors names are? It seems to break the flow of the sentence
  • Don't use contractions such as "he's"
  • "Josh's stepsister Rosalina,[4] who is eleven years old." --> "Josh's eleven-year-old stepsister, Rosalina.[4]"
  • "At first, Nat and Alex think that they are living the good life," -- Both "At first" and "living the good life" don't sound like the kind of professional style language needed at FA level
  • "except for Cooper and Alex"
  • "end up" -- can anything else be used?
  • "After watching the media talking about the band's split on television, Nat writes a song about the split," repetitive on "the split"
  • The entire "Alex's lemon-lime soda addiction..." paragraph can be removed. What does this add to the overall understanding of the plot? It's an entire paragraph dedicated to a very small character development that isn't mentioned at all later in the article.
  • "watched all of The Beatles' films, including Help!." why mention only Help!? Is this particulary important?
  • "Alex learned to play the saxophone at the age of two." -- wow, a musical virtuoso. Perhaps he began to learn how to play?
  • "Draper recalled that "When it was Alex's solo he would hold up the fake plastic saxophone Nat made for him and [said], 'Mommy, I have the hiccups and I have to go potty,' "[8] she explained." -- Draper recalled that.... she explained.
  • please unlink Christmas. It's irrelevant to this article, and besides, who in the English speaking world doesn't know what it is?
  • "As the younger brother became proficient at playing drums, by watching tapes of Starr, Nat had a change of heart and allowed Alex to join the band." first comma isn't needed
  • Draper recalled that "Nat decided he wanted to film his own sitcom, so we did a film called Don’t Eat Off My Plate." "I pretended to interview his friends and do a documentary." -- either split up the two comments with some text, or use ... or something
  • Same with "...Spinal Tap meets The Little Rascals was my concept." "I [also] wanted it to be very Beatle-ish..." You don't have to add "Draper continued", as long as it from the same source, ... would be fine
  • Same with Draper recalled, "We would sneak into locations and run."[1] "Julianne (Moore) was the first one to shoot a scene in it. She had to go away to do a real movie," Draper recalled. Also not "Draper recalled" twice
  • In fact, that whole paragraph is just a quote from Draper. Use the <blockquote> markup
  • "The film was shot over a five-week period in mid-2004, on a budget of less than US$1 million." no need for comma
  • "the executive producers were (Draper's brother) Tim, Draper and Wolff." work the bit in parenthesis into the regular sentence
  • "All of the archival footage in the film was genuine material, which Robert Levi—David's father—contributed." ref please
  • "The elder Wolff" this is used in a few places, but it's a bit ambiguous whether it refers to the elder Wolff brother or the father
  • The post production section doesn't sit well for me. Post production is about editing, scoring, etc, not about awards and development of a TV series.
  • Personally, I don't like articles to be self-referential, so in the International debuts section, "the worldwide premieres of The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie are listed below:" just sits wrong. It's like lazy writing, let's stick it in a table so I don't have to write sentences.
  • In the DVD section, it says the movie lasts for 84 minutes. Is this different from the TV version of the film (minus commercial breaks)? If not, perhaps it belongs in the production section. The DVD bonus features sounds a bit advertise-y, too. I noticed the reference doesn't provide any critical commentary on the features, but simply lists them as an afterthought. I'd think about removign them.
  • "he said that "They're just real" shouldn't a comma appear before all speech quotes? I've seen this elsewhere in the article and it's just struck me. Check with the MOS or ask User:Tony1 - he'll know.
  • "it was placed on the top 100 Billboard Charts" There's a specific article for this chart

There's a lot of prose work that needs fixing. I won't be so rude as to ask your age, but remember you're not writing for a kids' audience, so some of the language needs maturing. Try to find one or two copy editors. I haven't checked to see if the article corresponds to what's in the references, but I will ask what makes the references with red-linked publishers reliable or notable. Often if they don't have an article here, they won't meet WP:RS or WP:N. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply I understand and fixed all of your concerns, but the article already went through a lot of copy edits from User:JamieS93, User:Steve, and User:YellowMonkey. Also, their is a few things that I currently do not understand:

  1. I wrote Allie DiMeco's character, Rosalina's age ordered like that because all of the sources online don't say the actress's age, and the ones that do inaccurately say she's nine-years-old.
  2. Their is no sources online stating that Robert Levi provided the archival footage, though IMDb falsely claims and lists Donna M. Fields as the person who provided the footage. I also know that Robert Levi actually contributed the archival footage, because it was credited on the screen. In addition, at the New York TimesCenter Stage interview, Nat said that all of the archival footage of the band in the film was real, but didn't say anything about who provided the footage.
  3. This [6] from Variety and [7] from IMDb says that it was 90 minutes in the United States and 83 minutes in Germany, which includes commercials. My DVD at home says its 92 minutes. Though, the NYTimes said the film had minor changes and developed into a series.
  • I don't know how necessary it is to add this into the article, but before Nickelodeon put down the original website for the film, created by the Hamptons International Film Festival—they showed clips of a few scenes and one of those clips had a slightly different scene than when it premiere on Nickelodeon. In the clip, Jesse Draper's character, Jesse Cook, was introducing herself on the tour bus, she then was helping a band member with their school work, and while she was doing so, Alex was sitting right next to her and starts sniffing her breast; maybe it was originally a satire (with irony in it) and prompted Nickelodeon to edit some scenes that would be inappropriate for the channel's age-group. Their is still clips of that scene flying around in the internet space. I saw comments by people, who said they were parents, and they were talking about how they thought this was inappropriate, and they said they blocked Nickelodeon through their parental controls.

ATC . Talk 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oh one more thing, I almost forgot to mention the situation with the "post-production" section. Well, post-production means everything that took place after its been filmed, because after the series was in development, the film became the pilot episode of the series. So, if you think it should go in the other section I'll put there, but that's also why I put the "audience award" part, because that led to Albie Hecht discovering them as a hit sensation, and took the film to Nickelodeon to devise into a television series. ATC . Talk 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, well to answer the point about the age, are you saying it's Rosalina's age, or the actress's age? My point was that the sentence wasn't structured well, not that it may be incorrect.
  • If there is no source, it is unverified. It should be removed.
  • So you have a copy of the DVD, which say it's 92-minutes long, but the article says it's 84. I don't get it.
  • If you can find sources for the breast-sniffing incident, that might be worth including. It could probably go in the reception section, you know, that parents were unhappy and blocked the channel.
  • Read Post-production, which tells you what exactly post-production is, basically, editing, sound, special effects, etc etc. It reads more like an "Aftermath" type section, although I'm not suggesting tit be called that. Where does it say that the film is the series pilot? I can't find that in the article.
  • Also, "brought the film for the network" -- I have a feeling it should be "bought" as in purchased.
  • Nice work on addressing some of my other concerns in a speedy manner. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments, Round 3

Note that I've stricken my comments from Round 2 that I consider resolved, but there are still quite a few that haven't been.
  • Now the sentence says "It was originally an independent film before it was devised by the cable television channel, Nickelodeon" but Nickeloden didn't devise it. They acquired broadcasting rights
  • The film stars brothers Nat and Alex Wolff portraying themselves -- don't forget to Wikilink their names - this is the first time they're presented to the reader
  • Would you mind changing "scenes filmed in the family's apartment." to "interior scenes filmed in the Wolff family's apartment."?
  • "Nat and Alex thought everything was going their way" what everything? What way? I still find this sentence confusing.
  • "Draper recalled, "Nat kept putting signs on his door: 'I want to be a child actor!' I said, 'No, it's too brutal.'"[13] According to a New York Times article in early-2007, Draper recalled that "Nat decided he wanted to film his own sitcom, so we did a film called Don’t Eat Off My Plate." Draper also explained her role: "I pretended to interview his friends and do a documentary."" The whole thing still reads oddly to me
  • "C.D." --> "compact disc" because it's the first time you've used it, after that you can use CD, but without the full stops

Reply How do you like my recent changes? To answer your question clearer, Amazon.com said it was 84 minutes and IMDb said it was 90 minutes in the United States, and 83 minutes in Germany including commercials, though my DVD at home says its 82 minutes; so I don't know what to put, though the back of my DVD is probably as accurate as it could be. I'll try to find a source that says the minutes on my DVD, and the screening at the Hamptons Film Festival could differ from the minor edits Nickelodeon made. Speaking of which their is no article online stating that incident about Alex. ATC . Talk 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Also Cooper Pillot (the band manager) is a friend of the family in real life, but not their band manager; and John B. Williams didn't really sign them on his record company, Who's the Man? Records. That was a parody; because Who's the Man? was a film that Michael Wolff and John B. contributed the score to. But the plot is the story, not the reality of it. So why would I put in the Plot section what is true? Should I explain the reality of it in the plot too? ATC . Talk 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [8].

Hurricane Emily (1987)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA requirements. I've thoroughly searched for information regarding this storm and I believe there is no more I can add to the article. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Looking at the lead:
  • Hurricane Emily was the only major hurricane to develop during the inactive 1987 Atlantic hurricane season. - The season wasn't entirely void of storms, though this seems to imply it was.
  • Forming out of a tropical disturbance off the west coast of Africa on September 20 - It didn't develop off the coast of Africa, it moved off the coast of Africa.
  • The following day the final advisory was issued on the storm as it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone while tracking in an unusually fast motion. - What kind of advisory? Also, the part about the fast motion could probably be removed.
  • Three people were killed by the storm and damages amounted to $30 million. - "By the storm" is redundant.
  • In Bermuda, due to the unexpected intensification, severe damage took place. - Change to "unexpected intensification of the storm".
  • Despite the damage caused by Emily, the name was not retired and remains on the list of names for Atlantic hurricanes. - No need for "caused by Emily".

–Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hyphenation
The hyphenation in the article is a bit odd in a few places. Some examples:
  • the storm quickly attained hurricane-status - Is this hyphen needed? Is "hurricane-status" supposed to be hyphenated in this way?
  • Gradual intensification took place throughout September 20, with the depression attaining tropical storm-status by 1800 UTC - Same. Can be fixed by rewording: "attaining the status of tropical storm" is my suggestion.
  • By 0600 UTC, Emily had re-attained hurricane-status - Same.
  • Upon attaining major hurricane status, a hurricane warning was declared for northern Haiti as the storm was anticipated to maintain hurricane-intensity through landfall - Same.

I think in all these cases the offending hyphens should be deleted, unless this is specifically how the hyphenation works with hurricane terminology. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 09:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. And not so uncomfortable about the length as with the previous nomination.

  • I agree about the hyphens (except perhaps for "re-attained").
  • Is Africa worth linking? I can't see what is sufficiently relevant or useful to almost all readers. The map in the "Africa" article doesn't even relate to the route of the hurricane as shown in the current article. And paleo this and etymology that, it just doesn't grab the readers, who will be irritated by clicking on it. "Atlantic Ocean" ... I didn't visit that link, but I"m wondering who doesn't know what it is and where it is, since it's pretty obvious from the text. Direct me, please, towards the Windward Islands, Dominican Republic and Bermuda, I guess, undiluted by the hopelessly large and vague.
  • I de-linked Africa but I'm a bit confused what you're trying to convey here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may wish to take a look at WP:LINK, specifically "What not to link", and let me know if you think the (established) guideline is unclear or needs to be changed. Feedback is welcome. Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A little uncomfortable at "damages" ... "damage"; but slightly unsure.
  • Why not pipe-link "name" rather than "retired" to the article "Tropical cyclone naming"? More obvious.
  • A few "with plus noun plus -ing" urchins; if not ungrammatical, they are almost always replaceable by neater grammar. Please check my changes in this respect.
  • "rapid intensification" linked again? If you want close contrast with "explosive intensification", that might be a rare justification for linking the second, not the first instance. Unsure. Please see WP:LINK. There are other needless multiple links.
  • It's linked twice because explosive intensification is much more sudden than rapid intensification Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Shortly thereafter"—try plain and simple: "Soon after,".
  • To avoid the disliked "th", I'd rephrase this: "throughout the rest of September 25 into the 26 with increasing speed". "into the following day"?
  • Comma would be nice to separate two adjacent nouns: "Interacting with a baroclinic zone the hurricane completed its".
  • "On September 21, as Tropical Storm Emily quickly approached the Windward Islands, a tropical storm warning was issued for"—do you prefer this, as smoother? "As Tropical Storm Emily quickly approached the Windward Islands on September 21, a tropical storm warning was issued for"
  • Some editors say to avoid "as", since it's poorly designed in English: "Upon attaining major hurricane status, a hurricane warning was declared for northern Haiti as the storm was anticipated to maintain hurricane-intensity through landfall. Later that day, a hurricane watch was issued for the southeastern Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. This watch was later upgraded to a warning as the storm was expected to regain intensity over the Bahamas." Are these two ases "because" or "while/during"? I'd use "since" or "because" alternately if so. There are more of them below.
Has this been addressed? Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bit informal: "Upwards of 3 in (76 mm) of rain"—"More than 3 inches ..."
  • That changes the meaning of the sentence (unless I messed up the definition of upwards) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dur, I messed up the meaning of the word. I thought it meant up to not more than. I've fixed that error now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove "occurring"?
I thought you'd just use the finder; it's easy to locate—took me five seconds, including typing (para starts "in the Dominican ...". Do you agree that the word is redundant?Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "rainfall of up to ..."
Sorry, I was being vague; I think "of" should be added, but it's no big deal. Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove the second "power" in that sentence. (" Before the storm's landfall, officials in Bermuda cut power to roughly 90% of the island to protect the power grid.")
  • Inflation-equivalent $ given once, but not subsequently.
Errrr, unsure, but you hurricane/cyclone guys often translate all damages into modern costs. While there are opponents of this practice on the basis that it's hard to compare across what are essentially quite different cost structures and economies, the same economy over just a few decades is OK by me. It just stood out as an inconsistency—I'm happy if you discuss it at some stage at your WikiProject.
  • "reportedly" ... you'd say this if you as author weren't entirely endorsing what is referenced at the end of the sentence anyway. Tony (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are no confirmed reports of tornadoes on the island so they're just reported Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't aware that in the hurricane field the distinction was made between a report and a confirmed report. It would be interesting to know what is required for confirmation (presumably the central government meteorological agency does the confirming). Would it be awkward to explicitly write "There were unconfirmed reports of ...", etc? Perhaps it would be tedious to read, but a reference number and the word "report" seems tautological. Two instances, both in "Impact and aftermath". You might be willing to raise it as an issue at the WikiProject. Let me know if you do. Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Using "unconfirmed" should be ok, especially since it wasn't explicitly confirmed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The unfortunate advice at MoS against forcing larger sizes on thumbnail images has been removed, and not a second too soon. Without your prefs set, you'll see that our readers are faced with tiny tiny images that mean little on the page. You might consider enlarging all from "The eye ..." onwards, to bring out the drama of the text. "Rainfall totals" looks like a screen-shot from a crude computer game. The ungainly wrapping of captions should be fixed by bigger images, too. Tony (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments – Reliability of sources looks fine to me, and they check out on the link checker. Reference 18 needs a publisher (The Bulletin), but formatting is okay otherwise. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [9].

McDonald's Cycle Center[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


After BP Pedestrian Bridge and Cloud Gate passed in the last two months, and a WP:PR reviewer encouraged some expansion, I have expanded this to WP:FAC level of detail as part of the WP:CHIFTD. I believe this is a very thorough article for the most important bike station in the world. I think this may be the most important article for WP:CYCLING about subjects other than the competitive sport such as bicycle commuting and utility cycling. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it would a cornerstone of a WP:FT and it is an important contribution to the project as both an important WP:CYCLING article and a good contribution to the WP:ENV project. I feel it adds diversity to wikipedia and could eventually make for a good WP:TFA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), I see you have made some stylistic changes, which I do not contest for the most part. However, I am curious about changing do it yourselfers to "those who want to fix their bicycle themselves".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to revert any of my changes. "do it yourselfer" sounded a bit loose to me, but I don't mind if it's restored. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have piped it like this: fix their bicycle themselves.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks—I didn't realize that I had removed the link, sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alt text is pretty much done; thanks. The alt text is present, but if you visit the "alt text" line in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this review page, you'll see a few problems with it. The big map lacks alt text. The little map has the incorrect alt text "Great seal of New York"; it might be better to use "|link=" as it appears purely decorative (see WP:ALT #When not to specify) but if you decide to not make it purely decorative you don't need to repeat the same alt text twice (the latter can refer to the earlier). The compasses are almost surely purely-decorative and should use "|link=". A small point: please standardize on capitalization and punctuation style for alt text when it is a non-sentence phrase, and please punctuate and capitalize sentences as sentences. Eubulides (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the Great seal of New York. I will look at the rest later this afternoon or tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently only admins can edit Template:Geographic Location. I will try to contact someone at WP:AN.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did an {{editprotected}} request at Template talk:Geographic Location #Accessibility support, which should solve that problem once an admin acts on it has solved the problem. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have fixed the big map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand your purely decorative points as it relates to a need for WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a relatively small issue now, but I'll explain and hope you don't mind my verbiage. The "purely decorative" point is briefly summarized in the nutshell at the top of WP:ALT and in more detail in WP:ALT #When to specify. If the little map is intended to convey info, it should have alt text, and as its current alt text is fine there's no need to do any more work. If the little map is not intended to convey info about locations but is purely a decoration, then it should have "|link=" so that it doesn't distract screen readers. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is intended to convey info. I will leave it as is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have revised the text for consistent "sentence structure".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. We're almost done except that the alt text "Millennium Park map with wikilinked features" for File:Millennium Park Map.png doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map, namely the main area to the north and the three subdivisions in the south. Could you please add something brief along those lines? The idea is not to give every detail and name every wikilink in the map (as these names are already accessible) but just give the overall first impression useful to someone who wants to know the layout of the park. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what you are looking for, but I have expanded the WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but that focused too much on accidents of the map (like, what colors it used) whereas the focus here should be on the essense of the map (like, where is everything?). I tried to fix the problems I saw. Please feel free to fix inaccuracies in the alt text I added; I am no expert on Millennium Park. Eubulides (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments First off a few aesthetic issues. Could we possibly center the huge map in Details? The text looks crammed in on the side. Also we generally do not left-align images under 2nd "==" level headers, but it is ok for 3rd "===" level headers. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You have that backwards. We do not left-align under 3rd-level headers, but it is O.K. for 2nd-level. Also, this map is placed very similarly to the way it was in Cloud Gate, which just passed last month. What screen setting are you using in terms of width?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Duh... you're right, I suppose I got it backwards. As far as the map goes, it looks crammed on smaller resolutions (1024x768), but its fine on larger ones (1440x900). No big deal. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • In terms of being crammed, is it any worse than Cloud Gate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Cloud gate looks the same at 1024. I generally like large tables or images to be centered, just a personal preference. The map looks to be 450px wide, which is more than the recommended 300. Some will tell you 300 is the upper limit, but I think exceptions should be made in the case of maps or diagrams when they are absolutely essential to understanding the article. I also think anything over 300 should be centered because it can look crammed on smaller screens. I realize larger screen resolutions are becoming more common but we should still plan for those who are still using a 800x600 resolution. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Blofeld

"It has been lauded by pro-cycling and environmentalist journalists in publications well beyond the Chicago metropolitan area as exemplary, impressive, unique and ground-breaking." Looks like original research. I know it isn't, but that particular statement in the intro needs at least one citation, if anything I would disperse the references on the last line towards supporting this big statement. Bit concerned with the neutrality of the last paragraph of the intro, to me it reads like a promotion in a tourist guide of the city. It is partly true, I just think there is a way you can reword it to make it sound like a more neutral account and avoid giving a generalisation that this centre is a focus of attention worldwide. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :I think I've addressed the tone and neutrality now, just needs a citation or two to support the decription as "exemplary" etc claims. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the point is covered by the refs included and I have repeated them as I believe is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section titles are a bit vague, "details" and "general information". Don't these mean the same thing? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]

It seems that someone has addressed this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Way too much repetition that somebody considered it "exemplary", not needed twice or three times anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My objective would be to make the point once in the WP:LEAD and once in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, once in intro once in the critical section, however I counted it 4 times throughout the article though which is my point. I've reworded so it should be OK now. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you need to give more details of the actual design, you seem to have not covered this much. I'd like to see a further paragraph in design section on actual construction and design development. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have basically included every article that I could find. Millennium Park construction sources focus on Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, Jay Pritzker Pavilion, and BP Pedestrian Bridge. In fact there was a book by the construction company, which just described these four features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You definately need to find the coordinates, this is a must for location. Also images should be set to default to allow editors who prefer images above 180px. You should remove the 180px form the images.

Don't worry I've added the coordinates anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few contradictions. You say earlier the center is managed with the CDOT yet later on in the article mention a number of other managers including the Bike Chicago etc for rentals so who actually manages the center, whether it is McDonalds, CDOT, Bike Chicago etc is not really clear after reading the article. Also you have said or left me the impression that the center is considered exemplary to all other bike centres around the world yet later on in the article you mention that the system is directly emulated from Paris (not exactly a unique system given that the Paris system has existed for many years). This contradicts what you said earlier about the Chicago bike center being unique and itself emulated by what you appeared to be indicating was most bike centers around the wor;ld I think you need to make this all very clear. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of your editing has severed citations from their facts.
Does this mean the construction was managed by CDOT or that the ongoing business is managed by it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bike Chicago, just manages Bike Rentals. I don't think they have anything to to rack space memberships, facility usage or facility memberships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no contradiction between being exemplary and having predecessors upon which something was modelled. E.G., Tiger Woods is exemplary. However, he modeled himself after his predecessors, which included Jack Nicklaus who is considered his peer in accomplishment as well as ground-breaking African-American golfers who never won a major. These preceding African American golfers came before, but may not be Tiger's peer on some levels.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of the critical reception section. "It's not heaven, but it's close" is really too much, describing a bike centre as almost heaven really sounds way over the top for an encyclopedia article. Has there ever been a negative review of the centre, reports of difficulties etc? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is fairly revolutionary environmentalism and city planning and I have seen nothing negative in my extensive research on the structure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't have time to do any further editing until tonight, but will come back and revisit your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ruhrfisch comments I have been actively involved in the other two Millennium Park FACs, but have not made any edits on this article. What follows are some individual issues that need to be addressed, as well as two major concerns: first, the "History and background" section is muddled and does not really tell the history of the project in an orderly or chronological way; second, I checked three references at random and found improtant information not included in the article that raises concerns about the comprehensiveness of the article. Now for the specifics:
    • Lead - the first sentence of the lead gives the street address, which is not repeated in the body of the article (although it is in the infobox). I think the lead should be a general overview and should not have any unique information. The street address seems to me to be one of those things that should somewhere in the article itself, but not in the lead. Perhaps the first sentence could read something like ...indoor bicycle parking facility in the at the intersection of East Randolph Street and Columbus Drive in the northeast corner of Millennium Park in the Loop... I would perhapos move the street address to the second paragraph of Facilities (which already says that it is convenently located...)
    • I am also not sure heated and air conditioned needs to be in the first sentence, though it seems reasonable to mention in the lead.
      • I have moved it to the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I was OK with it in the lead, just not in the first sentence. I also wonder if calling it just a "parking facility" in the first sentence is accurate enough (since the article makes it clear a lot of other services are available there) but am not sure what else to call it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Bike station is a word used in the middle of the first paragraph and is the best word. I would probably use it earlier if the encyclopedia had a good article for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The Bike 2010 (now 2015) plan is also only in the lead. The sentence Additionally, Metra and Pace have increased bike accessibility.[9] should provide context for the reader as to what Mtra and Pace are, and also seems to only be in the lead. See above please
    • The first sentence of the "History and background" section begins Managed by the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT),[14] the Cycle Center .... I would think it would make much more sense to begin with something about the establishment of Millennium Park (which the two FAs from the park, Cloud Gate and BP Pedestrian Bridge already do), then describe the development of the bike station (whose idea was it to include a bike station in the new park? Who is the architect and what firm? When did planning start, when did construction begin, how long did it take?). Then go on to operation and renaming by McDonald's.
    • I looked at three references, the first (CURRENT REF 6) was Kamin's review which is 3 stars out of a possible four or "very good" (not mentioned, but seems it might be useful in the Reception section). Kamin also names the architect (not in the article) and the firm (in the infobox, not in the article itself), and seems to imply that Mayor Daley was behind the project (it says the center reflects two of his passions, cycling and making Chicago greener)
    • The second ref I looked at was current ref 14 PROJECT: Millennium Park Bicycle Station from the city and it gives the date of starting the design (not in the article) and says "Size: 16,450 SF plus exterior plazas" which is not what the article says It had originally been planned to be a $2 million 10,000-square-foot (929 m2) center,[8][16] but when completed, the Cycle Center was located on a larger 16,448-square-foot (1,528 m2) exterior plaza.[17] The article seems to confuse the area of the center with the plaza area (I checked the ref cited for this and it gives the area of the center, not the plaza too)
    • The third ref I checked was current ref 15 the Chicago Press release on the ribbon cutting. Here I noticed a very familiar paragraph:
Joining the Mayor for the ribbon-cutting of the new Bicycle Station were Chicago Department of Transportation Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto; Chicago Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell; Rob Sadowsky, Executive Director of the Chicago Bike Federation; Montel Gayles, Executive Director of the Public Building Commission; Matt Tobias, Commander of Special Operations for the Chicago Police Department; and Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd).

In the article it reads:

Attendees for the ribbon cutting included Mayor Daley, CDOT Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto, Chicago Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell, Chicago Bike Federation Executive Director Rob Sadowsky, Public Building Commission Executive Director Montel Gayles, Chicago Police Department Commander of Special Operations Matt Tobias, and Chicago City Council Alderman Burton Natarus (42nd).[15]

Aside from to closely copying the orginal, I am not sure we need to know all of these people's names (none except the mayor are currently notable enough to have articles and only d'Escoto is mentioned again). Could it be something like Attendees for the ribbon cutting included Mayor Daley, CDOT Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto, Chicago Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell, and representatives from the Chicago Bike Federation, Public Building Commission, Chicago Police Department, and Chicago City Council.[15] If it is kept the way it is, I would identify what 42nd means (ward presumably)

OK, there's a start. The language is a bit rough in places, but these should be addressed first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Source analysis - I have some concerns about image placement (the map is just way too big, and the linking of the images midway down on the right causes formatting problems), but I will ignore that for now. First, why are you heavily linking the lead, which is merely a summary and not supposed to introduce new items? As such, it makes it seem like the content is controversial.
1. Not a source issue, but yeah - "Later, the Cycle Center fit so well with an effort by the suburban Chicago-based McDonald's to encourage "balanced, active lifestyles" as part of the solution to help its customers become more healthy, that the company committed to sponsoring the Cycle Center". The use of "fit so well" is inappropriate. "fit in" would be the colloquial expression, but you should be more precise. You could just simply say "the Cycle Center worked well with an effort..." The use of a comma before "that" is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Use of this as a source. This is clearly biased and not reliable - see: "But there's something insidious about McDonald's recent alignment". The tone of the sentence it is citing (it is copied into "1" above) is far different than the source. Please replace with a more neutral source. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Julie Deardorff is a writer who has written 2595 articles in the Chicago Tribune since 1990 (you can check this by hitting the new search button on the article and changing from an "All Text" search to an author search). She serves as the Tribune health and fitness reporter. If she writes an opinionated piece, it is not necessarily biased. I consider anyone who has written over 2500 articles for the Tribune to be a reliable source regardless of how opinionated any particular article might be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tony - I also have a column in the local newspaper. However, it is not news. It is a column. News is on the first page and does not contain the words I pointed out. Plus, previous writing of news does not mean that everything written is news. This is not news, plus the tone does not represent what you want. I'm sure you can swap it out in this instance with another source without changing the text. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are talking about health and fitness as if opinions on a health and fitness sponsorship could possibly be news. The topic is the propriety of the McDonald's sponsorship. Opinions on McDonald's sponsorship are not news. Now, the source is used in accordance with Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion as I understand it. She has an opinion. Chicago has only two major newspapers. I can not find an opinion from the other. We are presenting the only opinion that we can find from the most relevant source we can find. There are many opinions on the Cycle Center as an entity, but as to McDonald's as a sponsor, this is about the only opinion I can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further, for NPOV reasons if we are going to include the praise from Kamin and the other two Tribune writers, shouldn't we include the one negative opinions by a Tribune writer, Deardorff?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the article, which says "Deardorff, described the move as a continuation of the '"McDonaldization" of America' and as somewhat "insidious"" is a slightly milder tone than the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. The above source is used for this phrase: "Since McDonald's is providing a healthier menu and fostering ". The tone of the source does not match the content here, especially when the source says "When McDonald's realized that most rational people want fast food out of schools". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again the article is taking a softer tone when it says "social sentiment is to move away from fast food". This is an encyclopedia and the tone of the source article is not appropriate WP article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. The above source can be used for the line "However, the Chicago Tribune described", but it should be attributed to the -writer- and not the Tribune. This is not a news report but an editorial. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. You tend to use multiple references together, especially in the lead. In one tiny sentence, you have "[2][11][12][13]". If you need all four to build that sentence ("The city and its Cycle Center are considered exemplary by other cities in pursuit of covered, secure bicycle parking near public transportation."), then there is either a redundancy or possible synthesis. Please try to reduce excessive referencing when one or two could do. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The example you give was a response to the "Comments by Blofeld" section above. He sort of thought I might be blowing smoke so I presented two U.S. cities and two foreign cities that respect this structure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from that point, I have removed all instances where three citations support a single fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. In using the second source, like the first and others, you attribute it directly to the paper. Instead, attribute it to the author -of- the paper (saying ___ of ____ if needed). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which source are you now talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a general statement. I don't know which specific thing it was. It is just easier to label writers of a publication instead of the publication itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. This source is used to cite the lead but nothing else. The lead is not to contain information not in the body of the article. It is also used to cite what two other references are citing. I think this source can be dropped. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't quite see how removing a Time magazine source from an article that mostly uses newspapers could improve the article. I think a better solution would be to incorporate the Time article into the main body. I will do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the mention has low substantive value, it is Time and a mention in Time helps establish notability. I have moved the citation to the main body from the WP:LEAD. Admittedly, it is mildly decorative, but it is among the highest sources on a reliability scale for the international reader that the article has.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want the Time source, you could add the text it is citing to the body of the article. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. This source cites two sentences in the lead and nothing else. Please either including it in the body with information or remove it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved to main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. This is not a reliable source. It is also used to cite "the Cycle Center is busiest on Monday and Tuesday mornings and lightly used on the weekends.", where the previous citation covers all of the information (neither say that it is lightly used on weekends, so that must be removed or pointed out where it is said so I can verify). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source that you say is not reliable said "Apparently, nearly all are commuters because on this cool but sunny Saturday the place was nearly empty.", which I added to the article as "lightly used on the weekends". I have removed that source and the phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see now. The statement is stronger now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. "The atrium, which has been praised by Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Blair Kamin," does not need this as a secondary reference, as the first covers the information. The "pulitzer prize" winning line is also unncessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is unclear to me why showing he praised it in the press more than once is irrelevant.
"Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic", is used to clarify his status as a WP:RS. Most cyclists and environmentalists who may find this article interesting will not have heard of him. Many tourists reading about Millennium Park will not have heard of him. Thus, I explained who he is and why his opinion is relevant as tersely as possible with that phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't realize that you wanted to show that she praised it multiple times. You might want to make that more clear (the "more than once" aspect). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From what I can see, you use sources properly. I will finish tonight, but I expect that I will be able to support on sourcing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Next set:
11. Article "At the time, the city of Chicago had 90 miles (140 km) of bike lanes (with an additional 110 miles (180 km) on the way), more than 9,000 bike racks and bicycle access on CTA trains (except during weekday rush hours, 7–9 a.m. and 4–6 p.m.)," Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11. Source - I could not find "90", "140", "110", "180", or "9,000" in the source (This, where, instead, the information can be found in this source). However, the last comment about rush hours is a little too similar to the source: "And the CTA allows bikes on trains except during weekday rush hours, 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m". Also, the second source linked above reads: "90 miles of bike lanes (with 110 more miles on the way), more than 9,000 bike racks and bicycle access on CTA trains, CTA buses and Pace buses." This is too similar to the text provided. This should be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of the location of the citations, the mid-sentence citation is for the parenthesis in the middle of the sentence and the end of sentence citation is for the entire remaining set of facts in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have rearranged so that they are both at the end of the sentence and reworded the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. Article - "The Cycle Center is conveniently located at 239 East Randolph Street (at Columbus Drive) near a Chicago Transit Authority hub, the McCormick Place Busway and Metra trains." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. Source - This is the source. It does not mention the address. The source says "connect to a CTA hub, the McCormick Place Busway and Metra trains.", which could be paraphrased more or rearranged a bit (is Metra a spelling error?). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you contesting whether it is at Randolph and Columbus (if so, see map and first image in the body of the article)? Are you contesting the street address of 239 East Randolph Street (if so, see the picture below the map).? Metra is not a spelling error. I have reworded the rest of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13. In the sentence beginning "The bike facility had been the last unsponsored component of Millennium " and the one after, you have a duplicated ref where only the last citation is needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14. Article - "approximately 500 cyclists were members, who paid either $15 per month or $99 per year for access to the garage's amenities. About 50,000 riders had used the Cycle Center in its first two years." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14. Source - "some 500 cyclists are members, paying $15 a month or $99 a year for access to the garage's amenities, said Ryan. Some 50,000 riders use it annually". Try to paraphrase this better. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. Article - "The Cycle Center uses high-capacity, two-tiered racks that accommodate more than twice as many bicycles per square foot as traditional bike racks. The DoubleParker racks were manufactured by Josta, a German manufacturer of high-capacity bicycle parking systems and bike stands. Cycle-Safe, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a manufacturer of bicycle lockers and racks, collaborated with the city of Chicago and Josta to coordinate the interior design. The station is run by the Chicago Park District." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. Source - "Employing high-capacity, two-tiered racks [...] allows more than twice as many bicycles to be stored in the same amount of floor space as traditional bike racks [...] DoubleParker racks from Josta, a German manufacturer of high-capacity bicycle parking systems and bike stands [...] Cycle-Safe, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich., a manufacturer of bicycle lockers and racks, collaborated with the city of Chicago and Josta to coordinate [...] The station is run by the Chicago Park District." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
16. Article - "has a sloping solar paneled roof. The Cycle Center has an opaque design, with thin steel frames for its main windows. The interior design uses stainless steel and blond wood"
16. Source - I could not find "solar panel", "thin", "steel" or "frames". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you were again confused by my mid-sentence reference. I have rearranged the citations so that you won't be confused.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17. The source for "In April 2005, the Cycle Center approached its 500-member capacity," came up as a dead link. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link checker shows no problems and I was able to open the article which says "membership is near the 500-biker cap, above which there will be a wait list".
  • That is all for now. Almost done. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If I may butt in and add something, reference 15 (New York Times) puts the phrase "front yard" in quotation, while the article does not. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not understand your point exactly. Grant Park is probably described as the city's front yard in an inordinate number of reliable sources. Do you want multiple sources for this phrase? Do you want it in quotes? Do you question whether the quotes mean slang nickname?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was asking if it should be in quotes in the article. If other sources don't use quotation, it may be okay now. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update - most of the sourcing issues have been dealt with (I rewrote a little to get the language further away from the original). There are only a handful of sources to check left and I will get around to that shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
18. - "which provide access to the showers and lockers; allow participation". If you are going to write a list with semi-colons, I would recommend placing a colon after "provide" (it would denote the list grammatically). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
19. - "bicycle service for, events such" Remove the comma here. It disrupts the clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20 - "continental breakfast of cereal, yogurt, fruit, juice and coffee" I would organize lists like this alphabetically. It helps to get away from the source while providing some kind of structure. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
21. - "such as Paris, where they have been common for some time" The source does not say how long Paris has had the program. However, "sometime" is vague and the article is old, so it could be inferred. I would not see this as a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
22 - "In May 2006, regular tours were offered at a cost of $15–30" However, the source only seems to have: "-- Cycling" - "$60-68 for ride and camping; $88 for bike ride, camping and bus ride back to Chicago" or "Tour includes bikes, helmets. (Bobby's Bike Hike Kiosk, 465 N. McClurg Ct. $25-$30". I may have missed the 15 dollar tour. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
23 - Article: "In 2008, Le Tour de Shore, a 90-mile (140 km), two-day charity biking event, which started at the Cycle Center in Millennium Park. The path ran along the Lake Michigan lakefront, duneland paths, and backroads in Indiana and Michigan." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
23 - Source: "A 90-mile, two-day charity bike ride from Millennium Park travels along lakefront and duneland paths and backroads in Indiana and Michigan." This should be changed. Try - "The biking event Le Tour de Shore was held over 2 days in 2008. Starting at the Cycle Center, the event took riders 90 miles near Lake Michigan, along the duneland area, and along the backroads of both Indiana and Michigan." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Everything else seems to check out. Once you do a little fixing and rewriting, everything should be clean. That was a lot of sources to go through. Phew. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [10].

Magnetic Rag[edit]

Nominator(s): Magnetic Rag (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Several of us Wikipedians have contributed much time and research to this article. (Special thanks to Stepheng3, Melodia, Binksternet, and Major Bloodnok.) I believe that it meets the FA criteria, or is close! I'm not a super-frequent contributor, and have never done this sort of thing before. If there's anything I'm leaving out, please let me know. Also, I'm pretty busy these days, so if I do not respond to concerns or suggestions immediately, it's not intentional. I will attend to them as soon as I am able. Or, perhaps the previously mentioned regular contributors may be contacted. Magnetic Rag (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. Using the external links tool to the right, I found that four Google Book URLs had gone dead in the year since the GA review. I also saw that a bunch of the books in the bibliography required the |accessdate= parameter to meet FA standards. I updated the dead URLs and I added the access dates, but I'm on the fence with all of that... I don't like the look of the accessdates on each book. What do editors think? Should the URLs for google books go AWAY so that no accessdates are littering the bibliography? Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally speaking, Google Books URLs should not occur in Wikipedia articles, as they do not work reliably. For example, when I use Google from a location where my IP address is shared among many other users, I typically get a message saying something like "sorry, your quota is exceeded". Also, there are some privacy concerns with those URLs, as they let Google track the editor who originally added the URL. Instead, please give the ISBN or OCLC for the book. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oooh, that means I have about a year and a half of google books references to remove! Ouch. Anyway, I've removed the ones from this article, along with the accessdate parameter for those URLs. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, but it still needs a bit of work. First, the phrase "the original 1914 edition" is not verifiable merely by looking at the image, and as per WP:ALT#What not to specify it shouldn't be in the alt text. Second, I suggest putting all of that image's text into the alt text, as there isn't that much text, and this will be a service to the visually-impaired reader. Something like 'Sheet music cover reading "..."' where the "..." is the text in question. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ealdgyth: I see from your user page that you have visited our great state. It is not surprising, then, that you would have such great insight into the article!

Anyhow, I looked more scrutinizingly at that link, and yes, you are right to call its reliability into question. I would be prepared to dismiss it outright; however, it appears (but it is not certain) that the website material was written by a Dr. Karl Koenig, who has published several books on the topics of early jazz and ragtime. Perhaps this reference should be allowed under WP:RS#Self-published sources, but that might be a stretch. Let's see what the you and the others have to say about it. If necessary, we can easily delete the one sentence in the article which refers to that site. Magnetic Rag (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind having the Karl "Dr. K" Koenig website in there, but all we are using him for is to say that Magnetic Rag has been compared to twelve-bar blues, a statement which Edward A. Berlin supports at the end of the paragraph. I'd like to keep him, but if the consensus is to kick out Dr. K, then I see no need to delete the sentence about twelve-bar blues. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Source analysis - after looking through the sources, I realized that I found a few more for you. King of ragtime: Scott Joplin and his era, Dancing to a black man's tune (info on the "seriousness" of the work), Jazz: new perspectives on the history of jazz (comparisons of the work with other rags), and Is language a music? (discussion of repetition on p. 34). Those are just examples, and more can be found here. As reader, I would like the Background section to be doubled in size. There are a few biographies and I am sure you could pull out a full paragraph or two of information for the page. As a reader, the "strain" headings are too small. Either condense into one section or try to make each section at least 6 sentences long. If you can expand the page with some of the above, I will check back in and give a more thorough analysis. Good luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per structure and prose style. My first thought on viewing this article is: "So short!" But I know that's not a viable reason to oppose an FAC. I am concerned by the number of possibilities Ottava has found. Of course I don't know what exactly is available, but it seems like this article is missing some elements that would make it truly comprehensive. (I only wish I could indicate that those elements might be.)

