Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 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 Karanacs 21:49, 30 May 2009 [1].

Kevin Youkilis[edit]

Nominator(s): Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the FA criteria.Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. This is, alas, far from an FA and I'm surprised it got nommed just after the GA went through. Here's what I found just on a skim:
  • All references need to use the citation templates. No bare links.
  • Ref #3 has a 404 error, and I imagine several others do too.
  • Seems like most paragraphs start with "In 200x", which when overdone isn't very good prose.
  • The 2005 season needs expansion.
  • The 2009 season needs paragraph structure.
  • Let's not use Youtube as a reference - though you can put the milk money vid in the external links. (Here's a replacement: [2])
  • The lead should be expanded a little bit (Paragraph # is good, they just need more info)

I'm sure there's more, I just don't have the time to do a complete review just yet. When this is all fixed, I'll take a look back. Wizardman 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal not even sure this passes the good article criteria let alone FA criteria. Many unsourced statements, most of the citations are not developed. One line sentences everywhere. Please read the FA criteria before nominating any more articles.--Otterathome (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm quite surprised this passed GA. It's certainly nowhere close to FA material. I'd suggest withdrawing this one. It'll require quite a bit of work before it meets FA criteria. BuddingJournalist 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support withdrawal or early archive (as a Yuk fan), nowhere near GA, much less FA. (I'm still unclear why GAs can be passed now this easily, but can't be easily delisted, now requiring a full process of GAR. The last FAC nom that didn't appear to meet GA either was quite a bit ago, yet is still listed as GA-- Central Intelligence Agency. I hope someone will take the time to initiate the review, since it's now a more elaborate process than the easy delisting of times past.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. If this article wasn't listed here it would very likely have been listed at GAR by now, as doubts have been expressed over whether it really meets the GA criteria and ought to have been listed, never mind the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong oppose - Per everything above. Not enough citations, proseline throughout, and a stubby 2005 summary, just to name a few things. I also think this currently fails the GA criteria, and suggest that a peer review be requested before any future GA/FA nom. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. Needs expansion of 2005, and consistent citation formatting.--Ethelh (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment No sense piling on with opposes, so I am simply going to add some brief comments on things that need to be worked on before this article can meet FA standards:
  • The lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD
  • Is there a need for each season to be its own section? Consider combining them into one or two subsections rather than seven, and work the fielding record into chronological order
  • Prose needs a ton of work. Use paragraphs instead of point form statements in each section.
  • The Moneyball reference seems like trivia. Is it really important that he was briefly mentioned in the book? Also, that is nowhere close to irony.
  • Awards section is unreferenced
  • A lot of work needs to be done on conforming to the Manual of Style. Among them, section headers should have all words capitalized unless they are all proper names. References need to be properly formatted. Prose quality, as noted above.
  • Honestly, we get that he is a Jewish baseball player. You really don't need to shove this fact down our throats.
  • The link for his Hits for Kids charity should not be in the article body. It should just be in the external links section. The interview ELs don't really add much.
  • Most of those templates are absolutely terrible abuses of navigational templates. That is, however only my opinion and not supported by the baseball project. They are, however, a nauseating mishmash of colour and clutter at the end of the article. Consider wrapping them all into a single collapsable box (e.x.: like at Wayne Gretzky).

Comments - here are two examples from many of why this article does not satisfy the criteria:

  • It was noticed in 2007 that various baseball websites had been using "youkike" as part of their urls for Youkilis's statistical webpages. "Kike" is a slur for a Jewish person. - noticed by whom, why "various", "had been using" or "were using", and at least two citations from relaible sources are needed.
  • His charity wine "SauvignYoouuk Blanc", released in 2008, supports Hits for Kids in entirety. - The wine does not support anything, but the profit from selling it fully finances the charity Hits for Kids. Graham Colm Talk 15:41, 30 May 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 21:49, 30 May 2009 [3].

Kareena Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nomination withdrawn - Given that I no longer want to contribute to this site and people will always root out the negative aspects of any situation I no longer want to waste for time editing this site with no gain. I wish everybody all the best. Don't expect me to come running back within a few days, I am clearly doing nothing to help improve this site so I'll let somebody else write the articles instead. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
boxofficeindia.com is a reliable source. It's actually the most reliable source for box office collections of Indian films. It is frequently used as a source of information in newspapers, magazines and major websites. Other than that, its reliability has been the subject of long discussions in different threads on Wikipedia. One such discussion took place during the FAC of Preity Zinta. It was finally concluded that it is a reliable source after a WP:RSN discussion.
Don't know about oneindia, I personally don't use it, but I believe it can be used for non-controversial claims. Shahid • Talk2me 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the appraisal of us FAC reviewers, could you link to the relevant discussions so we can judge for ourselves? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh there are lots of. Anyway, some of them are cited on the Preity Zinta FAC. Other than that, don't mind citing the main point now. As I said, the source is cited and used in different reliable sources. I can give you brief examples of both Indian and western reputable sources using it as a source of information. The site's "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Additionally, there was one quite an intelligent comment by User:Geometry guy, whose guidance makes quite a difference. And the Preity Zinta article eventually passed FAC, which I think automatically approves BOI.
As for the WP:RSN discussion, it is old and it'll take quite some time for me to find it, but if you strongly think it is necessary, I'll make a search. Shahid • Talk2me 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it would, because reading through Boxofficeindia's about and disclaimers section, I'm not seeing any way the source meets WP:RS. There is no mention of fact checking whatsoever, and the site explicitly states they don't stand behind anything on their site.[4] Parroted figures in what would be considered reliable sources does not necessarily mean the original source meets RS; to give an analogous example, VGChartz is an oft-cited[5] source for sales figures of video games and video game consoles. However, their methods have been vetted and found that often, they make up information based on guesses and retroactively change figures without any record.[6] As such, it doesn't meet reliable source criteria. The key element of RS here is "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable"; I would not say most news organizations meet the definition of "scholarly". I have read through the above Preity Zinta FAC and nothing there dissuades me from that opinion. And with all due respect, Geometry guy's opinion is, in my opinion not keeping with policy. Nowhere in WP:V or WP:RS does it say "if you through up an 'according to', it's alright to use bad sources." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well frankly I'm tired. This is opened every single FAC, and we have to start discussions afresh because of one particular user who opposes to the source. And I'm not gonna do that again. As one who is very involved in the Indian media, I know for a fact that the info is reliable there. I know that it doesn't really matter, but many reliable sources use it as a source of information. I don't think reputable newspapers whould use a blog as a source of information, and I also think, if newspapers use it, why shouldn't we? It's a great evidence which was accepted by many editors. And your example is in my opinion not really relevant in this case. With all due respect to you, I do believe GG's comment is very relevant in this particular case, and I can't see how it goes against policy. Video games are not box office figures.
Other than that and as I said, the article passed FAC with the sources included. I'll find the RSN discussion later. It was User:Relata refero I think who posted one big message which convinced all the editors. Shahid • Talk2me 07:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was indeed a length discussion over box office India as a reliable source with User:Giro Savaronola showing concerns during the Preity Zinta FAC. In the end it was confirmed that this is an acceptable source. Perhaps somebody could find the archived debate? Oneindia.in is a mainstream indian news website which I believe is a reliable source, we have an article on it so it must account for something. It's operated by B. G. Mahesh one of the pioneers of the Internet and online news in India I believe. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Needs a solid copyedit. I see several awkward sentences in the intro alone. I'll have a go at it and see what I can do. I also don't believe that the fair use images satisfy WP:NFCC8. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your help would be appreciated. I'm not convinced about the images either. Don't like to keep using the Preity Zinta article as a talking point but I count three fair use images in that article and it is a featured article. We have two images in this article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't think Preity Zinta should be held up as the standard by which all other articles should be judged. Even after the FAC there has been major conflict about whether the images are appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another comment: the rupee convert template seems like a horrible idea here, and probably should be deleted as a general matter. The exchange rate varies - one hundred 2005 rupees in 2005 dollars is not the same as one hundred 2008 rupees in 2008 dollars. The article should be using contemporaneous exchange rates to calculate dollar amounts, in my view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say that. I used it as an example of another FA on an Indian actress. Cillian Murphy and many other FA's contain similar images most of which have inferior rationales to the images used in this one. Fair use on here whatever the article is contested. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also the converter was suggested by one of the reviewers of the Kapoor article in that all the readings were in ruppees and he understandably wanted to know what they were in dollars from an American viewpoint. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. This (use of fair use images in articles about actors) is a general Wikiproblem whether such images should or shouldn't be included, it's not a problem with any particular article. I do believe the images on the other articles increase the understanding of the topic. I chose the most appropriate images, wrote long rationale summaries, and the article was eventually promoted with these images. The post FAC discussions are closed with a clear conclusion. I don't think WP:NFCC#8 can be considered in a general way; it is an individual choice of particular images for each BLP.
So I'd say:
Whether or not the images on this page increase the understading of the topic is another case, which should be discussed individually here.
Whether or not the use of non-free images is appropriate in such articles should be discussed in a separate page, definitely not here. Shahid • Talk2me 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - there are problems with the reliability of sources, non-free images and the prose. Here are a few examples:

  • Kapoor's off-screen life is subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her and boyfriend, actor Saif Ali Khan and speculation of a possible marriage between the couple - "between the couple" is clumsy and redundant.
  • However, she disliked her term there and studied only because of its closeness to her family. - the "term" was close to her family?
  • Kapoor was initially scheduled to make her debut in Rakesh Roshan's Kaho Naa... Pyaar Hai (2000), a debut which coincided with that of the director's son, Hrithik Roshan. - why repeat "debut"?
  • The film, which featured a ensemble cast, emerged as the second-highest-grossing film of the year in India as well as Kapoor's highest-grossing film, - repetition of "grossing film" and use of "as well as" instead of a simple "and".
  • I don't think you can have a "negative role" in a film.
  • While not a phenomenal success in India - I don't think "phenomenal" is quite the right adjective if indeed one is needed here.
  • I am tired of constantly reading "at the box office".
  • Kapoor has been linked to a number of her co-stars in the Indian media, but she has strongly denied all these rumors - is confusing, does it mean "by the Indian media"? And, why "a number of" and not "several" and even exactly how many?
  • media speculation - this is a sign of lazy writing; "speculation in the media".
  • What on earth are vegetarian on-line polls?

In my view, the article requires much more work. Graham Colm Talk 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which sources do you find unreliable? Only two sources were questioned, and the reliability of both was proved. Other than that, non-free images are used in a much wider quantity in other FAs, and still pass FACs. And this should not be discussed here, as I said above. I think these two images do fulfill WP:NFCC#8, though their rationale summaries need to be more elaborated. Prose problems will be addressed. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've addressed your suggestions, but I don't really know what you suggest to do with the PETA vegeterian poll. Remove it? Shahid • Talk2me 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those were examples, there are more problems, but for now I am interested in, and waiting to see, comments from other reviewers. Graham Colm Talk 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, 1c. Blofeld and Shshshsh might say to the contrary, but there is no way boxofficeindia and oneindia meet the bare threshold of reliable sources, let alone the "high quality" requirement of featured article criteria. Looking through the Pretty FAC which I was referred to multiple times, I'm guessing there might be additional problems with the references I will have to investigate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know about oneindia.com, and don't really care. What I do know and care about is boxofficeindia.com. Its reliability was proved on several occasions, and accepted by several editors. With all due respect, I don't think you yourself have authority to invalidate it all of a sudden, after so many discussions by so many editors. If it hadn't been accepted during the Zinta FAC, this wouldn't have passed eventually. This is frankly disrespectful to all those who discussed it so many times. And the RSN discussion about BOI is found. Here you have the link where it actually was concluded. That's how the entire community accepted the source. If you still don't accept it, this will have to be your personal choice, which shouldn't affect the work all of us editors of Wikiproject India have arduously put into so many Indian articles. Shahid • Talk2me 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be a personal evaluation of the evidence, but that doesn't mean it is any less relevant, germane, or valid than yours, Sh. I would also not brand one discussion as emblematic of the "entire community" and a mandate for inclusion. I'm sorry if this might affect lots of articles, but frankly just because something causes changes is not a reason to adhere to poor sources. I've read through the entire RSN discussion and I am unswayed. User:Relata_refero brought to the discussion a slew of sources. Unfortunately, the URL he/she provides either do not mention the use of boxofficeindia in the abstract or limited preview, are dead links now, or do not mention Boxofficeindia at all (the case for several of the sources the user provided.) The site may be the best possible source out there, but that doesn't mean it qualifies as reliable, or as a high quality source for the purposes of this discussion. Oppose sustained. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it's an old discussion, how would you expect it to look any differently? How would you want this project to evolve when everyone tries to screw others' hard work, discussions and goodwill? With all due respect, why do you think that the opinion of an entire breed of editors who accepted the reliability of the source should be rejected now because of one decision of yours? Why should all these discussions be taken for granted? This is not appropriate. This is not how it works. Many of the sources there require registration (I suppose you are not registered). If many of them are no longer available, I can cite many other sources, like those I've already cited, like this and like many other reputable sources.
Otherwise I increasingly feel that this project is no longer a wonderful one to contribute to, when everyone tries to recreate problems out of old solved issues, and in doing so, preventing progress and improvement. You wouldn't say the same about boxofficemojo, would you? I hate that it mostly happens on India-related articles, because such credible sources as this one are rejected by a very small section of people who'll do anything to invalidate it that's too because they've never heard of it. I feel insulted. Shahid • Talk2me 21:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your constant accusations that I'm out to "get" you are unfortunate, but do not change my findings. If others disagree, so be it. I'm holding you up to featured article standards... if you can't accept criticism, then the FAC process is not for you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comments: I am concerned about misrepresentation of sources that I have found in various spot checks of the article, for example:

  • Wikitext: "After receiving negative reviews for a series of repetitive roles between 2002 and 2003, Kapoor accepted more demanding roles to avoid being typecast, and consequently was recognized by critics for displaying greater versatility between 2004 and 2006." The quoted source attributes the role comments to Kapoor herself in 2005, meaning the text is rather misleading, and the source itself does not mention these critics applauding greater versatility, just one.
  • [7] and [8] are used in synthesis to say that "Kapoor has established herself as one of the leading contemporary actresses in the Hindi film industry".
  • "Kapoor's off-screen life is subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her and boyfriend, actor Saif Ali Khan and speculation of a possible marriage." Once again, synthesis and original research, with the two supporting sources only mentioning press coverage but not supporting this "frequent" bit or the "wide media coverage".[9][10].

If the lead is this bad, I'm not sure that the article body is any better. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:23, 30 May 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 21:38, 30 May 2009 [11].

Tay-Sachs disease[edit]

Nominator(s): Metzenberg (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating Tay-Sachs disease for featured article because Tay-Sachs disease has been a public health model for disease prevention and the development of genetic counseling. Although TSD is a rare disorder, it is the classic textbook case in medical genetics. In society as a whole, it has become a model for understanding genetic variation in human populations. Metzenberg (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Reference check: Refs #22 (Closing the gap in Non-Ashkenazi Jewish Tay-Sachs detection) and #28 (Erasing Tay-Sachs Disease) are dead links. The former can probably just be delinked, but since the latter is a cite web I would suggest trying to find a reference to replace it. Article looks impressive on a skim, but I don't have the time to read it all. Wizardman 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. I removed link 22, because it is general knowledge. As to the other link, the quote of Nomi Stone, the Neil Risch 2003 paper actually contains a complete description of Dor Yeshorim, and the Wikipedia article on Dor Yeshorim has several other references. So eveything is completely verifiable. But the Nomi Stone quotation has a great story to tell about Wikipedia, so I am hoping we can find it posted somewhere else, or perhaps Nomi Stone herself will do so for us. When I first put that quotation in, I assumed that Nomi Stone was the professor in the Dartmouth course, or perhaps that she was somebody who worked professionally in Jewish education or for Dartmouth Hillel. The article seemed well-written and accurate. When I went to look for the paper again, I discovered to my astonishment that Nomi Stone was actually a freshman at Dartmouth College when she wrote the paper. A quick resume for her ... she went on to graduate from Dartmouth in 2003, win a Fullbright, study at Oxford, live for three years with the Jews of Djerba, a traditional Jewish community on an island off Tunisia, become published as a poet, work as a journalist for the Middle East Institute, and ... now she is a graduate student in cultural anthropology at Columbia University.
So, I would say Nomi Stone is obviously a talented young woman whose quotation is valid and verifiable. If you were teaching a freshman course in Biology, wouldn't you like to tell your students that if they write a good paper, it might end up being quoted on Wikipedia alongside Neil Risch (well-known human geneticist and statistician) and Bruce Korf (well-known medical geneticist)? Metzenberg (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an article that references dozens of scientific papers, and some have very complex source information that is hard to fit into the strictures of Template:Cite journal. For example, there are many papers with multiple authors and multiple editors, and with both an article title and a book title. Until Template:Cite journal can be improved to handle the nuances of such publications, it is better to keep what we've got. Sometimes a mixture of the two citation formats is needed, even though inconsistent, in order to give the best possible source information. Metzenberg (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just hunt for and find the problems that Sandy and others want found. And, yes, I did kinda notice that the article references a lot of scientic papers, since I read every single citation. I've pointed out the conflict, as Sandy's asked me to, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now eliminated all the Template:Citation cases. All references are now Template:Cite. Metzenberg (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is current ref 24 (Traubman...) a journal article? If so, the journal title needs to be italicised.
Haaretz is an Israeli English language newspaper, published in Tel Aviv. Note that there is a wikilink in the text so that you can figure out what Haaretz is. The issue is no longer available online from the Haaretz website. The presence of the wikilink in the text should serve to make it clear what this source is and how to find it (if necessary, in a library). I expect that with time, there will be new articles reporting newer public health statistics. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's a newspaper, title should be italicised also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is italicized.
It wasn't, but I fixed it for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Naomi Stone ref is still deadlinking. It needs a publisher also if it's kept
The publisher is Nomi Stone. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure you've satisfied WP:SPS with the above about Naomi stone.
There are no real facts here under contention. The previous link to the article by Ekstein, J and Katzenstein, H (2001) completely covers the facts about this organization. There is a wikilink to Dor Yeshorim, and the same information about the organization is available there, with several magazine articles as sources. From the Dor Yeshorim page you can click through to the Dor Yeshorim website and verify it that way. This really doesn't need a citation. The only thing that has to be verified is that Nomi Stone said the words that she said. Metzenberg (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Current ref 39 (Kimura..) needs page numbers
The reference refers to a book, in its entirety, so no page numbers are necessary. The book is Kimura's basic statement of theory. It's like referring to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. It is one of the most famous books in genetics of the entire 20th century. Indeed, I would call it general knowledge and say that no reference is really needed.
  • Current ref 43 (Gregory Cochran..) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
There is discussion of this in the Talk pages. It is a so-called scientific paper that has been covered in the New York Times, LA Times, and many other newspapers. It is newsworthy and is the subject of a huge amount of attention. The paper is published by Cambridge Journals, but costs $25.00 to read there without a library subscription, so it is preferable to give out a URL. The author is the publisher. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It originally appeared in a print journal? I'm confused here. If it's just a convience link, does this site have permission to republish the paper? We should give the original publication information, which will help establish reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the citation to cite their book, which has a chapter with substantially the same material. Metzenberg (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Current ref 53 (Lyman...) needs a page number
The Lyman reference is to an entire book. It is common for scientific books to be published with huge numbers of authors, and they are listed by the editor. They are collections of a large number of recent papers, often reprints. Often the articles they print have a large number of authors too. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, History does the same thing. When referring to papers from a conference/etc. it's usual to narrow it down to the chapter/article/paper, listing the actual author of the paper with information on the book it appeared in afterwards. Such as: Bates, David (1981). "The Origins of the Justiciarship". In R. Allen Brown (ed.). Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies IV. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. pp. 1–12, 167–171. ISBN 0-85115-161-2. which lets the reader narrow down the actual reference used. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've replaced the citation with one from the same year in a medical practice publication for general physicians. Metzenberg (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Current ref 60 (Kaback... Tay-Sachs) needs a page number
The Kaback reference is likewise to an entire book. Same story. I put the reference into the inline format. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope I've addressed all your concerns. Metzenberg (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Here's an incomplete review; I haven't had time to carefully read each line, but have read enough that I have several concerns.
  • One of the first things a naive reader wants to know about a disease is, what are its symptoms? These are not described in the lead anywhere. Symptoms should be in the lead paragraph, preferably (briefly) in the lead sentence.
The lead does not have room for everything. The main symptom is death at an early age. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but death due to what? Inevitably ordinary readers will be curious. It's weird to have the lead for a disease give zero signs or symptoms for the disease. (I wouldn't count death as a sign, and by definition death cannot be a symptom....) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • More generally, the lead does not seem to summarize the body. I see large chunks of the body that are not at all mentioned in the lead. For example, there's a whole section on eugenics, but nothing about eugenics in the lead. (But see below; perhaps the lead is right and the body wrong here.)
I'm sorry, but the lead is limited to five paragraphs. My own feeling is that it presents the most important facts as it stands. Perhaps you would like to suggest topics that should be in the lead in the article's Talk section. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For now I'd rather keep this discussion in one place; we can move the whole thing to the talk page if you like.
  • Eugenics is one such topic. More generally, any topic that is important enough to get a section header is a topic important enough to put into the lead. If this means that some stuff needs to be struck from the lead, so be it. Another example topic is polymorphisms. It should be a fairly mechanical procedure to run through the table of contents and check that everything in it is also in the lead.
  • WP:LEAD #Length suggests three or four paragraphs for an article this length. The current Tay-Sachs lead is five paragraphs, which is somewhat too long. Please look at the featured articles Acute myeloid leukemia and Autism for examples of good leads that are not as long.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The section Controversy over heterozygote advantage is misplaced. It has nothing to do with epidemiology, and shouldn't be in the Epidemiology section. Since this controversy is historical and is no longer active, the logical place for this section is under History.
The controversy is about the epidemiology of the disease (why carrier status is widespread in certain populations). The controversy is not historical. Rather, at a time when researchers in medical genetics have largely come to agreement on the subject, there is still a lot of popular science discussion of it. Indeed, the subject was discussed in a wire service article by Karne Kaplan in newspapers all over the United States during April. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "controversy is not historical" comment seems to contradict a comment you made a few days ago in the peer review that "this is really a historic controversy, not a modern one". Perhaps you could explain the seeming contradiction? At any rate, the historical component of this controversy (whatever that is) should be moved to the history section. For the purpose of Epidemiology, it doesn't matter what unreliable sources say on the subject; only reliable sources should matter.
  • By and large an Epidemiology section should not be not about why (that's for a Causes/Etiology/Genetics section); it should be about what. For example, it's fine for an epidemiology section to talk about risk factors, but it's not fine for it to introduce genetics topics and discuss them extensively.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • About 45% of the body of the article (counting the above) is about history. This seems too much, and raises WP:WEIGHT issues, particularly since very little of the lead is about history. To restore the proper weight it would make sense to create a subarticle, History of Tay-Sachs disease, to create much of this material, and summarizing it here.
I think that breaking up the article is needlessly breaking up a body of information that needs to stand together. Note that Tay-Sachs disease is one of the very few genetic diseases that is widely discussed in society in general, and that it is a textbook case as well ... it is in a lot of genetics and public health textbooks as a model disease. It's important that we keep this information together. Metzenberg (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, fair enough, I struck the comment. The article is not too long, so it can be kept together. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead paragraph is too hard to read. Too many technical words are shoehorned into the first few sentences, and it needs to be lightened up. Some specific suggestions:
  • Move the aliases "(abbreviated TSD, also known as GM2 gangliosidosis, Hexosaminidase A deficiency or Sphingolipidosis)" to a later paragraph, or into the infobox.
  • Don't use the following jargon in the lead, at least not without defining the terms, as ordinary readers can't be expected to know it offhand: "autosomal recessive", "fatty acid derivative", "lipids".
We have wikilinks for this purpose. This article is likely to be used at the college level. It is an article about a technical subject, and the use of such terms is necessary. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isn't really a less technical term for "lipids" that is entirely accurate. You could say that lipids are fats, which they sort of are, but that would cause the whole thing to be completely misunderstood. Actually, fats are lipids. It's better to use the right term and then a wikilink. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've expanded the sentence that contains autosomal recessive. Please not that all Wikipedia articles for diseases that are autosomal recessive must of necessity use this nomenclature, and that most others do so in the lead. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the change: it improved things greatly, as it explains to a naive reader what an autosomal recessive pattern is. (A nit: MOS:EMDASH says there should not be spaces around that em dash.)
  • I see that "fatty acid derivative" is fixed too.
  • "Lipid" is still a problem, though: naive readers can't be expected to know what a lipid is, and the wikilink isn't enough here. The current wording "lipids, components of cellular membranes," is especially confusing, as it can easily be misinterpreted to define "lipids" to mean "components of cellular membranes". One possibility is simply to remove "lipids," from the lead, since it's not really needed there.
  • In rereading the lead carefully I found another word that a naive reader can't be expected to know: "autosomal". This word should be defined in the lead, or the containing phrases should be reworded to avoid the word.
  • The lead sentence is still weak, I'm afraid. The only useful information it gives to a naive reader is that TSD is genetic and its most common variant is fatal. Surely we can do better than that. How about this instead?
"Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disorder in which an enzyme that breaks down brain-cell waste products malfunctions, causing the brain to deteriorate, almost always resulting in death by age five." (*)
This is obviously not perfect, but I hope you get the idea: it's a simple declarative sentence, using words the general reader will understand, that defines the term Tay-Sachs disease. And it gives a whole lot more useful information than the existing lead.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are gangliosides "fatty acid derivatives" or "lipids"? the lead says both, without explaining the discrepancy.
Lipids are composed primarily of fatty acids. Fatty acids are a molecular subunit of lipids. Again, wikilinking is critical to a technical article. For those who are not familiar with biochemistry and want more precise information, wikilinks serve the purpose. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid that this does not answer my question. Anyway the text should be accurate as it stands, and since lipids are not the same thing as fatty acid derivatives, something needs to be reworded. The lead no longer says that gangliosides are fatty acids, but the body still does, so there's still a terminology problem. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GM2 gangliosidoses are the same disease clinically, but the three sub-types (of which TSD is the most famous) can be distinguished by enzyme assay and mutation analysis. The three diseases are identical clinically, and can only be distinguished molecularly. The other two diseases are extrmely rare. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, in that case, the lead sentence is incorrect and should be fixed. Tay-Sachs is not "also known as GM2 gangliosidosis"; it is one of the three GM2 gangliosidoses. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead fails to mention the following crucial points:
  • The role of beta-hexosaminidase A.
And you want an easier, less technical lead??? If you read the article below, you will find that the exact molecular role of beta-hexosaminidase A is not even known. It is currently theorized that it is involved in transport of gangliosides across the lysosomal membrane. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is known can be summarized without a lot of jargon. The role of the enzyme is crucial to understanding the disease. I really don't see how it can be kept out of the lead. In my draft, marked (*) above, it is even mentioned in the lead sentence, which is appropriate. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The existence of multiple forms of the disease.
The variant forms, to give some perspective, are so rare that only a few dozen cases are reported worldwide each year. Juvenile TSD in particular is extremely rare. To have a manageable and readable article, we have to have some subordination, putting the most important points in the lead and only the most important points. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead doesn't have to mention each variant in detail, but it should mention that there are variants. Now that I've reread the lead, it already does that, so I've struck that. Sorry about the false alarm. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The words "blood test".
I think the article explains that blood tests are not the only kind of test. So let's not have a lead that is misleading. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, then "blood or tissue test". The point is that the naive reader should have a clue about what's needed for a test. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redundancy in the lead: "genetic mutation on the HEXA gene".
Please explain how you think this is a redundancy. I think the wording is necessary to be clear, especially for the non-technical reader. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word "genetic" is redundant with "gene". I suggest removing "genetic". Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The phrase "mass screening" need not be quoted.
I will remove the quote. Metzenberg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You want no technical terms in the lead, yet you want all of this? I'm sorry, but there is a redactive process in creating a lead and you have to decide that some things belong and some things don't. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what "all of this" refers to, but yes, the topic of a blood test (or whatever the test is, if it's not a blood test) is key to the ordinary reader's understanding of Tay-Sachs. Using that phrase would shorten the lead, since we could replace "enzyme assay test" with "blood test". The fact that the test is an enzyme assay is not crucial to the lead (as it doesn't help the general reader's understanding), and can easily be redacted from the lead. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article doesn't mention dementia or an increased startle reflex to noise, both common symptoms of infantile TSD.
Dementia is really a symptom of LOTS, not infantile TSD. Startle reflex is not a symptom to my knowledge. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My source for dementia and startle reflex is the short definition of TSD in the NINDS summary. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Classification (this one is most important)
Sorry, but I don't follow you. Why don't you make a case for this on the article's Talk page. WP:MEDMOS is just a general guideline, and I feel that the sections in this article are what best fits the information. If you feel otherwise, make some constructive suggestions in the article's TALK section. Please give some better justification, however, than "that's what it says in WP:MEDMOS", because diseases are very diverse, and each one requires a somewhat different treatment.
The reason for Classification is to put the disease in context with similar diseases, and to distinguish it from similar diseases (e.g., other lysosomal storage disorders); if the disease has variants (as is the case here) it also distinguishes the variants. This is the "big picture" of where the disease fits into the universe of medicine. (As before, I'd like to keep this discussion in one spot.) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Research directions (see Desnick & Kabak 2001, listed below)
The section now called "Prognosis and therapy" really covers this. Prognosis and therapy is a better name for this material. May I ask, have you read Desnick and Kaback, and do you see some material in that article that is not covered here? Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the section now called Prognosis and therapy covers research directions well. However, I disagree that Prognosis and therapy is a good name for the current contents of that section. Currently that section, by my word count, is 2% about prognosis, 6% about management, and 92% about research directions. It would be better to rename the section "Resesarch directions". Ideally, more material could be found on prognosis and management, and new sections Prognosis and Management could be created as per WP:MEDMOS#Diseases/disorders/syndromes. If there's not enough prognosis and management material, perhaps a single section Prognosis and management section should be created again. Currently, the article has almost no material on prognosis or management, which is a real deficiency. (And to answer your other question, no, I have not read those sources.) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The following sections need renaming or other reorganization:
  • Symptoms should be Signs and symptoms (or Characteristics)
Signs and symptoms is OK with me. I will change it. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Etiology and pathophysiology should be broken up into an etiology section and a pathophysiology section. In a general-purpose encyclopedia it's better to use the easy-to-understand names Causes and Mechanism for these two sections. Or perhaps Genetics rather than Causes.
Etiology and pathophysiology are established medical terms. Etiology is a difficult word, I admit, but it means much more than causes. I think breaking this into two sections would be a poor organization for the article as a whole. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see why it'd hurt the organization. The existing front matter (2 paragraphs) of Etiology and pathophysiology section would become the new Mechanism (or Pathophysiology) section. The existing Mutations and polymorphism subsection would become the new Genetics (or Causes) section. This is a simple edit of two lines in the source; it would not affect the overflow flow of the article.
  • It's true that "etiology" is an established term, but in this case the etiology is all about genetics, and since WP:MEDMOS#Diseases/disorders/syndromes suggests a section header named Genetics (or Causes) then it makes sense for Tay-Sachs to use one of these words, both easily recognizable to a naive reader, instead of the more-difficult word. I won't insist on renaming Pathophysiology to Mechanism (even though that's a good idea too, as the article should avoid jargon if possible; but this is a closer call).
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Testing and prevention should be broken into two sections Diagnosis and Prevention
That wouldn't work logically, because the discussion of the two testing modalities, enzyme assay and molecular analysis, has to be interwoven with the two. The article would be less easy to understand. Let's keep it the way it is. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it should be Screening and Diagnosis as per WP:MEDMOS; sorry about that. As I understand it, for genetic disorders Screening is preferred to Prevention. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Prognosis and therapy should be broken into two sections Management (or Treatment) and Prognosis.
I don't agree. Perhaps you would like to take this up on the article's Talk page if it is important to you, so that people who are more familiar with TSD than you are have a chance to weigh in. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, let's keep the discussion in one place. At any rate the word therapy is not that accurate in the title; Management would be more accurate, regardless of whether the section is split. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Historical and social significance should be broken into two sections History and Society and culture.
Make a case for this on the article's Talk page if you wish. Metzenberg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one spot, either here, or move this whole thing there. The argument for splitting is simple: about 40 to 50% of the article is in this section, and it should be split into two pieces. Also, WP:MEDMOS suggests splitting it. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some topics that should be covered in the body:
  • Repeated infection, the usual cause of death.
  • The use of anticonvulsants to treat seizures associated with TSD
  • Nutrition/hydration/feeding tubes
  • Keeping the breathing airway open
  • The destructive mechanism of TSD begins in the fetus, early in pregnancy.
Specific care of the TSD infant is a better subject of medical practice manuals, and this would be too much detail for this article. Since fewer than 100 babies a year are actually born with TSD worldwide, such material is of too narrow a scope for Wikipedia. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm afraid not. Care is a major topic for any disease, independently of how rare it is, and there are good reasons WP:MEDMOS suggests that incurable diseases be given an entire Management section. I don't see why Tay-Sachs would be an exception.
  • By the way, that "fewer than 100 babies" figure should be in the article: one of the first questions one asks in epidemiology is "what's the prevalence?". Also, the "fewer than 100 babies" figure doesn't match my calculations, which would put the incidence over 500 live births per year worldwide. My source is Meikle et al. 1999 along with the obvious arithmetic.
Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Other high-risk populations: Pennsylvania Dutch; and maybe British and Italian?
The three high-risk populations listed have carrier rates around 1 in 30. These others have lower carrier rates. You have to draw a line somewhere. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, fair enough, I struck the mention of specific populations. But that 1-in-30 statistic is important and worth mentioning in the article. The article should also mention that the list of ethnic groups is not exclusive, and there are other well-defined higher-risk populations. (Morrocan Jews are 1 in 45, for example, though you need not cite this example in particular of course.) Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Several of the images are generic (i.e., are not about TSD) and are not helpful here. They seem to be present in order to decorate the article; but it's better to omit decorations like that, and to keep images only if they actually illustrate the article. Questionable images include:
Couples who conceive a child and are at risk for Tay-Sachs need to know what their options are. The fact that abortion presents a problem for many is clearly stated in the article, in neutral language. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The language may be neutral, but the image is obviously not neutral. The article should not present POV, as per Wikipedia policy; see WP:NPOV. The image is clearly presenting editorial POV and as such is completely out of place in this article. It must be removed. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irving Berlin is an example of a famous Jewish immigrant, and the text right next to the image explains how some critics of immigration in the early 20th century used TSD as an example of why Jews were not fit for immigration into the United States. This sentiment peaked right around the time of World War I, which is ironically, exactly when Irving Berlin wrote thee patriotic standard God Bless America. Do you believe that encyclopedia articles should be narrow lists of facts, that any synthesis of factual information is impossible? I'm not interested in working on such an encyclopedia myself. Metzenberg (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judgment calls are inevitable in areas like this, but this particular case the judgment is extremely suspect. Tay-Sachs is not supposed to be a collection of trivia that is vaguely related to Tay-Sachs through multiple levels of indirection. Let's put it this way: we have no reliable sources linking Berlin directly to Tay-Sachs. We therefore cannot make that connection in this article, as it would be a clear case of original research. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All four images after Irving Berlin's.
  • To summarize: most of the images in the article seem to be decorations, and are not directly relevant to the article's topic, so they should be removed. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Additional images section should be removed. The image is useless in its reduced size. Perhaps if it were full size and explained; but in that case it should be in Mechanism.
I have no problem with removing that additional image. It was somebody's well-meaning attempt to produce an image. I just removed it. Metzenberg (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody would want to read an encyclopedia article like this without images. I would welcome your efforts to seek out additional images. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • References do not use a consistent style. Many of them put a comma between the author's last name and initials, for example. Or they use the full date rather than the year. Or they don't abbreviate the journal title using the PubMed abbreviation. Or they put periods after the abbreviation. Or they omit the journal's issue, or the PubMed ID, or the DOI, or the top page. Please sweep through the refs and make sure they all use the same style. I suggest the style used in the next bullet below, which is generated by Dave's Template Filler, except with periods removed from journal abbreviations and month names removed from dates; but whichever style you use, please be consistent.
The references are diverse with many being scientific journals. Different sources vary in whether they give an exact date of publication. For example, PMID only started in the 1980s, and some sources are from earlier. We have to be content with the fact that different levels of information are available about different articles. Also, book references need to use a different naming style, in order that the book can be located at a website like Amazon, whereas PMID reference have long lists of authors and can be located by a database number. Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PMID should be used when available. Likewise for DOI. Books should use {{cite book}}. But I'm afraid my main points weren't addressed (abbreviation styles, for example). Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The following high-quality references on Tay-Sachs are not cited. As per WP:MEDRS, reviews like these should be cited in preference to primary sources. Wailoo & Pemberton is well reviewed.
  • Fernandes Filho JA, Shapiro BE (2004). "Tay-Sachs disease". Arch Neurol. 61 (9): 1466–8. doi:10.1001/archneur.61.9.1466. PMID 15364698.
  • Sutton VR (2002). "Tay-Sachs disease screening and counseling families at risk for metabolic disease". Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 29 (2): 287–96. PMID 12108829.
  • Desnick RJ, Kaback MM (2001). "Future perspectives for Tay-Sachs disease". Adv Genet. 44: 349–56. PMID 11596996.
  • Hansis C, Grifo J (2001). "Tay-Sachs disease and preimplantation genetic diagnosis". Adv Genet. 44: 311–5. PMID 11596992.
  • Risch N (2001). "Molecular epidemiology of Tay-Sachs disease". Adv Genet. 44: 233–52. PMID 11596986.
  • Wailoo K, Pemberton SG (2006). "Eradicating a 'Jewish gene': promises and pitfalls in the fight against Tay-Sachs disease". The Troubled Dream of Genetic Medicine: Ethnicity and Innovation in Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Disease. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 14–60. ISBN 0-8018-8325-3.
More that 160 articles about Tay-Sachs disease are mentioned just in the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man database. We can't possibly cite them all. Some of these articles would duplicate others that are cited, by the same authors. For example, the Risch article is an earlier version of his 2003 article, which is cited very heavily in the paper. I've cited the ones that are important to giving an understanding of TSD for the general public. If you have a specific reason why one of these articles really belongs, and you have read the article, then perhaps you can bring that up on the talk page and explain why the article is important and offers something that the current article does not.Metzenberg (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I listed those articles because they are high-quality reviews, and as per WP:MEDRS reviews should be preferred when available. If we have 160 primary sources and 4 reviews, then those 4 reviews should be on the short list of what gets cited. This principle applies regardless of whether I've read the reviews. A Wikipedia article that cites primary sources but not reviews, even though reviews are available, is on thin ice. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wailoo & Pemberton (2006) in particular is not really a book about Tay-Sach disease. Rather, it is a book about how the relatively successful model for eradicating Tay-Sachs disease within one target population has failed to work with cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. It's an excellent book for those two other diseases, and would recommend it for inclusion those articles, but I think that it is beyond the scope of this article, which is only about Tay-Sachs disease. Metzenberg (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait a minute: the article currently claims that Tay-Sachs "became a research and public health model for understanding and preventing all autosomal genetic disorders". The article emphasizes this topic heavily by spending an entire paragraph on the lead on it, giving sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis as examples. But Wailoo & Pemberton is an important source saying no, TSD isn't a successful model. With all this in mind, how can the book not be directly relevant to Tay-Sachs? Isn't it a POV violation for Tay-Sachs to omit this important (albeit somewhat negative) mainstream viewpoint that undercuts a major argument presented in the Tay-Sachs article? Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whew! That's enough of a review for starters. Hope this helps, but I'm afraid a considerable amount of work will be needed to bring this article up to FA quality. Maybe it'd be better to shoot for GA first? Eubulides (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Wrt Eubulides on the lead containing jargon, and Metzenberg's response, please see WP:NOT PAPERS, which is policy. Colin°Talk 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have simplified slightly the language in the lead. Metzenberg (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eubulides. I'm not even going to read this page again. I am asking that this article be withdrawn as a featured article candidate, and I am not going to participate in the Featured article candidate process on Wikipedia again. If you wish for me to continue working on the article, please do not respond on my Talk page. I hope you understand that there are very few editors working on Wikipedia science articles, and those of us who do, do so in good faith. We would rather spend our time working on articles than providing some kind of entertainment or therapy. Metzenberg (talk) 06:49, 30 May 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 21:49, 26 May 2009 [12].