However, that's nothing I can comment on. But I am opposed to the short, choppy sectioning in this article — do we really need all those single-paragraph sections for the various strains? How about one larger section instead?

My other concern is with the Analysis section. It's mostly a big collection of quotes. None of these stand out as a result, which (in my view) is what a blockquote is supposed to do. I'd prefer to see more summary and maybe 2-3 quotes max in a section. Scartol • Tok 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [11].

The Dark Side of the Moon[edit]

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


One of the best-selling and most influential rock albums ever, I feel this article is now close to, or worthy of, FA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. The article is really great and I think it meets the criteria. The only issue is the naming of the section "History". The section describes the events prior to the recording of the album. That is not really the "History of The Dark Side of the Moon". "History" would eventually be everything up to "LP packaging". I would rename the section to something like "Background". Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its a bit of both really, but the point is taken and I've changed it to 'background'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otterathome (talk)'s comments.
  1. The google links in the refs are missing access dates, & the URL's can be shortened.
Well this isn't something I've ever been asked to do in an FAC before now. The long url has been left in purposely as the scanning of the page numbers is poor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the google links should be changed to .com from .co.uk, and the only URL too long now is Echoes under the bib section.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should the links be changed to .co.uk? I've already explained why the long url exists.
  1. You have a bad version of File:Dsotm20.jpg that needs deleting.
I don't understand, can you expand? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check the file history.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but you need to be specific. What exactly is the problem with this file, so that I may correct it?
User:Nev1 has kindly deleted the file history - is that what you meant? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Columns may be appropriate in the Personnel section.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. The Singles section is very short and should probably be merged in to another section.--Otterathome (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. File:Parsonsquad.jpg needs resolution needs reducing as it's copyrighted.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reduced it to 300px. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Overall a very well-written, comprehensive article it has become. I see no major flaws. All the reference links are in order linking to the bibliography section. In the bibliography section, all books, articles, etc. are cited correctly with the right format as far as I can tell. All images have Alt text. I think this current revision of Dark Side of The Moon should be promoted to FA status. Burningview (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Most of the album sales are not sourced, only the number of shipped articles. These are not the same. 2001 (album) was certified 6 times platinum and sold 7+ million copied, while My December is platinum but sold about 800,000. I think the album sales should be removed where it isn't known and the UK sales should not be mentioned as "certified" on 14 June 2009 - certification dates are when silver, gold etc. are approved, not when the last sales number came in. Hekerui (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with that—I don't think such tables add much to the article. If I moved the tables to the discussion page, and reinserted some of the correctly referenced sales/certifications (I must be honest, I don't entirely understand how those things work) as prose, would that be acceptable? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should be done. Also, the professional reviews are better served by footnotes than merely url links, in case of link rot etc. This is strongly suggested by Wikiproject Albums ("Per Wikipedia:Citing sources do not add reviews without a citation.") Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Righty-ho, I've moved the album sales to talk for clarification. I also integrated the 'singles' section into the article as it repeated a little bit of information.
I'll have to address your point about the reviews later - some are in print format, but the important thing is that all were published well before the computer age, and all are linked to their offline versions - so I'm not quite certain if its necessary to cite them in full. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the reviews - I'm pretty certain that I've already met all requirements. All the reviews listed were originally published in print - web links are merely shortcuts. The Grossman review does not give a page number - but it does give a date, and I think it would be very easy to find the review in the magazine. Link-rot won't be a problem here, urls are a bonus, nothing more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I formatted the reviews, there was a page btw, and added the Uncut review. Hekerui (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah those reviews - tbh I hardly noticed they existed, I haven't touched them. Thanks for the changes, I did however change to 'citation' to remain consistent. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Birds of a feather... I picked up the History of Dark Side of the Moon book in HMV for £2 thinking I'd use it to improve this article; evidently, I've been beaten to the punch! However, I have two questions:
    Whatever happened to the "A Piece for Assorted Lunatics" subtitle? I only have a digital copy, so I can't check if it persisted up to the album's release, but I seem to remember reading that it persisted up until, at least, they went into the studio.
    On my copy of DSOTM, at least, "Speak to Me" and "Breathe" are merged into one track. "Breathe (Reprise)" is on the end of "Time". On my copy, it is merged and Brain Damage/Eclipse are not, but I seem to remember hearing about versions where the opposite prevails (though I'm not sure). However, none of this, especially the verifiable existence of "Breathe (Reprise)", are mentioned in the track list. Please address this issue. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A piece for assorted..." is mentioned in the article, at the premiere of the new material in the Rainbow Theatre. I'm not certain when that was dropped, but I'll scan through the books I have to see if I can clarify that.
The track listings are based on the original vinyl release. Track lengths and titles have been changed since then, most especially on the CD releases. "Breathe (reprise)" is not a separate track - it starts about 6 minutes into "Time", and lasts about a minute. It is included in the song book (I have this book and can demonstrate with a pic, if required). I'll have to think about clarifying this issue - there have been many versions of this album over the years, some in error. Sourcing may be difficult. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, this may be of interest. I've asked the user that created it for help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I know "Breathe (Reprise)" isn't a separate song on the vinyl. However, is it listed in the liner notes for the vinyl as "Time/Breathe (Reprise)" or similar? Sceptre (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC):::::Its hardly reliable but this would suggest not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been asked about the chart with multiple timings. I did not create it, but I did copy it from an old version of the article, to the talk page. I believe the reason for creating the chart, is that we frequently had users come in to change the article to reflect the timings on whatever CD edition they possessed, and we hoped that printing a chart showing various edition timings would discourage this. After the chart was removed from the article (since this was not a good reason for having it), this activity resumed, so I restored the chart to the talk page, and suggested users seen changing the timings could be pointed to the chart as an explanation that many timings exist. But since then, it has been hidden away again, in an archive page. Sorry for the long boring explanation. Regarding the question about "Breathe (Reprise)", it is not in the track listing, but it is a heading in the lyrics printed on the inner gatefold cover. I feel it is best to not show it in the track listing. Regarding the merging of the first two or last two tracks, I suspect all vinyl copies list them as separate on the label and cover, but some copies may lack a band separation. There is nothing official about that; it just means the disc cutting engineer missed the right spot to push a button to create the separation. Given the quantity of sales, a new cutting could have been made about once a year, and every country that manufactured the album made their own cuts, so there could be hundreds of examples of a cut of the album. Finding a copy with a missing band separation, means nothing to the track list as a whole, because it's just a temporary situation until the next recut. Hope that helps! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to this, I've copied that table into a FAQ on the article's talk page. I've also added a note to the tracklist explaining the absence of "Breathe (reprise)". Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (obviously, the hatnote doesn't need to be fixed) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't, it isn't working. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, they're all fixed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know if this is a new problem, but at the end of the Sales chart performance section, a chart name is missing.--Otterathome (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never been entirely happy with any of the tables in the article, and the content of 'singles' already exists as prose, so I've moved it to the talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'. this has to be one of the best most comprehensive articles about an album or cd on all of wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.124.52 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments— The article is very good, but

  • while the lead is functional, I feel it doesn't capture what is special about the album and so many fans consider it to be magical. Maybe expanding the lead to include another paragraph that discusses the music and recording process more would help; you can include a quote or two as well.
Have a look at this - bear in mind it may be copyedited slightly after the time of posting. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article suffers from too many blockquotes, which are often far too long. For example, the first one is too long (maybe convert some of it to prose?), and the second one is largely redundant to the lines "On discovering that that title ... reverted to The Dark Side of the Moon." Also, these blockquotes serve to give too much attention to the artistes praising their own work; it seems to take away a bit from the neutrality of the article.
I've chopped one up, and moved another to the notes (the bit about Medicine head). I tried to use the Medicine Head quote to demonstrate the band's annoyance but couldn't really fit it in. I'd like to keep it in the notes section though. See diff. The other quotes - well, I think its important to include the thoughts of the main contributors (Waters has been somewhat disparaging of the album, of late, calling it a bit "lower sixth").
  • I know WesleyDodds and I were overruled by consensus about this matter on the talkpage (so its not a dealbreaker for me), but I still don't see why those reissue album covers are included. They are highly similar to the original one, and there is simply no discussion about them in the article, meaning they fail WP:NFCC #8. Aesthetically speaking, they make the infobox too long, and their absence serve to further highlight the stark minimalism of the original image. indopug (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As with the discussion on this my view hasn't really changed, but I'm not really fussed about it. I'm still on the hunt for more images I can use, they'll be out there somewhere. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments, I fully agree with indopug on all points. This article has been on my watchlist for quite some time and I think it is close to FA standard. As a life-long fan of the Floyd, I feel qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness of the article—I have read the sources used—and I am impressed. I have a few minor quibbles:

  • Does London have to be linked? Readers have already been told that Pink Floyd are a British band.
People link and unlink things, generally I have little preference either way for such things. I'll not mind if someone unlinks it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of Background readers are told (twice) that the band returned to recording the album. I think it should say where they returned to, since it is much later in the article when we are told where the album was recorded.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This needs a solid reliable source "Mason created a rough version at his home, before completing it in the studio." It has been a subject of much debate as to just how much influence Roger Waters had on the opening and he has been known to claim much of the credit.
Its referenced by Mason's autobiog, which is considered a reliable source. I don't think that any contentious claims are being made; he must have made a significant contribution to have received a credit, and in his autobiog he describes his involvement in detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think "sounds" would be better than "noises" here, "The band also devised and recorded unconventional noises"
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This might be a point of view, "Perhaps one of the less noticeable aspects of the album is the ability of Richard Wright and David Gilmour to perfectly harmonise with each other". It was very noticeable to me when I first heard the album all those years ago. It is also very noticeable on their previous album Meddle.
I agree, so how about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here "The heartbeat is most audible as the intro and the outro to the album" - audible does seem quite the best word; perhaps "prominent" might be better.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Myriad clocks" is a bit pretentious.
Possibly but it is a good word to describe "a lot of clocks", especially when its difficult to know exactly how many there are. Just a lot. I've not changed it, but don't mind if others do. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graham Colm Talk 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review: 9 images in article, 4 of them are non-free. for reference: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. '...used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.'

  • the rainbow theatre image seems to me to have dark contrast in its bottom half, probably better to remove till we get a better version.
Once removed, it'll never be improved - I'd do it myself but I live 200 miles away. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • i don't think we can justify including Alan Parsons one in terms of significance; appreciate the innovative use of technology is significant but i don't think this shot of a bloke in front of a console can be justified in terms of adding to reader's understanding, perhaps use a free image of Parsons.
I agree, I've removed it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the one alt text i've looked at so far needs to be briefer, it goes into the colour of Torry's jeans, i'll try and copyedit this and others down as necessary.
There are so many conflicting opinions on the use of alt text, your comment unfortunately contradicts comments I received on a previous FAC for another article. Its confusing to say the least, but I'd much rather there be too much detail, than not enough, so I've restored some of the deleted alt text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The music clips aren't free as well. The anniversary covers don't seem to have much associated text, and don't seem very different from the original cover which does have a lot of discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Agree with Peregrine above; the reissue covers can probably be safely cut, as I very much doubt there's any sort of critical commentary that justifies their inclusion. File:Parsonsquad.jpg is a great illustration, but it's not really adding much beyond a "look, he's mixing it!" to the article. It's not a significant increase or detriment if cut. So in short: axe everything save the album cover, 'tis all you need. (meep, 68.50.242.207 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
There is a discussion about the cover images on the article's talk page, a consensus supported keeping them. I'm not going to change my vote on that matter just to pass this review - however if that talk page consensus changes then I'll of course abide by it. The Parsons file - I tend to agree, and have removed it. As for the music files, the fact that they're not free is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. Plenty of other FAs contain non-free music clips and they should remain, in fact they're essential elements in articles like this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, holding off on the audio clips, I don't think this article can meet the strict FA image requirements and have three album covers that aren't each discussed a bunch. Sometimes, you have to choose between the star and the non-free images. Not that it matters, I'd change our rules to allow the non-free images, but that's a losing battle so I abide by them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think then that perhaps you might put your comments on the article's talk page here - that way, there won't be any confusion about removing things against consensus. I can't simply remove the images based on comments here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per image criterion. If Parrot is talking about this discussion, I see no evidence consensus was reached or cogent arguments put forth. One editor said that "Each re-imagining of the prism design is sufficiently different to make them notable and recognisable", but provided no evidence this was so. Another said "Each re-imagining of the prism design is sufficiently different to make them notable and recognisable", which flies in the face of WP:NFCC. If they aren't discussed in the article beyond a line or two, removing them is not detrimental to reader understanding and they don't meet NFCC, enough said. 68.50.242.207 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does one provide evidence that they're different, other than actually looking at them?
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. A significant part of the charm of this album is that it maintains an almost constant position in the charts. Its been knocking around for over 25 years, the alternative album covers reflect that, and so does the article by describing that longevity, and the re-releases. Its an enduring symbol.
I'm also slightly confused about how this works. I posted a question on the article's talk page, as one should, as the presence of these images was threatening to descend into an edit war. Various people responded, and a majority voted in favour of retaining them. And now, I come here, and see objections to their presence - that's fine, I've already said if a majority don't want the images I'll go with that decision - as is proper. But how can I be expected to just arbitrarily remove them without further discussion? Why can't people who object here, use that talk page discussion and change that consensus, and then just remove them? I don't feel its correct to remove them myself based on comments here, that would seem to many as though my only goal were to gather bronze stars, and frankly I can do without that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus isn't a vote. One good argument outweighs any number of bad ones. We're discussing the images here because that's what an FAC page is for—discussing whether an article meets FA criteria, which happens to include compliance with WP:NFCC. In re to your comments: "a significant part of the charm"... unless you have sources that say "the album's longevity is reflected in its album art" and then proceeds to wax poetically about the differences between them, I fail to see how multiple iterations of the same basic theme is significantly increasing my understanding of the topic when the article doesn't go into detail about it. You prove its significance with sources and critical commentary. 68.50.242.207 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And who gets to judge a good argument from a bad one? I thought that was the reason why this was a consensus-led project? Anyhow, I've added a reasonable description of the continuity of the album design here Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would remove those images and provide a link to this discussion on the talk page, I guess. Now, let's talk about the non-free audio clips. My browser won't play them, but I see quite a bit of associated text. But, why is it necessary to have two versions of Money? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One is a demo version (essentially a rough cut), the other is the actual album version. There's plenty about the songs, but (correct me if I'm missing it in a cursory examination) there's nothing about the difference between the demo and the final (as far as I can tell, Waters' demo of "Money" is not discussed at all, while the final version is.) 68.50.242.207 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An article about the album is probably an incorrect place to discuss the evolution of a single track. Suffice to say the file exists as a demonstration of Water's early demo recordings, which are mentioned in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the sound file belongs in Money_(Pink_Floyd_song) where it can probably have a more defensible fair use rationale, but as it stands now there's not enough content to justify it per NFCC. 68.50.242.207 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree. "Money" was created for this album. The inclusion of a demo track demonstrates the evolution of the material on the album. I have another example, but Money was what I chose. Its a short excerpt of a song recorded specifically for this album - it isn't like numerous other albums, which are merely compliations of work - DSotM is a concept album. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That helps for the third image. It's still a bit borderline, but I'll let others decide on that one. As far as who decides, I think it's whichever uninvolved editors show up to the FAC. The closer also decides, when they look over the discussion and decide to promote or not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to add this link to this discussion. It's quite pertinent. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Multiple supports without a sourcing check: did all of the supporters review sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Looking at some sources. I'm not saying they aren't reliable, but why are these sources reliable. If the previous FAC determined they were, that's fine.
Part of this template Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The interviewer is John Harris, author of one of the main sources for this article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the magazine to hand and Wikipedia policy suggests that I cite information from where I saw it. How about this instead? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well lack of an article is no indicator of a lack of notability, but the album certainly exists [12] Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Used in Californication (album), Pinkerton (album), Supernature (Goldfrapp album), and Year Zero (album), all featured articles, the last two promoted in 2008. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Other than that, it looks pretty good. Mostly books and magazines, which are fine for an album of this stature. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • For the rolling stone list, you might just fill in cite journal with what you know. I don't know what people prefer. A link to a possible copyvio (it's not clear that they are, they may have permission, or it may be uncopyrightable) or a ref that doesn't have a page number. I wouldn't oppose over a page number, since it's a magazine which will have the page number in the TOC, or maybe even on the cover. I asked about the charts.[13]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comment on sources. Perhaps my comment about the sources in my initial review above was not very clear. In my view, the article is primarily sourced to the following books:

  • Harris, John (2006), The Dark Side of the Moon (3 ed.), Harper Perennial, ISBN 9780007790906
  • Mason, Nick (2005), Philip Dodd, ed., Inside Out - A Personal History of Pink Floyd (Paperback ed.), Phoenix, ISBN 0753819066
  • Parker, Alan; O'Shea, Mick (2006), And Now for Something Completely Digital, The Disinformation Company, ISBN 1932857311.
  • Povey, Glenn (2007), Echoes, Mind Head Publishing, ISBN 0955462401,
  • Reising, Russell (2005), Speak to Me, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, ISBN 0754640191,
  • Ruhlmann, William (2004), Breaking Records, Routledge, ISBN 0415943051,
  • Schaffner, Nicholas (1991), Saucerful of Secrets (1 ed.), London : Sidgwick & Jackson, ISBN 0283061278
  • Whiteley, Sheila (1992), The space between the notes, Routledge, ISBN 0415068169

I have copies, and I have read—some many times—all of these except for Parker and Whitely. I consider them very reliable sources and had no concerns over the two that I do not have after checking. Among the minor sources I saw were The New Musical Express, Melody Maker, (both reliable UK sources) and Rolling Stone. This is what I meant when I wrote above "I feel qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness of the article—I have read the sources used." Graham Colm Talk 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose per non-free content issues. Three versions of the cover aren't necessary, especially when two of them are practically identical. Alternative non-free album covers can only really be justified when the covers themselves are notable (for instance Electric Ladyland). Also, two versions of Money aren't really required (though they'd probably be unexceptionable in the article Money (Pink Floyd song) where ironically there's only one!). Black Kite 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and, I think the article would look much better with just that iconic image of the first vinyl album cover. The others are redundant. To me it is like showing images of all the front covers of the paperbacks of On the Origin of Species or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. As for the sound clips, these too could be dumped IMHO. Clips are widely available. Graham Colm Talk 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. Let me ask this on the article's talk page, and see what people say. As I've already said, if enough people want them gone I'll go with that, but personally I'd prefer they stay. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked for comment here - Talk:The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon#Cover_images_again. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in that talk page question 5 people want them to stay, 3 don't. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment First of all, the anniversary album covers should be kept. They are discussed in the text aand are covered by fair use, and are not redundant given that DSotM is not only one of the most important albums ever, but it is also more closely associated with its packaging than most albums are. Secondly, he sound clips absolutely should stay, regardless of how available they are. Actually, the very fact that they are so widely available is a testament to their importance, and given that they are relevantly described in the article there is zero reason to remove them. I am soon going to put some notes here as I review the article, but I want to save this comment first. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I forgot to mention this in my first comment, but I changed the formatting of web-based sources from {{Citation}} to {{Cite web}}.
Sorry, I changed them back - templates shouldn't be mixed as per wp:cit
In retrospect, I should have asked first. But the only reason I did was because it italicized the titles of the sources which should have been in quotes. I don't know how else to fix that.
  • Any particular reason Andy Mabbett's book in the further reading section isn't formatted like all the other books?
Done
  • In the "Sales chart performance" (btw, "Chart performance" is more standard) and "Selected album sales" (which should be "Selected sales certifications") sections, the table formatting is really ugly. I'd recommend removing the line "id="toc" margin-left: 2em; width: 50%; font-size: 85%;" cellspacing="3"" from both.
I've changed the tables (I have not the slightest understanding of what those codes do tbh).
  • In the "Sales chart performance" section, there's a subsection indication for "Albums" (which should be "Album"), but either this should be removed or a subsection for all of the associated singles should be created.
Removed - there was a singles chart, but it was so small I turned it into prose.
  • In the "Reissues and remastering" section, it is said that DSotM was released on iTunes in 2007, but the source indicates that it was simply re-released onto the "iTunes Plus" store, as a DRM-free higher quality file. It had definitely been in the broader iTunes store previously.
The date was an assumption on my part, so I've reworded it to include information about the new DRM version.
  • While the Reception section does have some of the critical reception to the album, it should be titled Release due to the nature of its content and subsections.
Good point, done
  • I also notice that there are no retrospective reviews, all of the reception is contemporary other than a few lists. This article is also missing a Legacy section. Who did this album influence? See OK Computer for an example of retrospective reviews being incorporated into the reception section, and a Legacy section.
I asked this question on the article's talk page, almost a month back. I'm aware its important, but I don't have the in-depth musical knowledge that would give me a starting point. If you could suggest a list of works, I would be quite willing to write this.
This book seems like a good place to start, and at the very least should be in the Further reading section. Most of the book seems to be discussion and analysis of the album, but some of it appears to be about its impact. A lot of the material you would use to make a Legacy section is already there; for example, the impact its success had on the members is already in the Sales section. What it lacks right now are examples of specific musicians taking influence from DSotM, and its influence is enormous in progressive rock and otherwise. I'm sure some of the bigger neo-prog bands like Tool, Dream Theater, and Marillion have something to say about it, and Radiohead's OK Computer is very very frequently compared to it even though the members deny its influence. Probably a few prog-metal bands like, for example, Opeth, have something to say about it. Its success also contributed in a big way to the big anti-prog reaction when punk came along, which might be worth mentioning. The album surely made an impact in how sampling and other new audio technologies were used in recording, someone has something to say somewhere about that. Anything that would be a reaction to the album or an example of its enduring popularity should be in a Legacy section, which is much needed considering this album's monumental impact. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a legacy section, making changes to the layout accordingly. I'll add more to it as I go along. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sentence "On 8 February 1995 the opening sequence of..." is out of place where it is right now. It would fit nicely, along with the mention of lists DSotM has appeared on, in a Legacy section.
I agree, its a bit of trivia that could be used elsewhere.
  • The "Label" section should be called "Promotion"
Respectfully I don't agree. I'm working on WYWH and Meddle (in my sandbox), and the label section is a recurring theme. I don't feel its quite appropriate to discuss a lack of promotion in a section titled 'promotion'. 'Label' is slightly generic, whereas 'promotion' could suggest to the reader that everything was hunky-dory.
OK, sounds good.
  • Rateyourmusic.com is absolutely not a reliable source, as all the lists are user-generated. The Rolling Stone list no doubt exists, but in this case you're citing an unreliable fan reproduction. Find a way to source a more reliable reproduction, or the original list.
This has been raised above. Unfortunately I can't find the original Rolling Stone list. The shortcut would of course be to remove the url and 'presume' that the RS list is real, but WP policy rightly forbids me from doing that. I've had a look around though and it appears as though the link is incorrect (the correct position would appear to be #19), so I've removed it pending a reliable source.Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rest of the article looks excellent, but the things I found were problematic. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Further comment All of my previous concerns have been addressed, and although I still think {{Cite web}} should be used because it formats the titles of sources properly I don't think it's a significant issue. The legacy section looks good for now. Given the difficulty I experienced trying to find specific testimonials from musicians about DSotM's influence on them, I think that it is as good as it can be until more relevant information comes along, which I trust you'll add to the article as you find it. Two other things: The article doesn't explain or even mention DSotM's re-release as part of the box set Oh, by the Way, and doesn't mention the tribute album Return to the Dark Side of the Moon: A Tribute to Pink Floyd, which actually features a ton of important Prog artists and is probably one of the more notable covers. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, it does now Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support All my points have been addressed, and I'm now confident that this article is ready to be featured. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments I am slightly concerned, as I detected minor niggles throughout the article. Otherwise, comments:
  • Guitarist David Gilmour, Barrett's replacement, would later refer to these instrumentals as "that psychedelic noodling stuff". - cite?
Its already cited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no, hang on, it wasn't. It is now though, sorry. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The release of The Dark Side of the Moon is seen as a symbolic point in the history of rock music. - cite?
This is probably better off now in the newly-created Legacy section, but I could either copy all the citations from the professional reviews onto the end of the sentence, or I could just leave as is - I don't think its a particularly contentious statement, anyone who reads a little about the history, and delves into the sources, would certainly find it difficult to disagree with this line. Anyway, I'll move it to the Legacy section as its better there than in the Concept section (its existed there since before I took this on anyway). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The album is particularly notable for the metronomic sound effects during "Speak to Me", and the tape loops that open "Money". - cite?
Listen to the album, and read the sections of this article that discuss at length the sound effects used. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another roadie, Chris Adamson, was on tour with Pink Floyd at the time and recorded his explicit diatribe that opens the album—"I've been mad for fucking years—absolutely years". - cite after quote?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following the completion of the dialogue sessions, producer Chris Thomas was hired to provide "a fresh pair of ears". - cite?
Someone changed those to quotation marks, actually its an idiom to summarise the page so I've changed it back. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Designers Storm Thorgeson and Aubrey Powell were able to ignore such criticism as they were employed by the band. - cite?
Already cited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For The Dark Side of the Moon Richard Wright instructed them to come up with something "smarter, neater—more classy." -cite?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Much of the album's early stateside success has been attributed to the efforts of Pink Floyd's US record company, Capitol Records. - cite?
Already cited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The mono side had the word "bullshit" removed from the song, leaving "bull" in its place, however the stereo side retained the uncensored version. - cite?
Already cited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly more later. ceranthor 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - It appears that the article's referencing issues have been resolved. POD, if the article is promoted, please be sure to watch out for unreferenced information. ceranthor 16:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this article has quite a few watchers, many of whom own copies of the sources used. Don't worry, this article won't be descending into trivia any time soon. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose two album covers and two music samples are the most I can support, per my intrepreation of NFCC. Cut it down to that, and I'd say it passes NFCC under a generous reading of the policy. If I were you (and I'm not), I would jump at the chance to have 4 non-free files. That's 3-4 more than a lot of FAs get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frank Zappa has eight non-free files. The matter is up for discussion on the article's talk page and only if enough people wish it will those images be removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't really know anything about that article, but eight sounds like a lot. As you say, these things aren't up to just one person. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [14].

Tawfiq Canaan[edit]

Nominator(s): Tiamuttalk 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it received a very good review when it was promoted to good article status and though it failed its first FAC nom, it has been expanded and refined since, and has enjoyed longstanding stability in its current form. I would have re-nominated it earlier, but one major stumbling block to a successful FAC nom was the lack of a photo of Canaan. After returning from a short absence from Wikipedia, I am overjoyed to see that a resourceful editor has found one. I look forward to hearing your comments on this second-try at my first real FAC nom. Tiamuttalk 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for bringing my attention to that. Had never seen it before. Tiamuttalk 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for looking into that. That alt text is pretty good, but it could still stand some improvement. Phrases like "Black-and-white photograph of" should be removed, as they're not that helpful. Also, phrases like "Old City of Jerusalem", "Dome of the Rock", and "Tawfiq Canaan" should be removed, as they are details that are not immediately obvious to a non-expert who can see only the images themselves. I suggest altering the book cover alt text to just say "Book cover saying" and then giving the text of the book cover, rather than all the details about the fonts and so forth, which are not that important. Finally, the template-derived image whose alt text is "Early 20th-century Palestinian family" needs to be greatly reworded, as it's not obvious from the image that it is early 20th-century, or that it is Palestinian, or that it is a family. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for being so patient with your explanations. I tried to do what you have outlined above. The template gave me a bit of trouble, since there is no alt field. I hope I put the info in the right place. If not, let me know and I'll try to find a way to fix it. It may also need a bit of copy edit since I may have gotten carried away. Anyway, thanks again. Tiamuttalk 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the template is working fine. The alt text for the template's image is a bit long for my taste, but other tastes differ and anyway it's FA quality. I tweaked the other alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Tiamuttalk 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Four deadlinks with the link checker tool. Once they are fixed, I'll be able to check them for reliablity.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. (Specifically, AWG)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found replacement links for two of the dead links. One of them was a citation for work that turned out not to be authored by Canaan, so I removed it altogether.
Unfortunately, the full text of the Baha' al-Ju'beh source is no longer available online. It is cited on the page of the publisher here, but I cannot access the article itself. A copy of the synopsis or introduction is available for viewing here, but the link to the full text opens up in a unrelated page. I will keep looking, but if I can't find it, should I be looking for another source that supports the info taken from it? Tiamuttalk 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't have to be online, but yes, you need to source the information from something. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the information in the Ju'beh source is accurate and sourced to a journal though not available online. Less accurate is the ICS-Jericho source which I am finding substitutes for as we speak (It's mostly used to cite the listing of his medical publications, barring one or two exceptions.) I'm updating everything as we speak and I'll let you know as soon as it is all done, which I hope will be some time tonight. Tiamuttalk 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay then, I think I've sorted things out. You can take a look now. There are only a couple of medical texts lacking a citation right now in the publications section and I'm willing to remove them off course, if none are found. I've also reformatted the cites to have a separate biblio section. Let me know what you think and where we go from here. Thanks for all your feedback. Tiamuttalk 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I missed that. Fixed all four. Tiamuttalk 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Should the names of journals be italicized? Tiamuttalk 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. It's already been done. I just wanted to make sure. Tiamut 09:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • With regards to reference formatting, there is a separate "issue" parameter in {{cite journal}}. So if you a volume number and issue number, just type something like "volume=8|issue=1" instead of "volume=Vol. 8, no. 1|". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for alerting me to that. I'll jump to the article right now and sort any refs missing that parameter. Tiamuttalk 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Okay I did it. Hope its okay now. Tiamuttalk 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Made a few more corrections. There is still some inconsistent reference formatting. I'll try to run through the article again later today or tomorrow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Thanks for your fixes. I'll try to catch any missing ones myself too. I just don't seem to have your eagle eyes for that type of thing. Thanks again. Tiamuttalk 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Overall, a well-written, well sourced, article about an interesting person. A few longer sentences than I am used to, but I do not think they are gramatically incorrect (those that were, I broke into two). I am going through the article making minor spelling and grammar copyedits, but that shouldn't prevent the article from passing. I'd normally wait until I was done, but there seems to be a movement towards quicker closings than in the past, so I did not want this archived before I was done. -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments and your edits Avi (both now and earlier). I appreciate it. Tiamuttalk 01:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support After reading through this article now, with all the tiny mistakes fixed, and most of the MoS issues addressed, I don't see anything else holding back the article's ascension to Featured status. Great job with this article Tiamut. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer son. Much appreciated. I just caught another inconsistency in the formatting (fixed it). I'm sure there's no such thing as perfection, but I'm happy with the way its shaped up. Great to have new eyes look at it too. Tiamuttalk 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment West Jerusalem is a disambiguation link. Either delink it or link it to a relevant article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its the information on the dab page itself that is relevant. Strangely, both links lead to Jerusalem (It's a weird dab!). So I'll just delink it now. Tiamuttalk 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, delinked. Question though, a redink was created out of dismbiguating Musrara to Musrara, Jerusalem. Should I remove it? What's the thinking on redlinks in FAs? Tiamuttalk 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image review:
  • File:1900s Jerusalem old city.jpg is listed as being in the public domain because the author has been deceased for at least 70 years, but no author information is provided, and it was not taken at least 120 years ago (which would allow us to presume that the author has been deceased for at least 70 years).
About this picture, I replaced its license with the one for Mandate Palestine/Israel which allows for an image's release 50 years after publication i.e. anything published before 1959. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, I don't see any change to the file page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, how about now? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how to deal with these issues. I'm not against removing the pics if their presence is a problem to the FAC. Does anyone else know how to correct the problem? Forgive my ignorance. Tiamuttalk 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For this picture: File:Costumes, characters, etc. Native jewellery -i.e., jewelry- shop..jpg ..I asked FunkMonk to upload it; (see [15]) ..it is from the Mathson Collection, just go to the Library of Congress search page, then type in Jewellery Jerusalem. This is a "stable" link, I think: [16] -Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the info provided by Huldra (thanks my dear) to the Glass shop picture. With Al Ameer son's additions to the other one, the only remaining issue is the Khamsa pendant picture. Should we remove it? Tiamuttalk 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sourcing issues - Wording at the beginning is awkward - "a physician and pioneer in the field of medicine in Palestine, also well-known for".
    • Changed the opening sentence to be less flowery, and moved some of the information down into the pararaphs that follow.
1. Wiki - "pioneer in the field of medicine in Palestine, also well-known for being one of the foremost researchers of Palestinian popular heritage."
1. Source - "pioneers of medicine in Palestine [...] Well-known as one of the foremost researchers of Palestinian popular heritage,"
See above.
2. Wiki - "more than 1,400 amulets and other objects related to popular medicine and folk practices [...]various Palestinian cities and villages, and other Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen"
2. Source - "more than 1,400 amulets, talismans and other objects, all related to popular medicine and folk practices [...] various Palestinian cities and villages; other items came from Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen."
This information is not in the Nashef source. Its from Jubeh. Could you link me to where you got it? Because that link is now dead. In any case, its also been changed.
3. Wiki - "was facilitated by the interviews he conducted with individuals who wore them, though he also drew upon specialized sources and references on sorcery and witchcraft. He deciphered some of the symbols and wrote about the meanings of the shapes, writings, letters and numbers used, publishing one such article on the subject in a journal produced by Antiquities Museum of the American University in Beirut in 1937."
3. Source - "were facilitated by interviews with individuals who actually wrote amulets, as well as specialized sources and references in sorcery and witchcraft [...] decipher some talismanic symbols and learn the meanings of the shapes, writings, letters and numbers used in this realm of popular beliefs and medicine and magic. He wrote an article on the subject which appeared in 1937 in an antiquity studies journal published by Antiquities Museum of the American University in Beirut."
Also not in Nashef, but in Jubeh. I've rewritten it to read: "Interviews he conducted with the individuals who wore talismans constituted an important part of his analysis, which was complemented by consulting specialized sources on sorcery and witchcraft. He wrote about the meanings of the shapes, writings, letters and numbers used in his attempts at deciphering some of the symbols, and published an article on his findings in a journal produced by Antiquities Museum of the American University in Beirut in 1937."
4. Wiki - "Ceramic dishes inscribed with talismans for curing diseases and facilitating childbirth"
4. Source - "Ceramic dishes on which are written talismans for curing diseases and facilitating birth."
Also not in Nashef, but in Jubeh. It's part of a list. Do you have a suggestion on how to make it better?
5. Wiki - "provide valuable information on folk medicine and the manifestations of magic in the popular beliefs and practices of Palestinian and neighboring Arab societies – practices that exist to this day."
5. Source - "provides valuable information on [...] namely folk medicine and the manifestations of magic in the popular beliefs and practices of Palestinian and neighboring Arab societies - practices that exist to this day."
Also not in Nashef, but in Jubeh. I've changed it to read: "The collection is considered a valuable resource for those interested in the manifestations of magic in the popular beliefs underpinning folk medicine practices in Palestinian and Arab societies."
- All taken from this source, used as the first source in the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've relied heavily on the Nashef source, given that it is one of the only sources to provide biographical information on Canaan. Many of the other sources are focused on his work and its relationship to different academic fields today. But please do note that most of your examples come from another source; that by Jubeh.
Is there a problem with paraphrasing from a source when it is cited? I tend not to stray too far from the original for fear of misrepresenting the sources (when you write in a contentious subject area, as I do, sticking as close as possible to the source is a way to avoid accusations of POV and editorializing). Would you like me to alter the wording further? Tiamuttalk 09:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made some changes as indicated above. You can review them in to to, in this diff. Tiamuttalk 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll let others respond to the changes - I wont oppose on these reviews in order to stay neutral about them. I am merely digging through and providing information for reviewers who might not have the time to go through it. Cheers on the changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments and happy reviewing and editing. Tiamuttalk 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and contributed to research that led to the finding of a cure for malaria"—can we do without three of these words?
  • " Other topics covered in his medical studies included leprosy, tuberculosis, and health conditions in Palestine."—So these were a subset of all of the topics he studied? If not, use "comprised" rather than "included".
    • Not sure if those topics cover the totality of his work or not. He wrote many studies that I don't have access to, so I cannot be sure. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "have served as" could be just "were".
    • It could be, but they continue to serve that function, so I didn't want to use past tense. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Arrested by the British authorities in 1939 – his family home and clinic in Jerusalem destroyed during the 1948 Palestine war – he nevertheless managed to re-establish his life and career." Is the parenthetical bit between the dashes connected with the main sentence (enough)? It shunts forward and backwards in time.
    • Actually, its pretty much a chronology: 1939, 1948, post-1948. If you think the ideas are not connected, I can rephrase. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Arab" "Lutheran" Church: "Arab" has occurred before, unlinked. Is there a more specific link target (a section?) to Lutheranism? Otherwise, why link it again (it's linked in the infobox). WP:LINK says to try to avoid juxtaposed links like this.
    • Okay, linked to Arab Lutheran instead, linking Arab just before that, since it is not wikilinked elsewhere. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Oh, nice one (although that target article desperately needs your attention too!). Tony (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • There's so many in need of attention I sometimes feel like I'm going to drown. But thanks for thinking I could help improve it. Tiamuttalk 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why link "Beirut" when half a second later the "American University of Beirut" is linked (this target starts with a link to the city, yes?).
  • "Pneumonia" is barely worth linking. It's a dictionary word, and it's only his dad who got it.
  • Comma after "X-rays".
  • "The German-Jewish Hospital (Shaare Zedek) also sought out his services as a manager at this time."—So did he agree to work for them?
  • "Much. Much"—Pronounced differently, too.
    • Added ü for pronunciation, and change second Much to "The latter". Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Canaan married Margot Eilender, the daughter of a German importer, in January 1912, and the following year they moved into the family home which they built in the al-Musrarah district of Jerusalem. Three of their four children (Theo, Nada, and Leila) were born in that house." How can we avoid the "in that house" repetition? Possibly: "Canaan married Margot Eilender, the daughter of a German importer in January 1912. The following year they moved into the family home they built in the al-Musrarah district of Jerusalem, where three of their four children (Theo, Nada, and Leila) were born." Neater?
    • Thank you for the alternate suggestion. Replaced it with yours. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not thrilled with the prose. This is down to halfway through "Medical career". Needs sifting and improving. Tony (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'll look through the prose again from there on down with your suggestions in mind. And make some upgrades where necessary. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've done a little sifting and improving as suggested here. I found some periods and commas in the wrong place too and fixed those. I hope you find that the changes have improved the prose accordingly. Tiamuttalk 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC) PS. There is also this, which I just linked above too. Tiamuttalk 09:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 22 August 2009 [17].