House (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria; I have worked on this article for a long time, and now I think it's ready, it is modeled after television series FAs such as Lost and The Wire.--Music26/11 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I can spend more time on this article in a few days, but I found this on first glance;

  • Lead section: "During the 2007–08 United States television season, the series was the most-watched scripted program and the third-most-watched program, behind American Idol and Dancing with the Stars."
  • "U.S. television ratings" subsection: Table ranks the series as the seventh-most-watched program during the 2007–08 United States television season.DocKino (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, I understand how that can be confusing, the show was seventh overall, but the shows that topped the list were Dancing With the Stars and American Idol Monday and Tuesday broadcasts and endresults. If you check out the ref it will be a little bit more clear, if you want me to reword or remove it's fine with me.--Music26/11 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There's no need to remove it, but it does need to be reworded to eliminate the confusion. We shouldn't need to check a ref or a link for the article's text to be internally coherent. Perhaps something like: "During the 2007–08 United States television season, the series was the most-watched scripted program. It ranked seventh in ratings [or viewership], trailing only various iterations of American Idol and Dancing with the Stars."DocKino (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image Review by NuclearWarfare

Thank you kindly.--Music26/11 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The use of File:HouseSeason5Cast.jpg is unacceptable, photographs of living people are clearly replaceable WP:NFCC#1, a more appropriate approach would be The_Simpsons#Voice_actors Fasach Nua (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The way the voice actors are illustrated in the The Simpsons article (is I admit, very original, but) doesn't suit every article, and I feel like an image of all the characters at once is more fitting. It could be replaced with a free image of more than three cast members at in one image, but I wasn't able to find any. The The Wire, Lost and Carnivàle FAs have a non-free cast image too with similiar licensing.--Music26/11 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oppose - FAC 3 inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As you wish, I have removed the image. I'm very sorry we couldn't reach an agreement. In turn I very much hope that you would strike your oppose and consider supporting. Thank you.--Music26/11 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The use of the group shot was appropriate, judicious, and very informative to the reader. It falls well within the parameters of fair use criterion #1 and the overarching rationale of our policy. It should be restored. The comparison to a gallery of voice actors, whose looks are by definition irrelevant to an animated show, is inapt. The use of the cast shot as appeared in this article has been well-established as an element in articles that demonstrate our best work.DocKino (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with Fasach on this one. It's not relevant to the article. Just about each one of those characters, if not all of them (which beyond House, and maybe Wilson, none are really that notable outside of the show..but that's beyond the point), have their own articles. That means that they all have pictures that a reader can see. I cannot see how a group, promotional shot (it wasn't like they were even in their Dr. garb...not that that would really make it better) really helps the reader understand the characters. If there was something special about the image itself, ok, but it's some generic cast shot and since this isn't a "Characters of House" page, we really don't need one here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly, I have to brush up on my NFCC policies, but my thinking was more in line with DocKino's. I do, however, see Fasach and BigNole's point of view. The article doesn't particularly need the image, but no more than any article needs a Fair Use image. Moving the image to List of characters in House (if that even exists) might not be a bad idea. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 03:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Need" is not part of the language of our fair use policy. The use of the image should be analyzed according to the actual language of our policy:
  • Can the erasure of a single image that shows the nine recurring cast members of the TV series that is the topic of the article reasonably be claimed "to support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application"? Obviously not.
  • Does the use expose us to any plausible legal jeopardy? Obviously not.
  • Is the use "judicious" and is it supportive of "the development of a quality encyclopedia"? Obviously.
  • Is a free equivalent to this single, significantly informative image available? No.
  • Does the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Yes. Next to title and genre, the appearance of a TV series' cast members is about as basic as information gets about that series.
That is the test according to our policy. And this image passes by a fair margin.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we were going by the letter of the law (exactly what WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE say), then the image itself would have to "significantly increase the readers understanding". It doesn't. Personally, I think that's a bit obsessive with regard to staying in compliance with our non-free license, but my leeway is usually chilled with an image that is at least talked about directly in the text (there is nothing talking about the image in this text) and/or if the image itself is something special (i.e. maybe seeing it doesn't increase the understanding of what it is, but that doesn't change the fact that the image is notable just being that specific image), but there is nothing special about an image of the cast. Oh, and the page is List of House characters. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must strongly disagree with this position. Knowing what the cast of a TV series looks like constitutes major, essential information about that TV series. A reader who is reading an article about a given TV series should never have to leave that page and go to another article to acquire this basic information. In the absence of the cast image, this article now fails FAC #1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details..." The appearance of the recurring cast members is a major fact of a TV series, and the cast image should be returned to the article forthwith.—DCGeist (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. You cannot say that knowing what an actor looks like helps you understand what the show is about, especially when that image is a promotional image that would otherwise not even be associated with the show because they aren't in "character" getup to begin with. The physical appearance of an actor is not a "major fact", I think you are misinterpreting 1b on that account.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are obviously wrong on this account, unless you live in that alternate universe that enjoys experiencing television with its eyes closed.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, I'd agree one cast picture is a reasonable allowance - but the picture being used is not good, because it is simply the actors posing without their traditional garb or the like, and doesn't help. I agree in general these can be replaced, often with a group shot, but getting the full cast in one free image is very difficult (ala the exception we use for ex-band photos). --MASEM (t) 04:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In lieu of characteristic garb, each cast member is wearing a T-shirt with a catchphrase that is particularly relevant to their character. It is at least as informative, if not more so, than a standard cast-in-character group shot. By the same token the article would be improved by a sentence or two discussing this image, assuming there is WP:V-quality sourcing for such a discussion.—DCGeist (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the top level reader of this article, the catchphrases mean nothing. I'm not against a cast picture, but it should be appropriate to the show without having a deep understanding of it. Doing a google image search for House cast pictures, there's plenty for earlier seasons that fall into the line, but nothing with the cast of the current seasons, which may need to be a valid compromise. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, a group cast photo from one of the series' first three seasons would, at present, be representative of the majority of the series' run to date, so yes, that would be arguable as a compromise. However, the existing photo is simply more informative: it shows the major characters from the first three seasons plus the major characters who have joined in the most recent two seasons. Furthermore, it does not require a deep understanding of the show (the primary information conveyed is the cast's appearance); rather it can serve to enhance understanding of the show, if the reader cares to peruse the catchphrases.—DCGeist (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are going to argue that the picture is necessary to show the fictional characters of the show (and thus cannot be replaced simply by pointing to free images of the actors) a promo shot that breaks that fiction (in this case, the tshirt pic that is being question) is pushing the bounds of NFCC. I'd personally rather see the "core" House cast, in role, and discuss the 4-5 additions as needed, instead of trying to push this one through; this also helps to add in the semi-recurring cast such as Tritter and Cutthroat Bitch without needed them in a cast picture. Yes, it's stupid of FOX not to provide the same type of promo images for this season as for the other seasons, but we have to work with what we have. (In general, I see no problem with a ensemble cast pic as one NFC image for a TV show; that seems completely reasonable are generally the bounds of "irreplaceable" as you have to get the cast together and in character for the same picture to be effective in the text.) --MASEM (t) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're arguing at all that it can be replaced it clearly isn't that necessary to begin with. With the image gone, you're not going to find readers coming to the page going "how come you don't have a cast image?" Because it isn't that important. You already have pictures of Hugh Laurie, Sean Leonard, and other relevant images to the text. Just scrolling down, it's the only section that doesn't have some sort of image or aesthetic attached to it, which to me is a breather more than anything. This page is already bombarded with stuff (I say "bombarded" because this 93kb page contains more than 60kb of images and html code, as the readable prose is only about 28.8 kb), and the loss of one image that does not particularly add any new depth to the page, but simply continues to smother it, is not a loss at all. That kind of brings me to a new question. Why do we have a "Casting" section and a "Cast and characters" section? The former seems to be real world info, while the latter seems to be used to regurgitate plot info (minus a couple instances like the announcement for Kutner's death and the Vogler stuff). Since we have List of House characters, why don't we just allow that page to handle that plot info, and move the link to it up to the "Casting" section along with the relevant real world info about anyone cast for the show. P.S. the 8th requirement for non-free images per the policy is: "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." Then, if you look at the guideline on non-free use for images, it says: "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." - The image has no critical commentary on it. There is nothing in the section that discusses the way the characters look.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can everyone who opposes the removal of the image please remember that, as the series is still in production, the cast will still be doing promotional junkets where photos can be taken. And even if the press conferences aren't public, there are still ways to get freely-licensed images of the cast (check the 'Watch with Kristin' channel on Flickr in September, for example). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as for cutting the plot stuff, remember per summary style that the sub-articles should still be summarized in the parent one (such that a reader can still become reasonably familiar with all of the topic just by reading this single article standalone), so the character section in this is necessary. But back to the replaceable aspect: yes, letter of the law, the cast picture is replaceable as all the people are alive and still look as they do on the show. But we have made allowances for such cases in the past, generally as the likelihood of getting such photos diminishes. (We do the same for single individuals who are known to stay absent from the public eye). The editors of this page should be on the look out for such opportunities, but even if you consider to core five actors, they all are still difficult to get a hold of. As for significance, which yes, is a questionable point, this is why I have imparted that the suggested cast shot is bad and that one that shows the actors in garb per the show is more appropriate here. House (the characters) dresses and acts completely differently from the other doctors, typically all dressed up in lab coats and proper outfits beneath them, and the older cast photos of the core 5 actors easily show this. This point can be explained in the text. So that's why I think a different image will meet #8 but not the one currently offered. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That just brings us to the basic argument originally, which is, "Why do we need the image?" I can somewhat understand an image of House, because he's not the typical doctor. Everyone else is though. I don't need to see a picture of Olivia Wilde to understand 13 better, to any degree. I don't need to see a picture of Omar Epps to understand that Foreman is Black, because the word "African American" already gives me that image. I cannot see any justification for the image beyond "To show what the cast looks like", which, when you take into consideration the key criteria for all nonfree images (critical commentary = that there is no discussion of how these characters look on the show), that makes the image decorative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The aspect that House in not your typical doctor is what would be exmplified by an appropriate cast shot; sure, we could use a single shot of the House character as non-free, but since we're trying to minimize non-free at the same time, adding other core cast members does not increase the "harm" that has already been done by including the picture of the character House. The cast shot that I'm thinking of (not the one that was originally in the article) would be something like this (which comes from this page) which shows House's contrast to the other doctors on the show and which is part of his character.
I'm not saying we include an NFC image just because the present article is surprisingly free of NFC and thus could take one, but that if we are injecting an NFC image, we should make it do as much work as possible. Here, identifying not only the primary character House, but other core actors/characters and the defining characteristics of the House character relative to the other doctors make a single NFC image do double duty. (The t-shirt one does not identify House's unique aspects outside of the cane and the taglist, and thus is a very weak choice). I'm pretty sure that this is a reasonable use under #8, leave the issue of possible free replacement still in the air. I compare this aspect to something like on Firefly (TV series), where there is a 8 of 10 principle actor free image, so I can't rule this out for House. I looked through Flickr and don't see any user-taken photographs that appear to apply (I get stuff like this which based on the profile is difficult to tell if it is really user-created, and thus not worth the effort to chase down trying to get them to release it CC-BY), but then I find images like this from bricky dot forumfree dot net/?t=33081753 (spam filtered) which suggest maybe there's a possibility? It's hard to separate the Getty Images stuff from actual user created stuff, and given that House is a more high profile show than Firefly, I'm not seeing the ease of getting a freely-made cast shot together, which is why I'd give the benefit of the doubt to using one NFC to demonstrate the cast on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of this discussion is a bit unclear to me, without the image the page looks fine to me. Your comments are clear enough, so I think there's nothing left to be done. However, this discussion appears to end suddenly, and I don't know what to do about the image, do you all agree with the article's current state? Or should the image be placed back?--Music26/11 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a couple small copyedits to the first main text subsection,"Conception". There are two substantive issues I've identified:

  • "Instead, there would be a scar on House's leg, which would cause later problems and necessitate the use of a cane." This seems strange. The scar itself is the cause of "later problems" and "necessitates the use of a cane"? Isn't the scar, like the cane and the other problems, itself the result of some earlier trauma? Please reword as appropriate.
    • Fixed, sorry about that, the article was recently copy-edited by an editor who was unfamiliar with the show.--Music26/11 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the first paragraph, you say Shore, Jacobs, and Attanasio "pitched House" to FOX. Fine. In the second paragraph, you describe how in the development process, the show became "more focused upon the title character". Fine. But then in the third paragraph, you say, "The show was created under the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain." Huh? When did that happen? Was the show actually pitched to FOX with the title House or not? There wasn't a "title character" until the title became House. Was it House, then Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain, then House again? Or was it an untitled medical procedural concept (without, thus, a title character), then Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain, then House? Or what? Please verify the relevant information and rewrite at the appropriate points accordingly.

Leaning to Oppose Sorry, but this is far from fixed--and, frankly, I'm finding that the prose in this article is just not close enough to FA quality.

So, here's where things stand now: An untitled concept was pitched. Then "the idea of a curmudgeonly title character was added"--meaning whatever that character is named, that'll be the title of the show. Then we have some references to the lead character "House", so we can assume that's what the show is now called. And then this: "The show was created under the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain." Still! This is completely incoherent.

Other issues: Take the whole passage, "The show was created under the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain. Shore's ideas for House are inspired by the writings of Berton Roueché, a The New Yorker staff writer who chronicled intriguing medical cases between 1940 and 1990." (Leave aside "a The New Yorker" for the moment--you do see the problem there, right?) You can't just switch us from one title to another without a segue--At what point was Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain dropped? When did House replace it? Further, as (apparently) a basic source of the show's concept, the entire reference to Roueché is misplaced--it should almost certainly come earlier.

And this: "House would be confined to a wheelchair, but FOX declined this interpretation (for which the crew was later grateful)." The construction around "would" is awkward, especially as it echoes "would" in the preceding sentence. "Declined" is used nonidiomatically (try "rejected"). "Interpretation" is simply misused (try "idea" or "concept"). I was going to ask why the crew were grateful, but then I decided to check the ref and discovered that it was one of the executive producers who expressed her gratitude. An executive producer is not part of a show's "crew". And I see below there's already been another catch of a misunderstood source. Sorry, but I think it would be best to take this article back to the shop for some serious bodywork before it's brought here again.DocKino (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • First of all, thanks for your comments. Second of all, I have changed the section quite a bit, and I think it lives up to your comments now. However, your final statement "I think it would be best to take this article back to the shop for some serious bodywork before it's brought here again", sounds like there's more than just the conception section you are unhappy with. If so, please inform me, cause I'm trying my best to keep everybody happy. Thank you.--Music26/11 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a stylistic point:

  • Fox Broadcasting Company is the full, formal name. But for the abbreviated name, you use "Fox" in the lead section and "FOX" in the main text. Please choose a single, consistent style.
    • The network is now spelled in capitals throughout the article.--Music26/11 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll stop work for the moment while these edits (and the one I earlier identified) are done and, I hope, the cast image is restored as it should be.DocKino (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blogcritics is a reliable source. Both Google News and Yahoo! News credit it as a news source ([22]), it is owned by Technorati, a popular search engine ([23]) and is referred to (as a news source) in various publications such as The Boston Globe ([24]) and The Los Angeles Times ([25]). It has also won various awards including a Bloggie Award ([26]) and it was named best media blog by Forbes Magazine ([27])--Music26/11 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first one is just a press release, the globe and times articles just quote it for color, so I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bordwell site is certainly reliable. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, the nominal coauthor of the cited essay (though it appears to be written entirely by Bordwell), are two of the most respected film scholars in the English-speaking world. They are the coauthors of highly regarded, widely distributed reference works such as Film Art: An Introduction and The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. The presentation of the site and the writing it contains are clearly intended to reflect and maintain Bordwell's professional reputation.
I'm more concerned with how this source is used. The article cites it as support for the following claim: that the walk-and-talk shooting technique was "made popular by Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme in television series such as Sports Night and The West Wing". Not only does Bordwell never mention Sorkin, he expressly refutes the notion that Schlamme innovated the walk-and-talk. Aside from many cinematic precedents, Bordwell—well down in the article—mentions two earlier TV series that employ walk-and-talk: "I’m no TV historian, but I think that this technique showed up on St. Elsewhere (1982-1988), and it’s definitely on display in ER (1994-)". (OR alert!! I have the St. Elsewhere First Season DVD set. Bordwell is right.) Let's see this fixed up.—DCGeist (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies indeed. I have reread the artilce, you're right. St. Elsewhere and ER are listed now too, which is great, because they are also medical dramas.--Music26/11 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose [Following issue resolved] Well, I've read the entire article just the way most of the people who it is our mission to serve would read it and, just like them, I'm left without a clue as to what most of the show's recurring cast looks like. This is unacceptable for a would-be Featured Article on a TV series. What the FAC process has brought us in this case is an article that now unquestionably fails FA criterion 1b. But, that's what happens when the first rationale of our fair use policy is willfully misinterpreted and the third rationale is completely ignored.—DCGeist (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What the cast looks like is not a major fact of the article. It's a minor one, because what they look like has no bearing on the story. They all have character articles. I think opposing an article because it doesn't have a non-free image is not only a poor argument (sorry), but is selfishly putting Music2611 in a hard place because they have people opposing because the image is there, and now someone opposing because the image is not there. Since you seem to be the one primarily opposed to the idea of the image not being present, I think it is rather petty to oppose the article solely on those grounds, especially to what appears to be simply an oppose designed to get your way. The policy on non-free images is clear, the criteria for FA status is intentionally vague, yet specific since there is the criteria that you have to meet all relevant policies and guidelines (which includes WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE) - plus criteria #3 which is directly about image use, and specifically says in the criteria "Must meet WP:FUC".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bignole, you seem to be under the misapprehension that House is a radio show. Guess what, my friend, you're wrong. It's a TV show, and a central fact about any TV show, particularly a scripted series, is what the actors look like. It's unfortunate that you seem not to understand how television works and what people watch it for, but there you are. As for selfishly putting Music2611 in a hard place—yes, that's exactly what you and Fasach Nua need to apologize for and right now, too. Music2611 clearly worked hard, mindful of policy, to create an informative article that served our readers, and you have gone out of your way to subvert his hard work and manipulate him into accepting your distorted, nonsensical view of our free use policy. (I'm so sorry, was that language too harsh? Was it, to quote you, "selfish"? Was it, to quote you, "petty"? Aw, gee...)
So tell me, my selfish petty friend (those are friendly adjectives, right?), exactly who do you serve by erasing the faces of the cast? Do you serve our readers, by eliminating this rather central information? No. You obviously do them a disservice. Do you serve our lawyers, by eliminating content that would not provoke a legal issue in the next...say...estimating here...billion years? No. They would obviously laugh at your position if it ever came to their attention. Do you serve our contributors, by eliminating content they have carefully selected with an eye toward policy and an interest in—wait for it!—serving our readers? No. You've just wasted people's time and scoffed at their interest and investment of energy. Well done, my selfish petty friend.—DCGeist (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and here's another one for you. (By the way, good buddy, do you consider "hypocritical" as friendly an adjective as "selfish" and "petty"? Oh, I bet you do, good buddy.) On May 11, exactly 62 minutes after Music2611 offered a counterargument to Fasach Nua's objection—62 minutes—Fasach Nua, simply ignoring the counterargument as if it did not exist, !voted to oppose. But Fasach Nua is not "selfish" and "petty". Oh, no! And here I waited three-and-a-half days after Music2611 was driven into removing the judiciously chosen image, after other reviewers and I laid out arguments in support of the image's retention, to oppose—and yet you want to call my behavior "selfish" and "petty"? You're a helluva Wikipedian, good buddy.—DCGeist (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the problem that you have, you are saying that the look of the "characters" is important to the show. So please, explain how. What is it about the characters that we need to see? Why isn't there text next to where the image was that describes what they look like? Fasach and I have a policy on our side, you have nothing. The FA criteria specifically say you have to meet WP:FUC, and that is clear on the criteria for an image but the interpretation that #1b also includes having images that are not highly associated with the subject (i.e. this isn't like not including a picture of the Sistine Chapel in the Michelangelo article, as this is some random promo shot for an upcoming season they were having) - before you say so, when I say "highly associated" I mean an image that is itself special, or notable, not something that is a representation of the subject because a picture of House himself is clearly "associated" with the show, but I think you understand exactly what I mean when I say that. Just as well, I don't know how you can call me "selfish" and "petty", as I haven't made any choice in side of opposition or support based solely on the image's location - I've been discussing it, but you and Fasach are the only ones that have made "vote" simply because you disagree with how the image is used/unused. I'm also not Fasach, but it seemed that when the image discussion went stale, and you were the only one left wanting this image, and just after Music said he/she thought the page was fine without the image, you decided to oppose the page because it did not have the image. Your argument is that the lack of a non-free image, one that clearly fails WP:FUC (a policy), is the most important problem with this article and is justification alone to oppose. Seriously? Is there something special about this image? It's not the Mona Lisa, it's a random non-free image that had you never seen before and would never have thought about (not saying you wouldn't ask about an image, but saying that had you never known this one existed you wouldn't be fighting so hard for it) enough to oppose the article solely on its absence. I mean, the irony here is that your own page has the criteria for image usage, where it clearly says promotional images require critical commentary. You even highlight Fair-Use Criteria #8 ("Significance"), yet you continue to argue that the article would be horribly damaged without it? (No, I'm not saying you agree with them, but the fact that you have to stare at them all the time would at least make me assume that you know they are required and understand what they are). I don't know how much experience you have working with fiction articles and images (You peer reviewed Pulp Fiction two years ago, and used to be heavily into trying to save every non-free image, a lot for fictional topics, that you could, but much has changed since then and non free images have been cracked down on more), but non-free images (exception being the primary image of the article, typically found in the infobox of some kind) all have to have critical commentary, significance (which I find to be subjective, and if you can atleast explain why this specific image significant then I'm usually fine), and all the appropriate paper work filled out. Unfortunately, this image lacks critical commentary, and its significance is next to known. There is nothing special about this image; the fact that it could so easily be replaced by both free images and any 1000 other screenshots from the show proves that this specific image is not needed.
Yes, I think it's childish to oppose something after people disagree with you, but here is the difference between you and Fasach. Fasach is reading the policy on non-free images. They see that the image does not meet all of the criteria (and you have to meet every single one, this isn't a "best of.." thing). Fasach then opposed based on the idea that the image was still not meeting the criteria even after Music attempted to justify its use. I mean that sucks, because Fasach basically admits to not ever reading articles and just looking at images but that's their thing. My agreement with Fasach is based on the fact that the image fails to include critical commentary, and fails to indicate why it is needed. Then, there is a discussion about the image from multiple parties. You're arguing to keep it. When the consensus basically ends with this image not being appropriate for use (not that some other image wouldn't be better), you seem to say "fine, I'll just oppose based solely on the fact that I'm not getting the image". That's kind of childish. You haven't justified its use based on the criteria of non-free images (i.e. critical commentary and significance), you've basically said "I want it, readers want it, we should have it". If you cannot provide critical commentary for an image then you clearly cannot argue that it has any significance on the page, at least you cannot without actual evidence.
I think there are more problems with the article than some silly image (and to Music's credit, they are trying their hardest, and doing a good job, to answer all other issues that are brought up--and when I have the time to sit down and read the article word-for-word I'll be able to put up my review). But, to answer your first misassumption, no I don't think this is a radio show. But I also don't think that anyone really cares what the "cast" looks like in a show, and if they did they'd just click on their articles to see what they look like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image gallery, and the fact remains that the image itself fails the policies we have in place for non-free images. There's no arguing around that right now. I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you, because you're set in your ways just as much as I am, so it's like debating with a brick wall (on both sides, I'm sure). There is no point in us continuing to get heated up about this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, reading this discussion I feel like a pong ball, constantly being hit back and forth. I would really like to participate in this discussion so I can please the both of you but I'm affraid pleasing the both of you is practically impossible (plus I'm affraid I will say something wrong, that will be thrown back at me later). At this point I think I would agree to most solutions simply to get everybody to strike their opposes. There is not much I can do except letting you know that I don't really care that much about one image because the page looks fine without it (although I can't see why Fasach hasn't struck it's oppose yet). Oh, and I'm a he by the way. Hopefully we can reach an agreement.--Music26/11 13:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guys, I suggest you take the image discussions to the talk page of the FAC or the article itself, and stop putting poor Music (who is doing an excellent job here) in a hard spot. Work out the image issues somewhere else, because it really is unfair to the nominator to put him in this sort of spot. Image policy issues (which this seems to be about more than the article) need to be worked out elsewhere, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would support if there would be more descriptive images, including one of House, the character, not just one of Laurie smiling. Also, I am a bit worried by the 10refs in a row of dubious sites in the DVD section; I know they are not referrencing much, but there are 10 of them... Nergaal (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Which are you referring to? Amazon isn't "dubious". When you start trying to find Regions 2 and 4, it gets harder to find websites that don't look "dubious". EZY DVD appears to be like the Australian version of Best Buy (i.e. they have physical stores people can go to). I don't know about LoveFilm and DVDOrchard, this is the first I've seen those sites. Like I said, getting top-notch sources from regions 2 and 4 for DVD release can sometimes be hard (not justifying those sources, just explaining).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd also add that dates of releases for DVDs in specific regions is a far cry from dubious information that absolutely needs reliable sources to be included. Vendor sites of existing releases are acceptable (but not future ones). --MASEM (t) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, that's a problem I stumbled across when the FAc was in an early stage. Someone kept on adding DVD releases to the page, I think the section is irrelevant because I don't think anybody would be interested in when exactly the DVD's were released. However, I gave in because I was trying to avoid an edit war and therefore the table remained. I have no trouble removing the upcoming DVD release refs, but I think the other ones are of a certain value to the article since other FAs or FLs don't even have references for the DVD releases (Brotherhood episodes, 30 Rock episodes, Lost episodes/The Wire). As for Nergaal's request for an image of the title character; I would have no problem adding one, but the above discussions are about an image of the cast, and I think if I add an image of House, I would enrage (maybe that's a bit extreme, but you get the point) the people who participated in the above discussions that wanted a cast photo.--Music26/11 15:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Personally I don't think the DVD release info needed here, and I would almost recommend that instead of the large episode list there is now instead creating separate season articles which then the DVD information becomes relevant in, but that is neither there nor here w.r.t. to this FAC; the info is sourced, is not hurting the article in any way, and thus probably should stay until a better home is found. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. A well-written and informative article that doesn't abuse the concept of style over substance. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cast Image
Sorry for the weird header, but I thought it would look weird to have a sub-header on a FAc page.
The non-free cast photo seems to be the biggest point of discussion; I didn't know what to do about it, however, when I counted the number of users that were against the image I could only find two users (Bignole and Fasach Nua), whereas there are 4 users who approve such an image (DocKino, DCGeist, NuclearWarfare, Masem. Note: I said approve, not all four of them think such an image is necessary). Since the users who don't want the image are outnumbered, a cast image should problably be added. Here is a quote from Masem (see above comments) that summarizes what a cast image should contain.

"The aspect that House in not your typical doctor is what would be exmplified by an appropriate cast shot; sure, we could use a single shot of the House character as non-free, but since we're trying to minimize non-free at the same time, adding other core cast members does not increase the "harm" that has already been done by including the picture of the character House."

This image doesn't really fit that description. However, all images that do fit the description do not have all nine cast members pictured. The full cast is only on the current image. However, other possibilities are: [28] (source), [29] (source) or as Masem proposed earlier [30] (source). Thank you for your time.--Music26/11 12:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though policy still dictates otherwise (sorry, breaking policy here means we might as well ignore it all the time), the best choice out of all of those is this one..or maybe this one (same people, just different angle). The reason being is that these people are the only ones to have been regular cast members since season one until the present time. The others were only recurring guests to start, and didn't become series regulars till their second season on the show. If any image should be used, it should be one that A) Shows the characters as they are and not some piece of promotional material with the actors B) Preserve historical accuracy over recentism if no other image can be attained. Plus, it's hard to say it isn't replaceable when you have something like this that you could request the owner release (if they haven't done that already) to the public domain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the nature of that pic and the rest of that author's photos on flickr, I suspect that wasn't taken by them but instead a promotional shot. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image has been added to the article.--Music26/11 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Excellent choice of images--being able to visualize House with his cane and seeing the contrast between his clothing style and that of the other, lab-coated doctors is very informative. Prose quality has also improved. Just caught something. In the first quotebox, Shore currently says, "But I quickly became to realize that we needed a character element." I assume that's a simple typo for "...quickly came to..." Do you have the source at hand to check? DocKino (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, good eye. He actually said "began to realize".--Music26/11 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query OK, I'm undertaking a thorough copyedit that will last a few days. I'll query substantive issues here as they come up. Here's the first.

  • In the lead section, it says Attanasio was inspired by "an article in The New York Times."
  • In the "Conception" subsection, it says he was inspired by "an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times." Fine.
  • Then, in the "Production team" subsection (which I renamed from the imprecise "Crew"), it says he was inspired by a "monthly...column in The New York Times Magazine."

Was it The New York Times or The New York Times Magazine? If the latter, it should always be referred to as such. Was it an article that inspired him; a monthly column that inspired him; or a particular installment of a monthly column that inspired him? Please check your sources; if they differ, figure out (if possible) who's most precise and credible; and nail this down. Spell it out here, and I can take care of the necessary copyedits in the article. DocKino (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Here's the source for the conception. The collumn was just a different inspiration for the show, according to this. I've reworded it.--Music26/11 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, I've further copyedited it. The ET Online article you cited did not, in fact, say a word about Sanders, so I've cut that reference. You also used that article to support the claim that Bergstrom has a small on-air role as a nurse; in no way does it support that claim. For the moment, I've cut the claim from the text. Do you have any source that actually supports it?DocKino (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi, I'm sorry, the Sanders thing happened in the copy-edit, the other thing is entirily my fault.--Music26/11 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what? You need to do some more research on this matter. The passage from the Challen book says that Attanasio "thought up the basic concept of a medical procedural series after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times." The Yale Medicine article on Lisa Sanders says of her Times Magazine column, "The column’s success inspired the TV series House". It strikes me that Challen's language could easily be (sloppy) shorthand for a description of Sanders's column. You need to track down more sourcing on this. Please look hard, because if no more sources can be found to clarify the matter, we have to rewrite the pertinent passages to note the lack of clarity.
A-ha Challen does mention the Diagnosis column. That's obviously it. The New York Times "article" is just sloppy shorthand. Proceeding to edit. DocKino (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bad, I did not read that page.--Music26/11 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something else, and this is just as important. In checking the Challen citation you provided, I discovered that you'd committed inadvertent plagiarism. Challen, again, writes that Attanasio thought up
...a medical procedural series after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times.
And you write that he created
...a medical procedural drama after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times.
Even with the citation, this is impermissible. (We can hold off on changing it for the moment, since it will have to change anyway according to the results of your research described above).
Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then please go through the entire article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely. DocKino (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet another task. You need to break up the book citations (which it looks like are all Challen) by page. A reader should be able to go to the footnote and immediately see the page number that's a source for a quotation or specific claim. We may know specific pages are visible on the edit screen, but we can't ask readers to figure that out. There are various ways to handle different page references to a single book. One way is to create a Sources section giving the complete bibliographical information and then use abbreviated references in the Notes/References section (like I do in Sex Pistols). As you may have only one applicable "source" here, it might be preferable to give the complete bibliographical information for each cite. There are other acceptable methods, I'm sure. The style is your call, but clarity on specific page numbers is a requirement. DocKino (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know, someone put the page refs in one ref, I'll see what I can do; I don't have much time right now, but tomorrow I'll try to do a full read through to pick out the above mistakes you mention.--Music26/11 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've struck my oppose per resolution of the issue. Once you make it through DocKino's vetting process, I'll be happy to support.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query I know I've been responsible for changing some of the language relating to who "created" and/or "co-created" the show, and I want to make sure we nail this down. Here's some relevant data:

  • FOX officially credits Shore as "creator".
  • True.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Our Pilot (House) Featured Article (largely authored by Music 2611 and David Fuchs), says, in its lead, "House was created by David Shore", and, in its main text, refers to "Series creator David Shore".
    • Yeah, I noticed that recently. I was relatively new to FAs and GAs when I helped Fuchs out on that article. After I "finished" this article, I noticed some statements differed from the ones in the pilot article. The article needs to updated, because it would be strange to have different info on the pilot page.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My impression, from the few pages I've read of Challen's book--our leading published source--via Google Book Search is that, as a factual matter, the show is most accurately described as having been "co-created" by Shore and Attanasio. (I've read some of the other sources, as well, but obviously nowhere near as many as Music 2611.)
  • Yep that's true.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here's the relevant language that appeared in this article, which I found unacceptably confusing, before my first copyedit:
Lead section:
The program was co-created by David Shore and executive produced by Shore and film director Bryan Singer.... The show's premise was created by executive producer Paul Attanasio, who was inspired to create a medical procedural show after reading an article in the New York Times. Shore co-created the title character following a visit to a teaching hospital.
"Conception" section:
In 2004, creator David Shore and executive producers Katie Jacobs and Paul Attanasio pitched the show.... Attanasio was inspired to create a medical procedural drama after reading an article about obscure diseases in The New York Times.
  • Here's how those passages now appear, largely at my instigation:
Lead section:
The program was co-created by David Shore and Paul Attanasio; Shore is officially credited by FOX as creator.... The show's premise originated with Attanasio, who was inspired to create a medical procedural show by a New York Times Magazine column, "Diagnosis". Shore was primarily responsible for conceiving of the title character.
"Conception" section:
In 2004, co-creators David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show.... Attanasio was inspired to create a medical procedural drama by the New York Times Magazine column "Diagnosis".
  • My query (or queries): Music 2611, do you feel the current language is both accurate and well-supported by our sources? If so, do you agree that the language of Pilot (House) should be changed to align with it? If you don't believe the current language is accurate and/or well-supported, how would you change it? DocKino (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Doc, I couldn't have done it any better myself. Thank you. Oh, and I have broken up the Challen page refs.--Music26/11 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrific. The copyedit proceeds apace. Just one substantive query that bears on phrasing/verb tense. Here are the passages in "Cast and characters' that concern me:

  • In House's first three seasons, six of the main actors received star billing.
  • While Penn, Jacobson, and Wilde played central characters, they did not receive star billing. They were credited under an "Also Starring" rubric, with their names appearing after the opening sequence.

I haven't really followed the show the last couple of seasons, but I'm guessing that the "original six" have all continued to receive star billing through the end of season 5. I imagine the article accurately describes the billing of the new central cast members in season 4 (or at least its second half). My query: Does it accurately describe their billing in season 5 as well (allowing for Penn's disappearance partway through)? If so, all that's needed is a verb tense change. If my first guess is correct as well, the relevant passages can be reworded thus:

  • During House's entire run to date, six of the main actors have received star billing.
  • While Jacobson and Wilde play central characters (as did Penn), they have not received star billing. They are credited under an "Also Starring" rubric, with their names appearing after the opening sequence.

Is that accurate, or did the billing of the new cast members change in season 5? DocKino (talk) 21:19, 26 May 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 21:49, 26 May 2009 [31].

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Part of the {{Invincibles Advert}} FT drive YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak oppose, mainly on prose grounds.Comment: These matters are all fixable; I wonder why articles in this series never come to peer review? I would much rather be making these comments there than here. Could you consider this before future nominations?

The other issue you should consider is that of reviewer fatigue. This is third such nom in about two weeks. There is considerabe sameness in these articles – same supporting cast, same matches described, same 721-runs-in-a-day blah blah blah. What is the hurry to get them all to FAC? Could they not be spread out a bit, say one nom every couple of months or so? That way there would be more time to sort out problems (such as the egregious reference-strings), and more chance that reviewers would retain interest in the subject. Personally, because I know and like cricket, the 1948 tour is inherently interesting, but there is such a thing as overkill, and non-cricket people might be finding the whole thing bewildering.

Anyhow, here are my prose comments:-

  • Lead
    • There is a typo in the first sentence
    • There is a comma mising after "on-field duties in the major matches"
    • "to not score" would be better as "not to score"
    • I think it should be clear that the remaining eight front-line batsmen each scored at least 973 runs etc
  • Background and early tour
    • This is awkward prose: "He was selected for the tour of England in 1948 under Bradman. His selection was the subject of considerable controversy..." It would flow better as "His selection for the 1948 tour of England under Bradman was the subject of considerable controversy..."
    • Clarify that he was not selected to play in any of the 1948 tests
    • "overs" should be linked thus overs at first mention.
    • In the Yorkshire match report you should clarify that Australia effectively had only three wickets in hand, otherwise it isn't clear why they won by four wickets
    • Successive sentences should not begin with "Hamence"
  • Test non-selection
    • This paragraph should be preceded by some statement that the final Test batting place lay between Brown, Harvey, Loxton and Hamence. I'm sure this point is made somewhere in one of the many tour accounts, and could be cited. Otherwise it s not clear why you are giving so much detail about these other players' records.
    • "voyage" is the wrong word in the first line
    • "Unsurprisingly..." sounds like the editor's POV, could easily be omitted
    • "He batted slowly and cautiously as Bradman gave him few opportunities so he had to make the most of them." This sentence needs some punctuation. Suggest semicolon after "cautiously", drop "as" and put comma after "opportunities"
  • Later matches: "...Bradman insisted that only six players currently in England's Test team be allowed to play for the hosts." Well, no wonder his side was undefeated if he could pick the opposition sides, too! Do you have a specific source for this extraordinary statement - and perhaps "insisted" should be "requested"?
  • Playing role
    • Long winding sentence: "He was the most successful of the specialist batsmen with the ball, occasionally opening the bowling in the tour matches, such as in both innings of the second match against Surrey and the second innings of the second match against Yorkshire, so that Bradman could rested his first-choice bowlers in order to keep them fresh for the Tests." Needs breaking up.
    • "Ground Staff" capitalised here but not in lead.
    • "between No. 5 and No. 7" means No. 6. I think what you mean is that he usually batted No. 5, 6 or 7.
    • Couldn't the long Barnes quote be paraphrased?
  • I will leave for the moment the question of the multi-reference string since this issue has been discussed, but not resolved, on earlier nominations in this series. Let's deal with the prose issues first.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did all of these things. If put these into FAC once a month, it would still take two years, I don't think that is feasible. As for PR, previous cricket entries there don't get any attention, so I guess I could just ask you for a private one. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK, the prose issues are resolved, but that's the easy part. Now, citations. The information that you are supporting with a string of 31 citations is the commonplace, almost negligible fact that on 4 occasions in 19 matches Hamence's batting was curtailed because the Australian innings was ended prematurely. Why is it necessary to cite this at all? WP:CITE says that citation is only required (as distinct from optional) when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged (and in other instances not relevant here). The information you give is uncontroversial, won't be challenged, and therefore doesn't require individual citing – it is covered in the general sourcing. The whole string can be painlessly removed. I suggest you look at the other, less lengthy but still considerable strings, and decide whether they, too, are supporting uncontroversial information.
It was only 20-odd I think but I've removed it and just left it to his list of matches for the reader to browse. As it only says majority rather than 15 out of 21... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it was 31, but you've got rid of it. I think you should look again at the six or seven-stringers, and apply the same rule: are the facts supported by these strings in any way controversial or likely to be challenged? If not, I'd say ditch them, too. If you feel you can't do that, perhaps the prose could be arranged so that these long strings appear at the ends of paragraphs rather than in the middle of the text, which would disrupt the prose less.
I've struck the oppose, but I am hesitant to move to full support. I think there is more checking that needs doing; for example, it is a mathematical impossibility for 161 runs to produce a batting average of 25.83. Perhaps Giants (below) will give the text a thorough checkover, while I sit on the fence a short while. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for spotting the stat error YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to what you say about PR, I assure you your articles will not be ignored there. But I think that in any event you should reconsider your timescale for presenting these articles. As I see it, there will need to be 15 more after this one gets through. A period of two or even three years for that many, on so restricted a topic, seems eminently reasonable to me if you want to avoid reviewer fatigue/boredom. Don't forget, you are also doing biographical articles for the individual players. Wikipedia has no rules about topic overkill as far as I know, but a possible 30+ featured articles from a single cricket tour is food for some thought. Anyway, if you can respond positively to my comment about the citation strings, I'll be happy to revise my weak oppose on this nomination. (signature added later) Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Don't want to review too extensively until Brian's comments are looked at, but I must say that the reference strings don't get any better the fourth time one sees them in a candidate. At least there is only one really long one here, though there are a few other strings that range from five to seven citations. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will look at the text as Brian requested, although I'm useless for figuring out cricket batting averages:
  • "which toured England in 1948 and went undefeated its 34 matches." Missing word in the first sentence of the article.
  • Why not wikilink Test in the second paragraph, so us non-cricket fans will know what this is? The same could be done for runs as well.
  • Background and early tour: "being selected in three of the ten matches in the previous two seasons for a total of 81 runs at 27.00." This jams a lot of thoughts into one sentence and doesn't make much sense upon close reading; it almost reads like he was selected for the runs. I would split this into two sentences and clarify the last part.
  • "but in a 2008 interview, reiterated that he felt no resentment over his omission." No indication of him iterating that to begin with.
  • "before being run out after being slow to set off for a quick single". Spot the repeated word.
I can't after 5 minutes. I fixeds the rest through YellowMonkey(cricket calendar poll!) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Altered to "before he was run out after being slow to set off..." Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He returned for the next match Cambridge University." Another missing word.
  • "Recalled for the next match, which was against Lancashire at Old Trafford in Manchester". "which was" can be chopped without losing anything from the sentence.
  • "and then an unbeaten 49 at No. 6 in the second". "then" could be chopped from here.
That covers the lead and first section of the body. I'll be back as soon as I can to look at the rest. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Test non-selection: "Since World War II, the first five positions Australia's Test batting order...". "In" their batting order?
  • "with Hamence being assigned to open the batting." An awkward noun plus -ing structure.
  • "with the drawn Third Test being Australia's only non-victory." Same as above.
  • Playing role: "This allowed Bradman to rest his first-choice bowlers in order to keep them fresh for the Tests." Little bit of wordiness that can be safely removed.
  • Reference 5 is dead. Might want to consider converting that into an offline citation. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed all of these. I forgot that "being" counts as an "-ing" as well YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support - I'm a lot happier with it than I was when the review began. It's a weak support because the few remaining reference strings still bug me a little bit. I also can't guarantee that I spotted every prose glitch that was lurking. Still, the article is much improved since the process began, and I think it scrapes by the standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Note I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Well-written, well-sourced, overall excellent article. With regards to the links, they all seem to work (correct me if I'm wrong). Khoikhoi 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose due to image concerns as follow:

  • File:Hamence.jpg: this photo is lacking information on where it came from, which year it was taken, and who took it. Due to the URAA, to qualify for PD-US, it needs to be taken before 1946 (we have gone over this before. If I am not wrong, this image is from a 1950 baseball card (see here, item 1014).
    This is replaced with a 1939 photo from http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/296315.html. Problem is that it is not certain to be a work by an Australian (criteria for Australian copyright). Cricinfo claims copyright over it (which I find incredulous since they are founded in 1993...) and they are a United Kingdom-based company, which means UK copyrights.[32] If we believe their claim, this photo would not pass the URAA mark either (UK copyrights: 70 years pma or after first publication for anonymous works -> PD-UK from 2010 onwards, which means not PD-UK on Jan 1, 1996). If we ignore their claim, we would have no reliable information on which country's copyright this photo comes under (UK journalists are known to go to Australia to take photos and write reports for back home then). Jappalang (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my reading of {{PD-Australia}} doesn't it only require the photo to be made in Australia? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I recall correctly, to qualify for Australian copyright, it had to be created by an Australian or first published in Australia. Jappalang (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, I doubt we will find a free photo for Hamence in 1948 (unless someone took a personal photo then and releases it). I would have advised using these two photos as fair use, but it seems from the article that Hamence is still kicking and hence, "it is possible to get a free image of him now" would be in force here. I kind of doubt Cricinfo (a British or Indian startup) has copyright over the 1939 photo (if this is Australian, it would comply with URAA...), but without verifiable information, we cannot just use it (pity)... Of course, if there is a photo that illustrates critical commentary of Hamence's performance in this test and such commentary is hard to express in words, that photo could comply with fair use. Regardless, the issues of copyrighted photos should be resolved before promoting this as one of Wikipedia's best articles. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing, and data source added for graph YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly (because there are no "free" images), the only image left is the graph and it checks out fine. Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support - I have no specific issues, so I'll support. However, I am concerned that the prose is rather dry, and reads somewhat like a list of statistics. I realize that this would be nearly impossible to address in such an article, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments I'm going to be mostly useless here because, frankly, I couldn't follow most of the article. I would consider it inaccessible to someone who isn't familiar with cricket... cricket, test cricket, and subarticles are prerequisite reading. Some brief comments:
    • I wonder, do we need the whole of the infobox (mainly referring to the biographical info) when it exists in Hamence's main article?
I'd say it provides some useful background about him, conenveinience YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948 and went undefeated in its 34 matches" Would you consider "was undefeated"?
sure
    • "Hamence was not prominent in the team's success" I think "instrumental" might be a more apt term.
    • Cricket ignorant here... I clicked "gentle medium pace" to get an explanation that wasn't readily available. Is it the same as "slow medium pace"?
about 115km/hr basiccally although they had no speed guns in his day YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Australia promptly crushed the hosts by an innings." A bit too sportscaster-ish. What does "by an innings" mean?
Will link to innings. Yes terminiology is difficult YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, mainly for lack of coherence (unity of ideas) and flow.