British Birds Rarities Committee[edit]

Nominator(s): SP-KP (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article status. It's been a Good article for a while and the peer review generated relatively few comments, so this seems like the next logical step. Please add your comments here. SP-KP (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some initial comments[edit]

  • Since I'm pretty well COId with this article anyway, I've added some alt text, please check. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Resolved?
The alt text added so far looks good, thanks. Several images still lack alt text, though; see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox on the upper right corner of this review page. Also, one image has just the alt text "111" which I assume is a typo. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All except the "111" should now be present - could you check? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "111" is now fixed too. SP-KP (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; that was fast! It looks good. Eubulides (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved
  • Comment I did the GA assessment and participated in the PR, so unsurprisingly I can't see much wrong with this article. On the list of members, I don't like the mix of red links and no links. Although I can see why you've done this, it's not obvious to a non-birder, and I would be inclined to delink all the members without articles, which would look better too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know why the words "alt=" appear below the Grouse image? Or more importantly, how to get rid of them! SP-KP (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a bug I introduced in a template while adding alt text support to it (in order to get alt text to work with the article). Sorry about that. It's fixed now. Eubulides (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved
  • Comment, from my initial glance at the article the lead needs to do a better job of explaining A total of around 250 species is covered by the BBRC; these are selected based on a numerical threshold and the degree of difficulty of identification. I understand what it means, but only because I've worked with birds. I honestly think that you could cut and paste the line from the main text Around 550 bird species have been recorded in Britain; 250 have regular breeding or wintering populations, or are common migrants, and a further 50 are "scarce migrants". The remaining 250 species are those which the BBRC assesses to make the whole concept more understandable in the lead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with that - what do others think? SP-KP (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the suggested amendment would add more perspective to the relevant UK birds. Are these approximate numbers? or should the amendment be taken literally and these are exactly 250 species covered? "Around" is mentioned once for the estimated 550 birds seen in the UK, and I wondered if "about" or "approximately" should be added anywhere else? Snowman (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The figures are approximate (and by now, given that the source is a few years old) a little out of date. The figure is probably now clser to 300 than 250. SP-KP (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed this now; the figures are now more up to date. SP-KP (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved? SP-KP (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do any of the editors of the page have any conflicts of interest to declare? ie that they are associated or know people who are associated with the committee. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only editor I'm aware of who does is Nigel Hudson, who I assume is the same Nigel Hudson who is the committee's secretary, who edited the page on 24 Oct 2008. SP-KP (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I assume that his contribution(s) has been checked for neutrality? Snowman (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I checked it and amended the text slightly to make the words more neutral. SP-KP (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved? SP-KP (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

  • Logo; I am curious to know how the grouse logo originated. Perhaps this is an omission. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The grouse logo is the logo of British Birds magazine, as opposed to the rarities committee itself. So this is really a "To Do" point for the British Birds article, would you agree? SP-KP (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is it the wrong logo for this page? Snowman (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In their annual reports and other publications, they use the logo of Zeiss, their sponsor. Personally, I don't think that would be appropriate here as it would seem like a bit of free advertising. SP-KP (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is the Zeiss logo actually the committee's logo? or is it featured at the sponsors logo? I guess that fair use of the Zeiss logo would be permitted. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, the Grouse logo is the logo of British Birds magazine, the Zeiss logo is Zeiss's logo and is just used by BBRC as part of the sponsorship deal, and BBRC doesn't have a logo of its own. Assuming this is a correct interpretation of the situation, what would be the appropriate thing to do? SP-KP (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am hearing that the logo in the infobox is the logo of the British Birds mag. What is the case for using the British Birds logo here? I have pointed out a problem, and if there is a doubt about the logo then one solution would be to remove it, but there may be other answers. Why not use the textlogo.gif that on on the committee's website situated between the grouse logo and the Ziess logo? Snowman (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite the name, I'm sceptical that BBRC would regard that as a logo - I can't find this graphic anywhere in their recent publications. I'm not sure what the right answer to this is. Let's see what others have to say. SP-KP (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has commented over the last two weeks. So what are you going to do about the logo in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to leave it as it is: it doesn't seem to be a big issue, otherwise we'd have had some comments. Is that OK, or would it cause you to oppose FA status? SP-KP (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything on a page for FA status needs supporting evidence. Where is the evidence that the logo is appropriate? Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a fair point. Unless I can find some harder evidence that the logo is appropriate, it seems like the best thing to do would be just to remove the logo and not have one on the page at all, would you agree? SP-KP (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the logo currently in the infobox cannot be proven to be the correct logo, it seems logical to remove the logo. What is your evidence for being sceptical about using the textlogo.gif that on on the committee's website situated between the grouse logo and the Ziess logo? It does seem to have the right sort of letters and they are shown in the right sequence. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've removed it. Re: the logo on the website - this is the only place I can find this image used. I've just checked a) a recent BBRC annual report, b) a recent "BBRC news & announcements" and c) Dean (2007)'s history of BBRC, and none of them contain this image. SP-KP (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images[edit]

  • Images; I expect with 250 to 300 birds on the list you could find some really good images on commons for the page. Currently one image has a watermark, one is a bit rotated and the ?reeds in the water are all at an incline, and the seabird is a bit blurred, one bird has got leg rings on. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point. How many would you like to see ideally? SP-KP (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is some guidance on the max number of images on a page in MOS. Probably get more points for quality and relevance rather than quantity of images. For FA I think the watermark on the Greenish Warbler should be removed and the White's Thrush rotation corrected. The other images would probably be OK for FA, but overall I am a little disappointed in the resolution of the images selected. Some high-quality high-resolution images may add extra interest to the page, but if there is none available, so be it. Please note that I have not checked the copyright licences of the images. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have cropped and rotated the White's Thrush image and shown the new version on the page. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are a few other possibilities. Let me know what you think of these.

SP-KP (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked at them quickly for now, but I expect some people would look at every detail of these images at high resolution. One has got a watermark that could be removed. I think that "Black-headed Bunting" is excellent, it is 2,000 × 1,333 px in size. Perhaps the main editors of the page can decide on what are the best and most relevant images. I have not checked the copyright licences. Incidentally, is there something more interesting for a caption than "Black-and-white Warbler, a species on the BBRC's list" and "White's Thrush, another species on the BRRC list". Snowman (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point re: the captions, I'm sure we can do better. As for the selection of images, I'll start a discussion on the talk page on this and we'll see where that goes. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still see a watermark on one of the images? Snowman (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue of which images we use isn't resolved yet - current focus is on the problems with the text. Once they're sorted, I'll then switch my efforts to this last remaining problem. SP-KP (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is work in progress. To me the visual aids currently shown in the article are disappointing. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Oppose Reluctant withdrawal of straight oppose: I do not think this particularly well-written, so if it's promoted, please tend to the writing regularly. Needs an independent copy-edit; not a quick job, either. Here are examples from the top of why significant improvements are required to achieve a professional standard.

Thanks for these comments - I can work on fixing these specifics, but you said that these are just examples. Are you aware of any editors who are experienced copy-editors who could help out with the task? SP-KP (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update - I've posted a request at the Guild of Copyeditors page, but given that they have a big backlog, it would be useful if anyone else could help out, or knows of any editors who would. SP-KP (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "resulting in many species being removed from the committee's list to be classed as "scarce migrants"—the noun plus -ing issue. So easy to make more elegant, here by nominalising: "resulting in the removal of many species from the committee's list to be classed as "scarce migrants".
Fixed - please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But more seriously, I don't understand the meaning: remove it from the list and then it's classed as a scarce migrant? What was the list of, then?

Thanks. I'll address the style point. On the meaning point, the list is of "rare" species; "scarce" in this context means "not quite rare enough to be called rare". Can you think of a way in which we can make this clearer? SP-KP (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reading the lead, I'm desperate to know the basis on which a species is eligible to be called "rare". Is it a hard-and-fast set of criteria?
That's buried deeper in the text. I felt it was too detailed to go in the lead, but we could include it there if you felt that was necessary? SP-KP (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "an annual report in British Birds magazine." Missing "the"? If you're not comfortable with "the", try "in the specialist magazine, British Birds.", or something like that.
Fixed - please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further down, it's referred to as a journal. There's a big difference. Which is it? And can you specify whether it's monthly or occasional or annual?

Google gives a similar number of hits for '"British Birds" magazine' and '"British Birds" journal', although '"British Birds" journal -magazine' wins out over '"British Birds" magazine -journal' by 3:2. BB's own website uses journal in the viewable text, and magazine in the HTML source! As many of the hits for magazine will come from Wikipedia or mirrors, I propose we rename that British Birds article and then use journal consistently in this one. SP-KP (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not good prose: "Its original purpose was to provide a means whereby uniform assessment standards could be applied to all rare bird records across Britain,[1] rather than each record being assessed according to different standards by local bird recording organisations, as had happened prior to then.[2]". Perhaps "was to develop and maintain a set of uniform standards for assessing records of all rare birds in Britain; until then, each record was assessed according to the standards and methods of local ..."? My lack of knowledge is a hindrance, but please reword somehow. Note the "noun + -ing" again.
Fixed - please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just looking downwards, the huge list of people who've served the Committee would be better under a cover/hidden bar, whatever they're called, at the bottom of the article, I think. Others may advise differently. Tony (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave this for now until a consensus emerges on what we should do. SP-KP (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've done brief a copy-edit. Please check, since I don't have the knowledge for final judgements in some cases.
Thanks, I'll work my way through these later. SP-KP (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "racial identification" the right wording? Does "racial" mean "species? Might be misunderstood by some readers, given politicial sensitivities.

Racial attribution is the term usually used in ornithological literature, though might be perceived as jargon? Race in this context means "subspecies" rather than "species". SP-KP (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do question every use of "also", please.
I've checked through and can't find any that seem obviously out of place. Let me know if you disagree. SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "280", but "twenty"? Where is your boundary? I switched it.
That's fine. Did you find any others? SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When you talk of "assess(ment)", is this in the taxonomic sense? I find it scientifically a bit vague.
No, not taxonomic assessment, it means looking at the evidence presented (photos, written descriptions etc.) to establish if they provide enough evidence that the bird is/was the species that it is/was claimed to be, and not a misidentified example of a common species. SP-KP (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do the recordings/sightings contain? Is there a pro-forma that observers fill in, thus encouraging standardised data?
Typically, a description, a sketch and some background information on the sighting and the observer. More recently, most records have been supported by a photo, video or sound-recording, and some are specimen records. There is a standard form, which is available from the BBRC website. SP-KP (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the fact that full closing page ranges are not given, but I think MOSNUM says at least two digits are required.
All fixed (I think! Please check) SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Choppy paragraphing in "Role and status". It may be OK, but can the sponsorship bit go last?
Order fixed, and some merging of paragraphs done. Let me know what you think. SP-KP (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The committee generally considers the records of only species which are rare enough to meet its criteria for inclusion on the BBRC rarities list"—but surely it must keep tabs on the next category up, lest it miss increasing rarity?
That's true - if we change "considers" to "assesses" would this deal with this point? SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Ten rare men" .... hmmmph, my gender-neutral antenna is beeping. It may have been dubbed this by Cocker in 2001, whoever s/he is, but I'd be very happy to drop that as gender-excusivist. Are there any female members? Potential talent might be turned off, frankly.
The phrase "ten rare men" dates from the early days of the committee, pre-dating Cocker's book by a few decades. It's a useful search term of historical interest, but that's all - I'll move it to the section which covers the lack of female members. SP-KP (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please attend to 87p488 and the like. Dot and space after "p".
I think these are all fixed now, please check. SP-KP (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I removed my pet hate: in order to". Never worked out the attraction to it.
Fixed, only one left, but it's in a direct quote. SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "to date": which date? You might consider "since 2004", which is a little looser as to "the present" (which changes constantly). And perhaps evern "appointed 2004"?
Fixed. SP-KP (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still lots to fix. Tony (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Committee organisation[edit]

Despite a list of over 60 assessors, I find the committee a little intangible in the article, so I am listing a number of questions to cover possible omissions. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, some answers below. Please let me know how you'd like me to change the article to address these points. SP-KP (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article can be amended by making additions to cover omissions. Try to imagine that you were explaining about how the committee worked to a new volunteer, or to explain what happens to a photo of a rare bird to someone who was submitting a photograph. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One sponsor is mentioned, and I wonder if anything about finances, cash flow, and payment to staff could be included. Is the British Birds magazine a sponsor? What are their main expenses? What are their sources of income. Are any of the helpers unpaid volunteers? What is their legal status? (ie plc, charity, hobby group, or something else). The word "volunteers" occurs only once in the article and that is in the infobox, so something is missing in the text, if the infobox is correct. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, BB is the "parent body" not a sponsor. I suspect that there isn't any published information about finances & cashflow. The funding comes (entirely, I believe) from Zeiss. All personnel are unpaid. The legal status is unclear (there's a section in the article covering this). SP-KP (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is little in the article about these funds and what the main expenses are. I saw the bit about status and I was specially asking about legal status - is it a plc or part of BB or what?. Has anyone tried to sue the committee? Is there a method of appeal for someone who saw a rare bird and disagreed with their conclusions? Do they make a profit? Who does the accounts? What is a "parent body"? If they are part of BB, then there may be something in their accounts. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll see what I can find out, but we might have to accept that this topic won't be covered as completely as we'd like, due to there not being any published material available to base any content on. SP-KP (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lack of published information is sometimes a problem, however, can a search be done for what exactly is the association between BB and the committee. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has anything turned up? Snowman (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately not. I can keep trying though - is this a FA failure issue? SP-KP (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is probably not a failure issue any more in my opinion, but details about the sponsorship are obvious omissions for one reason or another. In-the-round, I am glad that my questions trawling omissions has turned up some new information. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do the members actually meet in a room, if so where do they meet? How many meetings are there per year? How long does a meeting last? How many hours per week to the assessors do per week? Snowman (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the work used to be done by postal circulation, and is now done by email. There are one or two meetings a year. I think the assessors are expected to be able to commit up to 10 hours per week to their work at the busiest periods. SP-KP (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sound like something that could be added to the article. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll add some info to the article on this SP-KP (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dabs[edit]

Please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page this links to gives me an error. Can you try it and let me know if the same happens to you? SP-KP (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've fixed most of these. I'd appreciate your advice on what I should do about the two remaining ones: it should be clear from the sentences in which they appear why I'm not sure about these two. SP-KP (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest delinking the dabs and linking the specific species. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That will mean that the first mention of "olivaceous warbler" and "Bonelli's warbler", unfamiliar terms to msny readers, won't be wikilinked. Is that OK? SP-KP (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's OK, as linking to a dab page wouldn't help much. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK - I've done these two now. Please can you check this resolves all dab links? SP-KP (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More recent comments[edit]

Current status of this nomination:

  • Awaiting a reply from Tony1 on fixes applied in relation to his copyediting concerns (Tony1 is away until 22 Aug)
  • The issue of better quality images is outstanding and has been raised on the article's talk page.
  • Some other issues raised by Snowman left to resolve.

Does anyone else have any other concerns/issues/queries? SP-KP (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Current ref 3 (BBRC website) needs a publisher.
Fixed SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currrent ref 11 (BBRC website, Current rare..) needs publisher and last access date
Fixed SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Current ref 27 is just a bare url. Needs publisher, last access date and title at the very least.
This isn't a ref as such, more a link to show people where the data is online - it was in the text, but moved here due to style issues. SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still needs a formatted title at the least. And should have publisher and last access date just to fit in with the rest of the refs Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you say a formatted title, can you explain how that differs from what's there currently. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed it myself, all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ResolvedSP-KP (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I read through the lead and the first section and found lots of problems indicating the prose needs work. WP:LEAD issues, ambiguous and unnecessarily passive language, and other problems exist. Examples follow, but they are not comprehensive—this needs an independent copyeditor. Recommend getting Jimfbleak or another experienced bird FA writer to go through the whole thing.
Good idea, which has been suggested by one reviewer already. I'll make an appeal at WP:BIRD. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't see where in the article the very first sentence of the lead is supported. Recognized by whom? In fact, the "Role and status" section only muddies the issue, and provides no reliable source definitively backing up that lead statement.
Good spot - this needs to change. Any thoughts on what phrase should I use instead? SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No suggestions, because I don't know what is supported in the literature. Rather than rewording, we need to find a reliable source that calls BBRC "regonized". --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I have the answer - BBRC is recognised by the Association of European Rarities Committees as the body which represents Britain. If I add this statement to the Role & Status section, backed up by a reference to AERC's website, can we then leave the word "recognised" in the lead? SP-KP (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Penchant for using the ambiguous "this" in reference to previous statements needs to be corrected where unclear. Ex. "this has resulted in their removal from the committee's list and their classification" and "and this has led some observers to suggest that the committee sets too high a standard". In both cases, it's unclear exactly what "this" is referring to.
OK, this can be fixed easily enough. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We seem to be relying on an anonymous editorial for some fairly important facts: the time and purpose of the foundation of this organization. We can't find anything better? Now that I think of it though, why is the editorial anonymous? It's written by the editor of the journal, right?
It's a convention in many bird journals that editorials aren't signed by their authors, and then when these are quoted, they're quoted as "anon". If that's not allowed here, we could user "The editors of British Birds" - would that work? SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer "Editor" or even "Staff" to "Anon". We know more information than "Anon" suggests. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Prior to this, records were assessed by local bird recording organisations using varying standards." Another ambiguous "this"; also, why passive voice when the subject is known?
No reason other than as a writer, I don't have the same aversion to using the passive voice that some other writers do. Would this be a bar to this article becoming an FA? If so, I could change it. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my recent comment below re: passive voice. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed the 'this' problem in this sentence - please check. On the passive voice question, this seems like one place where the passive voice is better, as the focus of the sentence is on the records and their treatment, not the local organisations. Let me know if you disagree. SP-KP (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "BBRC's constitution states that it 'has no automatic or legal expectation that birders submit records'." What does this mean, or what implications does it have to the theme of the para, which is the BBRC's "status"?
This sentence is intended to follow on from the comments made previously about the committee's official or statutory nature - to clarify that the committee itself has said that it in no way automatically requires observers to submit records. Is there a better way of making this point? SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't understand what it signifies, so I'm not sure how to answer your question. Are you saying they accept some observations without records? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "For many years, records of IRBC-assessed rarities were included in the BBRC's annual reports, but this ceased in 2002, at the request of IRBC." Just not well-written: "for many years" is too nebulous; passive again; why suddenly "the BBRC" when you've written just "BBRC" elsewhere? Much better: "BBRC's annual reports included records of IRBC-assessed rarities until the 2002, when they ceased at the request of IRBC."
Would you like the exact number years specified? I'm sure I can find that out. I'll remove the "the" - good spot. Same question as above re passive voice. SP-KP (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exact number of years would be ideal, or at least a more precise statement. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • "BB rarities" - is jargon a shortened version of something? Snowman (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Graphical aids: A flow chart of the steps that the committee take to classify a report might be useful? Possibly histograms of bird numbers and throughputs year by year. And possibly a chart of the hierarchy of the committee and associated committees. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good ideas - I'll add this to the To Do list on the talk page. SP-KP (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved? SP-KP (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who are the people that submit observations? Snowman (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically anyone can - I'll try to find out if there's been any research into the demographics of the record-contributors. SP-KP (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would guess that most of them are keen bird-spotting hobbyists with high-power cameras, but I am not informed about this by the article. To say anyone can send in a claim is probably correct, but it does convey any information of where the submissions are actually from. Snowman (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does something need to be said about the hobby of bird-spotting and sometimes travelling a long way in Britain at short notice to see a bird or birds? Snowman (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably something better included in an article on Birdwatching in Britain ? SP-KP (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think something about the observers should to be mentioned, because the submissions do not pop up from nowhere. I think that it will help to put the work of the committee in perspective, and the text might not seem so terse in places. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see from the references that "Rarities Committee news" is published, but the existence of this news is not mentioned in the text. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, please check. SP-KP (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dean (2007) lists the committee's purpose as "Application of uniform adjudication standards to claimed rare birds in England, Scotland and Wales". Based on the Wikpedia article I too was sceptical about this word, but Wiktionary gives an alternative, broader definition "to act as a judge" which is presumably what is really meant. Is there a better word we could use? SP-KP (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are not sure how to fix it, then you might start a discussion about it on the talk page. "Ornithological sightings adjudication" is not quite the same as "Application of uniform adjudication standards" I would say. I think that "Ornithological sightings adjudication" could be misunderstood to mean conflict resolution, and I do not think that is in the business of sorting out disputes between two parties. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I think I have fixed it myself. I have amended the ambiguous part of the infobox. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new wording is good. SP-KP (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved SP-KP (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comments: Some improvements are present, but I'm still not happy with the prose. I read just the last couple sections and found problems. Passive voice isn't a dealbreaker, but I ask you to consider whether it serves the reader in each case. If the sentence is twisted to bury the subject when the subject is the focus of the statement, passive is not ideal. If the sentence is twisted to eliminate the subject when the audience needs to know it, the passive is wrong. More sample issues:
    • "its policy is to watch patterns closely and reviewing those observers' past records on a regular basis." Parallel structure needed WRT "to watch" and "reviewing"
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Vittery contrasted the BBRC's attitude with that of other national rarities committees, and arguing that the result of the approach is to distort rarity statistics." Same problem, "contrasted" and "arguing".
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The record is currently being reviewed again by BBRC to establish if this earlier decision should be upheld." Language too recent, considering the only date even mentioned in the para is 1998.
Not sure I understand this comment - can you explain further? SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "A BBRC subcommittee was set up in 1997 to undertake a review of rare bird records from the years immediately prior to the committee's establishment." Unclear what "the committee" is referring to. BBRC? The subcommittee? One has to read on and discover the 1950 statement to understand.
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The rationale for this is to ensure that all records ..." Another ambiguous "this"; does it refer to the establishment of the subcommittee or the review? Or both? Why not just "The purpose of the review was to ensure that all records ..."? Note the change in tense; I'm assuming the review isn't still going.
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "... have been subjected to a similar level of scrutiny." As worded, means similar to each other since no object was specified (similar to what?). I'm assuming you actually mean similar to modern records.
Isn't that what it says, though - "ALL records since 1950" i.e. including the earliest and the most recent ones? SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The most notable outcome of this review ..." Does ref 122 back up this statement, or does it just provide a summary of the reclassification?
Do you mean "Does ref 122 state that this the reidentification of the frigatebird was the most notable finding"? If so, no - I presume the concern here is that this statement is OR/POV on my part. That's a fair point. Can I say "arguably" or is that too weaselwordy? Should I avoid making a judgment on notability altogether? SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Of the 126 records reviewed, 37 were rejected as no longer being acceptable." Unwieldy. Consider the much cleaner "rejected as unacceptable".
Fixed. Please check. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there were accepted for a review. What were they unacceptable for? Is "did not convincingly show the identity of the bird" or something like this better? Snowman (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say. BBRC has a policy of not stating specific reasons behind its decisions. SP-KP (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not mean specific reasons. I was trying to explain that it does not explain properly. I think that is should convey the meaning that "the committee thought that the submission claiming that a particular rare bird was seen did not contain adequate corroborative evidence for the committee to view the submission as being accurate". Snowman (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I understand now. The paper detailing the results of the review says that "Most non-acceptances stemmed from the unfortunate brevity of published accounts or the lack of features that we now know to be crucial diagnostic characters." - does this help? SP-KP (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was saying this because I thought the article needed modification. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know. What I need to know is if the quote I pasted above answers the query - if it does, I can put some words along these lines in the article to address the issue. If not, then I need to find something better. What do you think? SP-KP (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is lack of features? - presumably on photographs. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)aReply[reply]
What I think this means is that the written descriptions published did not contain enough detail to be sure that the bird was what the observers said it was i.e. the description could equally well apply to a common species. The observers may well have been certain that the species wasn't the common species, but they didn't capture on paper the reasons why they felt it a rare one. Very few rare birds in those days were photographed, and I'm pretty sure none of those rejected in the review had photographs, just written notes. SP-KP (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this uncertain from the reference if this is a photographic feature or an inadequate written description? I think that cameras were readily available during the time that you refer to. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(reset indent) Here's the text. I think this makes clear we're talking about written documentation - what do you think? SP-KP (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Apparent problems:
  • The talk page is the main place for discussion on the article. Incidentally, there may be a copyright problem is copying so much and it may be better to delete the quotation. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was always my intention to do that - copying it here is a temporary measure to help you to determine whether your conclusion about the reasons for rejection matches mine. What do you conclude from the above? SP-KP (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the sort of thing that could be a good topic for discussion on the talk page. Please note that I am not watching this page or the article. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the long quotation, which looked like a copyright violation. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Considering the topic of the review of the 1950 to 1957 reports is a whole section in the article, I think it has several omissions of readily available information. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1100 sightings were within the scope during the time period, and this is omitted in the article. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, please check SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Missing or irretrievable information is not mentioned in the article. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, please check SP-KP (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That the archives were not passed on the the sale of the magazine in the 1960s appears to be another omission. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, please check SP-KP (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Provisional conclusion on FA criteria 1b and 3: With regard to criteria 1b I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the article is not ready for FA status at this juncture, and, in addition, several apparent omissions in the published sources apparently stemming from lack of information about the sponsorship, and financial arrangements of the committee, and uncertainties about a logo, may have a tendency to make it more difficult for this article to attain FA status until this information is published. The images probably pass FA criteria 3, but I think that the visual aids shown in the article could be better, and I understand work is in progress. I have tried to be objective, but I regularly edit bird pages so I have a conflict of interest. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 22 August 2009 [18].

4 Minutes (Madonna song)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel this article meets the Featured article criteria. I have submitted this article previously for peer review and refreshed the prose, making it flow and crisp better taking into consideration the points elaborated in previous FAC. Hence I'm submitting it again --Legolas (talk2me) 10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Eubulides (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks Eubulides. Its done. --Legolas (talk2me) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Looks good, except that I would remove the proper names from the alt text, as they duplicate what's in the caption, and substituting a brief description for the names (e.g., "blonde woman" for "Madonna") will help explain the visual appearance better. Eubulides (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the alternate text and border options. But somehow its not reflecting. Don't know whjy:( --Legolas (talk2me) 06:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's working for me; maybe you tweaked it later? Anyway, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nopes. Still doesnot work for me. Its showing hte filename only. This is happening only forthe infobox image. Oh, well. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • This source redirects to the website's homepage.
  • This redirects to this.
  • This source seems to no longer be working.
  • This source redirects to this.

— Σxplicit 05:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replaced the dead links. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not happy with the prose yet. It's not too bad, but needs an independent copy-edit to spruce things up to the required professional standard throughout. Please ping me when done. Dabomb might be able to help to find a good person?

  • I'm unsure of the guideline for italicising titles: "4 minutes to save the world", but I am because we are? And is it the writer's option whether to use Title Case in Titles rather than sentence case? I'd prefer sentence case, but if there's an option, naturally it's no big deal.
    "4 Minutes to Save the World" is a song title (MOS:MUSIC#Classical music titles) and I Am Because We Are is a film (WP:ITALICS), so these are fine. MOS:CAPS#Section headings indicates to use sentence case in headers. — Σxplicit 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy as well as other European nations"—not grammatical. "and other ..." would be OK, and would avoid the "marked" version of "and" that is "as well as", hardly required here. If you retain "as well as", you need "Germany and Italy, as well as ...".
  • "top-ten hit"—with hyphen, probably.
  • "The accompanying music video portrays the idea of the song."—I've no knowledge of this, but I'd have though all such vids portrayed the idea of the song. And "theme" or "several layers of meaning in the song" might be better, if true. Otherwise, consider removing: "The accompanying music video depicts M...."
    • removed the idea part, joined the two sentences to say "The accompanying music video portrays Madonna...". --Legolas (talk2me) 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • described as "heart pounding" (rather than "called").
  • Comma in this: "Together they produced the track whereas Madonna and Timberlake penned the lyrics."
  • Avoid rep by removing "songs": "The song was one of the last songs to be produced for the album." Tony (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Other concerns has been addressed. I have changed the prose further upto my best abilities. --Legolas (talk2me)

Support The nominator has chased down a seemingly endless number of comments and suggestions from myself, and I'm happy to say the article is look very very good because of it. The prose has come along way, and I believe the article now represents the very best of Wikipedia. Great job! Drewcifer (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Comments Sorry for the late reply in asking for some comments on the prose. Basically, I think the prose in the article is decent, but it does need alot of work. Here's some notes so far: Reply[reply]

  • Skipping a head a little bit to the reception section, did not one reviewer have a negative take on the song? I find that hard to believe.
    • See above.
  • "In 2009, the song received a Grammy nomination in the Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals category." Try and avoid the passive voice the "In 2009" part.
    • Removed "in 2009".
  • "with the sounds of a great big marching band" this sounds like a direct quote?
    • Quoted.
  • The section in Music and lyrics where you describe each passage of the song seems really unnecessary, especially in the detail provided. I'm not sure if there's any encyclopedic value to reading a plot-summary of the music, so to speak.
    • Removed the too much of details. Just a gist.
  • The section is a little heavy on the music side of things, and barely even scratches the surface of the lyrics. The quote kind of skirts around the topic, but doesn't really address the lyrics much at all.
    • changed the section name to "Composition".
  • "for the issue dated ___" This is used 4 times I think. Is this a necessary detail? Seems very trivial to the topic at hand. In the latter three instances, it's not clear what the issue is of.
    • Corrected.
  • "Thus, the song became Madonna's first top-ten since her 2005 single "Hung Up," and was her thirty-seventh Hot 100 top-ten hit; thus breaking Elvis Presley's record as the artist with the most top ten hits.[6] "" Two thus's in the same sentence.
    • Removed two thus's to one thus.
  • Why is the Canadian stuff in the paragraph that seems focused on Oceania?
    • Rearranged the paragraphs.
  • "conceptualistic" Huh? is this a direct quote?
    • Quoted.
  • "the video was shot like a march past" What does that mean?
  • "understand the concept of black screen" THE black screen? A black screen? Something is missing here.
    • Inserted "THE".
  • "starts engulfing all the musical device present" devices?
    • Devices
  • "Timbaland's voice break into the encore" breaks? And is it really an encore? I don't think an encore is something that happens in a music video, since it's usually an audience demanding more. The audience is passive in this case.
    • Correct. Removed line.
  • "The song has a chord progression like D—G—C—F—A♯—D." What do you mean like?
    • Included "of"
  • "the song debuted at number twenty-seven on April 5, 2008" Does this date have any relevance to anything? I think the exact date is unnecessary detail.
  • There is way too much detail about Miley Cyrus' parody video. Why do we care about her grandmother?
    • briefed to one line.
  • For multi-platinum certifications, don't use the letter "x", use the multiplication sign: "×".
  • "2008-2009" needs an en-dash (–), not a hyphen.
  • In the same section, I believe you're a little unclear on what certifications are based on: not sales, but numbers of copies shipped (see Music recording sales certification). So the "sales" column should be renamed. Also, I would recommend taking a look at Music recording sales certification and List of music recording sales certifications, since some of figures are off, I believe.
    • Corrected
  • In the Charts section, "Peak Position" isn't a proper noun, so the second word (position) shouldn't be capitalized. Drewcifer (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The second section of Writing and inspiration (after the Madonna block quote) seems very out of place. I think I know what you were going for: that it was written with a global frame of mind, but the way it's written doesn't really get there. So, not only does it not seem to have any relevance to the writing or inspiration of the song, but the three sentences and one quote seem to have nothing to do with each other. So basically that little section seems a little undernourished. And I'm not sure what the second quote provides that the first didn't already say.
    • You are right. Hence the quote is removed. Only the part about the song being one of the inspirations for Madonna to direct the documentary is kept.
      • Better, but the two sentences remaining still seem a little unrelated. Perhaps the problem is that we don't necessarily know what I Am Because We Are is or what it's about, so to the uneducated (like me), the connection isn't clear.
        • Included a one line description about I Am Because We Are.
  • "which made the song enter" "made" seems like an odd word choice here.
    • Changed the construction.
  • "After choreographed dancing Madonna strips down to her corset and do a back arching." Poor grammar here.
    • Do -> does
      • Still seems poorly worded. Whatabout "does a back arch"?
        • Included.
  • "Madonna agreed with Ingrid" Did she specifically agree with Ingrid? Or did she just seem express a similar viewpoint?
    • She specifically agreed. She said "Yes" when Ingrid described the song as stated above. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Reviewers called the song one of the most thrilling things Madonna has done in decades and one of Hard Candy's best moments. Some noted that Madonna, rather than Timberlake, appeared more of a featured artist in the song. Timberlake's vocals were compared to Michael Jackson's.[4]" I have a problem with this whole passage. The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole, and so when summarizing critical reception it's important not to make it sound like one critic's viewpoint is summarizing every critic's viewpoint. As it is written, it sounds like every reviewer called the song "one of the most thrilling things Madonna has done in decades" (actually a very specific critique, which I'm sure only one or two reviewers actually said). The rest of that passage is somewhat similar in that it paints a broad stroke with a fairly specific opinion. I would recommend being a little vaguer here in the lead, and leave the nitty-gritty details to the reception section itself. The same could be said for the passage "The video was described as "heart-pounding", and was compared to the music video of Michael Jackson's "Thriller"."
    • Removed unnecessary details. However, amongst the reviewers, negative comments were due to the fact that MAdonna appeared as a featured artist in the song, more so than Timberlake. Hence that is kept.
      • It's hard to tell what you've changed, but the same problem remains: the opinion of a single reviewer is presented as a summary for all critical reception. Stuff like "loud, busy, energetic track with a great hook, chorus and a futuristic sound", followed by a single reference. This is obviously fine in the main article, but the lead summarizes the topic as a whole, so it's really not the place for such a glowing review.
  • In the Sales and certifications, spell out the certifying body, rather than just providing abbreviations.
    • Spelling out the whole body, don't you think it will elongate the table further? I am fine with spelling it out but just thought that problems can come regarding screen resolutions for those who donot watch the site with screen greater than 640x480. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You're absolutely right, but you should avoid using abbreviations if the abbreviation isn't explained before hand. So, what I recommend is to redo the table a bit, based mainly on the current standard for discography articles. I recommend doing something such as what is done on With Teeth, though you could keep the two-column format if you wish. This boils down the table to its essential ingredients (country and award), while still providing more information if the reader wants it (certifying body and what the certification means in numbers of copies shipped). Drewcifer (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Madonna performed the song in the Hard Candy Promo Tour and the Sticky & Sweet Tour" on the or during the.
  • Also, was the Hard Candy tour really called the "Hard Candy Promo Tour"? Same with the "Stick & Sweet Tour"?
    • Sticky & Sweet Tour was called that only even in the official release. The Hard Candy Promo Tour was not called that officially. There is actually no official name. Hence I find it best to restructure the sentence as "the promotional tour for Hard Candy and the Sticky & Sweet Tour." What do you think?
  • "4:04 (Album Version)" Album version isn't really a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized.Drewcifer (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Legolas (talk2me) 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "the song also presents Timbaland's characteristic bhangra beats" does it present anything? I think present implies some sort of faculty or action or intention, which a song cannot do.
    • Changed to incorporated.
  • "Madonna's witness" poor verbage here.
  • "of the suffering of the people of Africa" of the, of the. Try and rewrite this, since it doesn't flow very well at the moment.
    • Changed the structure of the sentence to "Madonna's visit to Africa and witnessing the suffering of the people there".
  • "giant black screen that devours everything on its path" everything in its path.
    • Changed.

That's it for now. I'll take another look once all of this is fixed or addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Hope I have been able to address your concerns. Write back if you feel it's still not done.--Legolas (talk2me) 05:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and how people could have fun during the saving process" a little awkward. Howabout "and how people could have fun in the process." Simple and smoother, I think.
  • ""4 Minutes" has been praised by contemporary critics." This still bothers me a bit, since it sounds like opinion as fact. A think a simple fix would be "many contemporary critics".
  • "Timberlake's vocals were compared to Michael Jackson's." I'm not sure this should be in the lead, since it doesn't seem like a major point in the article itself (it's only mentioned once). Being in the lead makes it sound like a bigger deal then I think it was (one reviewer making the connection, as opposed to many).
  • "Madonna performed the song at the promotional tour for Hard Candy and the Sticky & Sweet Tour." Again, "on" or "during" instead of "at".
  • "It received a first airing" awkward way of stating this. Consider rephrasing.
  • ""4 Minutes" is a collaboration between Madonna, Justin Timberlake and Timbaland." I think this statement needs to come sooner, perhaps the very first sentence of the section. The previous sentence, about Timbaland debuting the song comes out of nowhere because we have no idea what Timbaland has to do with the song.
  • "through mutual sessions and brain-stormings" what is a mutual session? and brain-stomrings is poor verbiage.
  • "When asked about the meaning of the song and whether it was trying to convey a message" If they were asking about the meaning of the song, weren't they aksing about the message too? This statement seems very redundant.
  • "Madonna agreed with Ingrid" refer to the interviewer by her last name, not her first.
  • "The documentary dealt with the acute suffering and food-shortage of the population of Malawi." Very awkwardly phrased. Consider "The documentary dealt with the acute suffering and food-shortages afflicting the African nation of Malawi." This also helps describe what Malawi is, and links this sentence back to the global thing.
  • This seems minor, I know, but for fair-use rules, album covers need to be less than 300x300 pixels. So the picture in the infobox needs to be shrunk just a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Scanning through the article a bit more.... Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wikilink Jon Pareles.
  • "According to Jon Pareles of The New York Times, lyrically the song sounds as if four minutes is the time taken for a song to be a guaranteed pop hit or the time required for a quick sexual intercourse. However, he felt that in reality it is the only song from Hard Candy album which contains a message of social awareness in it." This is written much like a quote, so I'm assuming it is. So quote directly, rather than incorporating it into the prose.
  • The Madonna quote at the end of the composition section seems to get a little off-topic. The beginning of it makes sense, but it goes on so long it kind of starts talking about stuff unrelated to lyrics or the composition of the song. As an exercise, read the sentence before the quote, then the quote, then the sentence before the quote again. Drewcifer (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "sometimes brilliantly.".[" two periods here. not sure which one is the right one.
  • " "Touch My Body." " the period belongs outside of the quote. Not sure if you're aware of this (and I haven't been checking for this so far, but if a quote ends a sentence of yours, the punctuation should only come inside the quote if the quote itself ended with similar punctuation. So, if your quoting something mid-phrase from the source, but it ends your sentence, the period would go outside of the quote. So in this case, since a song's name has no punctuation, the period should go on the outside. You have alot of quotations ending sentences in this article, so it would be worth checking. Drewcifer (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see instructions at WP:FAC, do not add collapsible headers as they bomb out archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be happy to remove the headers once all of my concerns are addressed or once the nomination succeeds/fails. But for the moment there's a pretty long list of comments I've made, and this helps organize them to show which have been addressed and which are pending. So I'd like to keep it as is, for the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "On August 18, 2008 the single was certified two times platinum" Again, I don't think the date is important here. Also, rephrase to "double platinum" rather than "two times platinum".
    • I believe for certification the date is important. It denotes how long a song or album took to get certified from the day it got released. This will reflect more about its commercial reception.
      • I see, well at least you have a reason behind it. So, I have two suggestions, choose whichever you think is more appropriate. On one hand, at least take the years off the dates. The year it was certified is obvious. Or, what I would suggest, is instead of providing a specific date, reword to say something like "after three days" or "four days after its release", or something like that. Providing the date doesn't necessarily tell the reader how long it took, since they'd have to make the connection themselves. Drewcifer (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I incorporated your second suggestion, looked good to me. So removed the dated and made the sentence like "Four months after its release, the song..." --Legolas (talk2me) 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ""4 Minutes" made its debut on the official UK Singles Chart at number-seven on March 23, 2008 based on download sales alone." and "On the issue dated, April 20, 2008" same thing, why are these dates important?
    • Done
  • ""4 Minutes" has been certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association" Don't need to wikify platinum here, since you already did so previously. Same with ""4 Minutes" has been certified gold" later on.
  • "for sales of 70,000 copies" copies shipped, not sold. same with "for sales in excess of 7,500 copies."
    • Done.
  • "The music video was directed by French duo Jonas & François who had previously directed Justice's video for the single "D.A.N.C.E."." Why do we care about the Justice video? If we want to find out more, we'll click the link.
    • Done.
  • Why does "gentle lighting" wikilink to Lighting control console? Drewcifer (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments—
  • Is the release history section useful or necessary? I do not see how a collection of release dates will be of interest to the general reader. I strongly suggest removal.
  • WP:CHARTS states "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total."
  • Well I brought it down to 20. Any further removal has previously led to extreme amount of edit-warring amongst users of different nations who always want their charts to be there. I have added the 18 largest music selling nations. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You use both "number one" and "number-one". Be consistent with either.—indopug (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English is not my first language, but I believe they are used in different situations. I think you put a hyphen when used attributively, for example: It became Madonna's thirteenth number-one single in the United Kingdom..., and not hyphenated when used after the noun, for example: The single debuted at number one.... Frcm1988 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments— Madonna is the producer, not the director of the documentary I Am Because We Are.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:24, 18 August 2009 [19].

Georgia Institute of Technology[edit]

Nominator(s): LaMenta3 (talk), Disavian (talk/contribs)


After completing a very comprehensive GA Sweeps review courtesy of User:Nehrams2020, which was more rigorous than some of the reviews given to previous FACs I've been involved in, I believe that this article meets the FA criteria and is well overdue for nomination. LaMenta3 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference, the GA sweeps review is here. MaxVeers (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were the primary contributors consulted before this nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I am one of the primary contributors to this article. User:Disavian is probably *the* primary contributor and has been toying with the idea of nominating it for awhile. He'll probably drop by soon with his remarks. (Disclosure: I know Disavian and most of the other primary contributors personally, as most of us are Georgia Tech students/alumni.) LaMenta3 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why hello there, Dabomb87. Yes, I was consulted. You could consider this a co-nomination; I've worked long and hard on this article and I fully believe that it needs to be FA. I eagerly anticipate your delicious criticism. I'm going to notify the other regular editors of this article shortly. They have generally implied their support of any FA noms within the scope of our project. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those have now been taken care of. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and nice job. I tweaked it a bit to remove a few details that a non-expert on Georgia Tech could not immediately verify merely by looking at the images. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't an image review, I'm not knowledgable enough for that, but my concerns relate to images.
    • The article is very heavy on illustration, to the extent that pictures tend to overpower the text. Can so many images really be justified?
    • And it's not just the number; nearly every image has been forced to a size greater than the default 180px. This is part of the overpowering effect, and is contrary to WP:IMAGES. Unless there is a specific reason, they should be reduced in size.
    • Their alignment in the article looks unimaginative. They are nearly all placed on the right, even that of Principal Clough, who is consequently looking away from the text. Why not zig-zag, or at least align some images on the left?
    • I'm no expert, but even to me some of the licensing looks dodgy. For example, on what basis are you assuming that the person who took the 1890 photograph of the first GT graduates died before 1939? If he/she was, say, 25 in 1890, he/she could easily have lived into the forties or even fifties.
I have not yet had a chance to review the text, but these image questions should be attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of what you mention is a concern of aesthetics, and I'll get into the mucking about in the particulars of the style requirements/restrictions a bit later, however with regard to the licensing of the particular image you mentioned (and probably a couple of the others that you're wondering about), any work published before 1923 is considered to be in the public domain according to US copyright law. It doesn't matter when the photographer died (See: WP:PD). LaMenta3 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the image is wrongly licensed. At present, PD is being claimed on grounds of life of author plus 70 years. The correct licence relevant to pre-1923 publication in the US is US-PD. This will require details of publication (book, journal, date etc) - do you have these? Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went to commons and changed the template from PD-old to PD-US. So that's a step. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, most of the licensing "problems" were a result of the appropriate templates not translating between Commons and Wikipedia. We're working to correct this, though the cause of this was, in fact, a technical problem. The earliest publication that I know of for the 1890 class photo was in the short-lived Technologian (one of two precursors to the Blueprint) in 1891. I thought that information was already on the image page, but maybe the Commons gremlins ate that along with the proper license. Either way, the license has been updated (thanks, Disavian) to this effect. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For more obscure Georgia Tech publication history, please consult History of Georgia Tech#Early years. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've taken care of most of the style concerns. There were a few photos that could stand to be culled, so I took them out. I removed the forced image sizes on all but (I think) three images, where forcing the slightly larger size is somewhat necessary to making out the subject or detail of the photo, as per the provision in the style guide. The images that I preserved the forced size for were the images in the history section (because of their age and composition it is hard to perceive the subjects at a smaller size) and the close-up of Tech Tower. I also moved around a few of the images to address some incongruities that I noticed as I was going through, and aligned a few to the left. Let me know if your concerns have been addressed to satisfaction. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The aesthetics of the article are much improved by your pruning, downsizing and relocating of images. I'd say that forcing up the two old photos at the beginning is probably OK, but I'm not sure why the Tech Tower needs this - it's perfectly clear at thumbnail size. I will leave all remaining image questions to the image reviewer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I am a primary contributor to this article and I support its FA nomination. MaxVeers (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • The following refs lack a publisher:
    • Current ref 7 (Tech Campuses..) done
    • Current ref 18 (Georgia Tech History...) done
    • Current ref 20 (Office of Institutional...) done
    • Current ref 31 (Georgia Tech Facts...) done
    • Current ref 33 (Society of Women...) done
    • Current ref 34 (Office of Institutional Research..) done
    • Current ref 45 (QS top universities...) done
    • Current ref 46 (Top 50 Public..) done
    • Current ref 47 (2006 General Catalog...) done
    • Current ref 48 (Ivan Allen...) done
    • Current ref 91 (College football traditon..) done
    • Current ref 99 (Nothing but treble..) done
    • Current ref 100 (Sympatheic Vibrations...) done
    • Current ref 101 (Infinite Harmony..) done
    • Current ref 107 (North Avenue Review...) done
    • Current ref 108 (erato...) done
    • Current ref 110 (Georgia Tech Blueprint...) done
    • Current ref 114 (Georgia Tech OIT...) done
    • Current ref 115 (Georgia Tech TesNet...) done
    • Current ref 120 (Atlanta Pleased with ...) done
    • Current ref 124 (Swann ...) done
    • Current ref 134 (About Georgia Tech Lorraine..) done
    • Current ref 145 (RamblinEWreck..) done
  • The following refs lack a last access date:
    • Current ref 8 (Susan Simmons...) done
    • Current ref 45 (QS top universities...) done
    • Current ref 46 (Top 50 Public..) done
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • A very big concern is how much of the article is sourced to sites from the university itself or to the organizations themselves. There is a lack of third-party sources used in this article, which leads to concerns about POV. Given the size of the university and it's history, I'd expect there to newspaper articles and non-university books or articles available.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be marking them as done as I go through them so I know what I haven't done yet. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please use a '''done''' as the use of templates is discouraged on the FAC page. It makes it load slow and we occasionally run into the template limit per page if too many are used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Good point. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With regard to citations to the Technique, at the very least, I seem to recall this issue being brought up at another FAC at some point (I can track it down later, if you'd like), but we reached the conclusion that it qualifies as an independent source due to the nature of its operation. Having had worked there myself for nearly six years, I am acutely aware of the extent of the paper's internal policies and efforts to maintain a separation between the administration/school and what it prints. On more occasions that I can count, we found ourselves at loggerheads with various offices and departments over what we printed versus what they wanted us to print. I can assure you that because of the wording of the publication's charter and it's policies, it is virtually impossible for any entity within the Institute (or outside the Institute, for that matter) to exert prior restraint or any influence over the content of the articles published. In many ways, when it comes to reporting on Institute matters, the Technique is considered the reliable source, as some third-party newspapers in the area have occasionally given the appearance of actually having been influenced by what the Institute would like them to say. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read my remarks immediately above your question. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't really mean in terms of any COI bias - which is what I thought was referred to above - but the general issues which mean that most University newspapers are not considered reliable: Quick turn over of staff - written and edited by full time students with no "real world" journalism qualifications or professional experience. May or may not have a dedicated fact checker, if they do again with no qualifications or professional experience. Very much subject to the biasses of whoever is writing/editing at the time, usually pro student body, student issues - often indulging a pseudo-rebellious "anti-establishment" streak. Largely viewed with indifference - if at all - by the general student body, not of note to anyone outside the institution. Fundamentally, little or no reputation for fact checking and accuracy outside of the room in which it created. Essentially what I was asking is what makes this publication any different from the norm? Why is it an appropriate source for what it is used for in the article? Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are good points. I have two responses. First, qualified organizations have rated the Technique as an outstanding student newspaper. In 2004 it received a Pacemaker Award, unofficially known as the Pulitzer Prize of student newspapers. Second, in the absence of a better source, the Technique, which at least strives to be a solid publication and has all the mechanics of one, seems better than leaving the material unsourced or out of the article altogether. MaxVeers (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To begin with, the Technique has been accepted as a reliable source (tacitly, at least) in the other FACs of articles related to Georgia Tech. Also, I don't think I've seen a discussion or decision anywhere that has stated that university newspapers are not considered reliable sources. The reliability of a source should not be determined by blanket generalizations about the type of source it is or about the people who write the source's content. The reliability of a source should be judged by its track record for accuracy, its endurance as a respected source of information. No newspaper is completely without bias, and a high turnover rate in the staff is arguably a good thing, as it prevents the publication from having any sort of entrenched bias, keeping the publication more neutral than most. That said, the turnover rate among the editorial staff is surprisingly slow at the Technique. I personally worked there for 5 years, and I believe the average tenure for a member of the editorial staff is around 3 years, though s/he may change positions once or twice in that time. This is on par with, if not a bit better than, the turnover rate at most smaller community newspapers. If you have any specific questions about the nature of the Technique's policies regarding accuracy and bias, that is, ones that are not based upon broad generalizations about university students, I'll be more than happy to address them. I would also encourage you to read some of the articles that are cited to get a more appropriate sense of the nature of the source. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

  • I don't think the pictures are too large. In fact, I like them quite a bit as they are.
  • Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program is spelled out and the acronym given twice, in two different sections. I'd suggest removing the acronym, since it isn't used. done
  • The U.S. University Rankings box seems to be a little odd: For one, it uses only US News and World Report rankings and thus could be called the "US News and World Report University Rankings" box, and for two, it seems to cherry pick the best rankings. What was the methodology for choosing those three items? done removed box
    • I think I'm just going to nuke that rankings box from orbit, I didn't put it there and you're right, it is fairly arbitrary. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm hinky about the "Americasbestonline.net" citation ... the linked Web site doesn't have any information about what makes that site notable, and I'm not sure that it is reliable. Fortunately, there's plenty of notable magazine ranking services out there. I'd suggest replacing it. done removed sentence and ref
  • What books have been written about the history of Georgia Tech? Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate deserves a listing in an "Additional reading" section at the very least, and I'm sure there have been others. done
    • There are a few books I'd recommend; the ultimate source is definitely Engineering the New South. Other important ones are Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate, The Story of Georgia Tech and Dress Her in White and Gold. Would this further reading section be a second-level section or a third-level, and where would you recommend placing it? A link to an FA that does it correctly would be particularly useful there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the fight songs section, the item about space should include "reportedly". That's what the citation says, and I have to wonder if it beat Apollo 16's singing of "Hail to the Victors". done
  • In reference to the 1948 name change, it's a little unclear that the official name changed to "Georgia Tech". That should be stated outright.
    • As to the name change, it went from Georgia School of Technology to Georgia Institute of Technology. I'm fairly certain that Georgia Tech was a nickname both before and after the name change. Do you feel that this still needs to be clarified, knowing that? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm sorry; I was reading that paragraph incorrectly. I glossed over the "school of technology" clause. The fault is mine. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I understand that this is personal preference, but I'm a little confused about the citations in the lede. You cite some things (international campuses) that are cited later on in the article, but other things that are cited later on in the article (athletics, forex) don't get a citation. done
  • In the Campuses section, why isn't the giant picture taken facing the other direction ... with Bobby Dodd in the foreground and the Atlanta skyline in the background? That's the traditional photo of the campus that I've seen, and it'd be a great way to illustrate the placement of the school.
  • Please cite the last two paragraphs of the Alumni section. done
  • Seasons should be lowercase ... I saw at least two uses.
    • With the season names, I am probably referring to the name of a semester, which is generally capitalized (and distinguishes it from the actual season). They divide the year into Fall, Summer, and Spring, with the "normal" school year occupying a sequential Fall and Spring. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You are talking about the semesters, and I understand that, but I'm not grasping why they're capitalized. They're not proper nouns ... are they? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Not in the strictest sense, but there's little other way to distinguish between the season proper and a period of time that is named after a season such as a semester (or a fiscal quarter, to give another example) other than either tacking 'semester' on the end every time, which can become cumbersome in some prose. The capitalization rule/habit is possibly a holdover from my and some other contributors' time in either or both journalism and academic writing, where the capitalization of seasons to refer to a period of time named after them is a common style. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In regards to crime, could you put "very few" into numerical context? How many is that? done
  • The biggest thing that bugs me about this article is that it's very difficult for me to tell which citations are referring to which sentences. Forex, in the West Campus section, there are two citations. I clicked on both of them, but it appears that the bulk of the section is based on the first citation, which appears halfway through the paragraph. In situations like this (West/East Campus), could you please duplicate the citation so I can tell where you're getting that information?
  • And I'm sure that this would be an item of wishful thinking (and I don't intend to ding you for it), but a map of campus would be great. :)
    • Yeah, that would be nice, but it's not happening :) Maybe one day... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yep. Unfortunately there aren't any freely-licensed campus maps. Maybe if we ask the Alumni Association real nice...eh...probably not. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's about it. It's a nice-looking, aesthetically pleasing article. I didn't detect any big gaps in the coverage (though I still want to know how the teams got the nickname "Yellow Jackets"), and the pictures are really nice. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have any questions or address my concerns — I don't visit FAC too often, but if you leave me a note, I'll be happy to take another look and potentially support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • For an explanation of the Yellow Jackets term, see Buzz (mascot)#History. I believe that bit is also in the history article and most likely the traditions article. Real life intrudes today, but most of your suggestions sound very doable. As to the picture, you work with what you have. You have to admit that the one we have does a fairly good job of illustrating the campus. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I must've come across as a bit harsh. The picture is fine ... it just struck me as unexpected, since the view the other way is the one I've traditionally seen and thought looked rather spectacular. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I found the perspective a bit confusing myself, at first, and I'm really familiar with the campus. My problem? My entire perspective of the campus is permanently from a perspective of west and northwest campus, as that's where I always lived. For someone who had lived on east or southeast campus for most of their time at Tech, the perspective in the image probably is significantly less jarring. There's not really a point to this comment other than to perhaps confirm that your brief confusion was justified. However, the unusual perspective is probably the thing I like most about the picture. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments by Blofeld Looks as if a few more citations could be added in some of the lower sections as at times the citations seem very clustered with the rest of entire paragraphs unreferenced. The Technology Square paragraph is mostly unreferenced, the last two paragraphs of the Alumni section are entirely unreferenced. Also I think the images should be set to standard consistently to allow editors preferences in px size. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question: For the "Dress her in white and gold" additional reading item, Amazon is showing me a publishing date of 1963, rather than 1969. Which is correct? JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both. It was originally published in 1963, and reissued in a new edition in 1969. The most up-to-date version, if you will, is the 1969 edition. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support pending treatment. My misgivings mostly concern the requirement for professional formatting/appearance (linking, here).
    • Serious overlinking problems. Please see WP:LINK—common terms, country-names, etc. I've fixed the lead, which was awash with blue, and now the high-value links are clearer. Can you audit the rest of the article thus (although the lead seemed to be the worst)?
    • Why does "Reconstruction" start with R and not r? I've never heard of this era, and the readers shouldn't have to visit the link to find out what it's about. (Cryptic link is the issue.) Why not omit mention of this concept in the lead, where there's no room to flesh out the details, and let it lie nicely as it does already in the "Establishment" subsection?
    • "Also" at the top is redundant.
    • I removed the redundant link to US$ in the ?infobox. It's not needed in the main text either, if it's a US-related article. Nor is the signifier "US". The dollar sign is enough.
    • "presented a speech"—delivered would be a little more idiomatic? done
    • "Dr. Gary Schuster"—Could you link the "Dr." too? It's part of the man's name, and is awkward with a colour split in the middle. done
    • Comma after "Boulder". done
    • "Male" is linked? No. More reason a thorough cleansing of trivial links is required throughout. Please preserve the value of the good links. Tony (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've always seen "Reconstruction" capitalized in that context (post-Civil War era of United States history). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. My concerns and questions have been addressed. It's a good article that covers all notable aspects of one of the more important universities in the United States. Good work by the creators and editors involved! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments – Just a couple of quick drive-by thoughts on the Athletics section.
    • Would be nice to spell out NCAA, and any other abbreviations in the article. done
    • En dash for score range (4-2). done
    • "It is reportedly being the first school song played in space." Grammar issue here, as it reads like the song is currently being played. I'm sure this is meant to be past tense. done
    • Not sure Modern Pentathlon needs capitalization. done
    • To give an example of the overlinking that Tony refers to, I saw three NCAA links in the section. Only having one should be sufficient for those interested in learning more. done Giants2008 (17–14) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments:
  • The lack of parallelism in this sentence bothers me: "A part of the University System of Georgia, it also has satellite campuses in Savannah, Georgia; Metz, France; Athlone, Ireland; Shanghai, China; and Singapore." First one is "city,state", and the rest are "city, nation" except for the last one, which is just "nation".
  • Actually, Singapore is a city-state, so it is both the city and nation. Is there a better way to list it? MaxVeers (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fair enough. I just went ahead and tweaked it a little bit; the way the sentence was written also implied that the international campuses were a result of its membership in the GA university system. If that's actually the case, then feel free to revert my edit. — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This sentence is confusing for me. Maybe a rewording is in order: "In 1996, the campus was the site of the athletes' village and a venue for a number of athletic events for the 1996 Summer Olympics"
  • "The idea of Georgia Institute of Technology was introduced in 1865 during the Reconstruction period." What do you mean by "the idea of" Georgia Tech? Do you mean the plans for that specific university, or for some university in the Atlanta area? Even if it's clarified down below, I think that this sentence is unnecessarily vague. done
  • "Many Southerners at this time agreed with this idea." Shouldn't that be cited? Or do references 7 and 8 apply to it? If so, maybe that could be made clearer. done
  • I went ahead and removed that sentence. Not that it's not true, but I didn't like the way it interrupted the flow of the paragraph. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 1882, prominent Georgians..." weasel words. Who exactly? done
  • The above stricken now has another problem: "In 1882, Harris led a committee of Georgians, authorized by the Georgia State Legislature, to visit..." Who was authorized by the Georgia State Legislature? Harris, the committee, or the Georgians?
  • With any luck I've put this to rest with another edit. MaxVeers (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Using examples from the Worcester County Free Institute of Industrial Science (now Worcester Polytechnic Institute) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Atlanta technology school began development on the Worcester Free Institute model, which stressed a combination of "theory and practice", the "practice" component including student employment and production of consumer items to generate revenue for the school." Long and clunky. done
  • "equivalent to about US$236,370.37 now." Citation? Conversion between dollar rates isn't a simple calculation and unless cited to someone else is OR. And when is "now"? I'm also questioning the degree of precision that figure has.
  • "He then shook hands with every student." Is that really historically significant? If not, remove it.
  • My opinion is that fun historical tidbits are appropriate for Wikipedia, as long as they're sourced and not in trivia sections. However, I'm happy to remove it if that's the consensus. MaxVeers (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have no strong opinion either, but I'm leaning towards removing it. Anyone else have any thoughts? — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The rankings section bothers me. First, many of the claims are cited to Georgia Tech's analysis of the rankings, which hardly seems NPOV. The statement that Georgia Tech ranked 7th in USNWR should be attributed to USNWR, not GT. Second, with prose rankings sections, I've found that it's very hard not to cherry-pick the best rankings. Consider using Template:Infobox US university ranking.
  • The article used to have that template... not sure where it went. MaxVeers (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Other reviewers felt that the template was equally arbitrary, not to mention redundant since it repeated the info in the text. AFAIK, the article doesn't "cherry pick," I believe that rankings listed were all of the ones that we could find that were recent and from reputable sources. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I meant to suggest that the infobox replace the prose; it's not really something that lends itself to paragraph form (this ranked this with this number, that ranked that with that number, etc.), so why not have it in a more concise form? The infobox also would handle some of the problems with the rankings section in its current form, including lack of proper attribution to the rankers. And although it can be hard to tell whether or not rankings are cherry-picked or are balanced, the fact that half the very-high rankings in that section are cited to Georgia Tech don't help the case. The template does have its limitations, but at least it provides a base set of rankings for all the university pages, instead of having them vary from page to page along with whichever ones appear to rank that particular institution highest. (I hope that doesn't sound like I'm assuming bad faith on the part of university article editors; it's just that the higher rankings tend to get the most attention because people who work on their university's article — myself included — tend to hear about them/see them the most). — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Georgia Tech has sought to strengthen its undergraduate and graduate offerings in less technical fields, primarily those under the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts" Over what period of time have they been trying to strengthen them? And I think this needs a citation, too.
  • "That particular College has seen a 20% increase in admissions." Unclear. Does it mean that 20% more students have applied? If so, say "a 20% increase in applications". If it means that there are 20% more students, say they've increased enrollment. And over what period of time have they seen this increase? Over the past year, or over the past century?
  • That's all for now. I may add more later. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I've been out of town, so I haven't really been working on this. That said, thanks MaxVeers for working on this, as well. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image review: I'm not at all sure that File:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png clears WP:NFCC #8 in this article (the claimed reason that it does, "Used to illustrate athletics at Georgia Tech", seems weak to me, especially given the image's location in the article). Other views on the subject welcome. Additionally, there are a great many left-aligned images directly underneath third level headings; I'm not going to raise a fuss about this, but I know that it really bothers some people, so I'm bringing it up. All images claimed as free are sufficiently verifiably so for our purposes, and the only other non-free image, File:Georgia-Tech-Insignia.svg is clearly within community norms for the application of the WP:NFCC. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The image was originally duplicated in the infobox at the head of the article, but we decided to place it in Athletics as Buzz is considered the athletics mascot more than anything else. However, I'd be more that happy to move it back to the infobox if you feel that would be more appropriate. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I notice that seasons are capitalized. Is there some reason for this? Example: "Since then, the institute has greatly expanded, with an enrollment of 12,069 undergraduates and 5,937 postgraduate students as of Spring 2009."
  • This may have been mentioned before, but the capitalized season names are not referring to seasons, but semesters. As far as I can tell, there is no specific standard on Wikipedia for this use, so most of us defaulted to the standard used in our academic and/or journalistic writing experience. As far as flow of prose goes, the repetitive use of the word "semester" following every instance of a season name to denote that we're talking about a semester and not a season gets, well...repetitive. I have also seen this standard (capitalizing season names) when referring to financial quarters. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Alumni" section is a sea of blue. I know some of this can't be helped, but please try to cut out links that are of marginal value / well-known dictionary definitions, such as "plate tectonics", "space shuttle" and "astronaut". This can also be remedied by delinking terms that have been linked in previous sections, such as "American football" and "Atlanta". done
  • More capitalization weirdness:
  • "It was founded in 1908 by 14 Students and Robert "Biddy" Bidez." Why is "Students" capitalized? done
  • "Georgia Tech's undergraduate and graduate programs are divided into six Colleges. " Why is "Colleges" capitalized? done
  • "A large amount of construction occurred, creating most of what is now considered "West Campus" for Tech to serve as the Olympic Village" Construction doesn't "occur"; somebody makes it happen.
  • "Georgia Tech is consistently ranked well" Not idiomatic, "ranked highly" makes more sense.
  • "Georgia Tech is currently classified by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a university with very high research activity." Don't use "currently"; use an {{as of}} statement or just delete "currently". done
  • "1,900,000 square feet (177,000 m2) of space are devoted to research purposes at Georgia Tech and GTRI." Don't start sentences with numbers. done
  • "A new addition to that space is Georgia Tech's $90 million Marcus Nanotechnology Research Center, one of the largest nanotechnology research facilities in the Southeastern United States with over 30,000 square feet (2,800 m2) of clean room space." Very repetitious, "space ... space". done
  • Several undefined abbreviations: NBA, NFL, MLB done
  • "There are many notable graduates, non-graduate former students and current students of Georgia Tech." This is a very vague topic sentence. What do "current students" have to do with anything?
  • "Current students," as per the quoted definition of alumni in the article, are also classified as alumni by the school, provided they have completed a semester in good standing. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You use seasons (spring, fall, etc.). Please revise, as people in the Southern Hemisphere don't follow the same pattern as those in the north
  • Again, the seasons as a naming standard for semesters. Many publications, statistics, etc. regarding the school are written referencing the semester name, and using a month range would be inaccurate. Additionally, as it is clear that Georgia Tech is in the Northern Hemisphere, there is little lost meaning in adhering to this standard. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Georgia Tech Athletic Bands play a noticeable part for school spirit and athletic support." Awkward. "a noticeable part" is non-idiomatic. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC) doneReply[reply]
  • I appreciate your feedback, though I might request that in the cases where you mention or see awkward wording or very small WP:MOS errors, that you could attempt edit those yourself. Two of three primary editors (one of whom is me) that appear to be contributing to this FAC are finding themselves to be suddenly very busy for the next 2-3 days. We would find that to be a very big help. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've already done a sizeable amount of MOS cleanup, and will do more in the coming days. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Whereas, previously, the Midtown location placed Georgia Tech students in the middle of one of the highest metropolitan crime-rate areas in America, the construction of the Olympic village along with subsequent gentrification of the surrounding areas greatly increased public safety." In addition to awkward sentence construction, this seems to be very tangential to the discussion of the university itself.
  • The Olympic village now exists as Georgia Tech's West Campus. The crime rate and the ensuing redevelopment has been central to the school's modern history. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To the omission of information about research activities, the much-vaunted co-op program, description of the student body, scale of academic program, etc.? I doubt it, especially in light of the fact that there is absolutely no mention of one paragraph about campus or public safety throughout the rest of the article which clearly gives this promotional passage undue weight. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead makes no mention of the size of the Yellow Jackets intercollegiate program nor the conference it competes in which seems to be de rigueur in most other university FAs.
  • There's no discussion of the research scale or accomplishments given (at least my perception) of the university's particular strengths in these areas in the lead
  • There's a 34-year gap in Modern history between 1962 and 1996: the section fails to mention any student-faculty protests\unrest\counterculture from the late 1960s and early 1970s or the controversial reorganization in the 1980s done
  • The article lacks an "Administration and organization" section describing the relationship with the Georgia state government, board of trustees, endowment, budget, president and administration, faculty and student governance, etc.
  • The academics section omits basic descriptive/classification information such as Carnegie classifications; accreditation status; number of programs offered, degrees granted; academic calendar; academic honors; tuition, financial aid, student debt, enrollment distributions/percentages/relative sizes among the various colleges; libraries, museums, and other cultural institutions; admissions statistics
  • The rankings section seems wholly cherry-picked to describe only rankings or programs that are high and is full of words to avoid and other vague, weaseley, or peacockish words. Template:Infobox US university ranking should be implemented as well to more effectively and neutrally summarize.
  • Nothing in recreation sounds at all recreational: student government and secret societies aren't my idea of a good time :)
  • Housing seems full of recentist controversies or non-notable information (renovations, missing furniture, coffee hours, etc.)
  • Info on greek life seems to be spread out among recreation and Greek life; Clean old-fashioned hate spread out in both traditions and athletics;
  • UNIGUIDE says "Sections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution." The academics are more important and more closely tied to the information in the history section than the description of the campus. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alumni is full of generally non-neutral or unencyclopedic words
  • Vague and imprecise statements that should be removed or backed up with clear facts or statistics:
  • "Much of this research is funded by large corporations or governmental organizations."
  • "Forty percent of Georgia Tech's research" by employment, expenditure, space, test tubes, ?
  • "Many startup companies are produced through research conducted at Georgia Tech" How many? How much funding have they received? How many people do they employ? What's their economic impact?
  • "Georgia Tech is ranked fourth for startup companies, eighth in patents, and eleventh in technology transfer." by whom?
  • "As a result, the Institute's retention rates have improved." I don't recall reading what they currently are
  • "WREK is among the nation's most powerful college radio stations." A citation at least? done
  • Preponderance of throw-away phrases diminishing quality of prose:
  • "Georgia Tech is consistently ranked well"
  • The alternative "is ranked highly" disrupts the cadence of the prose. Not to mention, well and highly have slightly different connotations. To say that it ranks highly would be too peacocky for my tastes. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Simply remove it and assert facts. Consistently is a clearly both a peacock and weasel word that is unsubstantiated in terms of what is "consistent" or what is "well". The citation also goes to a Georgia Tech press release which is obviously a WP:SPS and the passage neglects to mention that this "consistency" is simply one magazine's ranking. One could remove the section in its entirety and replace it with Template:Infobox US university ranking and solve all these problems at once. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Georgia Tech encourages undergraduates to participate in research alongside graduate students and faculty." I suppose GT also encourages them to attend classes and engage in student activities? :)
  • I don't feel that this is a constructive comment. Encouraging undergraduate research is hardly widespread among modern universities to the extent that it is practiced at Georgia Tech. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then by all means substantiate and describe the extent to which it is practiced (percentage of student body participating, papers and patents awarded to undergraduates, major graduate fellowships awarded to undergraduates, percentage of undergraduate population going on to graduate programs, etc.) instead of employing empty marketing trope. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "any of these connections are made through Georgia Tech's popular and robust cooperative education and internship programs." Substantiate or eliminate peacockery.
  • It is the largest such program in the United States. I have added a reference and statement saying so. I believe this substantiates the claims of popularity and robustness. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why not simply state it is the largest in the nation and leave it at that then? Popularity connotes some a particular fondness or attracting attention which I don't believe is easily verified outside of a survey and robust implies a resistance to failure. Take these peacockish words to avoid out in the absence of citations that establish these facts. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Georgia Tech's cooperative education and internship programs have been externally recognized for their strengths."
  • "Just off campus, students can choose from a host of restaurant and dining choices typical of metropolitan areas, including a half-dozen in Technology Square alone." I feel like I'm reading a brochure
  • "and a number of parties and barbecues are hosted by the neighborhood's residents." Is this particularly notable for residential areas bordering colleges and universities?
  • "Under the Couch is a live music venue located beneath the Couch Building on West Campus. It is run by the Musician's Network." Perhaps more on why it's notable or interesting as a space and less on who owns it.
  • "DramaTech is the campus' student-run theater. The theater has been entertaining Georgia Tech and the surrounding community since 1947. They are also home to Let's Try This! (the campus improv troupe) and VarietyTech (a song and dance troupe)." Stilted prose.
  • "A large number of businesspeople (CEOs, directors, etc.)" One hopes that businesspeople does not need disambiguation or definition
  • More awkward prose
  • "to a larger and more capable technical institute and research university" seems slightly POV to state that trade schools are less capable. I think "larger" suffices
  • "Today, Georgia Tech is" see Precise language under WP:MOS
  • "It is recognized for its programs in engineering, computing, and the sciences, and offers degrees in architecture, liberal arts, and management." So there are no degrees in engineering, computing, and the sciences? Awkward sentence construction.
  • "placing it well in sight of the Atlanta skyline." Why is this at all important or notable? Simply state it is located x miles (y km) from downtown Atlanta.
  • "Student athletics, both organized and intramural, are an important part of student and alumni life." Empty phrase: why important?
  • "have helped keep Georgia Tech in the national spotlight." is there such a thing? how about simply mentioned bowl appearances and national championships instead of vague metaphors.
  • "who had become prominent citizens in the town" how so? merchants and businessmen? war heros? prominent families?
  • "However, because the American South of that era was mainly populated by agricultural workers and few technical developments were occurring, a technology school was needed." past progressive verb tense is awkward (were occurring), substantiate "fewness" of developments by comparing relative industrial capacity or output, big inferential leap from "lack of industry" to "only a technology school is needed" Where is UGA during all of this?
  • "$79,576.06 today" significant figures?
  • "Unlike similarly named universities..." NJIT is public too :) I feel like there should be a hypen in there too
  • "pushed through a restructuring" restructured?
  • "the College of Sciences and Liberal arts" capitalize?
  • "Crecine was also instrumental in securing the 1996 Summer Olympics for Atlanta." How so?
  • "Crecine, the previous president, had demoted Management from "College" to "School" status as part of a controversial 1990 reorganization plan" Merge this in earlier?
  • "As is historically true of engineering institutions, female enrollment at Georgia Tech is low." Cite
  • "Georgia Tech has one of the most unbalanced male-to-female ratios of any co-ed university." Cite
  • "However, this is slowly changing due to the university's growing liberal arts programs and outreach programs to encourage more female high school students to consider careers in science and engineering." Cite or not in citations given
  • "Including the most generous alumni donor base, percentage-wise, of any public university ranked in the top 50." Self-promotional WP:SPS that is not attributable in USNWR. Also seems conveniently narrowly-constrained -- perhaps to ensure a top ranking? Never!
  • Rankings omit Times Higher Education Supplement, Washinton Monthly, Newsweek, Forbes, Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index, etc.
  • "Collaboration among the colleges is frequent, as mandated by a number of interdisciplinary degree programs and research centers." Again, empty marketing phrases trumpeting collaboration that need to be substantiated or removed. How frequent? How many programs and centers? What percents of student body are enrolled/involved in them?
  • "Georgia Tech has sought to strengthen its undergraduate and graduate offerings in less technical fields, primarily those under the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. That particular College has seen a 20% increase in admissions." Awkward pronoun reference. Enrollments are increasing but what is substantive being strengthened: budget, faculty appointments, graduate programs and enrollment, new buildings, etc.?
  • "Also, even in the Ivan Allen College, the Institute does not offer a Bachelor of Arts degree, only a Bachelor of Science." So what?
  • "the Advanced Technology Development Center and VentureLab ready to assist Georgia Tech's researchers and entrepreneurs in organization and commercialization." Remove advertising tone
  • "Georgia Tech and GTRI devote...of clean room space." Confusing clause construction
  • "The Work Abroad Program hosts a variety of cooperative education and internship experiences for upperclassmen and graduate students seeking international employment and cross-cultural experiences." More empty marketing
  • Housing discusses student stress despite there being a section wholly devoted to student stress
  • "Georgia Tech Housing is generally split into two parts" why generally?
  • "East Campus is largely populated by freshmen and is served by Brittain Dining Hall. West Campus houses some freshmen, transfer, and returning students, and is served by Woodruff Dining Hall." I'm assuming upperclassmen and graduate students live somewhere as well?
  • "(a freshman-only dorm life program to "encourage friendships and a feeling of social involvement")" mission statement-ese
  • "a number of legends and traditions, some of which have persisted for decades." persistence more than a few years would also happen to be a definition of a legend or tradition.
  • "some are well-known; for example, the most notable of these is the popular but rare tradition" layers of redundancy
  • "A number of times, students have orchestrated complex plans to steal the huge symbolic letter T, and on occasion have carried this act out successfully." How many times?
  • "One of the cherished holdovers from Tech's early years" unencyclopedic
  • "It is for that reason that the faculty newspaper is named The Whistle." Because of the timing of the whistle or the existence of the whistle?
  • "holds a heated, long and ongoing rivalry" redundant
  • "The first known hostilities" this is college athletics, not warfare
  • "The Georgia Tech Band Program has two main goals: to represent Georgia Tech at athletic events, and to provide Tech students with a musical outlet." --> "The Georgia Tech Band Program represents Georgia Tech at athletic events and provides Tech students with a musical outlet."
  • "The marching band consistently fields over 300 members and even invites students..." remove even
  • "In 1963, the Music Department, under the leadership of Ben Logan Sisk, was created within Tech's General College. In 1976 the Music department was assigned to the College of Sciences & Liberal Studies, and in 1991 was relocated to its current home in the College of Architecture." I don't remember a history of any other department nor any mention of why this one is particularly notable
  • Anime O-Tekku seems to fail notability though Momocon might be justified if there was any context on its size. Condense this lest the Chinese-American cultural group, SAE, and ROTC feel justified in including their similarly non-notable events.
  • Shouldnt GTCN be merged with student media?
  • OIT and ResNet seem particularly non-notable entities common to all universities
  • Crime should be merged with Campus not student life
  • "Although a number of skyscrapers—most visibly the headquarters of AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, and Bank of America—are visible from all points on campus" Again with the visibility of skyscrapers - what's particularly notable or interesting about this?
  • "has a great deal of greenery" How much?
  • "This gives it a distinctly suburban atmosphere quite different from other Atlanta campuses such as that of Georgia State University." These citations are to the campus map and virtual tour and do not verify anything about its suburban-ness in either absolute terms (density) or relativeness (to other universities).
  • "West Campus is also home to a music club operated by students called Under the Couch" mention earlier?
  • "East Campus abuts on' the Downtown Connector" no preposition needed
  • "that now houses some of the most technology-equipped classrooms on campus" weasel words
  • "(which is referred to by students as "The Shaft")" redundant mention in history as well
  • "the rivalry was, at one time, considered one of the fiercest in college football." Cite
  • "Tech's fight song "I'm a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech" is known worldwide." Cite
  • I see a lot of potential and the article is better than many current university FAs, but we should always strive for higher standards. The article needs a good scrub down to get rid of replace the self-congratulatory cruft that often accumulates as well as including with basic descriptive information. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is very vague. Could you be more specific/descriptive? LaMenta3 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Oh, it's above. Never mind. Note to self: do not read FAC before coffee is finished. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:53, 18 August 2009 [20].

Barryville–Shohola Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because after major work for several months, an excruciating peer review and several other works, I feel its finally ready for FAC. The article is a GA and would be the first Delaware River crossing to reach FA if it passes. Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments - Prose only. Images need alt text.
I put alt text in I believe. If i didn't than someone will have to do it for me.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 19th Century - non-caps
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In 1856, a man named Chauncey Thomas constructed a bridge between the two communities, although was poorly put together, collapsing in 1859, when the whole structure fell apart in a windstorm. Two were killed in the incident. A new bridge was constructed in a few years by Chauncey Thomas. However, the bridge did not last long either, when in 1865, the suspension cables snapped, drowning three mules who were crossing. - This is very messy, please clean it up.
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The new bridge remained used for over seventy years, and ownership changed hands several times after Thomas' passing in 1882, eventually landing in the control of the Joint Delaware River Bridge Commission. - replace used with in use, rm "hands", replace landing with ending up
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The bridge was finally replaced in 1941 for $174,300 (1941 USD ($2,522,400 in 2009)), with a steel truss span, and this lasted another sixty years, finally deteriorating until the demolishing of the structure in 2007, upon completion of the new bridge. - period after span, new sentence, This edifice lasted another sixty years...
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The natives' trail followed the Shohola Creek where it enters the Delaware to a location along the eastern bank of the river itself. - to where
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • there was a great increase of population and business in the area, which raised the need for a bridge in the area, and made it essential.[1] - redundant
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With the essential need for a bridge from Shohola to Barryville growing, - redundant
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the construction of the first bridge was first planned by a private company, the Shohola and Barryville Bridge Company, in 1854. - remove by a private company and commas
Done - but I question this one.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • took all of his concentration and time, making the need for him to help almost impossible. - causing him to decline the offer
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • which was done by some inexperienced local men that Thomas hired. - which was completed
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • and told the owner at the time, that Thomas was very inexperienced in bridge construction. - remove comma
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Johnston also compared it to Robeling, who was inexperienced with the two-deck span in Niagara, which ended up lasting only forty years. - confusing, rewrite
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Johnson ran the bridge functions well, and remained as president of the bridge company for several years.[1] - rm and, remaining as president...
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The drivers survived the spill into the icy Delaware, but three of the mules were not as lucky.[1] - WP:SPADE
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks to the bridge, prosperity had come to the area.[1] - sounds like something out of a textbook
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thomas, when he died, had never written a will, and instead, his estate and property were divided between his children and his grandchildren. - replace with "Since Thomas had never written a will, estate and property were divided between his children and his grandchildren."
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - The prose is, unfortunately, not at an FA standard. ceranthor 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep listing issues or else the prose can go nowhere, as more often than not, I cannot solve them.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not FA reviewers' responsibility to list every issue they see with the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I really can't do anything. :| - because what sounds right to me isn't the same to anyone. :( - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've withdrawn my oppose, since my listed concerns have been resolved. I do suggest a run-through by an independent copy editor, though. I am not yet ready to support. ceranthor 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. "I put alt text in I believe. If i didn't than someone will have to do it for me." Which edit do you believe put in alt text (do you have a diff)? Because alt text is clearly absent; there's no evidence of it in the article that I can see. Please see WP:ALT for more on alt text and how to add it. It's not that hard to write and to add alt text; please don't give up. Eubulides (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can someone do it for me? Because, even if I know what it is, this type of thing is a weak point. (Never have been good with templates and coding and such).Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've attempted to add alt text to all of the images on the page, though it only shows up in Internet Explorer for me. Someone else might want to check and see if it's proper. Note, also, that I simply copied the captions because I can't know what Mitchazenia and others might want to use for alt text. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Would it be possible to add a source to the claim in the lead that the cost of the bridge is ~$2.5 million in current US dollars? Using this inflation calculator, the claim looks accurate, but I cannot add that calculator in as a source because it only goes up to 2007 and has been denied to be a RS when I've tried to use it in other articles. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Comment Mitch, I can appreciate the work you put into this. I've read portions, and here are my comments:

First, I can say up front that I don't think the writing is of a quality to be Featured. For example, in the first section, after the lead, you have this sentence. "The earliest crossings of the Delaware River at the location of the Barryville–Shohola Bridge were Native Americans on their way from Connecticut to the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. The natives' trail followed the Shohola Creek where it enters the Delaware to a location along the eastern bank of the river around Shohola." The first crossings were made by' and these people were not going from Connecticut to the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. This was an Indian Crossing long before these places had those names....made by Native Americans (which tribes) on traveling between the shoreline of the present-day Long Island Sound and the valleys in central and north-eastern areas of present-day Pennsylvania. I'm not satisfied with my solution, either, but it could be edited. This is simply one example. There are many more.
Second, the article appears to be riddled with typographical errors: I found 4 in the first three paragraphs. I've fixed them.
Third, there are many many problems with the clarity of the prose. In the first sentence alone: Is it the fifth bridge on the river, the fifth bridge at that location on the river? The agency now responsible for the bridge is probably the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, not the Joint Delaware River Commission-- not sure what that would be if it exists.
Fourth, Images: in terms of images, can you find a clearer picture of the bridge? This one is grainy, dark, and we have no sense of the bridge's elegance. The alt text reiterates the text of the caption, it does not describe the image. If you were blind, or vision impaired in some way, how would you know what the image was?