Here are some examples from the lead, but I see such problems in the remaining sections as well, and there is no easy fix. I believe the article should be withdrawn and worked on for about a month and then resubmitted (if this series of articles is still felt to be feasible).

  • Sentence 2 (Coherence): As a result of this unprecedented feat by a touring side, the team earned the sobriquet The Invincibles.
    • We, the average readers, have no awareness that this feat was unprecedented; consequently this fact should not be introduced in passing, but rather as the center of focus, with the moniker, "Invincibles", instead mentioned in passing. i.e. something along the lines of: "Since no touring side had previously won all its matches against England, the team garnered much praise, including the moniker "The Invincibles."
  • Sentence 3 (Coherence): A right-handed middle-order batsman, Hamence was not instrumental in the team's success.
    • If he was not instrumental in the team's success, then this non-notability should be balanced with something notable about the player to assure us readers that the article is worth reading. But nothing notable is mentioned in this sentence or in the next few.
  • Sentence 4 (Connotation/repetition/syntax) Regarded as the last batsman to be chosen for the team, his selection for the tour was the subject of controversy because many batsmen who had scored more heavily in the preceding Australian season were overlooked.
    • "Regarded as?" He was either the last man chosen or not. If the information was not conclusively available, then say, "Rumored to be the last man ..."
    • "for the tour" is redundant, having been already stated in the previous sentences.
    • "Scored more heavily?" Why not simply, "scored more runs," especially in the lead paragraph, where one is trying to attract the general reader?
    • "were overlooked?" For past within past, you need "had been overlooked."
  • Sentence 5 (Coherence/redundancy) Aside from Colin McCool, Hamence was the only squad member to not play a Test on tour.
    • "Test" is introduced all too abruptly. The reader needs more information. For example: "Of the 34 matches played by the touring side, five were Test matches against England and the remaining 29 against various English county clubs." (or words to that effect).
    • "on tour" is redundant. "... not to play in any test match against England" is better. ("any" is added for emphasis.)
  • Sentence 6 (Diction (connotation)): Along with Doug Ring, Hamence and McCool called themselves "ground staff" because of the paucity of their on-field duties in the major matches, and they often sang ironic songs about their status.
    • The diction is too formal for the description at hand. "paucity of their on-field duties in the major matches?" What are "on-field duties?"
    • "often sang ironic songs about their status?" Too vague. Were these songs they made up? If so, say "improvised songs ..."
    • "ironic" is probably not the right word here, and sounds awkward. (I don't know the songs, so I can't say for sure.) "sardonic," "mocking," "disparaging," "self-deprecating," "satirical," ... might be more to the point.
    • "status?" Again too vague. Saying "they improvised songs mocking their experience sitting on the sidelines," or words to that effect is probably better.

These are just the first six sentences. Pretty much all sentences in the article have similar issues. They need extensive work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:17, 26 May 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 21:23, 26 May 2009 [33].

Charles Barkley[edit]

Nominator(s): Zodiiak (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a Good Article for quite some time and has continually improved. It is well written, factual, referenced, and current. Zodiiak (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • unformatted refrence in section on DUI conviction. Might it also be possible to better organise the subsections of "Post-basketball life" -- they seem a little disjointed at the moment.
  • "Under the tutelage of Malone, Barkley was able to manage his weight and learned to prepare and condition himself properly for a game." -- should provide a reference?
  • "He earned his third straight All-Star Game appearance and was named to the All-NBA First team for the second straight season." -- should provide a reference?
  • "He was named to the All-NBA First Team for the third consecutive year and earned his fourth All-Star selection." -- should provide a reference?
  • "Despite Barkley's proclamation to Jordan, that it was "destiny" for the Suns to win the title, they were defeated in six games by the Bulls." -- should provide a reference?
  • Thinking aloud here re: other aspects of his personal life. Is/was he married? Does/did he have a religion (I think he has)? Chensiyuan (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment the college section seems a trifle short. I seem to remember that Auburn's football coach wanted Barkley to also join the football team, just to play defending field goal attempts, to knock them down. That might be worth including, if an RS can be conveniently found.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - Thanks for the comments! I will be working on addressing these issues ASAP. Zodiiak (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most dead links and unreliable sources have been removed.—Chris! ct 05:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most? Not all? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Reply:' I'm reviewing all links and sources and will have this issue addressed. Thanks for your comments! Zodiiak (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

  • In the lead, give initials after the first use of the National Basketball Association.
  • In the last sentence of the lead, get rid of "also".
  • College: "finish at the opposing end with a rim-rattling two-handed dunk." This gets a little too much like a profile in a sports publication for my tastes, or at least my Wiki-tastes.
  • "three All-SEC (1983-84) selections". When was the third?
  • Use italics for the Birmingham Post-Herald.
  • NBA career: There is pretty much no way that the fair-use SI cover can be justified, and I recommend removing it. Also, the reference says nothing about how his fame led to a Sports Illustrated cover.
  • Try not to start a sentence with "But". Instead, try something like, "For the first time since the 1974-75 season, however".
  • Italics for The Sporting News and maybe Basketball Weekly (not sure if that's a printed publication).
  • "and with the Sixers failing to make the postseason..." is using a somewhat awkward sentence structure. This page has many details on noun plus- ing structures, including how to fix them. I recommend reading it, for it will prove useful in your future article writing. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nicknames list must include "The Chuck Wagon". Also Chuckwagon should have an {{otheruses4|vehicle from the American prarie|the American Basketball player nicknamed Chuck Wagon|Charles Barkley}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about this. "The Chuck Wagon" is a fairly obscure nickname, at least compared to the two currently mentioned in the lead. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mean to challenge your fandom, but I think if you ask any basketball fan if they know a basketball player nicknamed the Chuck Wagon, they could tell you who it is. Do a quck google on Chuck Wagon Barkley and see what you get. That is one of his main nicknames. I would oppose for breadth just for exclusion of this popular nickname for him. The article did not even note that he is nicknamed Chuck until I added that earlier. He is know both as Chuck and the Chuck Wagon. If this were my FA nom, I would find five or ten reputable source documenting this nickname in a flash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm not saying the nickname doesn't exist. It's just not nearly as popular as the other two nicknames (which are the only ones mentioned here). Look at the Google results: "Round Mound of Rebound" gets 17,500 hits, "Sir Charles" gets 57,100 hits, and "Chuck Wagon" gets 456 hits. You'll see similar results with Google News or Google Books. "Chuck Wagon" might possibly be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it's not lead-worthy, IMO. I will agree that "Chuck" is a common nickname, although we probably won't find any sources that explictly say that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you have shown is that it is clearly less common than the others. However, when he got inducted into the HOF, the NBA.com blog used the Chuck Wagon in its blog article title. Many reputable sources refer to him as the Chuck Wagon. Matt Doherty refers to him as the Chuck Wagon in his blog. I think your source g-hits test may be biased because articles that use the Chuck Wagon nickname might refer to him as Chuck Barkley instead of Charles Barkley. The Chuck Wagon Barkley gets 7420 hits. It is not so minor a nickname.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really want to drag this out any more -- I'll leave it to the primary contributors to say what they think - but I should point out that that search will result in lots of false positives (like this). Zagalejo^^^ 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes any google search results in false positives. However, my point is that every basketball fan knows who the Chuck Wagon is. Yet, the article omits the nickname as if it is not associated with him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is User:Zodiiak. He is quite silent for a nominator. In addition to all the general repsonses, I would like to understand his thoughts on the well-known Chuck Wagon nickname.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) As an NBA fan, I had never heard of "Chuck Wagon" until this FAC, whereas I would know instantly who "Sir Charles" and "Round Mound of Rebound" refer to. Honestly, with the major problems that Laser brain has found, I'm not worried right now about whether another nickname is included or not. There are bigger fish to fry. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The gods honest truth is that I could only believe that a person who says they have never heard the 7700 g-hit nickname "Chuck Wagon" were not big pro basketball fans during the Barkley era or they are playing dumb. It is a nickname used by Sports Illustrated for godness sakes. ESPN references it. If you don't know the nicknames Sports Illustrated and ESPN use, what kind of fan are you? His colleagues and peers such as Matt Doherty use it. Major newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Arizona Republican, and Denver Post. There was even a controversy about whether ESPN's Steve Levy should use the nickname.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realize that I'm not up on every third-tier nickname given to NBA players during my childhood, right? :-) Still don't see why it's that important to include it, especially when there are major referencing issues. Judging by Laser's comments, in order to mention it the article would have to say why he was called that. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First, I know of no articles that explain the derivation of every nickname. Most nicknames have multiple meanings. Many stem from drunken escapades with public explanations that omit all the details. There are probably all kinds of reasons for nicknames. It is like explaining artistic interpretation or poetic meaning. There are always many. Do the other NBA FAs explain all the nicknames?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Second, you say "major referencing issues". This makes no sense. I gave you Sports Illustrated, ESPN, A half dozen major newspapers and you question references. I could give you another two dozen major newspapers that use the nickname if you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe I misread his comments. I'm not even sure at this point. The referencing issues were the ones Laser brought up, not anything involving the nickname. That's what this FAC should be focusing on right now, not a dispute over a nickname that's taking up almost half the page. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not as you've presented it, I'm afraid. The sources barely support any of that, beyond the mere existence of the nickname. You're just guessing that "Meat Wagon" evolved into "Chuck Wagon". It's very plausible that the nicknames were coined independently. But could you please hold off on the nickname stuff for a little while, and let Zodiiak et al have a chance to respond to the other comments? The nickname is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't dominate this discussion. We can hash things out at Talk:Charles Barkley if you like. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do the sources say?
  1. We have about two or three dozen references from reliable sources documenting that it was a commonly known, widely-used nickname.
  2. We have both Sports Illustrated and ESPN documenting that the most important sources of sports information on the planet consider it to be a common nickname.
  3. We have little or no precedent for the derivation of a nickname to be required in an article. I read the Magic Johnson FA and saw no derivation.
  4. O.K., it was a leap that it derived from Meat Wagon, however, it is not a leap that his teams depended on the Chuck Wagon like a chuckwagon.
  1. "The Chuck Wagon had been rolling along at its usual pace until it was ambushed Saturday by a tenacious defense." [36]
  2. "a Rockets defense that used Robert Horry as the anchor on the Chuck Wagon" [37]
  3. "Now, the Rockets will try to ride the Chuck Wagon back into the winner's circle." [38]
  1. We have a controversy over use of the nickname by ESPN's Steve Levy.[39]
  2. We have its common use in the
  1. The Post and Courier [40]
  2. Sun-Sentinel [41]
  3. Intelligencer Journal [42]
  4. The Arizona Republic[43]
  5. by Peter Vecsey in the The Buffalo News [44]
  6. I am getting bored, I don't feel like rattling of another dozen or so, but rest assured, I am not even half way through.
Since when at an FA discussion do we say we have a content problem in need of hashing out, but let's not address it during this FA. Let's hash it out here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The absence or presence of a nickname shouldn't determine if an article is an FA. It's a trivial issue. There are much more important things to worry about here. Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply: I strongly agree. Any ideas on how the Post-Basketball life material can be broken up for better use would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Zodiiak (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, one problem is that almost all of Barkley's non-basketball activities (except for the role model commercial) are listed under "Post-basketball life". There's no easy place to mention things like his Saturday Night Live appearance, etc, which occurred during his playing career. Maybe we could change the scope of "Post-basketball life" to "Life outside of basketball", or something. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. Some prose problems, but more serious concerns about sourcing and how sources have been used. Below, I easily located statements that are outright unsourced or that use inappropriate sources. The article heavily relies on NBA.com, which can't possibly be considered a neutral source and shouldn't be used for anything other than basic facts and stats. I'm afraid this needs lots of work, including a major audit of sources, and should be withdrawn.
    • "Nicknamed 'Sir Charles' for his aggressive and outspoken demeanor, and 'The Round Mound of Rebound', for his unusual build and talent as a player ..." A couple issues here. First, this isn't what you say later in the text. You just say it was his physical style of play that earned these nicknames. You can't say things in the lead that you don't back up later in the text. Second, the source for this needs to be better than an electronic encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. You need a secondary source, and a good one, and a clear explanation of how these nicknames were derived.
    • "most dominating" Hmm.. most dominant?
    • "He was frequently involved in on- and off-court fights" Fights in what sense? Physical blows? Verbal disagreements? Need a less vague term.
    • "Short for a power forward ..." This and similar statements ("despite being shorter than the average center" and "yet shorter than most power forwards he faced") have no discernible source, and are thus original research. The third one is ostensibly sourced to the NBA.com biography, but that can't be used for such statements.
    • "He was one of the NBA's most versatile players and accurate scorers capable of scoring from anywhere on the court and established himself as one of the NBA's premier clutch players." Peacock statement in the extreme, and sourced to NBA.com. Many more like it.
--Laser brain (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Response: Thanks for your review. Please let me address some of the issues you have noted.
        • First, I strongly disagree with your comments regarding NBA.com as a source for several reasons. First, if you look at the Basketball FA's, such as Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Bill Russell, etc., NBA.com is one of the major resources used and is peppered throughout as a primary resource. Next, while I agree we should definitely find substitutes for certain statements, NBA.com is used mainly to cover "basic facts" -- i.e. All-Star game appearances, stats, and trades.
        • Next, re: nicknames -- Physical style of play and aggressiveness are complimentary/synonymous. If you feel we need to specifically use the same terminology, then this is an easy fix of course. We can also find a clearer source -- I'm working on reviewing all sources to ensure optimal standarads and to address any of the underlying issues here.
        • When I think of a Fight, I think of Physical confrontation. Verbal disagreements are just that, disagreements. But this can easily be fixed.
        • Not sure I understand why NBA.com cannot be used as a source for being under sized? Does that mean something like NY Times is better? What source would actually make it OK to use? (see my first bullet)
        • Again, I fail to understand why NBA.com is not a reliable source for this. I can easily dig up hundreds of other sources stating the same thing, I simply chose NBA.com because it is a primary reliable source for this basketball related article. I'm sure the Bill Russell, Michael Jordan, and Tim Duncan articles use the source in a similar way.

Once again, I thank you for your response and review. Perhaps you could clarify why NBA.com is not sufficient enough and if locating alternative sources to address your primary concerns would help resolve the issues you have noted. Zodiiak (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't have a problem with NBA.com being used for basic facts and statistics. That much, I said above. I do have a problem with it being used to source anything that would be considered subjective, such as Barkley being "shorter than average". We don't know what research was done to write these bios, what editorial process there is, and so on. The NBA as an organization has a strong conflict of interest (its main goal is to promote itself and its players) so it cannot be considered neutral. How other articles use it is immaterial to this discussion. As for "physical style of play" and "aggressiveness" being synonymous, I disagree utterly. However, it is not for us to decide. We need to say what the source says and nothing more. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hmmm, I see your point. I'll locate alternative sources for statements that can be considered subjective. I'll also follow-up with you to see if there is anything else that you feel may need to be supported by alternate sources. Thanks again for your feedback! Zodiiak (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: First, please excuse my absence from editing -- I was a bit short on wiki-time but have returned to read the comments. Second, thanks for the great recommendations and comments. I'm going to address all of the above comments/recommendations throughout the week and put a strike through the one's that have been fixed. As always, all comments and/or recommendations are welcomed. Thanks for taking the time to review! Zodiiak (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Zodiiak, you may be unfamiliar with the discussion conventions here, but please do not strike another user's comments. It is for them to decide when their concerns have been addressed, and they will strike as needed. Please remove any instances where you have done this. --Laser brain (talk) 15:57, 26 May 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 21:23, 26 May 2009 [47].

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season[edit]

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the criteria. This is my first FA attempt after several months reviewing and writing FLs. I've worked on this article since the beginning of the 2008 baseball season; it's gone through 3 peer reviews and is currently the first team season GA for Major League Baseball and WP:BASEBALL as a whole. I fought off the vandals after the World Series victory and think that this article is completed, fully referenced, and well-written. I will address all concerns raised by reviewers to the best of my ability. Thanks! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Of course, in my initial edit summary, I meant FAC; typing "FLC" is habit. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical comments

  • Dates in body (long month-day-year) and refs (ISO style) appear consistent; ref author name order consistent too.
  • 2 external links dead: refs 50, 81. Others that were highlighted in the link checker appear to work.
  • 2 unlinked sources (ref 1 and 84) don't have page numbers.

--an odd name 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to find archives of the dead links right now (checked Wayback and Google Cache); no luck. :( I searched for their titles on philly.com (with "Archives" selected on the dropdown) and only ref 81 shows up, paywalled (without even giving a url!). --an odd name 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I replaced the two "philly.com" deadlinks with sources from ESPN/AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer, respectively. I really should stop using philly.com; the links go dead much too quickly. As to the sources needing page numbers, I added a URL for one and replaced the other. All now done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Groovy. I re-cited a statement about Brett Myers' record that was not in the new ref 50 (now 51). --an odd name 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Cheers. EDIT: I re-worded slightly to maintain the original meaning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • 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.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did a complete re-audit of the references before doing this nomination, since you commented as such at the 3rd peer review, and I thought I had gotten them all. Could you mention which references specifically? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Found 5 disambiguation links with "disambig links" tool, all fixed. --an odd name 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images - nice to see a N.American sports' article without non-free content. A better image of File:Philadelphia_City_Hall-zoom.JPG would be nice, but I guess the subject is not easy to get access to. good job! Fasach Nua (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Do you think it would be better if I cropped the size down to focus in more? I don't know how much extra clarity I could get between that and a little playing in Photoshop, but if you think it's worth a try, I'll do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think no ammount of digital image processing will fix this, to crop it will lose information about the height, information I think is required for the article. A fresh photo either with a long lens, or up close would be nice, but probably impractical, and it's quality is not key to the article content Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - Few picky things from the first few sections:

  • Link sweep in the lead for those who aren't familiar with the term.
  • March/April: Romero was already linked in a previous section.
  • May: Space between initials for T.J. Bohn?
  • June: "with the pitchers allowing an average of 4.79 runs per game" is an awkward noun plus -ing strucutre.
  • Link Triple-A for non-baseball fans to understand this better.
  • July: "with Utley garnering the most votes of all National League players." This is another noun plus -ing. One more later: "with the bullpen earning the victory".
  • September: "nearly-full". No hyphen after -ly.