None of these problems are insurmountable. I suggest you find a good copy editor (the Guild of Copy Editors would help you, probably, although possibly not in the amount of time you need for FA review), and fix the problems. But until these are fixed, I have to say Oppose on the grounds of clarity of prose and accuracy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have gone through the article and dealt with most of the prose issues, grammar issues, and basic textual things. Consequently, I'm taking myself OUT of the support/oppose process. I will say, however, in the interests of transparency, the original text of this article resembled greatly the text of the main source used to make it. It no longer does. I think the article still needs a better picture int he lead. anyone seeing that gloom and blurri-ness would wonder about New York/PA weather. Possibly correctly, but that is not the point. There are better pictures, I'm sure, that highlight the bridge, and not its traffic. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've also brought in some numerous errors - specifically the Hurricane Ivan one, which made no sense at all, and need to fix the template you busted. I've swapped the bottom and top images.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're very welcome. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OPPOSE. I've reconsidered some of what I wrote above -- although as a copy editor I've fixed numerous errors of prose, the text still largely resembles the main secondary source the editor used to create the article. Call that what you want, but it's too closely paraphrased to the "P" word for my taste. I've tweaked the grammar so it is correct, but the text still closely resembles the book. Second: the article does little to elaborate on the larger issues of the bridge: for example, why there. I added a line or two on the indigenous peoples and the archeological dig there, but it was cursory. This article simply does not meet the requirements in 1a, 1b, 1c. and IMHO it did not meet the requirements for GA either. As a member of the guild of copy editors, I'm willing to work with an editor on a problem, but not when the content and scope of the article is insufficient, nor am I willing to take attitude about it. So kindly consider that "oppose" as STRONGLY. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its scope is fine :| - and I put why the bridge was there as its apparently been ignored. Its not Plagarism, as nothing is copy pasted. Thank you for ruining my 5th FAC in a row.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because I oppose doesn't mean it won't pass. I am but one voice in the mass of wikipedians. Chill. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its becoming an obvious pattern. I am a dumbass. I don't deserve another FA.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it has nothing to do with you as a person. The article just isn't to the quality of writing and scope that the guidelines require. Simply passing the article because you're a nice guy, or because you worked hard on it, is not the appropriate thing to do. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently Wikipedia helped write better to ace a college essay, but apparently to not write a Featured Article. :| - I dunno if we should be posting, because I requested a withdrawal.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 18:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [21].

HMAS Sydney (1934)[edit]

Nominator(s): ShipFan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it provides comprehensive but concise information on the topic, has passed GA status and is considered high importance to two Wikiprojects. The Board of Investigation has concluded and a summary of the findings is included. If accepted, I would like to suggest the FA date be 2009-11-22, the 75th anniversary of the ship's launch. ShipFan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Were the significant contributors to this article consulted before the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, 9 months ago. The proposal was to wait until the Board of Investigation concluded. This has now happened and reliable secondary sources have had time to mull over the findings. ShipFan (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really think there should have been another discussion about whether this was ready, particularly a a note on the talkpage. As it is, there was no recent discussion on it. I suggest you ask the main contributor (s) about whether they want this to continue. Woody (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has this been updated to take into account of BoI info? I can help on the non-content things but some of the footnotes just say "secondary sources". Is this in addition to the named book or simply to indicate that the book is #2? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!)paid editing=POV 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments: Just a couple of things for the time being —
    • According to the tools there are a number of dab links that need fixing (Battle of the Strait of Otranto, Supermarine Seagull, Tyne, Zealandia) done
    • According to the tools there are a number of dead links (Who Sank the Sydney?; HMAS Sydney II and the Kormoran, The Raider Kormoran, HMAS Sydney: Fact, Fantasy and Fraud).
    • In the Construction and commissioning subsection, the last sentence needs a citation for the date and place of being commissioned
    • In the World War II subsection, the last sentence beginning with "On 27 February..." needs a citation
    • In the Final battle and disappeance section, the last part of the first paragraph, ending with "or suspicious vessels" needs a citation;
    • In the same section, the last paragraph starting with "It was not until six days..." needs a citation;
    • In the Floating wreckage from Sydney section, the last sentence in the first paragraph beginning with "Until the discovery..." needs a citation;

I will take a longer look soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure that the article is ready for a Featured Article run yet. Regarding the claim that "now the inquiry is over, its time to FA"...the inquiry closed just under a week ago (as of this posting). I doubt that this is sufficient time for the findings to be analysed (and these analyses published) by naval/maritime/military historians, as opposed to journalists trying to 'get the story out first', which is what the section on the inquiry is currently based on (I was the editor who added the content on the report's findings, based on the first few news articles published). Because of the importance attributed to this ship and her loss, at the very least we should wait until such analyses are published so they can be incorporated into the article.

I also think that the article as it stands fails Featured Article Criteria 1(b) and (c), as it is not a comprehensive work on the vessel, and the sources used are not a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Part of my reasoning for this relates to the abovementioned issue. On top of this, I think that the history of the ship has the potential to be significantly expanded, which could be done from the wealth of published work on the ship (for example, Libraries Australia lists 100-plus works in the subject classification "Sydney (Cruiser: 1934-1941)").

Improving this to FA status would not be too difficult for the regular contributors to the article, but they should be able to do this in their own time and at their own agreement, and nominate the article when they decide it is ready, instead of one minor contributor deciding that as the inquiry into the loss has just finished, now is the time to nominate the article, based on a brief, 9-month old conversation. -- saberwyn 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose While this article is in OK shape and the nomination has clearly been made in good faith, it isn't at A class status, much less FA status. Examples of its shortcomings are:
    • Not all material is covered by citations
    • The coverage of the ship's service career is sketchy at best. There's nothing at all on what she did in 1937, 1938 and most of 1939 and the coverage of her war service is much shorter than it should be given the dozens of books written about this very famous ship and the campaigns she fought in.
    • Reflecting this, many important sources on the ship haven't been consulted or adequately used. For example, there's nothing from Herman G. Gill's official history of the RAN in World War II or Tom Frame's excellent book HMAS Sydney Loss & Controversy, which was recently republished, or the Parliamentary inquiry into the ship's loss which was conducted a few years ago (all submissions and the final report are available online). Almost no use has been made of material from the recently completed inquiry into her sinking.
    • There's nothing on the controversy surrounding the cause of her loss and the unsuccessful efforts to find her.
  • Given the article's present shortcomings, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Even as one of the primary contributors to the article (I took it to GA), I unfortunately have to agree with the comments above that it's far from ready for FA. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Now that several editors (including the primary contributor) have said the article is not ready, should this FAC be withdrawn? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [22].

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen[edit]

Nominator(s): Artichoker[talk] 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA without any major qualms and had a peer review which cleared up the prose. I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and is comprehensive and well-sourced. It will also be the first Pokémon FA if it passes! Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose, 1c. Random checks of the sources reveal statements attributed to sources that don't back them up, and article text that is unacceptably similar to the source text.
    • "Near the end of the plot, the protagonist is able to venture to the Sevii Islands, a new area not available in the original Red or Blue games. It consists of an archipelago of seven islands that contain Pokémon normally exclusive to the Johto region." The source given does not back up these statements. I can't find any mention of Johto, for example.
    • "There the player battles the Elite Four and finally the Champion: the player's rival." Again, the source provided does not back up this statement. I see no mention of "the Champion".
    • From http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/514/514962p1.html, what you've written is much too close to the source:
      • Our text: "... he did not view the titles as remakes, but rather as new games with innovative wireless technology"
      • Source text: "We don't feel that this a remake at all. We feel that this is a new game, with wireless technology."
Given the similarity, I've changed it to a quote. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • From http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/463/463431p1.html, more close similarities:
      • Our text: "... despite the previous installments Ruby and Sapphire selling 1.2 million copies within the first three days of their release."
      • Source: "This is despite Ruby and Saphire having sold 1.2 million units in their first three days in Japan."
Changed to "though the demand for the previous installments, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, led to 1.2 million copies being sold within the first three days of release." Is this rewording okay? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Random grammatical errors spotted indicating the need for copyediting: "Reasons for the low amount were never revealed by Nintendo"
      • Could you list them all? PR's backed up to hell and it'd be better to know what to fix than to kinda hope we get them all, no offense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • No offense taken, and I will gladly help out in listing them. However, I want to audit the sources more thoroughly given the problems evident above before fully reviewing the prose. --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alt text is present (thanks), but needs work. For the first image the alt text is the same as the caption, but they are not supposed to overlap; see WP:ALT#Difference from captions. The second alt text contains many phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and should be removed. These include "North American", "the Pokémon Charizard", and "The Charizard". See WP:ALT #What not to specify. Eubulides (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • How's this? Artichoker[talk] 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The box-art alt text is OK now; thanks. The game developer alt text should not mention his name, both because that duplicates the caption and because that's info that can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Also, the game developer alt text should briefly say what he looks like, since that's the point of the image. Alt text for the battle scene is still missing. Eubulides (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I've added alt text for the battle image; hope that it meets the requirements. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Likewise alt text has been altered for the game developer. Artichoker[talk] 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Thanks. The game designer is OK (but is "of Asian descent" the best you can do?). The battle scene contains several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and needs to be removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "battling", "use an item, change to another creature, leave the battle", "giving players four options they can use". Just describe the image's visual appearance; any explanations of what it means should be in the caption instead. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • More: The very next source I checked after the above were fixed is http://www.rpgfan.com/soundtracks/pokemon-fl/index.html. It supports this text: "Among these are two vocal tracks—"Teach Me! Elder Brother" sung by Hironobu Yoshida, and "Memory P" sung by Yumi Senka." The only thing is, it doesn't say that. Thus far, every source I've checked has been either misrepresented or barely reworded. I recommend withdrawal so every source can be vetted by an independent editor. FAC is not for bringing the sourcing of an entire article into line with FA standards. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The only thing the source didn't support is the names of the singers, so I have removed that. Artichoker[talk] 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Removing everything that's incorrectly sourced is not the answer, because now you have missing information. What you need to do is find correct sources for the things that are misattributed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The prose is very rough. From the lead and Gameplay:
    • "They are compatible with the Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter which originally came bundled with the games, and were first released in Japan in January 2004 and released to North America and Europe in September and October respectively." - Too much information. Also, I can't understand what it's trying to say.
    • "The gameplay remains mostly unchanged from the previous games; the player controls the protagonist from an overhead perspective, which switches to a turn-based battle scene during combat." - Awkward. Try, "As in previous Pokemon games, the player controls the player character from an overhead perspective, and participates in turn-based combat encounters." That's still rough, but it's an improvement.
    • "The main objectives of the games are to obtain all of the available Pokémon and to defeat a group of elite Pokémon trainers to become the new Champion." - It's awkward, and seemingly over-detailed for a lead section sentence. "The player captures Pokemon and attempts to defeat elite Pokemon trainers"?
    • "A subplot involves the main character defeating a criminal organization that abuses Pokémon." Doesn't really mesh that well with the rest of the paragraph. It's a subplot, so maybe it should just be axed.
    • "As with all Pokémon role-playing games released for handheld consoles, FireRed and LeafGreen are in third-person, overhead perspective and consist of three basic screens: an overworld, in which the player navigates the main character; a side-view battle screen; and a menu interface, in which the player configures his or her Pokémon, items, or gameplay settings." - This sentence needs a complete rewrite. It's too long, it's clunky, and it's hard to understand. Plus, it's a paragraph. Cut it into shorter sentences, and make it clearer.
    • "FireRed and LeafGreen are not exact remakes of Red and Blue, as while most features were retained, new usability features were also added. Players are able to access a contextual "Help" feature which allows them to look up data at almost any point in the game." - Full of redundant words. I recommend reading User:Tony1's guides on redundancy removal. Try, "While FireRed and LeafGreen are remakes of Red and Blue, they contain usability enhancements such as a contextual "Help" feature." Something like that. It says the same thing with far fewer words.
    • "Additionally, when continuing a saved game, players are shown the last four significant events prior to saving, allowing them to remember what they were doing last." It's roughly worded and contains redundancies, but the real problem is that it doesn't make sense. Having never played the game, I have no idea what it means; the majority of readers will be in the same boat. Clarify and rewrite.
  • These among many others. Find several copyeditors, and have them work on the prose. I'll lend a hand if/when you locate them, but I don't have time to do the entire article myself. Please note that I am not opposing the article, which would indicate that I have assessed it against every criteria. As such, even if this issue is dealt with, my support would hinge on whether you deal with the above and other issues. I'm focusing on the prose because future reviewers will probably oppose based on 1a, and because Laserbrain was extremely vague in his grammar complaint. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for your help. I've responded to all of your specific concerns. But how exactly do I go about recruiting copyeditors? Artichoker[talk] 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Unless you have a network, there isn't a set way. If you do have a network, it's the simple process of calling in favors from good writers. If you don't, you're in the situation I've been in for almost all of my FACs: ask around and hope that someone will help. Ask at the Wikiproject VG talk page. Ask these people. Look at recent VG FAs and contact the people who copyedited them. Most copyeditors are busy people, so it might take awhile to find someone. When you do, I'll help them out. It took me weeks to find someone for my last FAC, so good luck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'd like to comment that copyediting is not a great idea at this time, since some or much of the text may have to be changed due to sourcing issues. We don't want to waste a copyeditor's time on content that might get pulled anyway. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • That's true, but I don't believe that the sourcing problems are as severe as you suggest above. The comment about Ruby and Sapphire's early sales, for example, is an exaggeration; the two excerpts are clearly different. However, per your suggestion that an independent editor should check the sources, I will do it today. Expect a full report here in a few hours. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I hope they're not severe. Thanks for doing the check. We need to check that the source backs up the claim, and that the source text is sufficiently different from our text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Finished checking the sources. Concerns about improperly used sources were justified, but were fairly minor, and have been attended to. The worst offenders have been tagged. I could not check references to the games' manuals, as I could not find them online, but it didn't look like their use was out of line. However, I'm afraid that I must oppose the nomination for now. I'm doing this because I believe that the article can be brought to FA status during this FAC. For that to happen, a large number of issues will need to be addressed. Currently, the article obviously fails 1a, 1c and 3. It also fails 1b, but this could be quickly remedied. I will list these problems in extensive detail later today or tomorrow. I recommend that you search for copyeditors in the meantime, so that they are ready when the 1c and 1b issues have been attended to. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Jimmy, do you mean you believe it can't be brought to FA status during this FAC? That is my opinion at this point; the work needed seems considerable. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, I believe that it can. FAC is really the only place that an article may undergo drastic transformation, due to the uselessness of peer review. An edit conflict caused the list of changes I was about to post to be interrupted. Here it is:
    • Since I already covered the prose above, I'll start with the next shortest: 1b. To meet 1b:
      • You need more information in the Development section. Particularly, details about the game's Japan and North America releases, and more on the game's creation, if it exists. When was it first conceived? What kind of design were they aiming for, beyond the stated "simplicity"? Get more detail in there.
    • 1c:
      • 1c requires that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations". When I look at Synopsis, I see that it has almost no citations. Basically, cite everything in there.
        • I was under the impression that the plot summary didn't need citations? Artichoker[talk] 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I don't know how this works in other parts of Wikipedia, but for VG FAs, plot citations are generally required. Maybe it's because they're interactive; I don't know. I do know that I don't remember the last time I saw a VG FAC pass without plot citations. Look at Halo Wars, a recent VG FA, to see how it's done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Look at this. GamePro, Sydney Morning Herald, Famitsu, GMR, Times Online, Electronic Gaming Monthly, gamesTM, Eurogamer, 1up, G4. Get these reviews.
      • The article is almost entirely cited with GameSpot and IGN news stories. They might be reliable, but this makes the article look unprofessional, and makes a reviewer ask, "Was this article thoroughly researched?". Add variation by replacing them with other sources that say the same thing.
    • 3:
      • The box shot has an extremely poor rationale, circa 2007. Wikipedia's rationale standards have increased dramatically since then.
        • Done.
      • I don't remember if this is actually required, but there is no picture of gameplay in Gameplay. Standard procedure across nearly all VG FAs is that a gameplay image should be included, to identify elements described in the prose that would be confusing to the average reader.
        • Done.
    • Misc. comments:
      • Rework the 4 paragraphs in Gameplay into 2-3 paragraphs. It will look better.
        • Done.
      • Remove the "Connectivity with other devices" heading.
        • Done.
      • Rename "Synopsis" to "Plot", and add a Setting subsection for the setting details already present. Then add "Story" or "Synopsis" subheading to contain plot details.
        • Done.
      • "Pokémon FireRed (ポケットモンスター ファイアレッド, Poketto Monsutā Faiareddo?, Pocket Monsters Firered) and Pokémon LeafGreen (ポケットモンスター リーフグリーン, Poketto Monsutā Rīfugurīn?, Pocket Monsters Leafgreen), are enhanced remakes of the 1996 original Pocket Monsters Red and Green video games." This sentence is completely unreadable. Something has to be done about it.
        • Not quite sure what you mean here; the sentence seems quite simple. If you're talking about the Japanese text, I think there's a guideline that says it should be there.
          • It's the Japanese/Romaji/Literal translation. It makes the sentence ridiculously long, and nearly impossible to focus on. For most articles about Japanese games, I can understand; however, this article encompasses two games. Two titles mean two language breakdowns, which make the sentence unjustifiably difficult to read. I recommend removing the language breakdowns, as guidelines—unlike policies—are meant to be followed only as far as they make sense. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Do we really need JunichiMasudaJI1.jpg? It seems unnecessary.
        • It is a free image that shows the development director. I see no drawbacks to the article by including the image.
      • Finally, and obviously: deal with the fact tags I left throughout the article by finding appropriate citations.
        • I remedied a few of the cite tags, however I have no idea why you added one to "The same design mechanics used to create Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire in 2002 were implemented and modified for FireRed and LeafGreen", as the prescribed source indeed states that "These two games, according to reports, will be slight tweaks to the already released Pokemon: Ruby Version and Pokemon: Sapphire Version that's been available in Japan since late last year." The other one that I did not understand was for the text "The music used in the titles was derived from the original games", as the source states that the music was derived from the original games. Artichoker[talk] 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • "We had a discussion and concluded as not to change from the basic sounds. The music were arranged by adding extra sounds" is not clear enough to use as a reference. It could mean any number of things, most obviously that they created new music with the same "four notes" mentioned previously in the blog. As for the first one, it's a misquote. IGN says they'll be slight tweaks; you say they use the same game mechanics. Those mean two totally different things.
            • I've reworded the text for the first ref. As for the one about the audio, the source states that the music was arranged, which means (taking this from Wikipedia's article) "In music, an arrangement is either a rewriting of a piece of existing music with additional new material or a fleshing-out of a compositional sketch": aka it was derived. Artichoker[talk] 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • And for "dispelling concerns that growth of the Pokémon franchise was slowing", I don't see how the source source doesn't support it. It states "Nintendo’s fear of its flagship giant slowing down can now be put to rest." I have now addressed all of the tags. Artichoker[talk] 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • That source just doesn't cut it. It's an off-the-cuff remark from a barely-reliable source. For a claim as serious as that, you would need a far better source, like a book or academic paper. Who's to say Nintendo had concerns? Why does PALGN's claim that they've been dispelled mean that they have been? It's not good enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I went ahead and removed the statement; I don't think any other source claims it. Artichoker[talk] 02:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do this, along with a prose overhaul, and it will probably be FA material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I am very busy right now and have to go again. I've responded to a few of the more easily fixable concerns. Hopefully in a few days I will be able to more fully address these points. In any case, thank you for your very helpful suggestions! Artichoker[talk] 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - there are citation needed tags in the article, so no source check performed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [23].

White Night riots[edit]

Nominator(s): Firestorm Talk 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be an example of some of Wikipedia's best work, and I feel that it meets the Featured Article criteria. This is a self nom, though Moni3 has also helped get it where it is today. Firestorm Talk 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alt text is done present (thanks), but has some problems:

  • There is considerable duplication between alt text and caption. Material that is in the caption should be omitted from the alt text; see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. This material includes "Castro Street", "San Francisco City Hall", "Rioters", "Market Street". This material also falls under the category of the next bullet.
  • Some of the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the images, and needs to be moved to the caption (and sourced) or removed. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify. This text includes "Modern-day", "police" (in "police cars"), "one person is rolling a round object down the street" (sorry, I can't see that), "National Mall", "San Francisco City Hall", "LGBT pride"
  • "pro-equality slogans" is mildly POV. Replace by quoting one or two of the slogans, as examples.
  • "sad expressions". I see "serious" rather than "sad".
  • Reword for brevity by removing "can be seen in" (change to "is in").
  • Misspelling: "desplaying"

Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have fixed the concerns you have laid out in this edit. The one thing that I haven't done is the "LGBT Pride" one, because that's not actually part of the article. That image is in the LGBT navbox template at the bottom, that is transcluded onto this page. If I did anything improperly, please let me know. Alt text in general is fairly new to Wikipedia, and this is my first FAC. Thanks, The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the flag problem with this edit to Template:LGBT. Thanks for your quick work, which fixed all the other alt text problems. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - for now. There are some quite serious problems with the standard of prose throughout. I'll list a few here but the article IMO needs a thorough copyedit. Apologies if this sounds personal but I'm commenting on the article, not its contributors.
  • "When American settlers began to go west in the 18th and 19th centuries, they were primarily male prospectors and miners." - go west from where? Not everyone understands the geography of the continent. And why were they prospectors and miners?
  • "In this society male romantic friendships were not unknown and tolerated when few women were near" - remove the first half of the sentence and you get "not unknown and tolerated when few women were near" - so they were not tolerated? There's a missing word and comma there.
  • "The city's notorious brothel district–named the Barbary Coast–earned it a reputation as a somewhat lawless and amoral society. It was also given the nickname "Sodom by the Sea."" - the city, the district, or the society?
  • "Prohibition ended some of the public spaces for drinking, but as soon as it was repealed, gay bars began to open in North Beach, where they were visited by bohemians, writers, and tourists" - how do you 'end' a public space for drinking? It doesn't quite make sense. Gay bars began to open - how about "Gay bars were opened on North Beach"?
  • "When troop buildup for World War II commenced, San Francisco became a major debarkation point for servicemen stationed in the Pacific Theater." - I'd just chop the 'troop buildup' completely and replace it with "During World War II San Fran..."
  • "The U.S. military, which was concerned with male homosexuality, actively dismissed any servicemen caught in known gay establishments with blue discharges." - concerned with? That sounds very much like 'engaged in'. Why were they concerned about homosexuality, and why 'actively' dismiss, unless you mean they had an active policy to do so?
  • "Enough men were discharged from the military to create an active community in San Francisco following World War II. Rather than go home to face ostracism, they stayed in the city." - I thought there already existed an active community?
This is just the first section. Reading through, I can see the same problems repeated throughout, including the use of idioms—enough in total to create a very long list. Parrot of Doom (talk)
I have corrected the problems you mentioned in that first section. I didn't actually write that part of the article (Moni3 did), but I will look over the rest of it and see what I can fix. It has also been through a peer review, and I have had other editors provide feedback on it. If you could tell me what types of things need to be changed, it would be greatly appreciated. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's better, but prose problems remain throughout. Its quicker if I just trawl through and correct what I see, so that's what I'll do. It'll take a while though. Meanwhile I'll insert tags on anything that isn't clear - click the edit button nearest to each and you'll see a question affixed to most of them. By the way, you should decide on the correct nomenclature for 'gays' - is it homosexuals, or gays? Both words are used throughout 'Gay bar' is probably ok however. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • White_Night_riots#Dan_White_Verdict is somewhat tricky. The section begins by explaining the sentence, but then breaks into a reflective mode describing the reasons for the lenient sentence. This is at odds with the general chronology of the article up to this point which is mainly concerned with matters of historical fact. You should consider moving two of these paragraphs elsewhere, perhaps a section that analyses the probable causes of the riots, somewhere near the 'Legacy' section I would suggest. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In a 1984 interview, Jones gave a voice to the feeling in the crowd as they began to group together on Castro Street after news of the verdict spread, stating, " - this doesn't quite read correctly to me. Was he expressing an opinion on his participation, or was he using the interview to restate that feeling of the crowd at the time? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Police Department leadership, which was unaccustomed to an angry gay crowd, wasn't sure how to handle the situation." - what is the difference between an angry gay crowd, and an angry crowd? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The protesters were convinced that the police and prosecution had conspired to avoid a severe sentence for White, although Prosecutor Thomas Norman denied this.[when?]" - this may be better placed just before the sentence about police confusion (if appropriate) Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Electric trollies" - needs linking, trollies mean different things in other countries Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "According to journalist and author Randy Shilts, the White Night Riots provided a fitting end to the legend of Harvey Milk." - legend - sounds distinctly POV to me, unless its part of a quote, in which case the line should be in quotation marks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • After reading through, the article definitely needs a section that fully analyses the sentencing, and the riots, and the legacy. The present 'legacy' section doesn't really offer the reader any conclusion as to the historical legacy of the riots - it simply gives more historical detail. I don't quite understand exactly how the subject of the article had a lasting effect on California society, the police, the politicians, etc. While changes are discussed, there isn't anything that guides me toward an understanding of why exactly this event was so notable. Other than the points I've raised however, I think its a fascinating article and deserved of FA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [24].

Food waste in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article passed GA, has received a Peer review and I consider it of good standard. It details a currently important issue that is featured often in the media, and is part of the under developed FA category that is Food and drink (only 9 FAs), so therefore it would also seem to be important. This is my first FA nomination, so apologies in advance for any obvious errors etc. Comments, criticisms and suggestions are appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting topic. There's a bit of overlinking of common terms that don't need to be linked, such as "economic", "social", "starvation", "poverty", etc. Also, I see a mix of single quotes and double quotes, I think double quotes should be used. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Linking isn't my best asset, so any help with that is appreciated; I've removed the links you cited. Similarly I wasn't sure about the quotation mark policy (although I have now looked it up and apparently either can be used (but I would agree in this case for double)). They are now changed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done; thanks. Alt text is mostly good, but two images lack it entirely; please see the template documentation for how to fix this, and to check your work when done please visit the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Also, Image:Meanfoodcost.png has alt text that does not tell the visually impaired reader the gist of what they cannot see, namely what the graphs say. A nit: there's a missing "st" in "again a white background". Eubulides (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I looked briefly at the alt text button results, but bypassed the top two images for some reason (I see now the parameters are slightly amiss). Fixed. As for Image:Meanfoodcost.png, I'm not sure what should be done; its content is too comprehensive to adequately sum up and the data (which would give equaled information) contained in the source would be better; can I redirect the user there? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's OK (and fairly typical) if a graph needs longer alt text to give the gist to a visually impaired reader. A summary here shouldn't be that long, surely: it could start with something like "On average, single households could avoid about £5 of their £7 (or 2 kg of their 3 kg) of food waste. Figures for other households are £10 of £14 (or 4 of 7 kg) for shared, unrelated; £7 of £11 (or 3 of 5 kg) for families of adults; ...". I hope you get the idea: for a graph the important thing is not the colors of the bars but what the graph actually says to the viewer. Eubulides (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I will summarise. Summarised, similarly to as suggested. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this the link to the right article?--Rockfang (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is, thank you very much Rockfang; I had sent an email to the FSA regarding the error on the former page, hoping they could get back to me and restore it before the FA process. But this appears to be its new location. Fixed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak oppose I mean this in the best possible way that this is a good article and is well written. The main thing I see is lack of comprehension, particularly in the history part. I studied British history at A-level and I'm aware that many important details related to food rationing and regulating waste are missing, particularly World War I and World War II, I would flesh that out into a whole paragraph and how Britain dealt with food and waste during the wars. Similarly there are many organizations working to deal with food waste but you haven't really done much to explore the relationships of such groups with local councils and within a national framework. You briefly mentioned UNEP and WRAP but a lot of work is being done by NGOs and other environmental groups. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is a good article but for a featured articles I'd like to see it show more evidence of wider reading and study and ensure it gives the best possible coverage and conciseness as possible. Great work so far but I think it still needs considerable work so ensure that there are no major gaps. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for commenting. The issue of how far the historical perspective should be covered came up before the FA process (it's in the talk page), but I considered that the current status touches on the subject without lingering; to my mind, having researched the topic quite substantially, the problem is a decidedly modern one. Avoiding food waste during the wars was done as part of the war effort, not for social, economic or environmental reasons as is done today, therefore I don't really want the article to become bogged down by information on rationing in the wars etc. Although I hope that explanation may have satisfied your comments, I will seek out some further sources and expand somewhat on the history section anyway. As for other NGOs and environmental groups; what ones are you in particular considering? I have mentioned UNEP and WRAP, as you pointed out, but also the WI and referenced sources from FoE. I can't admit coming across any groups that struck me as necessary for inclusion, but I would be more than happy to include any you can think of. I hope I can address your problems before the closure of the FAC process and maybe have you down to a weak oppose! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh it is a more of a weak oppose. I would just explore google a bit further by tapping in different commands like "UK food waste NGO or environmental group etc or "UK food waste concession" things like that and seeing if It doesn't have to be in detail as I said the idea is to make it as comprehensive but as importantly, concise as possible which I believe the article could be improved on. I agree that the article doesn't want to become too bogged down with information on the wars but I still think you should flesh it out into a fuller paragraph as I believe the way in which food was rationed in the wars and the way they minimised wastage was important for later development in dealing with waste.

I have done a bit of google research but a lot of what I came up with might not be relevant as it is generalised towards recycling and general waste rather than specially food waste. I'll see if I can find something later. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I will do that. When researching I found the same problem, with many sources being non-specific to food waste. Thank you for commenting and offering help, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shame nobody else has looked at this. You say quite a lot that action "is recognised " or something "considered" essential for future sustianability etc that sort of thing. Considered or recognised by whom? I think you need to clarify who considers this etc. Good example is "The impact of food waste on the environment is viewed to be enormous; a reduction in food waste is considered critical ". Viewed by whom to be enormous, and considered critical by whom? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, to be quite honest: by too many people and organisations to mention. The same goes for comments such as this, "Reducing the amount of food waste has been deemed critical if the UK is to meet international targets on climate change." But if I were to list (deemed critical by...) those who think so then I would be reaching into double figures. For instance: Defra, WRAP, The Independent, the United Nations, the Food Standards Agency and many more. Because everyone is on the same wave length on this debate (i.e. food waste is bad for the environment) I don't consider it necessary to go into such details. Of course, like anything, I am willing to be swung around to the idea, but I'll need a bit more persuasion it's worth it! Is that okay?
I've expanded the History section to include more details on WWI and II, the long term effects of rationing, the formation of WRAP and the Food we waste report. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Ealdgyth. I've spelt out the abbreviations and linked them as well. As for the references, I hope my explanations suffice:
    • This is not an especially reliable source. After Dr. Blofeld suggested expansion of the History section, I stuck in that statement and used that source as a "temporary source" for lack of alternative sources at the time. I was hoping I could find a more reliable reference on my own, but I can't seem to. Any advice?
    • Edie.net is apparently "Officially Europe's biggest environmental website", and while that doesn't give them assured credibility, I do think the About us does provide assurances. I consider it a reliable, if slightly unconventional, source.
    • BusinessGreen seems a reliable source. It's the product of a respected media company (Incisive Media), who own several publications etc. I wouldn't consider using the blog, but I think the News section is reliable and the cited article remains neutral.
    • Food Navigator was awarded the "2005 Business Food and Drink Journalism Awards - Website of the Year" (press article here) and it's got some good press as well.
    • Interestingly, the source for that article was actually from a site called "New Energy Focus", which seems considerably more reliable and presents more detailed information. I'll replace and adapt the content tomorrow (it's getting late for me). By the time you read this the changes may have happened.

Thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, I did unintentionally cover much of this criteria with my last response. I've double checked them, and I consider, with the exception of the first and last sources, them all to be reliable. Do you have any concerns in particular? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made the change dicussed earlier, and altered multiple other bits and pieces. Images have also been edited, one has been replaced and another has been added (alt text should be satisfactory). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean replacing Spartacus.net and the bioenergy one? As for the others, I remain on the fence about business green, but for the others, awards for websites and their own about us pages aren't the best way to show reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replaced the bioenergy one and its respective information. I chose all the sources used in the article carefully, with most representing the very best in the context. I don't see a problem with Business Green myself, the site is "backed by a large media company" (as per the linked article), the articles from the "News" section are written by the editorial staff and it's a content partner of The Guardian's Environmental Network; for a specialist environmental website I believe it's about the best you can ask for. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [25].

Pavel Bure[edit]

Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bure is a retired NHL player who spent most of his career with the Vancouver Canucks. Although his legacy with the team is somewhat marred with his infamous trade request, his part in the team's 1994 Stanley Cup run and individual achievements reflect him as one of the most talented and significant players to ever play for the Canucks. I began the process of editing the article in hopes of an approved FAC a little over a month ago and it has since vastly improved in quality. After correcting several issues through two peer reviews (one automated PR and one detailed PR from an admin), I feel that the article is ready for FAC. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present, but needs work, as it contains several details that are not obvious to a non-expert who can see only the pictures. These include "Bure" (most readers don't know what Bure looks like), "Canucks", "alternate captain", "Russian president Vladimir Putin"m and "August 14, 2001". These details can be moved to captions; the alt text should describe only obvious visual appearance. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples example 3. Eubulides (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to the request in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images #Pavel Bure. Let's try to do it one step at a time. For the first step, please remove all proper names from the alt text. (This is because typical readers do not know what any of those people look like.) That is, reword the alt text so that it doesn't contain any proper names, but instead briefly describes the visual appearance of the important people or objects in the image. Don't go to a lot of work: the alt text is already too long, and you'll probably want to shorten it as you go. Just briefly write the gist of the visual appearance of the image. (For example, there's no need to mention the photographer.) I suggest just doing one image first, say File:Vladimir Putin in the United States 13-16 November 2001-20.jpg, and then noting that here; I'll review it then. Eubulides (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried changing up all three images; hopefully it looks better. However, I don't think I'm using the proper alt text code for the image in the medal table because it won't show up in the alt text tool. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, much better. I tweaked it a bit more, fixing the parameter-name spelling problem you had with the template. Eubulides (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further notes on images: Only two images? I'm surprised; there should be a lot more for an article of this size. Nevertheless, both of those images are fine. NW (Talk) 04:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've tried extensively to have images on flickr to be freed up under a creative commons license, but no flickr users were willing, unfortuantely. I'm not aware any other places to look. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now I just feel ridiculous having gone to Wikimedia Commons and finding a Pavel Bure category. I added one more image, because the others available at Commons are more or less different shots of the same situations already used in the article. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly does "Banks 1999" refer to? Is there a bibliography somewhere that I am just not seeing? NW (Talk) 04:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Banks 1999 refers to citation number 5, where the book's info is fully cited. I was not sure how to properly cite the book, as it was used quite frequently. Do you have any suggestions? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tell me what you think: [26]. Feel free to revert if you dislike it. NW (Talk) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Awesome. Done lol. I actually had something similar originally but decided against it. It's definitely a better setup, thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment on writing alt captions.
The present caption to the lead image says: An ice hockey player in his late twenties wears a jersey with red, blue and silver trim and a logo composed of a front part of a whale breaking out of a stylized "C". His jersey features a patch of a black letter "A" with red trim on the top right side, a patch of a stylized maple leaf with two hockey sticks on the top left side and the number 10 in black with red trim on his upper right arm. He also wears a white helmet and black hockey pants and holds a black and yellow hockey stick diagonally across his torso.
Incredibly tedious! So what can go? Do we need to know its the "front part" of a whale? Do we need to know every tiny detail of the uniform, down to the trim around the letter A? The answer is no. The minute description of what he is wearing has taken over completely from a description of the real subject matter.
What I am about to say here is something which nit-picking editors might call "interpretation". But this is what your non-seeing reader needs to know about.
This is a picture of a young man who is in the middle of a game. His face looks sweaty, and has an expression of deep concentration. This is what the picture is about. Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. This alt text process seems to be hareing off in the wrong direction to me. Unfortunately a picture usually is worth 1,000 words, and we can't realistically add the 1,000 words. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've revised the alt text a little bit, but am unsure exactly how I can address your concerns. If you have any ideas, please feel free to have a shot at it. Alt text is a little bit of a novel idea for me. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amandajm's point about the alt text being tedious are well taken; the alt text was overdone. I reworded along the lines Amandajm suggested. I left off the "sweaty" bit (I can't see the sweat) and I left off the "game" bit (I see no evidence that the photo was taken while a game was in progress), and I feel that some info about his uniform is appropriate, so that change results in the alt text "An ice hockey player on the ice with spectators in the background. He is in his late twenties and has an expression of deep concentration. He wears a white jersey with a big black C, and holds a hockey stick diagonally across his torso." Hope this addresses the concerns, and further improvements are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
Done, with the exception of organizations that don't go by the 'spelled out' version of their name anymore. (ie. ESPN is the official name, having previously dropped the full "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network" name) Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Current ref 79 ("Burke says Wild...) is lacking a publisher.
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Working on finding a different source. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replaced with a source from Kommersant. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments – I found the beginning part to be well-written, but ran into some problems later on:
  • Vancouver Canucks: Little redundancy here: "he was avaliable to be drafted in the first three rounds of the draft". Normally I'd suggest replacing the first one with "selected", but this is used later in the sentence, so "chosen" might be a good substitute.
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "However, the Canucks head scout at the time, Mike Penny". Apostrophe at the end of Canucks.
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Canucks met further resistance from the Soviet Ice Hockey Federation the following year in 1991, calling for Bure's contract with the Central Red Army to be upheld before he signed with an NHL club." Reads like the Canucks were the ones making the call, not the SIHF. I'm sure this isn't the intention, and a simple tweak should be enough to fix it.
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the picky side, certain dollar amounts (typically $1 million or more), such as $2.7 million, require non-breaking spaces.
I could not find you were referring to here. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Bure's Canucks debut in 1992 was delayed a month into the season." Is it supposed to be "delayed until a month into the season."?
Done. I hope "delayed by a month into the season" is good enough. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "When it came time to voting the players". "vote for", perhaps? Doesn't seem like it works grammatically now.
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another glaring redundancy: "representing the Clarence Campbell Conference as the lone Canucks representative."
Done. Replaced "representing" with "was named to" Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nicklas Lindstrom doesn't have diacritic marks, but Patrik Sundstrom does. Might want to quickly check for consistency in this regard.
Added diacrtic. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "with one of the major factors being the Canucks demands for the contract to be in Canadian dollars on account of the American exchange rate." Anytime a noun like "with" and an -ing like "being" are combined, it often leads to an awkward sentence. This is the best guide I've found to combat this problem.
Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to come back and read more later, but make no guarantees due to how many reviews I conduct. Also consider reading WP:MOSNUM, which has guidelines on when to use figures and when to spell numbers out. It's confusing even to many reviewers (like me), but it's important to have a basic understanding when writing articles with many numbers, like sports statistics. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone through and addressed the MOSNUM issues. As a general rule, numbers under 10 are written as words and the rest are written numerically. Of course, being the MOS, it's a bit more complicated than that at times! Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, thanks so much. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "However, there were unresolved contract issues as Bure's agent Ron Salcer...". Considering that the agent was identified in the previous paragraph, the three words before Salcer should be removed.
  • "He spent the season with a roatation of linemates". Typo.
  • "He had originally requested the number when he first joined the Canucks, but was not permitted by head coach Pat Quinn". Permitted to wear the number, I assume?
  • New York Rangers: "before suffering a knee-on-knee collision with Buffalo Sabres forward Curtis Brown in game on December 6, 2002." Should perhaps be "in a game"?
In addition, I'd like to make a pass at copy-editing the rest at some point in the next couple of days. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing those out. I've gone and fixed them. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some light cleanup work throughout, along with my own source spot-check. Found a few more concerns that I wanted to note:
  • Didn't like the flow of this sentence, but am unsure of the best fix: "many cases of extortion began surfacing that the Russian mafia was targeting the players' families still living in Russia."
  • Found one sentence that was quite close to the source. Reference 7: "If Pavel did not show marked improvement in two months, he would withdraw him from the program." Article: "...if he did not show significant improvement within two months, he would withdraw him from the hockey school."
  • The same source says nothing about Bure's coach winning an award, and only says he was the first Canucks player to win an award. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I spot checked some of the sources, and found one issue:

  • "His mark for most goals by a rookie stood for 18 years before New York Rangers prospect Alexei Cherepanov broke the record by one goal in 2006–07." There was nothing in the provided source saying that the record lasted 18 years. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the record was set in 1989 and Cherepanov broke it in 2007, thus 18 years. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. I read through the article pretty carefully, but must have missed that bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [27].

Samus Aran[edit]

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is the silent, female protagonist of the Metroid series of video games. I've been working on this article on and off since January and I think I've taken it as far as I can. Gary King (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Great work. Could 'Characteristics' be changed to 'Background and characteristics' or similar? Only to me, it doesn't begin to really discuss her characeristics until the last paragraph.
Alt text: Is everyone going to be familiar with a 'powered exoskeleton'? Could a bit more detail be included (bulky shoulders?)? The last image alt text needs to be altered to show that it is a low-detail, pixelated video game screenshot of a woman in a bikini, else it might as well be referring to the girls of Dead or Alive: Extreme 2! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I renamed the section to "Fictional biography" since it really just encompasses everything that we know about her fictional life. I've reworded the alts. Gary King (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Final comment: Alt text is much improved. One more thing: the last sentence of the lead seems slightly too long and misrepresenting, I could only find one reviewer who supported the curiosity connection. A suggestion for rewording: "A reviewer noted that part of people's connection with Samus is her curiosity for the unknown and the rewards she receives when she indulges it."
Okay done Gary King (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: As per my comments being addressed and it being an excellent article on an important subject for video gaming. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Limited support (postponed for now) - I say that because I have no opinion on the images and others will need to discuss those. As for the article - 1. I am confused by the dangling "including Samus" in Development. It seems out of place. It seems like it could be removed in general. 2. Things like "Samus's Morph Ball ability" wont be understood by those unfamiliar with the game. It might need a few words to explain what exactly it is. Try "Samus is capable of turning into a ball which allows her to collapse into a sphere to travel through tight areas. Calling it a "Morph Ball ability", developers conceived of it because it required less effort to animate than...." Not the best, but yeah. 3. "Ridley Scott's Alien" - "Ridley Scott's film, Alien". 4. It might be better to show which games revealed what details in the fictional biography. That would just make it seem more of a development than some recreated whole looking back. That would be the difference between in-universe and encyclopedic (first paragraph and a half is the only portion that really needs this, the rest of the section does do this already). But I am confused as to this section and the appearances section. They might want to be merged together (under one heading without any real changes). I don't see any real problems beyond that, and nothing that is major. It would be nice for you to get a few free images, but yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All done except for the last point (#4). A lot of those points are not from any of the games; some are from manuals, comics, stories published by Nintendo, etc. I see the Fictional biography section as talking about Samus very generally, while the Appearances section says what she does in each game, chronologically. I think the two give very separate pieces of information about Samus. Gary King (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are the manuals retroactive? Are there any errors between the two? I would hate to have a variation. You could preface that paragraph with saying that "according to the most recent version of the story, ..." or something similar. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't believe that Samus's background is contradicted in any official publications about her. The only place that I know that portrays Samus differently from canon are the comic books, but they aren't published by Nintendo. Gary King (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is good to know. I remember with some game pages that there are all sorts of fights about what is "canon" and not. Rather annoying stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support (I could even co-nominate, edited quite a bit) good and comprehensive enough, considering how hard it is to find some sources. One step closer to a Metroid FT! igordebraga ≠ 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as every last bit of information has been drained out of the Internet - writing articles about fictional characters is like squeezing blood from a stone. I'm not sure if forgoing the official art of Zero Suit Samus is a good idea, though, as the article doesn't showcase Samus' actual character design - I'm sure if Master Chief's helmet came off, there would be some kind of visual to show how he looked.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: are we using Samus' or Samus's? I'm not bothered either way, but it should be consistent throughout the article. -sesuPRIME 12:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Samus's since Samus is singular; I believe that's the rule. As for Zero Suit Samus's sketch, yeah that was a good image, but I don't know how we can justify using that fair use image unless we had some critical commentary on her appearance without her suit (we have plenty about her WITH her suit) or on the design of her body. Maybe if we had a source that said she was blonde, and that she had a particular type of haircut, etc.? Gary King (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You already have an image of a Zero Suit Samus cosplayer, so if you don't have any commentary on her appearance, you can't really justify the inclusion of THAT image either. You can't just put it in there for no reason other than the fact that the person allowed its usage.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, yeah you can. Gary King (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The relevant guidance on Commons is Commons:Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay. Commons hasn't come to a consensus. My opinion on the matter of cosplay in articles is that, regardless of the free/not free status of the image it's already far enough removed from the subject that it isn't a good representation of the character. Nifboy (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm okay, I'll remove the image for now as it isn't vital to the article in the first place. Ideally I'd like to find a free photo of one of the people who have worked on Samus's character. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using a costumed person as a substitute for fair use seems like an abuse of the policy. Not to mention that, without a comparison of the official design, the reader has no reference.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not the only rule. There is a long tradition of using one s for words like Socrates' where the final s is voiced to sound more like z, which would make Socrates's hard to pronounce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, per comments from peer reviews. Vantine84 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I do not believe that the following is encyclopedic: "In a poll on IGN, 73.8% of 70,000 voters believed that Samus would win in a fight against Master Chief, the main protagonist of the Halo series.[14] Visitors also voted in favor of Samus against both Lara Croft of the Tomb Raider series,[15] and Solid Snake of the Metal Gear series.[16] In a reader-submitted scenario appearing in Game Informer's Video Game Deathmatch series, Samus successfully kills Mega Man to claim a bounty.[17] Samus also appeared in multiple GameFAQs Character Battle contests, winning the Character Battle V in 2006.[18]" Sure, it's sourced, but is this really worthwhile information? When writing a Wikipedia article, a historical perspective should be taken. The above is not historically relevant by any stretch; it's fan fiction, used by popular sites to generate traffic. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay removed Gary King (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for Cr. 1a. Nice work; interesting content. Tony (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments from Wrestlinglover
    • I will start tomorrow, possibly. I usually intend to do removes, but forget to or just never get around to it. I have been wanting to read this article.--WillC 09:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs image and sources review: did all of the supporters check sourcing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On sources, I went through and found this immediately (1-5 are on the 1st source, 6-11 are on the 2nd source):
1. Wiki - "The style for the original Metroid game was designed to be a cross between the side-scrolling gameplay of the Super Mario games and the exploration and puzzle-solving aspects of the The Legend of Zelda series, with inspiration from science fiction."
1. Source - "The style for the original Metroid game was designed to be a cross between the side-scrolling gameplay of the Super Mario games and the exploration and puzzle-solving aspects of the The Legend of Zelda series, with inspiration from science fiction."
2. Second use of first source to verify that she left the Galatic Police "due to her grief following the death of her commander, Adam Malkovich" is missing this information.
3. The first source used to verify this cannot verify this - 'since her "bounty hunting" helps the galaxy get rid of unsavory elements such as the mysterious lifeforms known as Metroids...'
4. Wiki - "limited number of missiles"
4. Source - "limited number of missiles"
5. Wiki - A. "When the Varia Suit is destroyed, Samus dons the less protective Zero Suit." B. "Also in the Metroid Prime series, the eponymous Metroid Prime creature fuses with the remnants of Samus's Phazon Suit to become Dark Samus"
5. Source - A. "On occasion, the Varia Suit is destroyed and Samus is forced to fight in the sleeker but far less protective Zero Suit." B. "Metroid Prime fuses with the remnants of Samus' Power Suit to become Dark Samus. "
6. Wiki - "and the producer for Metroid, Gunpei Yokoi, took advantage of this shortcut."
6. Source - "and Yokoi's team took full advantage of their very clever shortcut."
7. The source cannot be used to directly verify this statement "which is used in the games to save progress and restore health and ammunition"
8. Wiki - "Samus typically works alone. She has never spoken in any game with the exceptions of Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Metroid Other M"
8. Source contradiction - "Maybe that's why nobody's heard Samus speak a single word in over two decades of free-form pirate extermination."
9. Wiki - "she let slip some emotions while dealing with her artificially intelligent computer"
9. Source - "She let slip a few emotions while dealing with Adam"
10. The source cannot be used to directly verify this statement "where she battles the Ing, creatures that are able to possess other organisms." or "Samus is infected by Phazon and is slowly corrupted by the mutagen while she works to prevent it from spreading from planet to planet"
- Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - The two fair use images are appropriate, in my opinion. NW (Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong oppose, 1c. I am very concerned about the way sources have been used. After reading Ottava's example, I checked one more at random, from this source:
    • Wiki: "While playing Metroid Prime, he felt a connection with Samus after sharing her exploration of an alien world and the catastrophe it experienced.
    • Source: "My connection with this character comes in sharing her exploration of an alien world and the catastrophe it has experienced."
A disturbing pattern has emerged of slight paraphrasing right down to overt plagiarism. An audit of all the sources is needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [28].

Republic of China[edit]

Nominator(s): Laurent (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article has been recently reviewed, expanded and verified by several editors, and I feel that it must be close to FA status now. Laurent (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Alt text is missing for many images; see WP:ALT and the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page.
  • Existing alt text contains phrases that cannot immediately be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "38 years old", "the PRC", "American F-16 Fighting Falcon", "charismatic", "of the Republic of China" (in several but not all instances; the map is OK), "written in both English and Traditional Mandarin" (just give the English and Mandarin text; don't say that they are translations of each other; it's OK to put Mandarin in alt text as long as it's pure text), "National Emblem of the Republic of China (Taiwan)". I may have missed some, but these should help you start.
  • Some existing alt text is inadequate, e.g., "Taipei", "Tainan", Kaohsiung", "Taichung",
  • File:Resolution-2758.png is purely text and its visual appearance is irrelevant. It should be replaced by text, e.g., in a quote box. This should work better for both visually impaired and sighted readers.
  • File:CountriesRecognizingROC.png has alt text that doesn't give the visual impression of the image. It should mention that only a few small countries recognize the ROC, and list their general areas (central America, Paraguay, etc.).
  • The image gallery is not encyclopedic and should be removed or greatly reduced as per WP:IG. (This should save you some alt-text work....)

Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: big problems in the lead, to start with. The whole article needs serious attention. I haven't yet determined whether the nomination is saveable.

  • I just don't get the opening sentence, and I suspect that most English-speaking readers won't either: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a state in East Asia that has evolved from a single-party state with full global recognition and jurisdiction over China into a democratic state with limited international recognition and jurisdiction only over Taiwan and minor islands, though it enjoys de facto relations with many other states." It's a lot of unfamiliar, unintuitive information to hit us with. I wasn't aware that Taiwan owned the whole China—nor that it evolved from a one-party state. Perhaps this could be more gently introduced further down? This is before we even know it's an island off the coast of mainland China, with a population of blah? The second para is even more baffling. We start with a constitutional fact, then go straight to the opinions of past presidents. Huh? Then the third para, where we find that these presidents operated in a democracy, etc (the D word also made a brief, opaque appearance towards the start). Disordered. I think the lead needs trashing and rewriting. Comma before "although". "That" before "there is no need".
  • "Despite being currently located in Taiwan, the ROC started its existence in China"—the moving location of a republic sounds very odd in English. Tony (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, I didn't realize the lead was so obscure for readers not familiar with the subject. I'll have a look at other country FA articles to see how they are usually written. If you have some more comments on how to improve or structure the lead in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear them. Perhaps part of the issue here is that the article used to be focused on the history of the ROC, while the focus now has shifted a bit more on its current status, however the lead stills reflects how the previous article was organized. Laurent (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • One problem is that you are (accurately) depicting a paradox; Taiwan was not part of the Republic of China in 1944, but was most of the area under its de facto (there is no consensus on de jure) control by 1950.
      • The more general problem is that you are beginning with the unusual aspects of the Republic. I would break this up into two or three sentences (probably one on the RoC c. 1937 (it wasn't a one-party state in 1916), and another on the present), add a topic sentence (such as the Republic of China is unusual among the world's governments) and move most of it down a paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that's what I was fumbling towards saying, but didn't have the knowledge to do so; thanks, PMA. Tony (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Object not comprehensive. Nothing on culture/arts/sport for a start. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: It's a fair point but note that the culture, arts and sport in Taiwan are detailed in the Taiwan article, while the ROC article focuses on the state only. If it was up to me I'd merge the Taiwan and ROC article but that's not going to happen, so in the meantime we have to leave certain things like indeed the culture or geography in Taiwan, while the rest can go in Republic of China. Laurent (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Comment: I don't consider that a valid point; the economy and political status are discussed in Taiwan as well, yet they feature in the ROC article too. Or am I missing something? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is about the government, which is responsible for the economy and the political status; it is not, in the same sense, responsible for culture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. So, wait a minute this means we have one article on Taiwan as a place controlled by a government and one article on ROC, the government that controls the place? I don't want to sift through the article history myself, but I assume this has something to do with edit warring over what constitutes the legal government of both Taiwan and Mainland China. I don't understand why a separate article detailing the ROC is necessary (except, of course, as a daughter article for other topics perhaps). Surely the history of the ROC before 1949 would be part of the history of China and the history of the ROC after that date would belong with Taiwan? I realize the issue is complicated by the fact that the ROC claims control of China and the PRC control of Taiwan and that the world at large did not recognize the PRC as the rightful government of China officially until the 1970s, but this seems a really weird way to go about this. I would hear more, but I am inclined to oppose this article on comprehensiveness grounds. Some sections refer only to events on Taiwan, others refer to events in both Mainland China before 1949 and on Taiwan, and other topics are relegated to the articles on Taiwan and China themselves, which, by the way, overlap with this and create redundancies. I assume a compromise had to be worked at some point, but this seems inelegant for FA status. Indrian (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: I wholeheartedly agree. This is a complicated issue, for sure; but at the same time, this article is just far too strange - for instance, history, geography, demographics, and culture are handled in the "Taiwan" article - with a link at the top stating, "For the state commonly referred to as "Taiwan" which governs the island, see Republic of China." I realize that by saying this, I am probably opening Pandora's box - but it seems ridiculous to me that we can't simply merge the two articles, since (whether you like it or not) the ROC is Taiwan's de facto government and splitting the two articles seems like we're trying a little too hard to appease everyone (particularly those who would prefer we merged the Taiwan article with "People's Republic of China"). Furthermore, I haven't come across any other article about a state that makes a distinction between the state itself and the land and people upon which it governs - even the tiny, barely recognized breakaway republic of Transnistria manages to get by without having to do this, and the ROC is a far more legitimate government. Alexthe5th (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Does Ireland ring a bell? Controversy over the-island vs. the-state has led to an RfC that's currently ongoing. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • On second thought, let's not open that box. Good point about Ireland, though. One thing to consider is that the issue with Ireland is slightly different, since Ireland has two fully recognized governments on the island (the Republic of Ireland and the UK) so that's a little more ambiguous. In any case, though, I don't think this is the place to debate the merging of the articles (that can of worms can be opened in the Taiwan/ROC article talk pages), but I will throw in my two cents and say that in the current state, it's not FA-ready. On those grounds, oppose for now until this becomes more elegant. Alexthe5th (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • There are three dead weblinks showing by the link checker tool.
  • You have a number of websites in the references that lack last access dates.
  • Also a number lack publishers.
  • There are a number of references that have links to google books pages, but the references need to be formatted as books, with publisher, etc. given.
  • Newspapers and magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [29].

Lystrosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is worth to be an featured article.... Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. That caption with a color in parentheses may need to be rethought in the light of the alt text (depends on how the alt text is written, I guess). Eubulides (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I hope the alt text I put in is ok. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The alt text added to the lead image contains a word ("Lystrosaurus") that is not obvious to a non-expert who sees only the image, and should be reworded or removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, examples 1 and 3). Also, surely that alt text can be improved somewhat, so that a visually-impaired reader gets more of the gist of what that image conveys. The other images all still lack alt text; see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this page. Eubulides (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think i clarified the alt text in the images in the article. What do you mean by the "other images all still lack alt text"? I checked the link, and at the bottom it said that only 6 out of 12 images were displayed. Yet in the article, there are only 6 images. What other images lack the alt text? --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Thanks for improving the lead image's alt text, but I'm afraid it still makes claims that cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is only looking at the image, as the phrases "pig-like" and "in Paris, France" are not obvious. Of the 6 images listed by the tool, 5 lack alt text, as indicated by the blue areas that contain no text; perhaps you were confusing caption with alt text in the tool's display? Eubulides (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • How is it now? Another editor helped me with the alt text, and I think its descriptive enough. Of course, please mention if anything is wrong. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Much better, thanks. A few more things for the newly-introduced text. The phrase "at a museum in China" should be removed, as it's not obvious from the image itself. The alt text for the geographical distribution contains some details ("Color is in brown") that aren't that important (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 6), and omits all discussion of the other animals in the image. Also, phrases like "Diagram illustrating", "Image of", "An illustration of" are not that helpful and should be removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2). Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • The "in china" phrase was removed. The image about geographical distribution was also clarified. How is it now? --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support WRT 1a. But here are a few niggles. Heavens, the nominator is named after the article topic!

  • I tweaked a little at the top. Can you check there are no more spaced em dashes. Take your pick: spaced en or unspaced em.
  • "Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in many of the late Permian and Early Triassic terrestrial fossil beds, most abundantly in Africa but also including some in India, China and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time) and a few in Mongolia and the European part of Russia." This is not such a good sentence. Perhaps: "Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in many of the late Permian and Early Triassic terrestrial fossil beds, most abundantly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in parts of [what are now?] India, China and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time), and in Mongolia and European Russia." You may be able to improve on this suggestion.
How does this sound. — Lystrosaurus fossils have been found in many of the late Permian and Early Triassic terrestrial bone beds, most abundantly in Africa, and to a lesser extent in parts of what are now India, China, Mongolia, European Russia, and Antarctica (which was not over the South Pole at the time).

I already put it in there, but tell me if anything is wrong with it. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "As so often with fossils, there is debate about exactly how many species have been found in the Karoo"—I can't think how to fix this; as so often ... found in a particular region. But you need then to associate it with the Karro. Can it be done neatly?
I reworded it to this: — As so often with fossils, there is debate in the paleontological community as to exactly how many species have been found in the Karoo.

Is that ok? --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "4"—MOSNUM says "four", unless there's a reason to use a numeral. Here, there's every reason not to, given the digitised year 200 ms earlier.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 06:28, August 1, 2009

Done. --Lystrosaurus1 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment more of a placeholder really - I will have a look and massage straightforward prose fixes. Please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning, and I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is written is good, I have tweaked a little, and there are still some "It has been suggested that.."-type phrases that it would be good to reword if possible - e.g. if a particular notable paleontologsit proposed a particular theory then name him or her.
  • Comprehensiveness issues - compare with Herrerasaurus, a recently promoted article. Needs a classification section - what's the genus related to? Also, who named the genus originally and when? Many dino articles have a Paleoecology section - what was the environment of the karoo (and moscow and antarctic) like in the permian and triassic? Some is already done. This is all doable. I am happy to help if I can, and copyedit etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment In addition to what is stated above, a few other minor issues:

  • "Four to six species are currently recognized", yet 7 species are listed in the taxobox. Further down in the article, you mention that L. platyceps and L. oviceps are now synonyms for L. curvatus. I think that needs to be reflected in the taxobox. Personally, I've never dealt with this issue, so I'm not sure what to suggest. Maybe put the two junior synonyms after L. curvatus in parentheses, such as (syn. L. platyceps and L. oviceps)?
  • From "Dominance of the Early Triassic" section: "However, there are weaknesses in all these points: the chest of Lystrosaurus was not significantly larger in proportion to its size than in other dicynodonts that became extinct; although Triassic dicynodonts appear to have had longer neural spines than their Permian counter-parts, this feature may be related to posture, locomotion or even body size rather than respiratory efficiency; L. murrayi and L. declivis are much more abundant than other Early Triassic burrowers such as Procolophon or Thrinaxodon." - Sentence seems overly long and difficult to follow. Maybe someone good at copyediting can look it over and offer an opinion?

Overall, article looks pretty good, though it still requires a bit of work. In particular, I think it may need a good copyedit. Next time I would recommend submitting the article for a Good article review before going straight to FAC, and maybe even have a Peer review as a next step. Otherwise, keep up the good work! –Visionholder (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now:
  1. Lystrosaurus (meaning 'shovel lizard', pronounced /ˌlɪstrɵˈsɔːrəs/) was a genus of Late Permian and Early Triassic Period dicynodont therapsids, which lived around 250 million years ago in what is now Antarctica, India and South Africa. I do not like this sentence from the lead. That the genus lived in Late Permian and Early Triassic already implies that it was 250 million years ago. I suggest "Lystrosaurus (meaning 'shovel lizard', pronounced /ˌlɪstrɵˈsɔːrəs/) was a genus dicynodont therapsids, which lived around 250 million years ago in Late Permian and Early Triassic Period in what is now Antarctica, India and South Africa."
  2. Four to six species are currently recognized—you forgot to mention the seventh species Lystrosaurus georgi, which is not from Africa.
  3. In the 'Other species' subsection the words: which is regarded as one of the least specialized species and has been found in very Late Permian and very Early Triassic sediments repeat what was already said in the previous subsection and should be removed. The subsection itself is too short and should be expanded or merged with the previous subsection.
  4. In the 'Dominance in the early Triassic' section there is a sentence: At least one unidentified species of this genus survived the end-Permian mass extinction and, in the absence of predators and of herbivorous competitors, went on to thrive and re-radiate into a number of species within the genus, which contradicts what was said in the previous section. In it I read that that all species of Lystrosaurus except L. curvatus had not survived the extinction.
  5. Again: L. murrayi and L. declivis are much more abundant than other Early Triassic burrowers such as Procolophon or Thrinaxodon. However the previous section says that L. murrayi and L. declivis are found only in Permian sediments. All these contradictions should be clarified.
  6. The article says nothing about ancestors of these animals. Indeed where they come from? I also interested when and why they got extinct and whether they left any descendants. In other words you should provide more context (see also comments of Casliber above).
  7. There are some problems with references: notes 1 and 9 do not have necessary information about authors, publishers, dates etc.

Ruslik_Zero 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: I second the concerns above. Also, it would be good to include some kind of "History of discovery"-type section. There is no mention in the article that Lystrosaurus was originally classified under Dicynodon, for example, or even any indication what the type species is. I'll work to add some of this information if I can but it should be present in a well-rounded paleo article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments –
  • What makes http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/herbivorousdinosaurs/p/lystrosaurus.htm a reliable source? About.com is usually unreliable in general.
  • References 3 and 9 need access dates.
  • Reference 11 should be formatted to include a publisher and author (if applicable), along with an access date.
  • According to the link checker, the Geowords external link is from a blacklisted site. Haven't seen that highlighted on the tool before, so it should be looked into. All other links function properly. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [30].

Ralph Bakshi[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and improved since its last nomination. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Incredibly, the article appears to have regressed in regards to one significant claim: that Fritz the Cat "gross[ed] over $100 million worldwide". This claim--solely sourced to a passing phrase in a Variety obituary of the film's producer--ignores multiple WP:V-standard sources that contradict it. I've raised this issue multiple times with the nominator: twice during the previous FAC nomination ([31], [32]) and on his Talk page between nominations (User_talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive_1#Bakshi). Steve then solved the problem, moderating the claim in the article text and adding a note referencing the wide variety of figures given for the film's box-office gross ([33]). The nominator has seen fit to revert Steve's work and restore the claim he seems inalterably wedded to. DocKino (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that two sources print that the film grossed more than $100 million - Variety and Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi - gives the figure more credibility than any of the other figures suggested. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Note: DocKino has not made any edits since June 29, when he was warned against edit-warring. This user, by the way, did not object to the sourcing of a book that I strongly suspected to have been copied from or researched from a Wikipedia revision giving a gross sourced from a user-edited IMDb page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
My choice about when and whether to edit is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not this article meets FA standards. (And, by the way, this is Wikipedia: anyone can go ahead and warn anybody about anything at any time. Would you like me to stick a warning tag on your Talk page? How about one for incivility? You've certainly earned it over the past few months.)
Your response is inadequate. (1) It is unclear even where in Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi this claim is based. The citation is one of a remarkable twenty-eight citations that reference eight different pages in the book. Please cite the specific page on which this claim appears. While you're at it, please cite the other specific pages on which other specific, discrete bits of information appear. (2) Even ignoring the book you "strongly suspect" is itself poorly sourced, we still have multiple high-quality sources giving very different figures for the film's box office take. Steve made sure those sources were acknowledged; you have made sure they are not. (3) You continue to refuse to do what I advised a while back. Research the actual, authoritative Variety box office reports.—DocKino (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me? It cites the chapter relating to the film, conveniently labeled "Fritz the Cat". The statement occurs in the last two pages of the chapter (80-81). And Variety backs this up. I refuse to do what you advise because you have no idea what you're talking about, and I refuse to cite inaccurate figures. The figures cited in this article are accurate and will stay. Your comments are unhelpful and disruptive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I would also like to see this issue resolved, but I doubt it's paramount to the article becoming a featured article. It raises a question though: What should be the authoritative source on a film's gross if sources differ? Or do we just give a range in the article and say sources disagree? --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that several of these sources seem equally reliable. Back when I gave this a copyedit a month or two ago I attempted to implement a compromise; it was swiftly reverted, so I'm not sure what the solution should be. Steve T • C 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the figures reflected in the article are the accurate ones. The figures in the citations you added are out of date and questionably sourced. Unfiltered and Variety both state that the film grossed over $100 million, therefore, the figure has more authority than a book like Planet Cat, added by you, which is not only not about animation history or Ralph Bakshi, but is sourced from a Wikipedia revision sourced from Internet Movie Database, edited by some random person. And how does this qualify as "swiftly reverted" when your edits sat there for months before being changed to reflect what is factually accurate and verified? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Well, less than one month actually; I considered that swift in the scheme of things. Though I accept that my choice of wording could be seen as antagonistical, I hope that given the time I spent copyediting the article my good faith in helping you get it to FA standard is clear; the question over the film's box office shouldn't be allowed to hold the nomination up, and I only wanted to pursue a solution that would satisfy everyone. Good luck, Steve T • C 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for coming across as accusatory/aggressive or anything else, that really wasn't my attention, and I do feel that you put in a lot of good work into the article, and I did accept the compromise enough to apply it to other articles covering the film's production before reading Unfiltered, which is more recently researched, and is the only thorough discussion of Bakshi's career (although I was initially under the impression that it was an art book with very little text, and I was unable to find a copy for quite some time), which is why I feel that it is more authoritative in regards to the film's gross...and the fact that Variety agrees with Unfiltered confirms this... (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ralph_Bakshi.jpg should be looking into the text, otherwise images fine Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    • Note: I've reverted your mirroring change to RalphBakshiJan09.jpg. MOS:IMAGES says "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Should you be replying to me, considering that it was MacMed who made that decision? I considering flipping the other photo, but I decided that it wasn't necessary, since simply changing the placement is much easier. And I really don't understand why either of these images should "face the text". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I was about to comment on the FLC for Ralph Bakshi filmography suggesting that it be merged into this article as it isn't very long. Would anyone object to that? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The filmography has been merged. Hopefully that shouldn't change things too much. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have fixed most of the dabs; however I cannot find the link to Ralph Bakshi filmography, which is a redirect to Ralph Bakshi. The toolbox says the article links to the redirect, but I could not find it with a WikEd search. MacMedtalkstalk 20:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The filmography was merged into and redirected to this article. The link was from the navbox at the bottom; I removed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - I admit I was wary when I saw this here for the 8th time, but it looks like a lot of great work has been done since the last nomination. The prose is way better, and the research appears more thorough. A couple comments:
    • A couple of the details in the Early Life section struck me as inane and unrelated to Bakshi's development and body of work—especially the bit about the city noise soothing him to sleep. I can see mentioning how he dug through trash cans to get comics, but do we need the bit about cutting his hands? It seems more anecdotal than encyclopedic.
    • "Bakshi was sent to the principal's office, where a transfer to Manhattan's School of Industrial Art was initiated" Unclear. Did the principal initiate the transfer? On his own or in consultation with Bakshi's parents? The subject of the sentence is unclear due to the passive voice, as are the reasons for sending him to that particular school.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support now. I've done some more work on the prose, especially in the latter half which tends to get less attention. It looks good to me, although I've been through it several times and might be blind to further problems. --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. EDIT: Struck pending resolution of new concerns. Steve T • C I've had this watchlisted for a while now. The main issues at the last FAC were legitimate prose niggles; it's had a lot of attention since then by the nominator and several other editors, and it's looking good now. The issue over the $100 million claim for Fritz the Cat is more or less resolved with the addition of the new source that backs up Variety (though it would be interesting to find out why those other sources said something different.) Glad to see this one back here and passing muster. Nice work, Steve T • C 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Incredibly, I've encountered many mainstream journalists who don't understand the differences between gross and profit, nor worldwide and domestic, and so on. They don't let this misunderstanding stop them from writing about films. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The article's generally quite good, although there are bits and pieces that can be improved. Here are a few comments:

  • "and would often dig through trash cans to get ahold of them"-->and often dug through trash cans to get a hold of them
  • "At the age of eight, Bakshi overheard a loud noise while sleeping at a friend's house, and later learned that a neighbor had committed suicide after murdering his unfaithful wife." This seems like a random fact. Did this incident affect him in any way (his work, life, relationships)?
  • "Schudde was surprised that Bakshi was still arriving at work" I'm probably being dense, but what does it mean to "arriv[e] at work"?
  • "Elaine disliked his work hours, which often left Mark in the care of Ralph's mother." Not as clear as it could be (the hours didn't actually put him in the her care). Maybe "Elaine disliked his [insert adjective here] work hours, which meant that Mark often had to be left in the care of Ralph's mother."
  • "an argument ensued between the three, with Schudde eventually taking Bakshi's side." The noun + -ing construction is awkward. See Tony1's excellent guide on how to fix this issue.
  • "Bakshi wanted to leave Terrytoons in order to form his own organization"
  • "Although Hampft was prepared to offer Bakshi a severance, Bakshi immediately ripped up the papers." What "papers" are being referred to here? Don't assume readers will know.
  • "to learn Crumb's distinctive style in order to prove that he coul" Those two words will almost always be redundant. Scan the rest of the article for them.
  • "After pitching the film to every studio in town, Warner Bros. bought the film and promised an $850,000 budget." I think you meant "After Bakshi pitched the film to every studio in town..." (otherwise it sounds like Warner Bros. was pitching the film).
  • "Arkoff threatened to pull the film's budget unless Krantz rehired Bakshi, who returned a week later." What does it mean to "pull a budget"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Bakshi described Coonskin as his best film." Could this be cast more concisely as "Bakshi called Coonskin his best film."? (you can't really describe something as the best) If so, you might consider putting quotes around "his best film" (or whatever the source text says). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Fails 1a. While major improvements have been made to the article since its previous nomination, the quality of the writing still does not meet our standards. Here's some examples, just from the first section of the main text:

  • "Ralph became fascinated with the city's structure". What does this mean? He became fascinated with the city's architecture? With its neighborhoods and other aspects of land use? With its political and economic structure?
  • "At the age of eight, Bakshi overheard a loud noise while sleeping at a friend's house, and later learned that a neighbor had committed suicide after murdering his unfaithful wife". As Dabomb87 noted above, this anecdote is presented without any suggestion that it is significant to Bakshi's later life and career. If no such significance can be explicated, the anecdote should be cut.
  • "Ralph's father and uncle traveled to Washington D.C. in search of new business opportunities". If there is going to be a reference to "new business opportunities", we should previously have been given some idea what sort of business Bakshi's father was involved in.
  • "Because Bakshi felt that it was not fair for him to walk several miles every day to attend Greenleaf Elementary School while all of his friends attended segregated schools..." Awkward introduction of Greenleaf Elementary School, which--if it was, as we are forced to presume, an all-white school--was itself a segregated school. It is also strange to give the name of the school where his attendance was unremarkable, but not the name of the school where his attendance was exceptional.
  • "While most of the students had no problem with Bakshi's attending the school, the teacher sought advice from the principal". The school just had one teacher?
  • "Suspecting that segregated whites would riot if they learned that a white student was attending a black school..." Did the police really "suspect" this possibility? I suspect they "feared" it or were "concerned" by it.
  • "Meanwhile, Ralph's father had been experiencing anxiety attacks and stress". Most people experience stress. Perhaps we can do without that datum.
  • "Within a few months, Ralph's mother sold their store". Store? What store? Where did this store suddenly come from?
  • "At the age of 15, Bakshi took up cartooning as a means of detailing his experiences". Better to say he took up cartooning as a means of "recording" or "communicating" his experiences.
  • "Because the principal viewed Bakshi as a troublesome student who was unlikely to succeed, he transferred Ralph to Manhattan's School of Industrial Art as a last resort". Very ungainly. We've just read evidence that Bakshi was a troublesome student--that's how he wound up before the principal; the notion doesn't need to be explicitly articulated here. And what does the hyped-up phrase "as a last resort" add to our understanding? Note also the infelicitous switch from "Bakshi" to "Ralph" in this sentence--a problem that runs through the entire section.

Again, all these points are from just the first, relatively brief section of the main text. Similar 1a deficiencies appear throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Tony (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)—Unprofessional appearance in the extreme over-referencing. The prose looks ok.Reply[reply]

  • "Adult-oriented productions" sounds dirty. But I guess it doesn't mean that.
  • 1 1 1 1 1 – and more. This is way over-referenced. I've removed a few of the redundant numbers from the lead. Please audit the rest for repeated numbers every sentence. It's disruptive and unnecessary (unless there's a contentious statement). The next one to go comes after "mistakes"; there are NINE [5]s in a row. Please audit throughout. Then I see 25 [11]s in a row. Come on, please. Tony (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS It is a different matter when different page references are provided sentence-by-sentence from the same source. See Siward, Earl of Northumbria, reviewed below, for a good example. Tony (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't believe that "over-referencing" is a problem that is major enough to warrant an opposition. I think you're nit-picking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I do think it is. See the discussion overleaf. Tony (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I added alt text to the lead. Can someone please add it for the remaining images? Alt text is required for FA status, for accessibility by the visually impaired. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review article, and please see WP:ALT for advice about alt text. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note Consider me a Support if Dockino withdraws his oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisit Ten days ago I recorded my opposition based on an appraisal of the article's continuing, substantial 1a problems. I noted, in bullet-point style, ten issues in the first section of the main text alone (plus the unbulleted issue of the recurrent, unmotivated switching back and forth between "Ralph" and "Bakshi"). In the ten days since, not the slightest effort has been made to address the issues I raised. And, as I noted, similar 1a deficiencies appear throughout the article; these, too have been left unaddressed. Here are some examples, from just the first paragraph of the second section of the main text:

  • "Bakshi commuted for four hours a day to arrive at the offices, where he had begun work as a cel polisher." This simple thought is expressed in as clunky a manner as possible. Try this: "Bakshi commuted four hours a day to the studio, where he worked as a cel polisher." (Or, to more accurately reflect the chronology: "Bakshi was hired as a cell polisher; he commuted four hours a day to the studio.")
  • "He carefully removed dirt and dust from animation cels as a base level position." This is not idiomatic English. What the writer means is: "In this low-level position, he carefully removed dirt and dust from animation cels." Or this: "The low-level position required Bakshi to carefully remove dirt and dust from animation cels."
  • "After a few months, Schudde was surprised that Bakshi was still showing up to work, and promoted him to cel painter. While employed as a cel painter, Bakshi began to practice animating, sneaking ten of the cels that he was given into the "to-do" pile of a neighboring cel painter, Leo Giuliani, in order to give himself additional time to practice animating." The writer has managed to unnecessarily repeat "cel painter" in the span of eight words and "to practice animating" in the span of one run-on sentence.