My big concern here is whether the tone is formal enough, a common complaint for sports articles that come here. Seeing something like "to close out the 'dog days' of summer" sends off warning signals for me. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have done all bulleted comments except the last; "nearly-full" is a compound adjective in this case. As to the tone, specifically "Dog Days", this is a term that's even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. Would it help my case at all if I linked this? This is a term that's strongly associated with baseball, and specifically baseball in the hot and muggy days of August. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes... I was actually complimented on their use during the final peer review. Originally in the post-season section, the box scores had individual game summaries for each one, but it made the article extremely clunky because each summary was only one to two sentences. I could easily remove the hide boxes from them and keep the box scores if it's fine to keep them all together. The hide boxes were for ease of reading. Same with the game log; MLB seasons are 162 games long and using them in a printed or reduced form of the article is unlikely. Unhiding the game log is going to make it ugly and it will take up a lot of space. I'm not sure what you want me to do here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unfortunately, you'll have to remove them per the MOS link Sandy provided above. Accessibility trumps convenience. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll do it, but be warned that it will cause an uproar at WP:BASEBALL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's done. I removed the hide boxes around the NLDS and NLCS results. They are still present on the game log, because this is the format that WP:BASEBALL uses to display all games. However, it is no longer collapsed by default, though users still have this option if they want to skip the log. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on style/organization basis for now. The game log is going to be a problem, and unfortunately this is one of those time that WikiProject standards collide with MoS standards (and, by extension, FA standards). There are really two issues: The first is that the box can't be a show/hide, even if it defaults to show. The second is that the game log really shouldn't be in the article, in my opinion. As a table, it's really ugly. The colors are bad and make the article looks like a Ringling Bros. circus. Also, it's an unbearably long table of information that arguably belongs somewhere else—either in a list article or just nowhere at all. If anyone is really interested in reading all those stats, they can click the link to the team web site. As it stands, it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Summary style. --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're discussing changing the colors at WT:MLB right now, so that issue will likely be solved soon. As to the game log, this would be the first article of this type to pass FA, if it does, so this game log will likely set the standard for future noms. I have no problem finding a different way to incorporate it, but I need more information than "it's ugly" and "it shouldn't be there". I see no reason to delete the game log; it's part of the season and, in my view, necessary. If it's determined that this would be better as a list, then I'll take that discussion to WT:MLB and we'll see what comes of it. I'm sure that the table, with a short lead, could be moved to something like List of 2008 Philadelphia Phillies games and linked from the regular season section as a see also, but this throws huge amounts of effort by a hard-working project to the wind. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that this review is gonna get hung up because "the table looks ugly" and "the colors are bad". Green and red are used for the win/loss backgrounds of every sport I've ever seen on WP, it's never been an issue and changing it to blue/chartreuse isn't going to do a dang thing. The game logs are simply there to compliment the prose, which is why I prefer them to be hidden (If it takes that they be un-hidden to get an FA, I'll live with it). Last season the game logs were moved to their own page and used as templates, which was ultimately voted down because its pointless to have a template that is only used within one article. This review has to be based around wheter or not 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season meets the FA criteria and not personal opinion. blackngold29 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave more reasons than what you're citing above. The best reason to remove it is in the interest of summary style and readability. Blackngold29, the style and structure of the article are part of the FA criteria, and every single review here is based on personal opinion. The FA criteria are largely subjective. In my opinion, the table should not be in the article in any form or combination of colors. If it suits you, you may discard my comment that the table is ugly. I have not yet had time to examine the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be any improvement to move the game log to the end? Similar to how albums have the prose at the beginning, then lists (track listing, charts, etc.) at the end. Don't take my comments personally, there are a few different reasons I said that based on multiple reviews. blackngold29 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. My comment may very well be discounted as going against consensus, but I think this article needs to be mostly prose. As it stands, at least half of it is tabular data. The game log is like 6 screens of information. I know sports fans have an affinity for stats, but we need to focus on a general readership here. Shouldn't this be a synopsis of events and performances, in prose form? I don't know, maybe I'm way off base. Maybe I just need to live with the fact that a season sports article will look like this. The only basis for comparison I have is some FAs for bands. If the band has a notable career, their discography is almost always its own article—because people who want to read about the band and people who want to see tabular data are often different audiences. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's kind of unfair to compare it to a band's discog, because it's been established that most deserve their own discog list; most of which can achieve FL status, unlike a game log. I agree that the game logs are lengthy, which is why I always preferred them hidden (Grrr, MOS) as that would keep the info and reduce the scrolling. A few possibilities after looking at the article closer: 1 I would remove the Roster as the Stats section already lists everyone on the team (we just agreed on this at WP:HOCKEY too), 2 Are the inning-by-inning run tallies necessary for every playoff game? (Another place where a collapsible box could help) By removing those, it would reduce the non-prose aspects of the article, while not losing too much info. I absolutely agree the emphisis should be on the prose, but I think by looking at the game log it gives the reader a quick understanding of the ebb and flow of the season. I'm not going to review the article persay, but I would like to get some viewpoints on this stuff for future reference as this will likely pave the way for season FAs to come; and well, I'm intrigued by first-time stuff like this. blackngold29 04:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: There were hide boxes on the playoff scores before this review. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:52, 21 May 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 20:35, 26 May 2009 [48].

Ota Benga[edit]

Nominator(s): Hofska (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it to be an example of a high quality article that, once I tweaked it a little, is clearly one of the "cream of the crop." I am confident enough in my own familiarity with the topic to address objections users may have as well. Hofska (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. A baby can be born prematurely with proper care. As one of the proverbial parents, I have no objections if that's what happens here. The article is mostly finished, and I had recently copied the contents of my personal sandbox into it and left a comment to that effect on the talk page. If anything, it's flattering to have someone say they think it should go straight to FA status - just be advised that I won't have time to work on it this week, so you're on your own as far as objections go. Recognizance (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • 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.
  • Move the findagrave citation to the external links, findagrave isn't a reliable source.
  • http://www.fairfield.edu/pr_memdetails1.html deadlinks
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image Comments

Rettetast (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same pre-1923 status applies to them in any case. But for what it's worth, both originate from The Pygmy in the Zoo. The Louisiana Purchase image has a quote from the St. Louis Dispatch and credits The South Carolina Library, University of South Carolina, Colimbia, S.C.; the other one credits The New York Zoological Society. Neither gives information about who took it originally. I had noted on the article's talk page that a better copy image for St. Louis would be preferable, in case anyone objects based on the quality. Recognizance (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose This is still a B-class article, not even recognised as a GA yet. I suggest you take it to GA first. Clearly needs a lot of work to become feature quality. "On March 20, 1916, at the age of 32, he built a ceremonial fire, chipped off the caps on his teeth and shot himself in the heart with a stolen pistol" for instance is not even cited. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fine with opposes since I would have been happier not having this nomination take place yet, but at least give credit where it's due. There's a citation at the end of the following sentence, i.e. the source was used for both pieces of information. Recognizance (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. In that case end the candidacy and take it through a proper peer review and GA then. Some day I hope to see it up for FA again once you've had time to work on it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being listed as a Good Article is not a prerequisite for Featured Articles. Hofska (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you so intent on seeing this go straight to FA? User:Dr. Blofeld supportively stated that he'd be happy to see it nominated again but feels it's not FA-quality yet. I was trying to be gracious when I said I have no objections if the community believes it's ready right now; I wasn't saying I necessarily agreed with you. Recognizance (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His objection is based on the current article rating and the example cited is incorrect. Unless there are addressable issues that are raised, or at least an objection from someone who has read the entire article, I see no reason to count this oppose vote. --Hofska (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: It's not relevant that the article only has a B rating, nor that it hasn't been to GA. It can come here, if the nominator is satisfied that the article meets the FA crieria. It shouldn't be here on a kite-flying mission, or in the expectation of some free article-building to bring it up to standard. And at present it's a long way from FA standard. Here are six specific points from the lead and Early life sections – I've not read further:-

  • What is the source for the birth date(s) given?
  • "...maintaining an amicable if cautious relations." Not grammatical
  • "...to exploit the natives for resources." What does that mean?
  • "Benga's people were slaughtered" - by whom?
  • What was the "fledgling discipline" referred to?
  • "Red Africans" as they were called" Called by whom?

Not major points in themselves, but all require fixing. There are no doubt many more in the rest of the article. The subject is interesting and well worth some concentrated work, but that won't happen while the article stays here. I recommend you withdraw it from here, and take it to Peer Review where it will get the attention it needs. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I go about closing the nomination? I'm sorry to everyone, especially Recognizance, for wasting your time. --Hofska (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I have addressed all of the concerns you listed with the exception of the birth date and the part about the Red Africans. I think that part is just what they were called at the time by westerners. Would "so-called 'Red Africans'" work here? --Hofska (talk) 00:58, 24 May 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 20:35, 26 May 2009 [49].

Braid (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Previous nomination for this faced the issue that the PC release of the game was pending and it was expected that there could be expansion of the article from that. We're about a month past its release and only a few interesting tidbits have come up - that a level editor exists for the game and a handful of reviews, but otherwise no other significant details. It may gain a few end-of-year awards for the PC side, but I don't see that being a hindrance to the present article as it already has awards from the 360 release. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • Images
    • Is there a way to cut out one of the gameplay images? It seems to me that the Donkey Kong influence is nice and all, but since there's no significant information about what's occuring in the frame anyhow, it could be lost and the gameplay image being used to compare to Blow's drawings could be made to pull double duty to afford greater compatibility with WP:NFCC.
  • Content
    • There's a couple really short paragraphs that either probably shouldn't have their own subsections *looking at you, Story* and paragraphs that seem a tad out of place (such as the mention of Donkey Kong-inspired levels, which I feel should be merged in with development or else mentioned in passing when talking about the rest of the levels earlier. Likewise with the last sentence. Aside from being improper, it's a letdown to end the article with such an unformed statement.
    • The reception is a tad slim in terms of review diversity, I'll see if I can scrounge up some MSM reviewers or tidbits that might add to the article. I found a bunch of good stuff actually, so send me an email and I'll reply with a .zip file of PDFs. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The DK-inspired image has been removed in favor of the single image in the art section to show gameplay. I've tried to group the smaller paragraphs a bit more. I got your PDFs, and there's not much more than hasn't already been said but they are paper sources that can be added. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Noting that I added a few of the print reviewers comments to help flesh out the reception. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See comments above. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think all of the above meet WP:SPS criterion; Justin McElroy's work has been published by Computer Games Magazine, The Escapist, and GameDaily, so he seems to be an established author in meeting with criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • The enigmatic story follows a man named Tim, who attempts to rescue his princess from a monster, though additional text in the story has led to several possible alternative interpretations. - Interpretations of what, the wording is also awkward; ie. "his" princess
  • Link Platform genre (platform game) in the lead, too

Otherwise, it seems good so far. I'll have more comments later. ceranthor 13:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • These should be fixed but other suggestions are welcome. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I haven't had time to give this a thorough review (okay, I lie, I've been mostly goofing off and recreating the Rhine in RollerCoaster Tycoon 3) but my major issues have been taken care of. I will try and give it a copyedit, but it does not appear to be suffering from obvious mistakes at a glance. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't meet the 1a bar in my opinion. Odd word choices, grammatical constructions, and often confusing or incomplete thoughts. Examples at random:
    • "The enigmatic story, when read literally,..." Rather odd sentence. I see little reason for "when read literally"...plot descriptions, such as "follows a man named Tim who attempts to rescue a princess from a monster", are generally literal creatures. Would be nice to be a little more descriptive than just "it can be metaphorically interpreted in several different ways". Give a general sense of these different interpretations.
    • "David Hellman drew the artwork, which underwent several iterations until it satisfied Blow's vision. " Who is he, and why is this here in the lead? I really loathe the simplistic "This person did this" constructs that I find so common in film/video game articles. It serves little other than to bore the reader when he/she does not know who "this person" is.
    • "eventually becoming the top-rated title on Xbox Live." What does this mean? What measure are we using for "top-rated" here?
    • "fundamental game elements " Word ordering.
    • "along with an "overworld" in the form of Tim's house. " This made no sense to me. Why not just combine the first half of this sentence with the next?
    • "Time and Forgiveness plays as an ordinary platform game" Was quite confused for a few seconds until I realized that Time and Forgiveness was the name of the worlds...can this be made clearer? Perhaps with "the following worlds" somewhere in the intro sentence.
    • "As such, it has been interpreted as an oblique ironic comment about traditional platform game design." Oblique? Ironic? How so? Explain? And who lies behind the passive veil?
    • "for example, a door may remain open once it is opened, even if the player rewinds time to before it was opened. " I understand what is meant here, but this sounds ridiculous. Would recommend recasting (or finding a new example, as I wondered whether or not the door could just be shut...).
    • "Time and Place has time linked to the player character's location on the level." Confusing description. Odd word choice with "has". Seems like time is tied to movement, not location by the description in the next sentence...
    • "This sets up a large number of complex correspondences that must be managed." I question the word choices in this sentence.
  • Skipping and skimming down...
    • "One common theory, based on the inclusion of the famous quote stated by Kenneth Bainbridge—"Now we are all sons of bitches"—after the detonation of the first atomic bomb is popular, though Blow has stated that there is more than just one interpretation of the story" Huh? What's the theory? Inclusion means?
    • "Jonathan Blow came up with the concept of Braid in December 2004, inspired while on a trip to Thailand," Combine for better flow. What "inspired" him?
    • Put some thought into the quotations you use. Think about why they are there and what purpose they serve the reader. "provided a "different and interesting" sound" <-- generic, uninteresting, and uninformative quotation...what does "different" mean? Different from what? Interesting == ? "they "will feel very good about" completing" Again, what's the purpose of using this rather bland quotation? "and aimed "to present something that isn't necessarily clear-cut"." Seems like one of those quotations that have lost their meaning by taking it out of context. What's this "something"? "Clear-cut" == ?
    • Please check your linking (common terms, overlinking, same link multiple times, etc.). BuddingJournalist 08:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I'm going to concur with BuddingJournalist, at least based on the Reception section. The strategy for quotations stymies me. Unless the quotation is profoundly interesting or difficult to paraphrase, we should be writing in our own words. Other glitches:
    • MoS problems with logical punctuation in quotations
    • "billards" -> billiards?
    • "short length", what does it mean?
    • "Sam Roberts, game director for the Slamdance Film Festival Guerilla Gamemaking Competition, was impressed that Braid did not 'feel immature' as it 'expects much' of the player ..." Grammar.
    • "Nick Suttner of 1UP.com commented that Braid's artwork 'juxtapose old-school design sensibilities ...'" Grammar.
    • "The game was primarily criticized for its short length." In sentences such as these, move the adverb as far right as makes logical sense, i.e. "The game was criticized primarily for its short length." Ignoring the problem with "short length".
    • "The game's price was also seen as a negative for the game, though reviews did state that 'Braid is worth every penny'. Huh? This statement contradicts itself. How was the price a negative if it was worth the price?
Lots of fit and finish needed. --Laser brain (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose
    • You are forgetting the URL to the official website in the fair use template of the main logo.
    • File:Braid-art-1.jpg and File:Braid-art-2.jpg appear to be watermarked.
    • Ref 41 & 59 need updating.
    • Consider splitting soundtrack list in to two columns.
    • Ref 46 needs to note that it is a forum post.--Otterathome (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any watermarking. Could you point it out? Also, I tried to copyedit based on BuddingJournalist's suggestions, though there's still some more to be fixed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Top left, but thinking about it, it might be part of the game.--Otterathome (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both cases, they are part of the game - those outlines represent the puzzle pieces that are to be collected during the game, and are filled in when you find those pieces. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Ref 41, it is just a link redirect to the article location - there's no need to change the URL. Ref 59 seems perfectly fine (url goes right to where it expects). As far as I can tell, for ref 46, there's no requirement to mark forum posts as such (if it was from USENET, there's a different citation template for it, but general web forums (which I will note, its confirmed that that's Jonathan Blow posting that) don't require anything special. I don't see any reason to split an 8-element list into columns, particularly when most soundtracks are just single lists. I did fix the rationale on the main logo to add the game site and copyright owner info. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Since it looks like the article won't be passing (again), I'd just like to add a few comments before it closes. It looks like it has the depth of content expected from a FA; it just lacks the polish. I suggest finding multiple (2-3) experienced copyeditors to run through it and smooth out the rough patches. Even with the correction of those prose errors noted above, the article clearly needs a lot of work to satisfy 1a. I would also suggest a peer review, to help locate any more critical problems that might exist. It wouldn't take too much for this article to be FA material, but it isn't quite there. Keep up the good work; it'll probably pass next time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. It's rare for me to not lodge a "support" or "oppose", but I hope the following explains why. I read this article again last week, hoping to do a full review then, as it was likely my opposition that scuppered this FAC the last time around. I haven't had time until now, but last week, similarly to the other reviewers, I found issues with the prose, though re-reading today it seems a lot better. Issues remain (some redundancies, perhaps an overly passive tone in the lead), but I won't be opposing this nomination on 1a grounds, as the other reviewers covered the bases well enough. This comment is more a question that might have an impact on 1b (comprehensiveness), depending on the answer. Braid's story, more so than some video games, has been subject to analysis and interpretation. The article acknowledges this, with brief comment in the "Development" and "Plot" sections, but do you think that we might be short-changing the reader by not including more? If we were to treat the subject as we would any other art/entertainment article, we would see a more in-depth examination of the work's themes, rather than the one paragraph we have that simply states that the game "has been subject to multiple interpretations" followed by a very brief description of one of them. This AV Club interview with Blow, for example, is cited only twice and yet seems to contain a lot of information on the writing and the author's intent—including divergent interpretations (no less valid)—that we don't cover in the article. It would be a shame, a missed opportunity, if we were to treat video games—especially this one—in effect as a lesser art form not mature enough to warrant the weighty treatment we give to other entertainment articles, such as those for films (as a film article on anything but the most simple of summer blockbusters would likely fail its FAC if it didn't include a decent section on thematic interpretations). I'd be interested to read your thoughts on the issue. If you think the discussion is best had elsewhere, I'm OK with that, but I thought that it would be a good point for other potential reviewers to consider too. All the best, Steve T • C 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Certainly a discussion of themes would seem to make sense - but while there may be a few more I can pull from the AV Club interview, there's no reliable source that goes into much detail of the themes - all of that is forum posts and blog pages from players themselves. All that the reliable sources give is the most obvious interpretation (the bomb) and then say its been discussed heavily on such boards, but really do not summarize this. It may be in the future someone will write a serious work to review the metaphorical aspects of Braid, but as with most video games, this is an if rather than a when that occurs for works like art-house films, simply because that type of journalism in video game coverage is hard to find. In that regard, I cannot expect that part to fail the FA comprehensiveness requirement simply because that's not a typical part of game coverage. Sure, I'll keep watching (I've RSS feeds for these things) but I don't expect much (as compared to watching for PC reviews of the game when it came out for that platform, that being more a likely guarantee). --MASEM (t) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, aye, the lack of availability of decent sources is the biggest bar to an interpretations section, which is why I left it as a comment rather than a !vote. Still at the very least, that interview might have enough in it to suggest something towards a "Writing" subsection (if placed with some of the existing development information) that could be the germ of an "Analysis" section at some point far in the future. Oh, and it isn't just art-house films that we demand a "Themes" section for, as David will attest. :) All the best, Steve T • C 14:15, 26 May 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 20:35, 26 May 2009 [50].

1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I've corrented the link, thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments

Im going to refrain from passing judgement at the minute but i have a couple of comments Jason Rees (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Cyclone 01B and 03A should probbabbly be split off into their own articles though i understand that 03A is being dealt with by another editor
That doesn't really pertain to the season article, that's more of a topic issue. Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The JTWC issued their its advisory on Tropical Cyclone 02A" - their or its?
Fixed Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does GP not have a little bit more on the Deep depressions and depressions that could be included in the article
What's in the article is all he has. Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The scope of this article is limited to the Indian Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, east of the Horn of Africa and west of the Malay Peninsula. There are two main seas in the North Indian Ocean—the Bay of Bengal to the east of the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian Sea to the west of India. - Can we be a bit more precise with where the IMD issue advisories as an RSMC? (Hint 45E to 100E) and you can link that back to any IMD report.
Done Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments.
    • I'd like a better lede sentence, as the current one is rather vague and useless. Was there anything unique about the season? Is there anything you can write that would get people engaged in the article, other than "was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation"?
    • I notice throughout the article, you refer the cyclones as their JTWC number. While I don't mind seeing the JTWC name as the section title, I am opposed to seeing the numbers used as names, such as "This caused 07B to rapidly weaken".
      • What would you suggest I use for their names then? Cyclonebiskit 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, anything to avoid using unofficial numbers. Something simple like "This caused the storm to weaken" is much more appropriate. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Watch out for split infinitives ("to rapidly weaken") and passive voice ("were issued").
    • I'd like to see more impact for "Depression", 5A, "Second Deep Depression", and 8A. I'm a little unsure on having GP as a source for no known impact for those storms, as GP doesn't actually say there was no known impact.
      • I've found nothing for any of those systems Cyclonebiskit 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Have you tried any newspaper archives? Surely there must be something outside of the JTWC report and the GP pages. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Is there no better section title for any of the non-JTWC ones?
      • What would you suggest? I'm using the official designations since the IMD is basically non-existent in terms of documented reports in 1998. Cyclonebiskit 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Come to think of it, I think the titles are largely appropriate, although personally I would change "Depression on eastern coast" to "Depression on eastern India coast", as to specify the location a bit better. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Any more recent/better estimates for damage/death totals?
      • If there were, they'd likely be in the article already. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I happen to doubt that sufficient research was done, since the article largely consists of sources from 1998-99, and then generic sources from last year and this year. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I spent several months searching for information, if you really think that there is more recent information, do share it, otherwise I don't really see your point other than this being a generic response for all articles you review. Cyclonebiskit 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • And I'll repeat what I said above, have you tried any newspaper archives? If there is info which you can't access, but exists somewhere, then it should not be featured. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • An overall copyedit would be nice, since the prose isn't the best. Examples:
      • "Early on May 20, 01B reached its peak intensity with winds of 130 km/h (80 mph) as an eye developed and made landfall several hours later near Chittagong" (too long)
      • "Just as quickly as the storm appeared" (awkward wording)
      • "and weakened as wind shear began to increase. The storm weakened" (redundancy)
      • "Early on June 9, after slightly weakening, 03A reached its peak intensity with winds of 195 km/h (120 mph)" (peak intensity after weakening?)
      • "The depression strengthened to a deep depression later that day with winds peaking at 55 km/h (35 mph) before undergoing a weakening trend" (just poor wording)
      • "strengthened just below Category 1 status" (IMD doesn't use SSHS)
        • Most of the MH refers to the JTWC unless otherwise stated (since I don't have much from the IMD). Cyclonebiskit 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "Major crop losses and significant property damage was reported as well as six fatalities in the areas affected by 06B" (poor wording, syntax, confusing structure)
      • "...were downed by strong winds produced by the storm... were damaged by the storm. Waves produced by the storm" (redundancy?)
      • "Waves produced by the storm were recorded up to 5.74 m (18.8 ft) along the coastline of Visakhapatnam" (could be worded better)

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. It badly needs a thorough copyedit—the prose is quite a way from FA quality at this time. Grammar and MoS problems abound. I would also like to see Hink's concerns about research answered. I don't know enough about the subject to tell if the proper research has been done, but there seems to be an over-reliance on "reports" rather than actual journalism about the storms. Some sample issues indicative of the entire text:
    • The first sentence is ungrammatical: "was a deadly and moderately active season in annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation" Is there a "the" missing before annual? I don't understand what you're trying to say; "with seven storms directly affecting land." Noun plus -ing construction and awkward "with" connector need revision.
    • Second sentence, another "with" connector.
    • "The scope of this article is limited to the Indian Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere ..." I don't care for the self-reference; does this really require stating after we've already specified "North" Indian Ocean? If so, I'd rather state it in prose without the self-reference.
    • "With eleven depressions and eight tropical cyclones, the 1998 season ranks as the second most active North Indian Ocean Cyclone season, along with 1987, 1996, and 2005." Another awkward connector, and I'm not following this ranking scheme. Do you mean 1998 is tied with all those other years? If not, where does it fall among them?
    • "During 1998, the IMD did not publish wind speeds, storms were referred to as 'depressions', 'deep depressions', or 'cyclonic storms'." Basic punctuation error. Commas do not mark pauses.
    • Basic MoS problems - ex. "Later that month, a short lived storm"
    • Reading on, the "with" connector and other grammatical problems are prevalent throughout.
--Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Most grammar MOS probs fixed. 1 or 2 of ur concerns clash with Hink's. Who do v follow? About ur 'with' connector -- Is there any better way of writing repeating lines like this: "06B reached its peak intensity, with winds reaching 155 km/h (100 mph)." I tried an alternative: "Upon being classified a tropical cyclone, 02A reached its peak intensity. The speed of its winds was 65 km/h (40 mph)." Choose any of these or sugest more. Get a way out of the connector or ignore. Next someone eles will yell that sentences could be better with a 'with'. Again who do v follow? Hometech (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts! I'm not sure I followed all of the above, but I did review your edits to the article. Overall, they are not an improvement and actually degraded the level of detail and quality of prose. At least one edit, here, introduced additional errors. I really appreciate your work, but with all due respect, I think you should revert your changes. Some of them were beneficial, but it's too difficult to sort them out from the bad ones because you performed multiple changes in each edit. --Laser brain (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Ok but what's the error I added in the entire edit? Hometech (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2 words were missed out. i put 'em. Hometech (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but what about my concern about degrading the level of detail? In several places, you removed clauses containing information for no discernible reason. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restored and rewrote details in lead. here lead is remade as you said. Rest all is just corrections. Hometech (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming to research issues from both users Hink and laserbrain, i have alredy put news and books; but both seem to have forgotten the incident since a decade. There's no content from 1999 onwards in newspaper archives and absolutely no casualty updates. Hometech (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already found dozens of sources in a newspaper archive that my university provides. I haven't been able to send the info to him yet, but it's forthcoming, and it should expand some of the remaining sections nicely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Send info to whom? Hometech (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll send the info eventually to Cyclonebiskit, but right now, that content is not in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 22 May 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 20:35, 26 May 2009 [51].

New York State Route 73[edit]

Nominator(s): 3 1/2 years of Mitch32 23:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because this article the article has spent 6 months since a failed FAC in November 2008. The article has greatly improved since then and I believe it should meet the FAC standards. As usual, I am open to all comments. (Note: Juliancolton is to copyedit the article tonight). 3 1/2 years of Mitch32 23:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am under the impression that every sentence should be cited in an article. The entire lead section which may very well be a bit too long, isnt cited at all, and should be regardless if the info in it is cited later in the article. I see too few citations in the rest of the article as well even if someone wants to say not EVERY sentence needs to be cited. Perhaps I just had a really hard-a** reviewer when Port of Albany-Rensselaer went up for GA but I couldnt get it to pass GA review without every sentence cited, so I'd like to hear why FA should be more lax than GA. If it was just the reviewer who I happened to get, then OK, but I would still want the lead to have citations and lots of them before this passes. That is just one problem from glancing over the article. I will do a complete checklist and thorough read through in the next day or two. I've noticed FA road articles that are not complete on their route description, no reason to make one more. A fundamental criteria for FA is that they are COMPLETE and COMPREHENSIVE, with very little and preferably nothing needing to be added. If there are gaps in a route description then its not complete and comprehensive and not FA material. I will be checking that some sections arent represented more than others for no reason.Camelbinky (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There aren't gaps. I am the main writer of these, and I write them like this. We don't need details of every building. That is unnecessary. We don't need every last detail, especially on a route in the middle of mountains basically. Underwood is under-developed, Keene is barely anything, and I described everything else.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no Wikipedia policy that states "every sentence should be cited" and the FA criteria specify that inline citations should be provided "where appropriate". Awadewit (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leads should rarely be cited. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've tried copyediting the article, but unfortunately, the prose is quite poor in some areas—to the extent where I don't feel comfortable changing it. The "construction" section, in particular, needs work. For example, I could 12 instances of the word "slated". Sorry, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The correct heading is "Future" not "Construction." Does NYSDOT number the proposed construction projects? "This is our first project, this is our second"...? How do Keene's highways connect to this? Also, this is a <30 mile route. It seems that there may possibly be a lot of fluff in the article. You have to sell us on why the article should be FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rschen7754, you need to point out what you think the fluff is. No nominator has to "sell" his/her FA - it is presumed that all articles can be FA. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see the connection of section 2.1 with the rest of the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed now I believe.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I still don't get it. I don't see the connection. Section 2.2 needs to be rewritten so that the connection to the topic at hand is apparent from the first sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am trying my best to get the early highways through the Adirondack High Peaks - which NY 73 does current-day. Maybe it needs a better rewording.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did my best. Look now.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding a very poorly worded sentence with three citations doesn't quite cut it. Using three citations makes it look like WP:SYNTH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify, my oppose still stands; the prose needs help, and in the history there is repetition of info between sections 2.1 and 2.2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • More on the construction section.
  • My #1 concern in this section is the list-like style of prose. For example, you don't need to say "The next piece of construction...", etc. Try to avoid excessive wording. On that note (and I know you're not going to like this suggestion), it may be best to completely remove the specific construction projects, and condense the entire section into a paragraph or two. At the moment, it reads a bit like a database, rather than an encyclopedic article.
  • It is 23 feet (7.0 m) long and made entirely of concrete. - No steel reinforcements?
  • The final bridge that is listed to undergo construction is the Route 73 bridge over the Southern Fork of the Bouquet River in Keene. - Could simply be "Another bridge to undergo construction is over Southern Fork of the Bouquet River in Keene." I'm not really sure how it is the "final" bridge to undergo construction. Are they listed in chronological order? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, if you insist, dont complain if you dont agree, you asked me to explain my opinion. I still maintain it needs more citations, and irregardless of what others think wp:lead is clear that citations are put in lead sections, though not as strictly as other sections if the info being cited would be redundant. I dont know where someone else got their info that lead sections "should rarely be cited" it seems just the opposite, as wp:lead is clear that the rules on verifiability still apply to the lead. That is my only concern. Others can disagree and pass the article. I like the information in the article, I think it is well-written, I have researched and looked at each of the sources mentioned, everything seems factual. Which I wish more reviewers would spend time on fact-checking instead of "its well written and looks purdy, me passie article!". I could care less what the title of a section is, as long as the information in the article is factual. This is an encyclopedia right? Truth in factual information before pretty flowing prose.Camelbinky (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no official thing in there - it barely mentions direct referencing of the lead.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's "clear" in that lead lead sections require citations? To the contrary, it says "The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." –Juliancolton | Talk 12:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, concerning "there is no official thing in there" this is a direct copy-paste from wp:lead- The lead must conform to verifiability and other, relevant policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited, as should quotations. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
To be honest, I doubt anyone is going to challenge information about a road... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, double-citing (i.e., lead and body) is usually unnecessary except for statistics, quotes and potentially controversial BLP material. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • 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. I fixed the one problem that was in the article, just noting this for future nominations so it can be fixed before nomination.
  • If a fact/etc is sourced in the main body of the article, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead, unless its unusually contentious. (Which I hardly see a road article rising to..)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry. The prose is very poor and way below FA standard. The article is crying out for the help of a good copy-editor who is familiar with the subject. The content is there, but the article has grammatical errors, lacks flow, and is written in a most clumsy manner. Graham Colm Talk 09:53, 23 May 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 Steve 00:19, 23 May 2009 [52].

Licensed to Ill[edit]

Nominator(s): KMFDM FAN (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the Good Article criteria, and is an important album in rap music history. It is well written, and has no problems (such as lack of citations, too long, etc).KMFDM FAN (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawal strongly suggested Sorry, this is not close to meeting the featured article criteria. I don't think it meets the good article criteria either. The article needs significant expansion in just about every area. Also, File:Licensed to ill.jpg needs a better fair use rationale. See any number of album featured articles as examples for you to work toward. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this is not even close to meeting the Featured article criteria or, for that matter, good article criteria. It falls far short of comprehensive coverage, is riddled with grammar issues (incomplete sentences and proseline), and has a mere four citations. Maralia (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

very well. How do you retract a nomination? KMFDM FAN (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about it; now you've indicated the desire to withdraw, it'll be taken care of (in a few minutes by me, or before if someone else gets there first). For reference, here is a music album article that recently passed FAC. I'm sure that Licensed to Ill, given its impact, would have even more to say about it than that article. Good luck with further expansion! Steve T • C 00:16, 23 May 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 19:22, 19 May 2009 [53].

Tender Mercies[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've nominated this for FAC before, and I believe those objections have mainly been addressed now. Namely, a lot of unnecessary detail was removed from the article, and about the disputed fair use images have been removed. There is one remaining (under Casting), which I think/hope is appropriate for the article, but as the FAC review touches upon it we'll go from there. Other than those now-addressed objections, however, I don't think there was much of a problem with most of the content of the article itself, and I think it's about ready for FA now. Looking forward to any comments and suggestions! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on criteria 1b, 1c and 3. This is very good in the main. On first reading, the prose, while not faultless, probably only needs a brush-up here and there to meet 1a. There are just a few areas that let the rest of the article down:
    • 1c. A very minor point, but the statement "Tender Mercies received mostly positive reviews" is uncited. I know it's true, but because most major productions receive hundreds of reviews, we need to avoid the potential charge that the reception section is selectively choosing largely positive reviews to quote. After all, such selective quoting could be used to give the impression that even a critically-panned film is well liked, as even those are likely to have received half a dozen positive notices amongst the derision.
    • 3: The image File:Tender mercies.jpg currently has an unresolved {{Non-free reduce}} on it, which should just be a case of uploading a smaller copy over the existing version. The image File:Robert duvall in tender mercies.jpg also has such a tag, but in addition I'm not sure the rationale is quite strong enough as it stands. For straight identification, the character—despite being in country music garb—is recognisably Duvall, and as such a free equivalent could conceivably be sourced to simply illustrate the character. The rationale also speaks of the image's necessity for showing "Duvall's attire, the stage setting and the American flag in the background" which "illustrate the spirit of the character and the country music genre". The accompanying text does indeed explain that Duvall spent a great deal of time researching the genre to capture its spirit for the part, but the article body only cites such things as Duvall's researching accents and mannerisms, not his appearance. In short, there is a tinge of original research about both the caption and the rationale. At the very least a secondary source should be found that specifically cites the character's look, or even this specific image (with Old Glory in the background), as evoking the flavour and spirit of a country singer.
    • 1b: This is perhaps the main stumbling block. The article does not include any analysis from scholarly sources that could go towards a comprehensive "Themes" section or similar. I accept that it might not be appropriate for all film articles, but it's generally accepted that a film article of this type should have some form of analysis. For example, the last three film articles that passed FAC (IIRC) were Bride of Frankenstein, Star Trek VI and Changeling, each of which contains an "interpretations" or "themes" section. Tender Mercies has been examined extensively, as even a surface skim of the available book sources reveals. There seems to be scope especially for including something of the film's religious themes; the very first hit (Jewett, Robert (1993). Saint Paul at the Movies. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 54–64. ISBN 0664254829.) contains 10 pages on this film alone. In addition, have you thoroughly searched other print literature for sources? There are potentially dozens of magazine and journal articles that may have discussed interpretations of the film, as well as different aspects of the production. A random example is American Cinematographer, which in my experience often contains almost too much useful information; I would be very surprised if it had never published an article on Tender Mercies. None of this is meant to disparage your efforts; the information the article does cover is largely excellent, but it still feels that even with your seemingly-thorough treatment, we've barely touched the surface.
      • (I was about to post this but then got hung up by edit conflict.) I did do a print literature search, but obviously not thoroughly enough as I didn't come up with the books you guys have found me, let alone journal articles. (I guess I must not have even done a thorough Google Books search!) I'm going to delve into that and update the article as I go along. If I don't finish in time for this FAC nom, maybe third time will be the charm! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)=Reply[reply]
  • As I say, I think it's this last point that will be the biggest bar. A search of the academic databases might yield more than you thought was possible. Don't worry, if you think this is disheartening, just take a look at my American Beauty reading list and laugh. And all that said, I did enjoy reading the article. Nice work so far. Steve T • C 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The only thing that's disheartening is that I wasn't pointed in this direction during my first FAC, so I could have done it before I renominated it! lol. But nah, I much appreciate your feedback and the helpful direction you've pointed me in! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Excellent; I was worried you'd be upset/annoyed :) I'll keep this page and the article page watchlisted, so I'll know when to revisit. Good luck! Steve T • C 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It looks like this will take a bit of time, especially as some of these books are on Google Books and it seems I'll have to order them. I'm guessing this won't be finished in time for this FAC review, so hopefully it won't be too much of a deterrent if I nominate it a third time later. :) — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • That's a shame; in all other respects, the article seems complete (though I recommend looking at that screenwriting source Erik mentioned). Shall I go ahead and process the withdrawal? Steve T • C 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Well, give me a day or two to see if I can get a grasp on how long this will take me. I want to take a more thorough look too at any other print sources I could get that you and Erik haven't already listed too. If I decide it should be withdrawn and renominated later, I'll shoot you a message to go ahead and start processing it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Struck two resolved by recent edits to the article, and one sentence due to Erik's comments below. Steve T • C 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok, I've created a "Themes and Analyses" section with a few subsections. Please keep in mind that this is only the start of this section, and as such it right now only has two main sources (with a minor reference to another in passing). I am as we speak getting and going through additional print resources and plan to add more, and reinforce what is already there with additional sources. However, I was hoping you could take a look at how it is started and let me know if this is what you had in mind, and if you had any suggestions or criticisms? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. Great work so far. The only comment I'd make—and this is completely down to personal preference, and would have no impact on any potential change in my vote—is that attribution probably isn't as necessary in a "Themes" section as it is in, say, the "Reviews" section, save where contrasting points of view, or controversial ones, are presented. Recent examples include Changeling (film)#Themes and Apt Pupil (film)#Themes. A film's meaning is derived from its audience, each interpretation as valid as the next. Steve T • C 19:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose similarly to Steve due to lack of thematic coverage, failing the comprehensiveness criteria. While it looks like you cover other aspects of the topic very well, themes are pretty critical in how a film is looked back upon and interpreted. It takes some sleuthing to dig up such coverage, but I found some useful resources listed below:
  • Denzin, Norman K (Spring 1989). "Reading Tender Mercies: Two Interpretations". The Sociological Quarterly. 30 (1): 37–57.
  • Leonard, Richard (2006). "Tender Mercies". Movies That Matter: Reading Film Through the Lens of Faith. Loyola Press. pp. 141–143. ISBN 0829422013.
  • Anker, Roy M (2004). ""The Wings of a Dove": The Search for Home in Tender Mercies". Catching Light: Looking for God in the Movies. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. pp. 124–142. ISBN 0802827950.
  • Foote, Horton (1989). Three Screenplays: To Kill a Mockingbird, Tender Mercies, and The Trip to Bountiful. Grove Press. ISBN 0802111246.
  • WorldCat.org has a couple more thematic resources, plus screenwriting resources that could be used for a pretty solid "Writing" subsection. I looked at British Film International, Film Literature Index, and International Index to Film Periodicals, but it did not provide anything too useful (no American Cinematographer, Steve). —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment So far, I've copyedited the lead and "Plot" sections and the "Development" subsection. The process has been painless and I have yet to come up with a substantive query. These are terrific signs. I look forward to supporting once the issues Steve and Erik raised have been addressed. Whether there is sufficient time for that to happen during this candidacy period or not is a relatively minor matter, I hope we can agree. The nominator is clearly committed to raising the article to FA standard. Tender Mercies is starbound.DocKino (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be very helpful to know what Harper (who, I gather, has the second largest role) looks like in the film. If you can find a screenshot or publicity still that shows her and Duvall--or, ideally, her, Duvall, and Hubbard--that would be a very informative addition to the article.DocKino (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's a shame the image of Duvall couldn't quite be justified; perhaps once the "Themes" section is written that will point the way towards a possible fair-use claim on a screenshot. Another way of prettifying the article would be to find an image on Commons of one or more of the filming locations. The current "Filming" section is a little light on the specifics, preferring instead to focus on the Duvall–Beresford spat, but if other locations could be sourced, I'm sure something free could be found. See State of Play (film)#Filming for an example of Commons images used in this way. Steve T • C 07:36, 19 May 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 Steve 09:45, 19 May 2009 [54].

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening[edit]

Nominator(s): OboeCrack (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved since its last FAC. OboeCrack (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment

Could you be more explicit please? OboeCrack (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is very little in the way of actual development of the title--there's info about marketing and the DX version, but nothing beyond technical credits for anything else. Also, you're adding incorrect citations; please double-check them, that's why I removed them originally. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This was a little too premature, because I know some information is missing, such as the censoring/regional differences between the games. I feel for this to reach FA it'll need that before a nomination is done, sorry. I'd recommend withdrawing this until the prose is tidied and such information has been added with proper citations.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I give up. Please Kung Fu Man, write a list with some interesting things that can be added in the talk page of the article. We have the one you said, but we need more. Thanks for the advice given. OboeCrack (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a formal withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are the ones the know more about the article so I don't think they will change their mind. So yes it is. OboeCrack (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Withdrawal per this comment. Please do not edit the article talk page to remove the {{FAC}} template; a bot will process the rest. Steve T • C 09:44, 19 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [55].