Given the continuing, extensive prose issues with the article, which the nominator has completely ignored for the past week and a half, I must maintain my opposition. DocKino (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing as it's so close, if the nominator doesn't incorporate your suggestions—or offer a rebuttal of them—I'll take a stab at the remaining 1a objections tomorrow. Steve T • C 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Could you please also add alt text while you're at it? It's needed for criterion 3, and is easy to add. Please see "alt text" in the comments above. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I'll have a swing at that. Here's my first attempt at one. I'll look at the others shortly; stop me if I'm making things worse. :-) Steve T • C 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, they're ready for another look. Most are simple city skylines, so shouldn't require much more attention. One is a patent drawing for rotoscoping, the alt text for which I've deliberately kept simple despite the image's detail; opinions on this one in particular would be appreciated. All the best, Steve T • C 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, it's excellent. For future reference, alt text doesn't have to be quite that long; many readers prefer it briefer (as was already done in the infobox image). But some do prefer it longer and I wouldn't bother to trim it unless asked. Eubulides (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. There are several sections that reply completely or almost completely on a single source. I do not know if this is in the "spirit" of 1c. For example, these three sections are sequential: Unproduced projects and retirement (1983–86) and Return to television (1987–89) and Return to film, continued television projects and retirement (1990–present) and rely very heavily on Ref 36. —mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Very well done so far with the copyedit, Steve. If you had the the inclination, energy, and time to go through the whole article as you've done to this point, there's no question it would be FA-worthy. DocKino (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You're welcome. I think I've covered the specific points you raised above, with the exception of those that will probably require the nominator's access to the offline sources. For clarity, these are: the need to work out what "Ralph became fascinated with the city's structure" is referring to; what the "business opportunities" were; a note about the previously-unmentioned family store; and the description of Bakshi's job that has his removing "dirt and dust from animation cels as a base level position". I'm not entirely sure whether "base level position" refers to Bakshi, or the cels in preparation for another procedure. As for a further copyedit, I can go through the rest of the article for similar issues, though it wouldn't be before pr/ar tomorrow, and I don't know how much longer this is going to be given. With all these issues in mind, if I can't find the time to get it up to snuff by precisely this time tomorrow, I'll switch to neutral. Steve T • C 00:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just found a substantive conflict between the lead section and the main text. The lead states, "Beginning his career at the Terrytoons studio as a cel polisher, he eventually became the studio's Director of Animation." The main text identifies Bakshi as having held several jobs at Terrrytoons, including "director" and, for The Mighty Heroes, "creative director", but nowhere refers to the title "Director of Animation". The terminology needs to be reconciled and/or corrected by someone with access to the sources. DocKino (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another substantive problem, in the Heavy Traffic section: The Street Arabs project is introduced, then disappears without explanation. This only takes a sentence to address, but again, we need someone with access to the sources. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Street Arabs is a poem Bakshi wrote preceding the production of Heavy Traffic. It's clearly stated in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • It was not clearly stated in the article--thus the problem. Now it is. Terrific. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself, Mr. 24. Yes, these two substantive issues have been resolved, but the article still requires a significant amount of copyediting. However, with Steve's yeoman work making it readable, and the final polishing I'm doing in his wake, the end is actually in sight. And you should stay available, as well--I found these two substantive issues after poring over only the first third of the article. That leaves two-thirds to go. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another substantive issue (still in the first third): According to the second paragraph of the Fritz the Cat section, Bakshi always foresaw--as a purely aesthetic choice--that the film would use backgrounds derived from traced photographs: "Preparation began on a studio pitch that included a poster-sized cel featuring the comic's cast against a traced photo background—as Bakshi intended the film to appear." However, the fourth paragraph relates how this "major breakthrough" occurred in response to "production limitations". Which is it? It could plausibly be both--if the limitations made Bakshi's initial preference the only possible approach--but that would need to be stated clearly. Please check the sources. DocKino (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clarity. The reference to Gene Deitch should be clearer. The article states that as Bakshi "perfected his animation style, he began to take on more jobs, including creating design tests for Gene Deitch." Deitch was apparently the head of Terrytoons into 1958 (though the article currently gives no hint of this). Please check the sources--did Bakshi do these "design tests" while Deitch was still at Terrytoons or after he had left? If the latter, do the sources indicate for what project or company the tests were created? DocKino (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sources do not indicate the project. It was for Terrytoons. Why would another studio be discussed in the middle of a paragraph on Terrytoons? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    • Have you ever heard of moonlighting? That is a possible reason why. The failure to properly identify Deitch is what led to the confusion. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another substantive issue. The discussion of Wizards says Bakshi "return[ed] to the fantasy drawings he had created in high school for inspiration." The earlier discussion of his high school–era drawing makes no mention, however, of fantasy material. In terms of content, all we have is the fact that "at the age of 15, Bakshi took up cartooning to document his experiences." Reference to the fantasy drawing needs to be added to the high school section. Please check the sources to see how this would best be characterized. DocKino (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another substantive issue. The coverage of The Lord of the Rings is four paragraphs long. Toward the beginning of the first, we learn that Bakshi took over the project from John Boorman, who was planning to adapt the entire story in one film. Only in the fourth paragraph do we learn that Bakshi's version was an "incomplete story". This structure obviously doesn't work, and crucial information is missing: When was it decided that Bakshi would do a multipart version? As soon as he took over, or during production? How much of the story does the movie tell--the first-third (which would be in line with the original trilogy and the later Peter Jackson film versions)? About half? More than half? Again, we need direct reference to the sources. DocKino (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An inadvertent plagiarism query. The following passage sounds like it might well have been lifted straight from the source: Junktown "focused on misfit technology and discarded ideals". Ibaranoff, could you please quote us the relevant passage from Gibson and McDonnell, so we can verify the status of this phrasing? DocKino (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yep, there's a problem. The same phrasing pops up in a Bakshi quote from years later, concerning a TV special based on Junktown: "We were trying something different—discarded ideals, misfit technology—but a series didn't make sense." To avoid plagiarism, which is what we currently have, please rephrase the earlier passage as appropriate OR quote it and clearly attribute it. Now, are you sure you haven't similarly misused your sources elsewhere in the article? Such cases usually don't appear in isolation. Ibaranoff, please go through the entire article and make sure you haven't introduced any other instances of inadvertent plagiarism.DocKino (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, five contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. On the other hand, the only reference to Heavy Traffic's reception is that "Vincent Canby of The New York Times ranked [it] among his 'Ten Best Films of 1973'". As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this. DocKino (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm doing the best to reflect the sources I have. I cannot go farther than that when the materials are limited. Do you expect me to go back in time and grab several major newspapers? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • You are expected to structure the article so there is a sensible balance in the coverage of the films' critical reception. You are not expected to go back in time. You are expected to perform research and writing commensurate with a Featured Article if you seek that status. Are you claiming that it is not possible with reasonable effort—online, at the library—to find any contemporary reviews of Heavy Traffic, Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice? That's not credible.DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I just used my magical time machine and found some contemporary Heavy Traffic reviews from major publications. Got one for Hey Good Lookin as well. See, it can be done. You can take care of the remaining three films, right? DocKino (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A query. In the "Unproduced projects and retirement" section, one passage reads, "Bakshi Productions crewmembers worked on cartoon takes concerning pulp fiction". What does that mean? Please explicate here or directly rephrase for clarity in the article. DocKino (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Exactly what you think it means. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • I have told you I don't know what it means. Do try not to be a jerk. What are "cartoon takes"? What does it mean that they "concern[ed]" pulp fiction? Did these "takes" relate to Bakshi and Zingarelli's projected feature about Golden Age Hollywood or not? The language you have used here is not idiomatic, so your intended meaning is entirely unclear. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the opening section of the main text, it would still be good to know what sort of "business opportunities" Bakshi's father and uncle were pursuing and what sort of "store" the family owned in Washington. We should also have the maiden names of his two wives, Elaine and Liz. DocKino (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Something else should also be made clear, if possible. The article tells us that Bakshi asked Geisel (Seuss) to storyboard The Butter Battle Book. Did Geisel actually do so? DocKino (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Connection between lead section and main text. The second sentence of the lead claims that "the American animation industry declined in the 1960s and 1970s", but there is simply no discussion of or support for this claim in the main text. The closest we get is that Paramount closed its animation division in 1967, but that in of itself is hardly indicative of an industry-wide decline. Either the lead needs to be recast or the main text needs to be amplified on this point. DocKino (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both Steve and I have now gone through the entire article. If the issues I've raised above are properly addressed, I can switch to support. DocKino (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Still another issue. The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question? DocKino (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the lack of information on some of the films: a 1983 Ocala Star-Banner article from the time has something to say about American Pop and Fire and Ice; it fills the gap in the coverage of the latter's commercial reception ("failed to catch on") as well as including something of Bakshi's response to that. It also includes an interesting couple of quotes about Bakshi's opinion of the market for animated films, as well as his assertion that he was abandoning them in favour of live-action. The piece also contains the curious statement that American Pop was a financial failure, which conflicts with the statement in this article. In addition to all that, there's a 1983 Christian Science Monitor capsule review of Fire and Ice that might be of some use. Oh, and this turned up too, another Ocala Star-Banner article, this one a profile piece. Very interesting and of definite use, it also tells us that Fire and Ice was a "critical and commercial failure". Steve T • C 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. OK, so I initially let my support stand as I hoped that DocKino's concerns could be resolved quickly. That hasn't turned out to be the case, so I've regretfully struck it for now. In addition to those issues, a five minute check revealed the sources I've listed just above this statement, so there's definite scope for fleshing out these niggly gaps in the coverage if a more comprehensive source search could be performed. I'm also a little concerned at the huge reliance on Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, which the Los Angeles Times called "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and "a superficial apologia"—looking at it again with those eyes, I can sort of see what their reviewer means. Almost none of the problems with Bakshi's career are attributed to the man himself; an excuse is always made for the critical failure of this, the commercial disappointment of that. With a whopping 95 cites to this book, we need to be sure we're not just parroting a puff piece. Steve T • C 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment That was my concern above. At the time it was ref 36, but it is now ref 37. Way too many references to a single source, Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, unleavened with other sources. —mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ah, you already did say that, sorry. I missed your comment due to the flurry of posts from DocKino; had I seen it, I'd certainly have checked the source sooner. Steve T • C 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • So, you're going to take the word of one reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about over the established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else? Any reviewer referring to the book as a "puff piece" is clearly trying to slam Bakshi. There's absolutely no puffery in the book or this article. Everything written is factual and neutral. Opposing the FAC of what is clearly one of the best articles on Wikipedia is one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make on here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • Ibaranoff? Is that a threat of some kind? I'm having trouble understanding this behavior when DocKino and Steve seem interested in improving the article and helping it pass. Why antagonize? Bad form. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sourcing issues - I have some concerns about the sources, but I have not been able to check them as most of the sources are to a single offline source. Mostly, I am wondering about them because of number. For example, one source is "22-25; 28-29". Two pages are missing and yet information is presented as linear. The information that follows the first paragraph is cited to the same book but much later "pp. 106; 108-109; 114". That is a 70+ page gap in what amounts to only 8 years later in time. Since this is childhood years, I would not expect a 70 page gap to account for 8 years (or be that in-depth over those 8 years). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't have access to the Gibson and McDonnell book either, but there's not necessarily a problem here. It appears that the book is unsually organized. The references to pages 22–25, 28–29, as you can see, are to the chapter on "Brownsville", Bakshi's primary childhood home. The references to pages 106, 108–109, 114 are to the chapter on Bakshi's film Coonskin, which deals with issues of racism and the African American experience--apparently the authors treat his few months living in a black neighborhood in Washington, D.C., and his encounters with racial prejudice in that chapter. Thus the book's coverage of his D.C. period is placed thematically rather than chronologically. (As for the "missing pages", I imagine they are devoted to images, rather than text.) DocKino (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to get independent verification of the book and then for the passages to be checked. This is not standard for academic biographies. According to the Amazon reviews, the work seems to contain a lot of art and is more of a tribute than biography, which gives me doubts about the content. I will try to hunt down a copy unless someone can get to one first. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good for your Ottava. As you say, this is not a standard biography. It appears to me to be based on Bakshi's memories (the police dragging him out of a classroom, etc.) and there are close to 100 references in the article to that one book (which is only 280 pages long and full of graphics). —mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For context on how the book is organised, this video may be of use. :-) The additional review quotes that call this a "tribute", along with the comments of Stephen Worth of ASIFA ("It's just pictures, pictures and more pictures ... along with just enough text to put them in context") in addition to the LA Times review I cited in my "oppose" statement, all make it clear that the use of this source needs to be considered very carefully. Steve T • C 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I toned down the segments on Fire and Ice and American Pop. I disagree with these statements. There is a lot of biographical information in the book, and it is cataloged as a biography in my local library. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • Indeed there is a lot that can be gleaned from the book, and in no way am I suggesting that it shouldn't be used, just that care should be taken to make sure its highly positive tone isn't reflected in this article—which is where more neutral citations can come in for support. Steve T • C 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • And keeping in mind that it is not a standard biography and appears to lack a bibliography and notes on sources. Perhaps the book makes it clear specifically from where the biographical and other information comes from. —mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I'll be wandering the stacks of a reasonably-sized library tomorrow, as it happens. It seems to have been released in the UK, so I'll see if I can find a copy; barring that, perhaps I can at least look at it in one of the larger bookstore chains. Steve T • C 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I strongly feel that the article is neutral. I also feel that Unfiltered does not over-praise Bakshi to the point of puffery, and that the reviewer who described the book as such may have been biased against Bakshi. Also, I had absolutely no intention of threatening anyone, I was merely being arrogant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • That's lovely. But... It's been more than three days now, and you still have done nothing to address the major issue of the article's failure to deal with the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice. It's been more than two and a half days now, and you still have done nothing to clarify the unintelligible statement about "cartoon takes concerning pulp fiction". It's been more than two and a half days now, and you still have done nothing to reconcile and consolidate the discussion of the Nickelodeon Junktown/Tattertown project.
  • As for Unfiltered, you have said that the Los Angles Times reviewer who called it "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and ""a superficial apologia", in your carefully considered view, "doesn't know what he's talking about". In a pleasant communication you sent directly to Steve, you further explained that said reviewer is an "idiot". That reviewer is Charles Solomon, a well-established scholar of cinematic animation history, whose books include Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation and Disney Lost and Found: Exploring the Hidden Artwork from Never-Produced Animation. Please explain how you concluded that Mr. Solomon "doesn't know what he's talking about". In contrast, you have claimed that there is an "established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else". In your pleasant communication to Steve, you similarly announced that a "majority of film and animation historians" approve of Unfiltered. That's wonderful! Please share with us your evidence for the existence of this "established consensus", your evidence for the positive opinion of the "majority of film and animation historians". Obviously, you must have access to many favorable reviews of the book by scholars much better respected than that ignorant, biased Mr. Solomon. Please direct us to those reviews so we can resolve this issue forthwith. DocKino (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I thought that I did resolve the issues regarding those films. I rewrote the pulp fiction statement. The source is used neutrally, and doesn't have to be considered. And Charles Solomon doesn't know what he's talking about. His books are riddled with false statements and are poorly-researched, and he's very biased against Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • In The Animated Movie Guide, Jerry Beck states that Wizards and American Pop were successful while discussing Hey Good Lookin'. Adding Beck's book as a citation should clear up any concerns of puffery. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • There is still zero progress on addressing the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice. There is still zero progress on reconciling and consolidating the discussion of the Nickelodeon Junktown/Tattertown project. We must assume your claims that Solomon's "books are riddled with false statements and are poorly-researched, and he's very biased against Bakshi" are as baseless as your claims that an "established consensus" and a "majority of film and animation historians" regard Unfiltered as a superb source. Given your continuing failure to provide a shred of evidence for these imaginative claims, yes, please do continue to seek out additional sourcing for the article. DocKino (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no need to reflect an attitude towards me, considering how long and how thoroughly this article has been researched and edited. There is absolutely no need to add further commentary, nor to remove content from the article just because you say so. You are not the dictator of Wikipedia. Your increasingly negative attitude towards editors and articles you are biased against will not be reflected in the outcome of this FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:55, 15 August 2009 [34].

The Guardian Legend[edit]

Nominator(s): AnOddName, Rg998, 闇甦兄, MuZemike 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is our second attempt to bring this article about a rather obscure NES game to FA. Throughout the past six months since the last FAC, we have made the following improvements to the article:

  • Reduction from three to two paragraphs in the lead to make it more succinct and to the point.
  • Combination of sections to provide more consistent section lengths.
  • Fair-use rationales in the images were greatly strengthened with alt text added to all of them per the new corresponding guidelines.
  • Addition of articles in the Russian and Simple English Wikipedias.
  • Addition of quotes in Wikiquote.
  • Any and all disambiguation issues have been addressed.

The article fully utilizes all available sources from both web and print, and they should all be considered the most reliable of sources for use in these articles. It has already gone through three peer reviews and a successful GAN, and it has been designated as an A-Class article by WikiProject Video games. We think that this is a good enough quality of an article to be designated as a Featured Article. We will be open to any commentary and shortcomings that we may have overlooked in the article. MuZemike 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now, 1a and 3:
    • The prose has some issue not so much with grammatical issues as much as clunky writing that makes it hard to wade through, as well as accessibility issues; if I were a non-gamer, I would be confused as to the gameplay by the second sentence. It needs to be written for a slower audience.
    • In terms of repetitious language and such, the "in addition..." stacked at the end need to go, and there's a few other issues. I'm not going to point them all out since the gameplay rewrite is more important right now.
    • "The game has since received both praise and criticism for its innovative multiple-genre format"—who says it was innovative? Comes off as a little biased.
    • I'm willing to let the two screenshots of gameplay fly, as there's significant commentary on the genre format and its novel enough that it's perhaps warranted. I'm less sure about the two box art images. The extent of the commentary for the File:Guardic Gaiden artwork by Naoyuki Kato.jpg is that it was drawn by some dude and depicts "a female cyborg"; I don't think that it meets the significant/detriment clauses of WP:NFCC.
    • Source spot checks pending. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I removed the Kato image [35]. I'll try to address the Gameplay section later on today. MuZemike 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I also removed the word "innovative" above [36]. I do agree that it came off as a little WP:WEASELish. MuZemike 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. The alt text contains several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, or which repeat info in the captions. These phrases need to be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. Problematic phrases include "the Labyrinth" "(top-down perspective mode)", "where the player is firing at barriers and enemies with a gun", "the Dungeon", "(the shoot 'em up mode)", "where the player dodges projectiles from the area's boss", "The boxart used in the Japanese version of the game features a more realistic drawing of the game's protagonist". Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I already made some changes to the alt text [37] and [38] right after I submitted this FAC. How does it look? MuZemike 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Better, thanks. Remaining problematic phrases include "fires" (can't tell from the image that it's being fired), "bullets" (can't tell from the image that it's bullets), "barriers", "enemies", "dodges", "enemy boss", "projectiles", "drawing" (that's a drawing? doesn't look like one to me), "game's", "protagonist". One other thing: the protagonist is in front of the background, not "behind". Eubulides (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a decent effort to bring a more obscure NES game to light, but it just is not comprehensive with its lack of development history and lack of sales data. I realize this is information that is most likely impossible to get ahold of in the currently available sources, but that is not an acceptable excuse for failing to meet an FA requirement. I recognize the effort that went into this, but some topics have just not been studied enough to support FA status. Indrian (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Then maybe someone should have let us know about this in the previous FAC so we wouldn't have wasted anyone's time with this second one. We withdraw. MuZemike 06:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:03, 12 August 2009 [39].

Howie Morenz[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Had this article nominated a few weeks ago, and it didn't pass because I missed some grammatical problems. Those are all cleared up, so I don't see why it shouldn't pass this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After working on it with you, this should now be all taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – I just did a little copy-editing in the early part of the article, and I plan to look at the rest at a later time. Please check that I didn't make any mistakes. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything looks good from the copy-edit. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just finished making some minor prose tweaks to the rest of the article. Again, please check to ensure quality. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - "Born in Mitchell, Ontario, Howie Morenz was the son of William Morenz, who also had three daughters and another son." - I know from the reference they're sisters, but could you clarify this text? It looks right now as though the father was married previously. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed the way it was written, but it may need further work. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - The prose is more than a couple of copyedits away from being of FA quality. Some general observations:
  • There is repetitive use of present participles after a sentence's main clause. Examples from the lead:
  • "Morenz excelled in the junior Ontario Hockey Association, winning the Memorial Cup..."
  • "he became one of the most dominant players in the league, setting several league scoring records."
  • "Morenz consistently finished near the top of league scoring, placing in the top 10 leading scorers..."
  • Morenz's name is overused (for example, seven times in the relatively brief second paragraph of the lead, despite there being no other people mentioned in it who might make the use of pronouns ambiguous).
  • The prose is often choppy.

I'm willing to work with the nominator to address these issues, but I believe that this article requires more work than is reasonable to expect during a nomination. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've addressed the comments made here, and left a note on your talk page in regards to the general wording of the article for continued discussion. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:03, 12 August 2009 [40].

Anniemal[edit]

Nominator(s): PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


GA since September, with a peer review not long after that. I was hoping to get some actual sales figures in, and luckily Billboard finally mentioned them this year. Some of the citations aren't online, so please let me know if you need text from the original. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. Done; thanks. The lead (infobox) image needs alt text as per WP:ALT; it's another argument to {{Infobox Album}}. Later alt text assumes that a visually-impaired reader knows what Annie looks like, which is unlikely for the typical reader; I suggest that this problem be addressed by describing her appearance in the lead infobox image. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for that. I hadn't realized they'd updated {{Infobox Album}} with that. To save anyone else the time, the other two images did also have alt text. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the first one, see my reply when you mentioned it at the peer review (in short, the statement is by Annie herself). The second is the Norwegian equivalent of the American Music Center, and both are members of the International Association of Music Centres. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the problem is that how do we know that the interview was reported reliably? Newspapers and magazine interviews rely on their reputation to make their interviews trusted, we need to consider the reliability of the site itself even when it's an interview. As for the other, I'll leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe a publication's reputation has much to do with its reliability, but since you don't think the site is reliable enough to report the interview accurately, I've reworked that part with other sources. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Anniemal is the debut album of Norwegian electropop singer Annie, first released by 679 Recordings in September 2004 (see 2004 in music)." Almost sounds like Annie was released in September 2004. Suggest "Anniemal is the debut album of Norwegian electropop singer Annie that was first released by 679 Recordings in September 2004 (see 2004 in music)."
  • "Upon release, the album was successful in Norway. Blogs leaked tracks from the album before it was released internationally, and publications from other countries soon praised the album for its blissful but melancholic sound." I think it would make more chronological sense if these sentences were switched.
    • The chronology is correct here. It was released in Norway, the tracks were spread outside Norway via the Internet, at which point it received publicity outside Norway. Should a word other than leaked be used? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The label did not heavily promote Anniemal for its international releases in 2005, and the album eventually sold over 100,000 copies worldwide." The connector "and" makes this confusing, as you say that the album was not heavily promoted, then go on to say that it did well anyway (IMO, 100,000 copies sold = doing well). Perhaps "but" makes more sense here?
  • "He died eighteen months later, in April 2001." Numbers over nine are spelled out.
  • "had a limited edition release in 1999, selling out in two days."-->had a limited edition release in 1999, which sold out in two days.
  • What happened to "I Will Get On"? Was it released?
  • "so Annie would record demos by asking to use" More straightforward as "so Annie recorded demos by asking to use"
  • "The two had planned on writing a song titled "Anniemal", so she chose it as the album's title because she said "it just made sense. Anniemal is simple and easy and good."" It sounds like the title was chosen because she said those exact words.

That's all I have time for now; will definitely return. An interesting read. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:03, 12 August 2009 [41].

Otto Julius Zobel[edit]

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA review a year ago and has been substantially stable since. Many of the inventions of Zobel are well known to engineers of a certain age, and in some cases are still used. Yet despite his circuits appearing in numerous textbooks, engineers often do not realise that they are due to Zobel, he does not seem to have been one to shout his own praises as the likes of Marconi, Edison or Tesla would have done. He fully deserves a prominent article on Wikipedia and I would like to help make it a featured article. SpinningSpark 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'll review this more in the morning, but the mood and tone of sections like Otto Julius Zobel#Transmission line simulation do not bode well. Another comment: #Heat conduction looks very isolated and pithy; I suggest merging the two sentences there contained into a different section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've tried to address both those points, I hope I have understood what you are driving at. I've also altered the noise cancellation title for reasons I stated on the talk page (I didn't realise you were doing a review when I wrote there). One question, are you happy with the British English spelling style? Because if not, we will need to get another editor to copyedit it as I would not trust myself to convert it properly.
    • I am going to be offline for most of the coming working week, but I will address further comments at the weekend. Please keep it on hold until I have had a chance to have a look. SpinningSpark 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. The signature image does have alt text, but it needs to be revised to give the text of the signature rather than be a copy of the caption. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont really see the point of either, beyond decoration, I would prefer the second was replaced by a modern diagram, however the main issue is the licencing of these images is ambiguious Fasach Nua (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alt text has been added. The point of showing the diagram is that this article is a biography, and work produced by the subject's own hand is relevant to such an article. Your comment would be valid in an article about the filter itself, but that is what m-derived filter is for, it is not appropriate to give all the technical details in the biography article. My understanding of the copyright issue is that US patents are in the public domain unless they specifically declare an identified portion of the patent to be copyright. There is no licence involved, they are declared to be public domain, I don't see where you think that is ambiguous. SpinningSpark 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • As there is only the one White reference, you don't need to use 2000 after it, as you don't do that with any of the other refs.
    • Done
  • Current ref 31 (Bray, 2002) first drop the 2002 and you need a page number. You give it elsewhere.
    • Done
  • Current ref 41 (Schwartz) is lacking a page number (which you give elsewhere)
    • Done
  • Alphabetize your references.
    • Done
  • Current ref 15 goes to a Wikipedia page. This is not reliable.
    • You misunderstand, the information came from the SSDI, not the Wikipedia article about the SSDI. It is wikilinked merely for the benefit of those who want to know what the SSDI is.
      • So if the information comes from the SSDI, it needs a better reference to find the source of the information than a Wikipedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is with the "pp. p#" construction on a few of your refs?
    • I am not responsible for those edits but it appears to be an artefact of the cite template <rant>,which in my humble opinion should all be deleted, salted, and the server disk sectors sandpapered because they never do quite what you want them to do even after hours of tinkering and obstruct newbies who are afraid to edit because they don't understand them,</rant> used. I will convert them to plain text cites if you want.
  • Current ref 54 (Chakrabarti) lacks a page number
    • Done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All comments addressed. SpinningSpark 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to note that the two unstruck comments have been addressed in the article. I am assuming that Ealdgyth has simply overlooked this when the others were struck and that there is not still an outstanding issue here. SpinningSpark 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I read your replies as saying they were still awaiting work. Struck now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am not clear what it is you require to be checked, nor what it is that might be in error. SpinningSpark 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments from Materialscientist. General impression is positive (that is support), but I would suggest where the article can be improved. I understand that some requests would be hard to cover (old and poorly covered topic).
    • Please add url links to references wherever appropriate. Google books or freely available copies at web sites could be an example. I might add some obvious links myself, but you probably know more.
      Much better now. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The article focuses on electronic filters. Please try to expand personal information. Another obvious expansion would be ref. 8, which is a book on Mathematical Theory of Heat Conduction co-authored by Zobel. The article says very little on his non-electronic work. Materialscientist (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, Zobel's work on heat conduction ceased with the completion of his PhD thesis. It should be no surprise that the article focuses on filters, this was the main, possibly sole, component of his career - he was "Mr. Filter" through the 1920s and into the 1930s. The book was in a sub-head of its own but was combined in the "early life" section in response to an earlier FA comment that it was too sparse, it also incidentally gets the material in a more historical order. Nevertheless, I will try and extract a couple of snippets from the book that seem to be relevant to Zobel's subsequent work and/or just interesting.
  • None of the sources available to me have any usable personal information so I am currently unable to expand in that direction.
  • SpinningSpark 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have provided links in references where I can. There are a few books which I have not because while they exist on Google books, they do not have preview so there seems to be little point in linking. There is also a problem with the Bell Journal references, I do not know of any online source for these. I got them as photocopies or e-mailed pdfs. I believe they are available through JSTOR but I do not know how to find the urls and you cannot read them without paying in any case. SpinningSpark 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:58, 9 August 2009 [42].

Nikita Zotov[edit]

Nominator(s): NW (Talk)'


Well, I think I have taken this article as far as I can, and I think it might be ready for featured status. I had been reading a great book by Robert K. Massie on Peter The Great (Peter the Great: His Life and World) about a month and a half ago when I stumbled upon this footnote in history. I figured that I would just write up a quickie 1,500 bytes-of-prose article to get the article on the main page, and then move on. But Zotov grew on me, and so for some reason I decided to take this a bit further. The total prose now stands at around 2,000 words, and I feel that the article is truly comprehensive. I have researched it to the best of my ability; Google Books, JSTOR, and library's network all have no further books on Peter the Great that could be helpful for this article. So, now that I have bored you with this boring nomination statement, what do you guys think of the article? NW (Talk) 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1st comments from Materialscientist. I remember seeing this hook at DYK just very recently and am really pleased to see the article has evolved that far. That said, I believe this nomination is somewhat premature (i.e. strong oppose for now):
  • There is a grave danger to write about old Russia without reading russian sources - the article sites too often Robert K. Massie and Henry Smith Williams as if they are the prime authority on Peter I. Just an illustration (not a proof) of where this could lead - the Russian wikipedia page and many web-pages on Zotov site respectable Russian books of 19th century whose authors had much better information access than we have now. They give somewhat different picture of Zotov's life. For example, Sergey Solovyov wrote that it was Zotov's idea to marry at 70, and Peter actually opposed that. Whereas sources might differ on whose idea it was, they all seem clear that marriage was a great joke, a part of the craziest activities of The All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod of Fools and Jesters. The next marriage for Pashkova (to the successor of Zotov) was apparently the logical follow up of the Zotov's marriage within The All-Drunken "activities". The present article describes all that more like a drama and political games of Peter I. " (after Zotov's death) .. Peter wasted no time in moving on, at least publicly; .. Peter even ordered that Zotov's widow be married to Buturlin". The article also misses the point that the idea of Zotov "to spend his final years in a monastery" was his another Synod-style joke - he was known, until his death, as a craziest man, the leader even among extraordinary All-Drunken Synod members.
  • The article takes too much of responsibility in coverage of events: "Zotov left on a diplomatic mission to the Crimea in 1680 for three years.. Zotov disappears from the records of Russian history at this point, but reappears in 1692" .. "It is unknown if Zotov had any other children." .. "In December 1717, Nikita Zotov died of causes unreported in any historical sources." - Recommend avoiding all such. In general, one may not speak for all historical literature, especially in this case. Sergey Solovyov (and others) are clear that Zotov had more than one son (Vasili, Konon, ?). It is also hard to believe that while being with the documented army mission and then teaching Peter around that time, Zotov became invisible.
  • The lead sound abrupt on dates: we first read that Zotov "was chosen to be Peter's tutor in the late seventeenth century" and then that "left Moscow for a diplomatic mission to Crimea in 1680" followed by later events. Another problem with dates comes in "By that time, Zotov was either 82 or 83 years old", whereas there is little doubt he was much younger and died at 74.
  • "Zotov was one of the few men in Moscow who was literate at the time" - it is hard to believe that: as a religeous center of Russia, Moscow should have had at least dozens of literate men (church leadership).
  • I understand the section title "Peter I of Russia's education" as if Zotov was a leader of Russia's education. Ergh.. he only taught Peter.. Materialscientist (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment to FAC director/delegates: Materialscientist came up with a great deal more sources for me to look through, and I feel like for me to adequately do criterion 1c justice, I will need additional time. Also, I just recalled that I will be out of town and unable to access a computer during the next business week, so I wish to withdraw this nomination now. NW (Talk) 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 09:08, 9 August 2009 [43].

Lexington class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Four of six ships in the United States' first and only true class of battlecruisers were canceled due to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, though two were converted to aircraft carriers and fought in the Second World War. The article passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review back in December and a GAN in January. Any and all comments are welcome and encouraged; I do not expect this to be 100% ready because I wrote it seven months ago, before other FACs have taught me (somewhat) better prose. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've made my attempts at adding alts; could you double check them? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks for doing that. Some suggestions for further improvement, so that the alt text conforms better to WP:ALT: Remove phrases like "Painting of a" (these are duplicates of the caption, and are less important for alt text; see the 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples). Do not use phrases like "seven funnels (though only five can be seen from this side angle)" because this strays from describing what the reader can easily verify by viewing the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Similarly, avoid phrases like "design of the Lexington's" and "proposed", as this can't easily be verified by a non-expert reader who is merely looking at the image. It might not hurt to look at those examples in WP:ALT, if you haven't already. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I had already ;) I've made some additional tweaks, if you could take a look; is the alt for the image in the "Ships" section sufficent? I couldn't think of a good way to describe the structure(s) that is/are around the ship... —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Neither can I, so let's say it's done. I did tweak the alt text for the two models; hope that helps. Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What was the disposition of the secondary armament going to be like? Turrets, casemates, or open mounts? And did it evolve over time? Linking some of the terms in the infobox to their wiki articles might be useful. I'm thinking about things like barbette, etc., that are a little more obscure than most. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wow, I kept meaning to get back to this and evidently never did. The 6"/53 were to be in casemates, and I'll try to work on the linking tomorrow. Thanks for your comments! —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: You mention twice in the article that in the original 1916 design the battlecruisers would have a main armament of "ten 14"/50 caliber guns in four turrets (two triple superfiring over two dual)." In other words, the triple turrets would fire over the twin turrets. Is this correct? Breyer shows dual turrets firing over triple turrets, the same as in the Nevada class battleships, and it seems as though having triple turrets on top would make the ships top-heavy. Jonyungk (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hmm. I thought it was a little odd two when I wrote this, but both Morison and the Navy say two triple over two twin. I'm getting Breyer through inter-library loan sometime soon and I'll add the discrepancy between sources in then. Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 08:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments: Throughout the article I keep seeing many "However,"'s. At least 6-8 times but I didn't count them all. It starts to get repetitious.
Under the Original and subsequent redesigns section there are words used like "impressive" and "sparse" which read like pov.
Please reduce wikilinks. Washington Naval Treaty is linked twice in one section for example. Other wikilinks to things of minor importance should be removed as well; like locations in the US.
The Naval Historical Center is now called Naval History & Heritage Command. Some of your references still carry the old name. Your "retrieved on" dates should be brought to current rather than 6 + months ago.
Really nice to see a ship article referenced to printed material for a change! --Brad (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Really? I am the first to support the article? Wow. At any rate, outstanding read. Keep it up!!!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Withdraw please - as much as I'd love to see this article get a star, there are a couple problems: (a) I don't have the time to deal with comments for the next couple weeks and (b) not enough people are commenting for this to pass. Thanks Sandy/Karanacs in advance, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:07, 8 August 2009 [44].

Joey Hamilton[edit]

Nominator(s): --Giants27 (c|s) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for FAC because I believe it meets the FA criteria (obviously). It has also undergone a peer review from Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Finetooth (talk · contribs) and an additional review from DoubleBlue (talk · contribs), here.

  • Comment: I notice that there is nothing about his life outside of baseball. Is there really nothing on the subject that can be found? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If there is anything he's done outside of baseball, it hasn't been reported since numerous Google searches turn up nothing.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Prose could use a bit of beefing up (I'm sure we can get more than 9kb). I added a note on the salary arbitration; there may be more on that that I missed. Unfortunately, the salary arbitration i found creates an issue: it says the Reds couldn't sign them until May 1, but he re-signed with them in April. Another note, Hamilton was apparently not eligible for the hall in 2009, because then he would have been on the ballot this year (Henderson, Mark Grace, etc. all ended their careers in 2003 like Hamilton). The prose seems alright, though I'm sure there's more out there to add in. Wizardman 22:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Will look for more info. Thanks for adding that and I'll assume since he signed with the Cardinals in January he lost that, and the Reds could re-sign him whenever, not really sure though. And your final point, not really sure but the ref I provided does in fact mention him as being hall eligible in 2009.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Alright. My guess is that he was eligible (all players 10+ years in the majors are) but was not included in the ballot, as many weren't. So that just needs a tweak, I think. Wizardman 23:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Anytime an editor with Giants in his/her screen name makes their FAC debut, I'm virtually guaranteed to show up. :-) Unfortunately, I'm underwhelmed by the article. Before the review, I made a trip to Google News to see what else was avaliable on Hamilton, but the articles avaliable online are already used as sources. He's obviously a very obscure player, but that's not part of the criteria. The quality of the writing is, however, and this is just not there at the moment. It needs a serious copy-edit or two. A few examples are below, along with other comments.
  • First off, Major League Baseball is not included in the Hall of Fame's name. It's just known as the Baseball Hall of Fame.
  • The last reference says nothing about Hamilton not being on the Hall of Fame ballot. I recommend adding a cite that includes this; the official Hall of Fame website should have it somewhere.
  • What makes http://www.thebaseballcube.com/ a reliable source?
    • I'm assuming you mean since it says "Edit player data". If you click on it, it brings you to a form which in turn will be sent to the site operators and they'll review the changes before posting. Because of that IMO it's reliable.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "is a former Major League Baseball pitcher who pitched...". Notice how repetitive that is to read? Of course a pitcher is going to pitch. Try changing the second one to a simple "played".
  • "San Diego traded him to the Toronto Blue Jays in December 1998, where he spent two full seasons with Toronto." Couple problems here. First, if he signed with the Toronto Blue Jays, of course he spent those seasons with Toronto. The last two words don't need to be there. Also, the Blue Jays are a team, not a place. Therefore, "where" doesn't make much sense. Perhaps try "for whom".
  • "Hamilton had stints in training camps and the minor leagues which included the Padres and Reds." The Padres and Reds aren't minor league teams. Do you mean their affiliates?
    • Not sure if I worded it correctly but changed.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Early years and college: Sporting News was known as The Sporting News at the time. The magazine changed its name later.
  • "It was soon discovered that Hamilton was suffering from an elbow injury, which forced him to visit James Andrews". The injury may have forced him to seek treatment, but it didn't make him go to this particular surgeon. I'm sure he made that decision on his own.
    • Changed to "which forced him to have surgery".--Giants27 (c|s) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Capitalize Olympics. Also, this begs the question of whether his injury prevented him from pitching in the Olympics.
  • San Diego Padres is linked four times in the first two sections. There's no need to have that many links on a single topic. Anyone interested will have clicked on the first link, or the one in the lead. Please check for this throughout.
    • Also did it with Toronto Blue Jays, fixed all overlinking occurances.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are just too many problems in the writing for me to think this is FA-worthy at the moment. Sorry to say this, but I recommend withdrawing the FAC and resubmitting the article in several weeks, after the proper copy-editing has taken place. That would also provide a chance to expand the page without rushing during an FAC. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:07, 8 August 2009 [45].

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick[edit]

Deacon of Pndapetzim and Malleus Fatuorum


Alright. Coverage is pretty much full, and Malleus and I have given this thing the copy-edit going over quite a few times now. It has been reviewed quite thoroughly by User:Hamiltonstone too, and I can't think of any reason to delay any further presenting this as an FAC. A fascinating region and period, of which Donnchadh is as good a representative as any. Owing to to the topic's obscurity, it was a bit difficult to illustrate, so thanks especially to User:Notuncurious, who has made some very helpful images and helped alleviate that problem! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Problem Oppose Why is this article titled Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick, and not Duncan, Earl of Carrick? This is, after all English, not Gaelic Wikipedia, and it would seem that the name of the subject of this article was known by, even in his own time, was closer, in written form, to Duncan than this invented "modern Gaelic" formulation. Wikipedia naming guidance states that the English name of a subject should be that used by preference in articles. A quick check on Google turned up 7,960 hits for "Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick", and 58,300 for "Duncan, Earl of Carrick". This would seem to indicate that the Duncan form is around eight times more popular in English, and should therefore be the form used. Use of the term "Donnchadh", although perhaps preferred by some modern Celtic nationalists, is also problematic for two reasons. 1) The quaint neo-celtic spelling is indecipherable to most English-speakers in the UK, never mind elsewhere, and doesn't even hint at the word Duncan. 2) It is confusing. Most history books and other sources will use "Duncan", which most people will not correllate with Donnchadh. We should not be confusing the majority of WP users. Xandar 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This would seem to indicate that the Duncan form is around eight times more popular in English," - actually I think it suggests that the Duncan form is around eight times more popular in Google. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't regard the spelling as problematic, and it's certainly not an "invented modern Gaelic formulation". It's the way most historians would spell it in this century too (with or without the leniting "h"). It would be, in any case a matter for WP:RM rather than FAC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well this major history text book, written in 2000 and published by Cambridge University Press, and this one published by Edinburgh University press use "Duncan" and "Gilbert", for the subject and his father respectively , rather than "Donnchadh" and "Gille-Brighde" as used in this article. In the text of the article "Gille-Brighde" and other gaelicisations have also been used constantly and without the more normal English language equivalents. I am sure these are not the spellings that appear in the historical documents either, therefore they ARE newly-derived. I do feel the article is in danger of putting politics or PC ahead of the interests of the the average reader. Apart from being a breach of WP guidelines, this is making the article impenetrable to most readers with a mass of unpronouncable, similar-looking and newly-devised "alphabet soup" names. If the article is confusing, or of little use to the average reader because of this, it cannot meet the FA criteria. Xandar 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well examples such as these [46][47][48][49] would show use of the other spelling. I researched the article and am aware of when spellings are used. The text book in question specialises in a later period. No matter. Duncan was not his name, and is anachronistic. If you want to change the spelling, take it to RM. It's been at this name since it was created a few years ago,; if you want to use its FACing to force your own POV about spellings on the article, that's not particularly dignified, but I can't stop you. It would be disappointing for all of my own and Malleus' work to go nowhere because of this, but I can't do anything about the existence of this kind of objection, as I firmly disagree with its merit. I also don't believe that the article's likely readers are so culturally inexperienced that they won't be able to handle such names. But there you go. What's does my opinion matter?! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue has really been done to death. The "this is the English language wikipedia" argument is not relevant. The body of the text is in English, as it should be, while the article topic is in the language relevant to it - as are tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of other articles on the English language wikipedia. As for google searches - these might occasionally be useful as a sort of guide when deciding the notability of an article but for revealing the type of orthography used in modern academic scholarship? Not so much.
Use of the term "Donnchadh", although perhaps preferred by some modern Celtic nationalists, is also problematic for two reasons. 1) The quaint neo-celtic spelling is indecipherable to most English-speakers in the UK, never mind elsewhere, and doesn't even hint at the word Duncan.
This just doesn't hold water to be honest. First of all the idea that there is some kind of mythical 'Celtic nationalism' which insists that historical personalities have their names written in the relevant language rather than use bastardised Anglicised forms is absolute bunk and one that would be recognised as such by anyone familiar with the nature of Scottish nationalism and historiography. This may well (and i'm fairly sure is) an existant factor in Ireland and possibly Wales but certainly not in Scotland, where the Celtic/Gaelic origin of the nation has been largely divorced from Scottish nationalism and Scottish ideas of history for centuries. As for the Gaelic forms being incomprehensible, perhaps you might like to take a second and ask yourself how anglicised forms of Gaelic presonal names like Duncan, Donald, Malcolm or place names like Glasgow, Inverness, Kilmarnock came into existence if the original Gaelic forms from which they are derived were, and are, "indecipherable". The reality is that an English monoglot coming into contact with "Donnchadh" or "Dun Dè" will decipher them just as easily as their predecessors did centuries ago when they corrupted/converted them to the English forms of "Duncan" and "Dundee". Anyway all that aside, the question of whether or not the one form is dominant over the other amongst the relevant modern scholars is not something i am qualified to comment upon. Deacon, however, is more than qualified to comment upon it and given his background in the topic and his record on Wikipedia you should have a fairly good reason to try and derail an article en route to Featured status when you don't seem to have any arguments beyond the old ones which have been covered before, many times, and in great detail, on other articles of this nature. siarach (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Siarach. Yes, in wikipedia practice these names (Gaelic or otherwise) are not normally anglicized for the sake of it, and are so only when there is a considerable body of popular writing on the topic, such as for most monarchs. That's the practice normally followed (e.g. Gruffydd ap Rhys, not Griffin son of Rees). If there was lots of popular stuff on this Donnchadh calling him Duncan, I'd be able to overlook academic usage and quite frankly accuracy, but there isn't. And yes, google-ization of books focuses on old books and maintream topics, and most of the works likely to be used for this kind of article to make it decent aren't online. This would be a very short article indeed if I were relying on internet books. Most of the works in English written fairly recently used for this article preferred the name Donnchad(h), as you would expect if you know the mentality of insularist historians. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not concerned about the politics but the readability and intelligbility of the article. Of the Links that Deacon alleges support "Donnchadh" as the spelling, the first, when searched, mentions no "Donnchadh"s but three "Donnchad"s - none of them the person in question. The second example doesn't use Donnchadh. His third example, Melrose Abbey actually uses Duncan, on pages 232 and 243. Professor G.W.S. Barrow, one of the article's chief sources, also uses Duncan in his books: in the title I quoted earlier, in The Anglo-Norman era in Scottish history, and in Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland. These are heavily referenced in the article, and do not use Donnchadh.
As far as I can see, very few books use the name Donnchadh - which this article is titled. A few use "Donnchad", without the "h", but the vast majority use "Duncan", and this is the form found 8 times to 1 ahead of Donnchadh in Google. And it's not just a matter of the title. Many other names in the article are transposed into neo Gaellic or Irish. (For which no pronunciation guide is given.) I have already mentioned "Gilbert," who becomes "Gille-Brighde". The article speaks of a king of "Tir Eoghain", which again is puzzling, until you discover that this redirects to County Tyrone. Why not just say Tyrone? "Gall-Gaidhil" redirects to Lords of Galloway. Why not just say this, and help the reader understand, instead of creating confusion? These usages are unhelpfully obscurantist. There is also "Gofraidh, King of Mann," who, although named here in Gaellic, is actually of Norse origin, and is listed in Wikipedia as Godred II Olafsson!
Duncan/Donnchadh himself is not as purely Gaelic as the article treatment would suggest. He is heavily linked with the anglo-Normans. Even his seal, reads "DUNCANI", which shows that HE used this name. So, for many reasons, we are not talking about "anglicizing" names that have always been recorded in Celtic, we are talking about preserving the standard names of important people and places as used currently in English and in the major academic literature. Wikipedia should not be introducing new minority naming systems. Someone reading this article and then looking for some of the related people or places in other books and reference sources will generally draw a blank because of the terms used. For this reason, Wikipedia guidance states to use the most common version of a name name in English, and in reliable reference sources. This hasn't been done in the article, and instead it has been made unnecesarily confusing and even misleading, by the use of obscure naming and terminology. Xandar 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't take offence, but your post is riddled with historical misunderstandings. I let stuff like "Celtic nationalism" and other stuff go above, but "Neo-Gaelic"? What? Gilbert "becomes" Gille-Brighde? For goodness sake. What is "Duncan/Donnchadh himself is not as purely Gaelic" meant to mean?
But yeah, you got me on the Melrose book ... here's another to replace it.[50] The "h" is there to indicate it is lenited (it occurs alternatively in the texts with a dot above); I'm agreeable to moving it to h-lessness if you want, but that'd take it out of sync with the images, and really there's no reason to other than google popularity. Spellings are synchronised for reasons of cognitive dissonance.
Listen, if you want to give the article a serious review on sentence structure, and the things you're good at, do so. If you wanna talk spellings, go to the talk page. You've already heard my opinion on it, and posts like that aren't gonna change my mind. It is a community decision in any case, and it's not my article. But if you want me [to agree] to change the spelling because of that kind of historical nonsense, then you're gonna be disappointed. I follow conventions of modern historical writing, and I don't agree that dumbing down for some fantasy stupid reader when it will damage the article's quality is good practice. I mean, do you want me to change all the spellings, wait for this to pass and then change them back? To appease your POV, this would be really the most sensible thing. Determining names based on google hits is not an FA criterion. No more needs to be said on this topic I don't think. FAC is not WP:RM. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, as [Insular] Medievalist wikipedians aren't numerous or interested enough to come up with a relevant MoS that improves the encyclopedia, for good histiographil practice the recommendations outline in the Scottish Historical Review MoS guideline (section ii) are relevant to this particular article, and they recommend the style used in this artcile. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a matter of "dumbing-down". The major historical works on the subject published by sources like the Cambridge and Edinburgh University presses are not "dumbing-down." It's about following wikipedia naming policy and using the standard, most accessible and popular English terms. These are matters which you have not addressed. And you have by no means proven, or even provided significant evidence that use of the Gaelic terms in the article is current academic or popular usage, while I have provided significant evidence from the sources of this article that standard English language terms are used. Wikipedia is not a specialist publication. It is aimed at the average English-speaking reader around the world, not a small coterie of Gaelic-users. And the problem lies in the article text as well as title. Using "Tir Eoghain", for Tyrone, and Gall-Gaidhil for Galloway is obscurantist and tends strongly towards jargon (see Wikipedia:OBVIOUS#Use_other_languages_sparingly). Nor is this a matter of a "Fantasy-stupid-reader". Wikipedia aims at a WORLDWIDE audience, 12 years and up. I would guess far less than 1% of these readers will be familiar with confusing Gaellic terms like Gall-Gaidhil and Gille-Brighde. This is not a specialist audience, and is why standard English terms are needed. As for attempting to read this article out to another person - with no attempt made to provide a useful or accessible pronunciation guide - would be impossible. As far as I'm concerned this article breaches WPguidance on Jargon, POV, use of English, use of standard terms and accessibility. It is therefore not FA until these matters are dealt with. Xandar 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can rest assured that neither the works using Duncan or Donnchadh followed wikipedia naming conventions, your interpretation or not. "Tir Eoghain" is not used for County Tyrone, it is used for a kingdom that doesn't have an article (and spelling it that way is normal English). County Tyrone is an administrative unit that is loosely based on that kingdom's borders as they were centuries later, but it is not the same thing. It redirects there because it has no article. Likewise, Gall-Gaidhil doesn't have an article either (I was planning to give it one shortly). It could equally redirect to Norse Gaels, but the choice of redirecion is certainly not based on "obscurantism". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<outdent> Comment on name issue only. I find myself in a quandary here. I have recently used versions of Xandar's arguments here on the talk page at Talk:Scotland during the Roman Empire, arguing against a user who suggested it be moved to 'Caledonia during the Roman Empire', suggesting that Scotland was 'anachronistic' (see one of Deacon's points, above). My view then was that the naming should, firstly, be tied to the prevailing practice in the contemporary literature and, second, be whatever makes it easiest for a WP lay reader to find the article. Unfortunately, these two criteria do not appear to produce quite as clear-cut a result in the present discussion.
Having said that, can I make two pleas. First, is it not possible, given the varied use of the term in the literature, to simply create two or three redirects to the present article? And second, let's focus on the FAC for the content. I think Deacon's work is excellent, so if we can deal with other issues, the naming question really is secondary (though I accept it may be not only about the article title, but also treatment of the name(s) in the text), and can be resolved either here or at WP:RM, without getting in the way of a decent FAC discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't just aboput the title though. The problem is throughout the article. And I would say that this issue is actually more extreme than the Caledonia one - since a much larger minority of potential users know that Caledonia means Scotland, than that Donnchadh means Duncan, Gall-Gaidhil means Galloway or Tir Eoghain means Tyrone. This is a matter of accessibility. The over-use of Gaellicisation, even of non-Gaelic entities (Anglo-Norman, Norse etc) also infers a false picture of a totally Gaelic region - which is untrue and therefore POV by implication. Anyway. I'm not a dictator here. That's my view, and we'll see if other editors disagree. I'm not insisting we have to change the headline name (though I would prefer it), but definitely the article text needs a LOT more use of standard English, and fewer obscure Gaelicised names and terms. Xandar 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See above. You are misunderstanding why Tir Eoghain and Gall-Gaidhil redirect to the places they do. If you believe that Ireland and south-western Scotland were not Gaelic in speech in this period, please publish an article on the topic and enlighten everyone.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(question to Xandar). I'm no expert in this field. However, do both parties (Xandar and Deacon) agree that the use of names such as Donnchadh and Gall-Gaidhil is "Gaellicisation"? I thought they represented the prevailing contemporaneous names in extant primary sources, not a retroactive Gaellicisation. I can see this whole issue is a minefield across WP. See Marc Antony, for example, where the modern English usage is used throughout - and then I note that it has fallen from former FA to humble C-class! I'm not sure where this debate ends up, but I don't have a good feeling about it. Might this be a discussion better taken elsewhere; and has it already been had somewhere of which any experienced editor is aware? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion is part of this FAC because the over-use of scarcely-translated Gaelicisms is making the article very hard to understand, or to cross-reference with other sources. This applies even within WP. King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada for example, links to Malcolm III of Scotland, with nothing to indicate this in the article. Donnchadh and Gall-Gaidhil etc, may appear in some primary sources. I'm not sure. However Latin and ONF sources will be the majority, using Duncan and variants. The point is, however, that while these people and places may have had Gaelic names at the time 1)These were not universal, and 2) Wikipedia policy (for good reason) is to normally use English forms, especially so where these are better known popularly and better attested in the literature. So we use Turin instead of Torino, Munich rather than Munchen and Christopher Columbus rather than Christoffa Corombo or Cristóbal Colón. For significant figures with standard English names, we should use those names, to make things easier for the reader. Saying the "Lords of Galloway" is far less obscure and obfuscatory than saying the "Gall-Gaidhil" since the reader knows what a Lord is, and can find Galloway on a map or other reference source. The "Gall-Gaidhil" could be a three-toed cat as far as most casual readers will know. And it is no use saying that the borders have changed since then. The borders of Spain have changed too, but the entity that retains the core is still referred to as Spain. If Gelic forms must be used by the authors, they need to be amply and immediately translated in the text. Xandar 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gall-Gaidhil is not the same as "Lords of Galloway" ... one is a people and one is a title. The current redirection is just convenience pending an article. You are free to read the whole section devoted the Gall-Gaidhil, and to look at the maps made for this article, and in both you and any straw reader will discover they are not a three toed cat. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image at the top of the article shows quite clearly how Donnchadh himself liked to spell his name when it mattered most. Srnec (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deacon, You actually make my point for me, in that the article as currently constructed led me to the error about the "Lords of Galloway" - hence the need for terms like Gall-Gaidhil and other similar Gaelicisms to be properly translated in the article. Xandar 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More work needed on the writing. Here are examples just from the top.

  • Awkward piping: "As a result of his father's conflict with Uhtred and the Scottish king William the Lion, Donnchadh became a hostage of King Henry II of England." See the specific explanation here. There's another in "King John".
  • Remove "comparatively"?
  • "He married the daughter of Alan fitz Walter, a leading member of the family later known as the House of Stewart, future monarchs of Scotland and England."—it's OK, but the last comma might be better as a dash, since it has a quite different function to that of the previous commas (announces an explanation).
  • "documented well"—reverse order?
  • "Charters provide a little information about some of his activities, but overall their usefulness is limited. This is because no charter-collections (called cartularies) from the Gaelic south-west have survived the Middle Ages; the only surviving charters relevant to Donnchadh's career come from the heavily Normanised English-speaking area to the east." Possibly better relationships between the clauses thus: "Charters provide a little information about some of his activities, but overall their usefulness is limited; this is because no charter-collections (called cartularies) from the Gaelic south-west have survived the Middle Ages, and the only surviving charters relevant to Donnchadh's career come from the heavily Normanised English-speaking area to the east." See what you think.
  • I wondered why "Ireland" was linked the first time; but twice within a minute?
  • "late-12th century"—No hyphen, I think. Mid- yes. Am I right? (Unsure)
  • "Historians are reliant"—Rephrase as two words?
  • Check overlinking: for example, "ethnicity"—is that a stretch for most readers? Tony (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. I implemented your suggestions. I delinked ethnicity and barony. The double linking, I thought it was the custom [at some stage] to start link counting separately in the lead and body? Ireland might be part of the overlinking in any case, I don't think there are many who would need to click on it. I tried to solve the nominal group/King problem, though not quite sure that I grasped it. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Query - any reason why you've got the Acta of Malcolm and William in the secondary sources instead of primary as I would expect them?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. Well spotted. They are in the secondary section because they were used primarily (if not entirely, I can't remember) as secondary sources. I.e. the introduction sections were the parts of those works drawn upon. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Saying so in the article (which implies that the curious reader should find this edition, and not expect much in the primary source) would be a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I haven't returned to the article, but I guess you've visited the section at WT:MOS where the green/yellow map has been talked about. MASEM agrees it's not yet good. (Do you have control of the original? If so, can you remove the in-pic title? The "in" is missing from it, as well as its rather in-your-face presence. Tony (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I also find it glarish, at least at the standard settings of my monitor - can we tone down the saturation a little? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hold I must join Xandar in my uneasiness on the naming. The Complete Peerage describes our subject as "Duncan, son of Gilbert, son of Fergus, the Celtic Lord of Galloway". That seems to me standard usage in English; what Deacon has done is like naming our article on Ovid P. Ouidius Naso. Such a title, contemporary spelling and all, has its uses - but they are uses for specialists, who have better resources than us. We are intended for lay readers. We are writing in English, not Gaelic; even this title is inconsistent, in not using mormaer and Carraig - or whatever the thirteenth century forms would be.
When I get back from vacation, I will see what the sources actually use and what they mention. They may convince me to support on this issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:07, 8 August 2009 [51].

South Park (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): user:TheLeftorium, Nergaal (talk), user:Hunter Kahn 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because, well, Eric Cartman looked in his mom's closet and saw what he was getting for Christmas, an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really missed the pointless bureaucracy here at FAC. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I initially thought the same, but you might have a different view if you were blind or partially sighted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait I don't get the joke Nergaal posted above, it doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to nominate this for FAC. Also wasn't this article before nominated for FLC? —Terrence and Phillip 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re: nominators put stuff at FAC if they think they are good for FA/fulfills the criteria => I write blurbs that might intrigue people enough to review the article + see the comments at FLC + I'll fix the alts also. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for adding some alt text. However, it could use some improvement. In "A depiction of the four boys", the "A depiction of" is redundant and should be removed; and "the" suggests that the reader should know which boys these are, which a non-expert reader would not. Also, more detail is needed: saying just "four boys" doesn't describe Image:SouthPark season1.jpg well. The alt text "Two guys sitting in a chair during an interview" is a bit better, but "during an interview" is not immediately verifiable merely by looking at the image and should therefore be removed, and the remainder is both not-quite-right ("a" chair?) and not enough detail. Can you please give it another try? Please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples for some ideas. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I love FAC/FLC for all the reviewers typing ten times the text required to add to the article itself. Just a quick clarification: how would somebody "blind or partially sighted" be capable of reading the text but not comprehend an image?Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As mentioned in WP:ALT, visually impaired readers often use assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca, which read a web page out loud to you. When these readers come to an image without alt text, they're stuck and often simply read out the file name of the image, which is not that helpful.
  • Thanks for adding some more alt text, but I'm afraid it still needs some work. The phrase "possibly answering a question" is not right, since it's speculation. Alt text should be immediately verifiable only from the image, and shouldn't speculate like that. The other alt text "Kenny, Stan, Cartman, and Kyle waiving their hands" (1) contains proper names that cannot be verified by a non-expert, (2) has a misspelling, and (3) doesn't describe the gist of the image well: for example, it completely ignores the large lettering in that image. Please give it another try.
  • You're correct that I could write the alt text for this article, but I don't have time to write alt text for all Wikipedia articles, and I try to help others to learn how to do it. It's not that hard a skill to pick up, typically; and the more people that know how to do it, the more-accessible Wikipedia will become to the visually impaired.
Eubulides (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this digression over now with the new entries? Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This thread is not a digression, as the article should conform to the WP:ALT guideline.
  • Thanks for improving the alt text some more. However, the result still had a couple of the problems noted above: the first alt text contained the claim "main characters" that can't be verified by a non-expert reader only from the image, and the second alt text contained the misleading text "in his hands" (only one hand was used). Also, the alt text could have been a bit more descriptive.
  • To try to help improve the article I changed:
  • the alt text for Image:SouthPark season1.jpg as follows: 'A gray box depicting the four main characters handwaving, and with the title of the show, South Park, typed in large font contains four crudely drawn cartoon children waving their hands. They have big round heads and wear colorful winter clothes. Behind them is "SOUTH PARK" in big letters, and below them is "THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON".'; and
  • the alt text for Image:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg as follows "Two guys sitting down, one of them holding seated men. One holds a microphone in his hands one hand and gestures with the other.".
Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose—1a. Needs a thorough, independent copy-edit throughout. Here are random things I picked up as examples.

  • "region 2 and 4" ... "Regions 2 and 4"?
    • fixed. n
  • "The first season was a ratings success for Comedy Central, receiving a Nielsen Rating rating of 1.3 for the first episode, to 6.4 by the tenth episode."—"rising to"?
    • fixed. n
  • Direct quotes in the lead need citations. Either move the direct quotes to below and express generically, or provide refs.
  • Opening para in "Development" is VERY long. A turn-off. Can you audit paragraph lengths throughout?
    • almost doubled the # of para. n
  • "Cartman tells his friends about the odd dream he had of aliens abducting him and inserting things into his anus." Noun + -ing is usually inelegant. "that aliens ab....". "Odd" is ambiguous. See User:Tony1/Advanced_editing_exercises#A_common_problem.E2.80.94noun_plus_-ing Tony (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • wouldn't switching the -ing change the meaning? Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I tried a new wording. Could you guys let me know if that's sufficient? Also, Tony, do you still feel a copy edit is necessary, or do you think it's minor enough of a problem that we can work it out here at the FAC? — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Is it normal to have nothing about the VHS releases, I realise it's pretty much a dead technology now but if the article's going to be truly comprehensive wouldn't it be worth including? Guest9999 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • I see minor MOS fixes need throughout—the episodes in the plot synopsis bit need to be in quotes. Jesus vs. Frosty/Santa should also be in quotes as they are shorts. Also, since both shorts link to the same article, I don't think there is a need to link both.
  • Infobox—Are all those DVD release dates necessary? I actually don't see how any are required for the infobox, but even so, only the original one seems necessary. The rest is mentioned in the table below anyway. Also, I suggest removing those citations as they cramp the infobox (it's all cited elsewhere anyway) indopug (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the quotes for the episodes and shorts; the shorts link to different places in the article so I left the links; I cleaned up the DVD release in the infobox. Any other issues? Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, despite the minor prose issues I think this article would qualify as a FA. There seems to be no serious breaching of the FA criteria. —Terrence and Phillip 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:38, 5 August 2009 [52].

Soundgarden[edit]

Nominator(s): -5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria for a featured article. The article is well-written and comprehensive. Any objections will be quickly addressed.-5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There are a couple unsourced paragraphs in the "Post-Soundgarden" section. Ref 1 needs a publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I addressed most of that I think, but I may need some help as far as what needs to be referenced specifically.-5- (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support And I'll look around myself if -5- can't find anything for the "unsourced paragraphs". But I think -5- and the others have indeed adressed most of that and have done a really good job on this article and after a possible couple of fix-ups, if that, this article will be more than ready for FA status. Most of the article is well-sourced, the paragraphs go into good detail about their subjects and I do believe that most readers would be satisfied with the content here.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had another look through and if wanted, I could try to find another picture for the article, as the only one right now is at the top. Otherwise, I support this article reaching FA Status.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added another picture to the article.-5- (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addressed as best I could. I've never done alt text before so it'll probably need a second look.-5- (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid it still needs work. Alt text should mention only visual aspects, and these visual aspects should be easily verifiable by a non-expert. Please see the 3rd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. The alt text should not say "Soundgarden" or list names of people in the picture, for example, because that doesn't convey any useful information to the visually impaired reader. Please give it another try. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I made another attempt. I think this one's a big improvement.-5- (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, yes it is. I tweaked it a bit more. Eubulides (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I've never been a fan of these "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages. I see that the Soundgarden award list was delisted as an FL and merged here. However, that doesn't mean you have to preserve the format, or even give the awards their own section. Work the awards into the band history prose, keeping in mind that album and song awards/nominations can typically go in the respective articles instead of this one. Alss, double-check links. You shouldn't be citing awards/noms from fansites or site like Acclaimedmusic.net. All in all this will make the article look cleaner and make it more readable. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't merge the list, that was User:Reywas92. I just left it as it was because Nirvana (band) now has its article the same way. I believe all of the awards are already mentioned in the article anyway.-5- (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Memo to self: clean up Nirvana (band). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure inline music samples would meet our non-free content requirements, as there is no indication how the samples add significantly to the reader's understanding. It might be better to have them in those standard sound sample boxes with a detailed descriptions of how that song illustrates Soundgarden's style.
I think the first four paragraphs of the "Post-Soundgarden" should be removed (or at least condensed into a single paragraph). This article is about Soundgarden, not its members, and the info is redundant to their articles anyway. indopug (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addressed. I've replaced or removed the first three references. The last reference I replaced with the original source of the quote, which is an interview with Cornell from Artisan News Service. It is a video interview, so there is no way they could have faked it, so it is reliable.-5- (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I ask what you replaced them with? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replaced the toazted.com article with an article from the New York Post, and I removed the paragraph that was referenced by the starpulse.com and bull-eye.com articles.-5- (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I need time to perform a thorough review of the article's prose and source this week. By the way, I know there's a Soundgarden bio called New Metal Crown from 1994 or so. Can you get your hands on a copy? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. Pleasingly professional standard of writing. Well done! Nevertheless, I found a few things to fix as I drifted down from the top.
    • "In 1986, Sundquist left the band to spend time with his family,[3] and was replaced by Matt Cameron, who was the drummer for Skin Yard."
    • "35" but "twenty".
    • Why is "United States" linked suddenly? I can see no country names that should be linked. And "Honolulu" and "Hawaii"? Is a reader likely to divert? If not, why not leave the many high-value links less diluted?
    • Eight commas in half a sentence: "On March 24, 2009, Thayil, Cameron, and Shepherd reunited, with Tad Doyle on lead vocals, to perform "Hunted Down", "Nothing to Say", and ...". Easy ones to remove are after "2009" and "Cameron".
    • "by stating that conversations between the band members have been limited to"—"had"? Tony (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) PS My pet hate is "pg.", and I see "p." too. Wow, you have access to lots of hard-copy newspapers and similar resources from the 90s.Reply[reply]
  • Query - Why wasn't Nickson's Soundgarden: New Metal Crown used in writing this article? It's one of the only serious books dedicated to the band, and it's known to be well-researched and insightful. It looks like you have a lot of the history of the band sourced to books and articles that are ostensibly about the general music scene or even about other bands; why neglect Nickson? --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't own it and don't plan on buying it at this time.-5- (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. The article neglects a major source about the band. I checked it out at Bookman's and it's full of material that could be used to expand this article and check the facts that are attributed to secondary sources about other bands. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:07, 1 August 2009 [53].

J. C. W. Beckham[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have recently expanded this article from a number of sources, and it has had one thorough copyedit by another editor. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - I fixed the repetitive Beckham... Beckham sentence in the lead. In the future, you don't have to repeat the name, rather, mention the former or the latter, as I did. I think it's more helpful than repeating names in the same sentence. ceranthor 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - This is quite good.

  • I've done some copyediting; please look it over and make sure everything's okay with you.
  • Yeah, this looks fine to me.
  • Both the "Governor of Kentucky" and "U.S. Senator" sections (and by extension the article lead) seem heavily slanted towards how Beckham won those positions at the expense of what he did once he was in them. Is there really no more information on the latter subject? This article isn't really very long for somebody who essentially served two terms as Governor and one as Senator.
  • I've consulted the major sources that I'm aware of. I know most of his first term was devoted to non-controversial issues and attempting to reunite the Democratic party after the disastrous election of 1899, so it isn't surprising that there are few highlights from this term. Interestingly, the Finch article, which is devoted to senators of this time period, devotes only a single paragraph to Beckham's actions as a senator. Apparently, the political machinations behind his elections were much more interesting than what he did in office.
  • I don't know what a "uniform school textbook law" is. I assume it's a law requiring the same textbooks to be used at schools throughout the state, but it could use some elaboration.
  • I'll have to get back to you on this one. Most of the time, this is just referred to as the "uniform textbook law" in the sources I've found, but one of them might have a few more details. I'll have to double-check.
  • I clarified this a little. It seems like I remember one of the sources having more about this, but I can't find it now. Anyway, the law was to set uniform textbook prices. Apparently, one company had a monopoly on textbooks in the state at the time, although the source doesn't say which company. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In March 1904, Beckham signed the Day Law mandating segregation of all schools in Kentucky." I assume that this refers to racial segregation, but it should probably be specified.
  • Clarified.
  • "...on the Senate Committee on Military Affairs." Are no dates available for this? It would help balance the dates earlier in the sentence related to his committee chairmanship.
  • Unfortunately, no. The only source that mentions his service on this committee is the FCHQ article by Finch.
  • "The head of the Jockey Club had lost his fortune and influence..." Do we know his name?
  • His name was James B. Brown. I omitted it because it hadn't been mentioned elsewhere and because James Brown is such a common name. However, I've added it per your comment.
  • File:JCW_Beckham.jpg needs some updated information. The source is a broken link, and the copyright tag claims pre-1923 publication without any evidence (though that evidence might be in that broken link). Other images look good.
  • I can't figure out why the link doesn't work. Let me tell you how to get to the image, and maybe you can help.
  1. Go to the Library of Congress web site: www.loc.gov.
  2. Select "Digital Collections" at the top of the page.
  3. Select "Prints and Photographs" (second column, second item)
  4. Select "I understand. I'm ready to search the catalog" (blue button)
  5. Search for "beckham"
  6. On my search, it is the fourth image of six. The title is "BECKHAM, JOHN CREPPS WICKLIFFE. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, 1915-1921" and the given date is 1915.
  7. When I select the link, the URL in my address bar is the one given at File:JCW_Beckham.jpg. But that link doesn't seem to work directly. Any suggestions?
  • Sourcing looks good, links checked using linkchecker tool (are people other than Ealdgyth allowed to say that?). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: I've made a library search of resources of my own to flesh out the sections on his political life, and I've come up dry. Accordingly, and with all of my other concerns being addressed, I'm now supporting. Good work. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Images lack alt text per WP:ALT. An editor can ping me at my talk page if they want someone else to have a go over coming days. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Needs more work on the prose. I thought it might be acceptable, but the more I read, the more it appears to need an independent copy-edit. It's not a huge job. Random examples:

  • Why are the images so tiny?
  • I've just used the standard "thumb" directive. I thought that was best practice because it allowed the user's preferences to control the image size.
  • Hey, Bush's 2000 theft wasn't the first time that had been done.
  • And the Democrats started it. Who'da thunk it? (I can handle good-natured jabs at my party as long as the other side can take one back.)
  • "As governor Beckham sought to unite his party and the state."—How can it be verified that he sought to unite the state? It sounds like the kind of puff politicians regularly come out with. Which parts of the state? Blacks and whites? Workers and bosses?
  • I'd be OK with dropping "and state". My intent was to convey that the Goebel assassination bitterly divided folks on opposite sides of the debate, and indeed from what I've read, most everyone came down on one side or the other.
  • Just checking: "Although the Kentucky Constitution prohibited governors from serving consecutive terms"—So this has since been changed?
  • Yes, this was changed via a constitutional amendment in 1992. Didn't know if I needed to mention that explicitly or not.
  • "non-controversial", but also jammed together as one word.
  • Fixed.
  • "8—1 decision" – an en dash, please. See WP:MOSDASH.
  • Fixed. These stupid dashes will be the death of me. :)
  • Consider using a colon: "With a successful legislative session behind him, Beckham made a bold political move in June 1906. He orchestrated an effort to set the Democratic gubernatorial and senatorial primaries in November – a full year before the gubernatorial election and two years before the senatorial election." Tony (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done.
Regarding an independent copy-edit, one has already been done by User:Prestonmcconkie, who I have found to be very good. I'm probably too close to the prose to identify problems, so if you could provide a list of them or recommend someone who could, that would be immensely helpful. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [54].

Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger


I am nominating this for featured article because I would find it hard to believe that with all the improvements to this article that there would not be consensus that it is among the finest on wikipedia. Although I started the article and undertook the GAC nomination myself, the article is hardly my work anymore. Before GAC the other two main editors listed here did heroic work while it was one of the highest trafficked articles on wikipedia in January. More recently they have done incredible work responding to concerns in prior FACs and PRs. I think this is ready now.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment.
  • Fixed; thanks. The infobox has a caption but no image? Surely an image is intended there.
  • Fixed; thanks. The alt text needs work. For example, for File:ObamaInaugurationCapitolPreparation.jpg the alt text "Inauguration preparations at the United States Capitol" is weak because (1) it nearly duplicates the caption, and (2) it says little about the appearance of the image. Better would be "U.S. Capitol at dusk, mostly darkened but with dome floodlit from within. Just below it is a lit area with several dark figures.". Please see WP:ALT #What to specify and WP:ALT #What not to specify.
Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pretty much all of the alt text has a problem. Much of it simply duplicates the captions, which isn't helpful to the visually impaired. Also, the newly-added image lacks alt text. Eubulides (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have done what I can. My co-authors are better copyeditors than I. If you have further concerns I will attempt to address them if they don't do so first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's much better, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. Too often, the alt text explains the image rather than describes it. If there's repetition between the alt text and the caption, that's a sign that there's something amiss: the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, whereas the caption should assume that you can see the image (or the alt text) and should not repeat what is already obvious about visual appearance. Also, alt text should not presume expertise on the subject: it should be immediately verifiable by a reader new to the topic. (For more on this please see WP:ALT #What not to specify.) For example, the lead image's alt text is currently "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera during the oath of office of the President of the United States." (my italics). Only the italicized part is about appearance. The rest is interpretation or explanation or identification, which doesn't belong here. A reader new to the topic won't know that the bald-headed guy is Roberts, for example. We might make an exception for the two Obamas (most educated readers know already know what they look like) but not for anybody else pictured. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Still needs work, I'm afraid. There is a typo "walt past". More important, the alt text assumes details that a non-expert reader cannot verify simply by looking at the images. Here are the problems I noted: "the Bidens" (most people don't know what the Bidens look like), "large portion of the seated section of the U.S. Capitol" (most readers won't recognize that nondescript image as being from part of the U.S. Capitol), "From left to right: Itzhak Perlman, Gabriela Montero, Yo-Yo Ma and Anthony McGill" (most readers don't know what these folks look like), "National Statuary Hall at the United States Capitol" (most readers don't know what it is, much less what it looks like), "President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama walk" (it's not clear from the image that they're walking, or that they are President and First Lady (it might be before O. was inaugurated), "From left to right: the Obamas, Bidens and the Clintons stand with their heads bowed in a pew" (again, few know what the Biden's look like; also, Hillary Clinton is not recognizable in this photo); "View of the entire length of the National Mall from the U.S. Capitol" (most people don't know the National Mall well enough to know that this view is from the Capitol), "military personnel and hummer in the street" (it's not a hummer, surely; also, please capitalize); "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera while a large crowd watches." (most people won't know what Roberts looks like and even if they knew couldn't tell from this image). Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Minor comments
  • "People in the United States and from around the world paid unequaled attention to the inaugural event, with reactions ranging from celebration and praise to cautious optimism and indifference." Seems like a lot of peacockery and words to avoid crammed into a single sentence: Assert facts and substantiate
  • I suggest we replace the sentence with a statement that reviews what is referenced in article text like: "Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." Aaron charles (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Replaced. Sorry (or not) I am on vacation and traveling much of this week and next, otherwise I would help more. Aaron charles (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:* "the historic occasion of the 56th inauguration" every inauguration is historic, this claim seems a bit excessive

:* "Everyday American citizens", "41 "everyday" American citizens" are there biannual American citizens?

:* "extends from U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial" Wikify

:* "including big name donors" notable? wealthy? celebrities? surely something more formal

  • Group of citizens on train ride includes some tangential information, especially on Kuntz and Ledbetter that interested readers can click through to find out more
  • International reaction has some peacockish words as well that should be "neutral-ized": heralded, extended heartfelt congratulations, etc.
Overall a solid and excellently referenced article. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Although the article has clearly undergone massive improvement since the last FAC, there is still something about the article that leaves it short of the "well-written" criteria. The article's forte has always been its depth and good referencing, and I think it's a symptom of the subject's specific nature and the lack of precedent for writing about such a subject that it remains intellectually unappealing, and certainly not for want of effort or contribution by its main editors. The prose just doesn't hang together in the way that an encyclopedia article is expected. In places it lacks justification for the informational value of a fact; in others, it remains unclear why a certain aspect of the inauguration is a notable exception to inaugural tradition, or how other inaugurations have planned. Coverage of some aspects, like the outreach to ordinary people, come across as platforms for the inaugural committee's desired presentation, leaving it open to debate whether in third-party observation it was actually of any notable interest. As a whole, it seems to document what the event was like, rather than what it was. It's not far off a featured quality, but right now it still doesn't stand as a compelling case for promotion. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have yet to be successful at FAC on any topic resembling politics (Jack Kemp and Jesse Jackson, Jr. have also failed). Instead of a constructive review of particulars for improvement, I feel your concerns were an indictment. The bickering with political subject seems to the nebulous. I can correct specifics, but changing the tone from one focussed on what it was instead of what it was like is a little mystifying to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Actually, I was able to get Richard Cordray through the process, but my Byron Brown FAC attempt was puzzling and I received no feedback for Antoine Thompson. I should tone down my categorical statement against political noms. Maybe my Michelle Obama attempt was premature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is not first and foremost a political topic; it's a ceremony, something in between a short historical event and an individual performance of a performing art. I'm not sure if the latter has any featured articles, and I'm not sure that if promoted this wouldn't be the least noted and least documented historical event by a good margin.
          • I am not sure whether to take the double negative of that last sentence as outrageous sarcasm or what, but I can not fathom a group of ceremonies among which this was the least noted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Less sarcasm, more clumsy syntax on my part. I meant that if it were a featured article, it would be one of the least notable historical events. Since most of the historical event FAs are things like Night of the Long Knives, I think we probably agree there. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I don't know what dimension you are measuring notable events by, but did you read the first paragraph, which includes the following text: "The inauguration, which set a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., . . . Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and Internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." You seem to be reacting as if the inauguration of Barack Obama was event that no one attended or watched.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • However, I do understand that a fan of the SS might oppose this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • I despair. If you cannot see the difference between saying that something isn't notable enough to be an FA and saying that it is a different kind of subject to what is already featured (and hence that getting such an article to featured standard for the first time should be expected to be tough) then you may be way out of your depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I cannot accept the insistence on a list of specific local points for improvement. First of all, FAC isn't a peer review process, it's an administrative process for selecting FAs. If you don't think an article is going to be promoted without first responding to comments by others, it should be going through peer review first. The potential for some objections to promotion to be addressed during the period of the process doesn't mean that if the objection isn't simple to solve it's not valid. Second, the problem with the article is one of overall tone, phrasing and perhaps structure. To present a list of individual changes to make would be to do the job itself. That job is difficult and requires extensive rigorous understanding of the subject, and if I were able or willing to make that time commitment I'd have fixed the article and supported its promotion instead.
          • My problem is that generally, concerns at FAC are suppose to be actionable. This article has satisfied two peer reviews. The tone to me seems professional. In fact, one of the primary editors is a professional copyeditor or something like that according to a prior FAC or PR, if I recall correctly. A comment that amounts to this article needs a general copyedit for tone, when it has undergone a half dozen such copyedits, is a little bit disconcerting to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I'm sure if the professional copyeditor concerned is reading this, he or she would agree that excellent prose is the product of an iterative process. The last peer review was merely a list of example foci of attention for the article, offered by one editor, which were diligently addressed point by point. To suppose that this "satisfies" some metric misses half the value of the peer review in the first place. Even a point-by-point peer review is an illustration of where far more edits might be directed. If a peer-reviewer were to list everything that can be fixed, they might as well do the edits themselves. An article with specific things to fix cannot be said to be satisfactory until it has been re-analysed after the obvious points have been addressed. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • O.K. I dug through the prior FACs and PRs to find that in FAC1, Lwalt (talk · contribs) identifies himself as a professional writer. This article actually maintains a very high standard for prose, IMO. You do not offer any substantive or actionable points of opposition in this regard other than that it does not measure up to the SS article by some nebulous standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • You may or may not be aware that Lwalt has now contributed 765 edits to the article to bring its prose up to a professional standard. He is now the leading editor by edit count and without him this article would not be worth considering for FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • If you're having difficulty understanding what's wrong with it, consider an article about a film which tells you what kind of camera they used. This is inexplicable detail, unless the camera used to belong to someone important, perhaps, or was an amateur camcorder. Every film has a camera, and usually it's not worth mentioning. Similarly, the only automatically notable features of an inauguration are the names of the people involved. All the rest - invitations, speeches, ceremonies, parades, balls, etc. happen every year. The details of these become notable when their unique nature is appreciated separately from the fact that they routinely happened again. Another example: the article presents the formalities right after the oath as though they are specific to this inauguration. A quick visit to United States presidential inauguration reveals that this happens every year, and even expands with the specific regiment that issues the 21-gun salute. Tone or phrasing issues like this permeate the article. The only view I mean to add through this process is that these issues prevent the article from reaching a featured standard. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • First of all, this event does not happen every new year, but rather every four. There are numerous annual events that are FAs. There are annual Grand Prix events and annual Bowl Games, for example. What makes these articles FA-class is description of details in large part. That is what you are clamoring against here. I do not understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Not sure where you get the impression that I disagree with the inclusion of detail in this article. It's the way it's presented that is unencyclopedic. The Grand Prix articles, for example, are constantly relating their detail to the outcome of the race, a critical aspect of the subject. None of them, on the other hand, mention that champagne was sprayed at the podium, though it undoubtedly was. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • If there were endless WP:RSs relating details of what people were wearing while spraying champagne, which celebrities MCed the spraying, which celebrities performed at the spraying, which celebrities attended the spraying and a motorcade throughout the night that travelled across town from location to location to repeat the spraying or if there were DVDs being sold with hours of footage of the spraying it should also be included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is clearly a futile discussion. I've identified two specific actionable examples of what is wrong with this article. If you lack the imagination to transfer the concept across to other parts of the article then leave it and let someone more experienced deal with it. If others disagree that these are issues then go ahead and promote the article to FA. But I cannot and will not engage with an attitude that seems to believe FA status to be a mark of completion, FAC to be a game to be played to be won for personal gratification, and edit counts or the Midas touch of one user to be infallible mechanisms for achieving perfection. Rereading my original comment, it was anything but an indictment. To have devolved the FAC into such a childish spat begs the question as to whether Tony values the quality of an article above and beyond whether it has a little medal to go with it. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are getting quite off topic. In no way have you convinced anyone that the Inauguration of Barack Obama was a trivial historical event. Neither of your hair splitting differences (the article is not notable enough to be an FA or it is different kind of subject than any other previous FAs) counts against fulfillment of any clause of WP:WIAFA, thus you have not presented a valid argument against. The fact that it may not hold a candle to your beloved SS article in your mind is not a valid argument. The fact that this event recurs periodically is not a valid argument. Whether you believe I want a medal is not a valid argument. In fact, I would love to get a fifth WP:FOUR award. Heck I am hoping for 8 by year-end (Crown Fountain, McDonald's Cycle Center and Rob Pelinka are in the pipeline), but that is not an argument against this article. What makes no sense to me is that here I am going for my fifth WP:FOUR and then you make the case that I am out of my depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Which is it? Am I trying to pile awards on top of my awards or am I too inexperienced in the process to pursue awards. P.S. I apologize none of my WP:FOUR awards are SS-related.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Comment Although it is by no means required for reviewers to list every problem that they find with the article, it is often helpful to list a few specific examples so that the nominator has an idea on how they can improve the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [55].

7th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Easily passed MILHIST A-class review. I believe all major points meet FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Except for the purely-decorative tiny icons, which should have "|link=" instead of alt text (see WP:ALT #When to specify). Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks, a very nice job on the images you did. But 3 images still need alt text: the Ingman portrait and the two maps. For the maps, I suggest briefly summarizing the gist of what the maps show rather than go into a lot of detail. (A general on the phone asks you to describe each map in 40 words or less: what do you say?) Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Added. (for the maps, I forgot to put the "alt" in the caption) How does it look now? -—Ed!(talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed the Template: Citation. As for the two websites, the first is self-explanatory. tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil is a US Military website and part of the Pentagon's network, as evident from the address. I switched the arlington.net ref (#114) to a more reliable source: an article in the Washington Post. —Ed!(talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2009&oldid=883827362"