Chuck E. Cheese's[edit]

Nominator(s):  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I'm nominating this article today because I believe that it is ready to become a Featured Article. Over the past several months I have been working on this article nonstop, in order to achieve this goal. I've been able to secure GA Status, along with a full peer review, in which I have addressed all concerns brought up. The stability of the article is good, thanks to beinbg temporarily semi-protected a few weeks ago. I assure you that this article should be great. However, if there is anything that needs to be addressed, I will address them immediately.

Thanks,  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I was a big fan of Chuck E Cheese when I was a kid and surprised (and grateful) as an adult to find out that the pizza isn't awful. That's why it saddens me to say that I don't think this article is ready for FA status yet. The article is largely sourced to primary sources, and I think this failure to do more in-depth research leads to a lack of comprehensiveness and an overall dry tone in the article. The prose is also not great. It needs to be polished to sound more encyclopedic. A few other concerns below, as well as pointers on research that could be conducted:

  • The lead does not adequately describe all of the article. The history section, for example, is not represented.
  • There is a little overlinking (no need to link same term twice in one section)
  • Entertainment focuses only on shows, and not on the games, etc that are also a part of the experience.
  • The health concerns section seems a bit of undue weight. I can see how this could be a part of the history section, or wrapped up in another section.
  • There is no information on audience, sales, etc.
  • A great deal of the information is taken from primary sources - the company's website, press releases, etc. This is not optimal. A quick Google Books search found the following that might be useful
    • Kent, Steve L. The ultimate history of video games: from Pong to Pokemon and beyong: the story behind the craze that touched our lives and changed the world [56]
    • Smith, Andrew F. Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food [57]
    • Ritzer, George Enchanting a disenchanted world: revolutionizing the means of consumption [58]
    • Sellers, John Arcade fever: the fan's guide to the golden age of video games [59]
    • Lieberman, Al and Patricia Esgate The Entertainment Marketing Revolution [60]
There seem to be lots more books, touching at least briefly on aspects of marketing, of the company history, or the animatronics. There are lots of newspaper articles indexed on Google as well, and I suspect more can be found.

Karanacs (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that reading a Google books snippet is usually not good enough for good research. I linked to the Google books website here for convenience, but for proper research you need to read more than a few paragraphs of the books to ensure that nothing is being taken out of context. I don't believe the changes that have been made are sufficient - there are still unreliable and self-published sources used heavily in the article, the article still does not appear comprehensive (it is very sketchy), and the prose is not great. At most, I think I'd rate this a C-class. Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would imagine this being greatly expanded.

  • "Currency" could very well be just a small component of an "Arcade" section
  • "Health concerns" should be a part of a discussion of the menu
  • "Parodies" is a trivial list and could be better used as a sentence discussing similar establishments.

I'm not sure it's even a strong GA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reluctant Oppose I just peer reviewed this and most of the problems I raised there were not really addressed. The lead is too short, the history has a 10 year gap, the voice cast is unreferenced, and it and the parodies seem close to trivia (with the parodies being close to WP:OR). Most importantly, although the infobox gives us some business details, this is a business which has operated over 30 years and there is very little on that aspect of the firm. Not ready for FA by a long shot, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. The striked out concerns have been addressed. Some of the striked out book sources only provided basic info on Chuck E. Cheese's. However, some of the striked books were actually helpful, so they've been used. The only two things that are still a problem are the sales/business info and the history gap. The problem is that the changes in profits/losses quarter by quarter/year by year are only 1-2% in total. So, should I state the net profits or assets of the company for the quarter/year? The history gap is another thing, because of the simple fact that nothing notable really happened during that timespan. No major changes in animatronics, no financial restructuring, no concept redesigns, etc. So I'm not really sure what to do with that time period. And last, can you be more specific about the prose? I can fix the prose if I'm shown the trouble areas, instead of being told generalities. I'll continue work when I get another response.  Dylanlip  (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dylan, it is inappropriate for you to strike other people's comments. Reviewers must make their own judgement call on whether the issue they raised has been fixed (in many cases, reviewers and nominators may have a different idea of what "fixed" is). I am going to unstrike my comments, and I request that you unstrike any other strikeouts you had made for reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is your first time at FAC, so you don't know this, but please do not strike my or other editors' objections. They are only struck by the person who made them in the first place, when and if you address the issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More objections from Ruhrfisch: To be honest, when I saw two strong objects I just listed a few issues I objected to, but did not review it closely. While some articles are improved to pass during FAC, this seems like it has too many problems to resolve in FAC. ANyway, here goes some more major problems.

  • The 10 year gap in history - we know they have restaurants in South American and in Africa - when did they start expanding outside the US? The CEO is listed - when did he become CEO? I have never been to a CEC, but I see their ads all the time on TV - when did they start nationwide TV ads? Here is a New York Times article on their initial advertising in Spanish (by CEC). Lately their ads advertise some sort of stamp on the hands of kids and parents so the parents can negelct their kids er, relax. Is the founder still active in the business? Have they been sued or had major problems? They are in the NYSE category, when did they get listed there?
  • As for the lack of business information - have they had any quarters or years where they lost money? Could you give their profit and stock price every 5 years? Have they had stock splits?
  • I have serious concerns about the reliablilty of some of the sources used. Usually User:Ealdgyth does this, but what makes birthday-party-locations.com or momlogic.com or showbizpizza.com reliable sources? There are lots of New York Times articles that a search on "Chuck E. Cheese" finds. I assume there are other major news sources with articles on CEC, and books.
  • The hardest criterion for most articles to meet is professional prose - this is not there, but the other problems all need to be fixed first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments (by AnOddName)

  • While I'm not sure it's a criteria 2b problem, I don't like seeing all those tiny subsections. Consider merging the one- or two-sentence sections into others, if you can't expand them (as I'm sure you've been trying to).
  • Possible 1b issue: I remember many commercials on Saturday morning cartoons in the '90s that billed it "Where a Kid Can Be a Kid"—I fondly remember their jingle—showing kids playing, eating their pizza, having fun with the cartoon mouse...any material out there about their advertising? (I've never been to a Chuck E. Cheese's—shocking, I know—but I've seen their tv ads quite often.)

--an odd name 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 15 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [61].

Geoffrey Boycott[edit]

Nominator(s): SGGH ping! 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it has undergone a long period of improvement, with a number of users working on it, and that it has reached the level where an FAC can find the featured article within it. It is comprehensive article, well written, with hopefully few factual or citational errors, with images which are the only ones available as no free images exist or have been found despite months of looking. Hopefully whatever errors illuminated in this FAC can be solved to promote it over the final hurdle. Regards, SGGH ping! 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments -
  • 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
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick check, is this also true for newspaper articles found on webpages (e.g. telegraph online?) SGGH ping! 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on if they are reprints of published articles on their site or if they are works that never appeared in print. I tend to think if they are reprinting the printed article, then you treat it as a printed article with a convience link to the web site. If it never appeared in print but only on their website, it's more up in the air. (I never have this problem with medieval bishops, so it might be good to have suggestions from folks who actually have experience in this problem. I can see either way, honestly.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to format them the same. It's still the newspaper's output, whether it's online or in print, and the consistency in the display of the references far outweighs (for me, at least) the other factors. Steve T • C 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think someone has gone through and done most of these, I shall have a look through a little later on and see if I can find the others that haven't been done so. SGGH ping! 12:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: sorry, the article isn't ready for FAC. It needs a proper peer review and a full copyedit (it was peer-reviewed in March 2008, but has been much altered since). The following points arise from the lead alone:-

  • "Illustrious" is POV and should be omitted
Has been replaced with "successful" or "prolific"
  • "...established himself as one of England's finest opening batsmen." This needs to be specifically attributed, e.g. "...established himself, according to XYZ, as one of England's finest opening batsmen."
Will do so, however the number of people who have said so is large, so would it be best to leave the general assertion in the lead and leave it to be backed up by specific examples in the body? SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do. SGGH ping! 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When did Boycott occupy the crease "for a number of days"? It might have seemed like that when watching him bat, but you'll be hard put to justify this comment.
He was one of the first batsmen to bat all 5 days of a Test match, it is mentioned in the main body but I can copy the cite up to the lead too. SGGH ping! 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This sentence reads very awkwardly: "While less successful in One Day International matches, becoming the first ever wicket in that form of the game, Boycott went on to be a key feature of England's Test batting line up for many years." After major surgery it could become "Boycott went on to become a key feature of England's Test batting line up for many years, although he was less successful in One Day International (ODI) matches." The fact of his being the first wicket to fall in one-day international cricket is inconsequential, has nothing to do with his success or otherwise in this form of the game, and should be dropped.
Done so. SGGH ping! 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...ending his career in 1982 with over 8,000 runs and an OBE." These two achievements should not be linked in this way.
Fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...and the "as well as" that follows is equally inappropriate. Boycott's Wisden accolade came near the beginning, not at the end, of his career
fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It also needs to be clear that he was one of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year in 1965, not "Wisden Cricketer of the Year"
Done so SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ICC needs explaining
Will do. SGGH ping! 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He followed", rather then "followed up"
Fixed SGGH ping! 12:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 1998 he faced allegations of assaulting his former girlfriend, Margaret Moore, of which he was later cleared; and in 2002 he was diagnosed with throat cancer for which he underwent successful radiation treatment and went into remission." Two many unrelated facts in one sentence (assault charge, acquittal, cancer, successful treatment, remission) linked by too many "ands". Split the sentence.
will do. SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Final sentence is ungrammatical as it stands. Suggest full stop after "praise", then "He is currently working..."
Will do. SGGH ping! 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The image: a brave attempt to get a free image, and by no means a bad drawing, but is it sufficiently like Boycott? Personally, I wouldn't have recognised it outside the context of a Boycott article, but others may feel differently.
Unfortunately there are no free ones that I can find, I was hoping the FAC will get a concensus on this, as I couldn't get one elsewhere other than the project talk page, which was unsure. SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked through the rest of the article, and see many of the same sort of prose errors as identified in the lead. I don't think these issues can be fixed at FAC, and suggest that it is withdrawn and put into peer review. I will be happy to assist with it there. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. Agree with most of Brianboulton's points; further copyediting will be required before it's quite up to scratch, perhaps too much to expect to happen during the timeframe available at this FAC. On top of that, I'd point to a slight assumption of a certain level of cricketing knowledge in the reader; too few terms and rules are explained fully enough for the uninitiated. On the image issue, I think I'd recognise it as Boycott even if removed from the context of the article. But then again, I am a Yorkshireman, by gum. Steve T • C 21:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Added oppose after a second read through. It's interesting enough, and not terribly written, so please don't take this the wrong way, but it might do good to have a third-party copyeditor take a look at it, as quite often the writer of an article is too familiar to the text to spot the areas that need attention. Should the nominator wish to tackle the copyedit, that's fair enough (lawks, you should see the face-twitch I get whenever I see on an article I've written an edit summary that says "copyedit"!), but I first recommend a read through of these redundancy exercises; the removal of removing unnecessary words and phrases is 90% of the copyediting work. Steve T • C 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall take a look. SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose – 1a. Brian's right about the prose. In addition to his suggested improvements, here are some more corrections needed later in the article:

  • Early life: "He was rushed to hospital, nearly dying and ultimately lost his spleen." Should be either "nearly died" or "ultimately lost" to have consistent tenses.
Will fix SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In March 1950, his father had a serious accident down the pit, being hit by empty coal tubs which damaged his spine." What pit? Does this involve mining?
Made clearer SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "where he played for the schools First XI and captained it at age 15." Apostrophe needed in "school's".
will fix SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Last sentence of the section has a faulty hyphen. It should be changed to an en dash or em dash (with no spacing).
fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "His careful batting is thus reflected in his 22 centuries for England". Unneeded extra word.
fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "However, he was never vulnerable to one bowler in particular, Michael Holding being the most successful against him, dismissing him seven times, a statistic jointly held against Boycott by Gary Sobers and Dennis Lillee but with Holdin doing it in the fewest matches." Long, awkward run-on sentence.
fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Next sentence is similarly awkward: "Peter Lever also spent an entire evening discussing with Boycott his vulnerability when playing the hook stroke, with which he was to get out on more than one occasion, with Arlott describing as a "compulsive" employer of the stroke." Also doesn't say what Arlott is describing.
Removed the Arlott reference, though kept the cite as he mentions the Lever incident. SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • County career: Faulty hyphen in the fourth sentence.
fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Three straight sentences in the section start with He. There should be more variation in the writing.
Changed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I probably haven't spotted every problem in these sections, but what I did find shows that this isn't ready for featured status yet. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments about the section on playing style (skip those that are not actionable)

  • "Arlott wrote that "his technique is based on a defence organised as near flawlessness as may be."[23] "Given the choice between Racquel Welch and a hundred at Lord's, I'd take the hundred every time" he remarked in 1981"
The second line should perhaps say Boycott instead of he.
Done so SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Peter Lever also spent an entire evening discussing with Boycott his vulnerability when playing the hook stroke, with which he was to get out on more than one occasion,[29] with Arlott describing as a "compulsive" employer of the stroke.[30]
"spent a complete evening" etc is not relevant
fixed SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This line also stands out because every other line in the two paragraphs is about his defense, and this suddenly goes on to describe an attacking stroke.
  • "often bowling while wearing his cap turned back-to-front so he could see."

If the Guardian interview is the only source about the cap part, please remove this phrase. Especially as Boycott is wrong about himself. The match mentioned is Australia v England. From 4:15 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZzJmt4phk you can see Boycott bowling and taking two wickets and never has his cap turned backwards. The other 1979 WC videos available are

England v NZ at 2:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1owGKt3oFQ

England v WI at around 6:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W06F9jIjCIw&feature=related

and in none of them, his cap is turned the wrong way. Tintin 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have got other sources stating this, his biographer mentions it as well, I'll try to look into it and find the ref SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments2 That Guardian reference mentioned above (No.4) is now used for the friction with Trueman, Brearley etc, and for his parents. Neither of this is mentioned in the interview. For his stats, we should rather use a source like Cricinfo than this. I also have a complaint about Corridor of Uncertainty that I shall address seperately later. Tintin 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shall add other citations for the guardian one, and find cricinfo cites to back up the stats assertions. SGGH ping! 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have cricinfo ref'd the stats that were previously cited just by the newspaper ones, hope I haven't missed any. SGGH ping! 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by the nominator A lot more work has been done on the prose, more comments would be appreciated. SGGH ping! 10:36, 15 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [62].

DuPont Manual High School[edit]

Nominator(s): Chiliad22 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is essentially a joint nomination for myself and Khalfani khaldun (talk · contribs). This is a high school article, yes, but it's a school with 100+ years of history and what I think is a somewhat interesting story to tell, even if you've never heard of the school. A word about the pictures, they're all GPL so there's no licensing concern, but I'm not going to claim they're wonderful artistic shots. They're the best I could do and I think they do illustrate the things the article talks about. Lastly, I modelled some elements of this article such as layout, infobox and citation of the individual alums after Plano Senior High School, the only FA on a school like Manual. So before objecting on stylistic grounds, consider checking that article too. Chiliad22 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
  • Need to be consistent on the use or non use of p. and pp. as abbreviations for pages in the refs (current ref 16 has no p, most others have p or pp)
  • 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
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I fixed the first two. I only saw one abbreviation in the notes ("NFL") and I fixed that, let me know if there are others I'm missing. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the one I noticed. Looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not comprehensive - it is missing topics and some of what is mentioned is covered too vaguely:
  • Details about the building and campus should probably be covered in their own section. More details about the expansion of the school are needed: how much did the various expansions cost? Were there public debates about the necessity of the expansions? Were there problem and/or delays in the process?
  • I created a section and added some more info. I'll add the cost of the 1967 and 1971 expansions tomorrow when I can check the microfilm. The only thing approaching a delay was that the proposed name of the 1971 gym hit a snag because it was to be named after a former coach who was still alive, but naming facilities after living people was against school district rules. The board, however, voted an exception for Manual's new gym. I deemed that too trivial for inclusion in the article though... I couldn't imagine anyone but alums caring. There have been no major expansions since 1978, and the newspapers never reported that anyone objected to the earlier expansions. In 1968, when the razings began, historical preservation was still in its infancy and the vast majority of Americans just saw it purely as progress to raze a block of old houses to add new educational facilities. Nowadays there'd probably be protests, but it really wasn't a big deal 40 years ago. I'll re-read the stories tomorrow to make sure there wasn't any protest, but I don't recall anything of the sort being reported on. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have added costs for all projects since 1971. As for the new gym in 1971 and the athletic fields in 1967, I have looked at the newspaper stories of the era and they omit the cost. It's also not mentioned in the book on Manual's history, so I don't think either cost can be found at this point. As for public reaction to the plan that added athletic fields and built Noe and YPAS, all that could be added is the newspapers reported many parents and teachers in 1967 were pleased with the proposal because it promised to ease overcrowding. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Academics" section is written from the perspective of someone familiar with US high schools and needs to be explained in greater depth. For example:
  • In 1980, Standardized test scores ranked Manual 23rd out of the 24 high schools in the county. - What standardized tests?
  • There is no definition and explanation of what a "magnet school" is in the article.
  • Yes, there is... in the intro it says "Manual became a magnet school, allowing students from throughout the district to apply to five specialized programs of study, or magnets." Is there a way you think it could be written more clearly?
  • I would explain what those specialized programs were in addition to the fact that it is unusual for students from across a district to be able to attend. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Math/Science/Technology magnet offers accelerated courses in math, science and computer programming, and a communications magnet allows students to learn and work in radio, television and newspaper production. - What does "accelerated" mean? We need to give the readers some benchmarks - what do the students study? I'm left to guess.
  • I cited what sorts of courses students in that magnet are required to take. Hopefully that clarifies what they're studying. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is better, but it is my understanding that magnet schools have a far better curriculum than the average high school (hence their desirability), so I'm not sure that the article adequately conveys this yet. Are there any sources that compare the science courses at Manual with the science courses in the rest of the district, for example?

Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's kind of a misnomer that magnet schools have an inherently better curriculum. Maybe it was true for the early Magnet schools (including Manual) but in 2009 many schools call themselves magnet schools but they aren't particuarly good academically. Magnet simply means the students from throughout the district can apply for specialized "magnet" programs - the actual quality and academic intensity of a magnet school's classes could be lower than a traditional school, it varies widely. It could probably be sourced that Manual has better science scores and competition performance than any other school in the district and state, but there's been no study I know of showing this is because of the magnet program or its curriculum. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this should be explained in the article, then. If Manual used to have a better curriculum than the rest of the district, but now doesn't, that is important to note. Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Admission to these three magnet programs are decided based on academic merit. - What determines this merit? How well does one have to do?
  • Standards vary based on the number of applicants in any given year, there's no real score a student has to get to get into Manual. I tried to clear this up in the article, and have reformatted the paragraphs so there's a paragraph just about admissions in the "academics" section. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is unclear to me exactly what students learn in the performing arts school - do they only take arts classes? Do they take a combination of arts and academic classes? What kinds of arts classes are available? Are the classes taught by artists-in-residence?
  • I explained what they can study at YPAS. The article explained they take academic classes students too, but I've made it more clear. The classes are taught by public school teachers who specialize in the arts.
  • To see their actual job description, read this. I was having a hard time figuring out how to explain this without descending into district policy mumbo jumbo, but I've added something. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is not really the right source, is it? It doesn't really describe who is doing the actual teaching now. Is there anything better? Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is nothing in the article about the school's budget or its relationship with the local school board.
  • There really is nothing unique about Manual's budget or its relationship with the school board, so it's not reported on by newspapers or written about in books. The school district gives it a certain number of teachers, custodial workers, etc. with the same salaries and funding as every other school in the district, the principal works at the discretion of the school board. Other than saying Manual is a part of Jefferson County Public Schools and budgeted the same way any other JCPS high school is, there's really nothing to say about its budget. It would probably original research to do even that much, you'd have to cite primary documents from the school district. There just aren't newspaper articles written about the school budget ever, unless some sort of irregularity is suspected I guess, but that's never happened with Manual. Note that FAs on colleges, such as Dartmouth College and Duke University, don't have budget info... and with those colleges that info probably actually exists out there in secondary sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those college articles should discuss the budget, too. I'm surprised that there aren't any newspaper articles about the budget. Usually, for example, when the budget gets cut, there are articles about that. Are you absolutely sure there is nothing? Even if there are no newspaper sources, it is acceptable to cite a primary source to cite something as uncontroversial as the total budget for the school. We need to know the ballpark figure of how much it takes to run the school. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are articles about the district-wide budget, but there are hundreds of schools in this district. I've searched for every news story about Manual in the past 10 years that uses the word "budget" and none give the dollar budget for the school. There also probably isn't really even an official school budget as you're thinking of it; the district, not the school, pays all the teachers regardless of where they teach, and they're paid on a predetermined scale based on degrees earned and seniority, and there's also a similar scale for non-teachers. Payroll is seperate of individual high schools, it's not like Manual's principle is sitting there each year figuring out how many raises she can fit into the budget, it's all done at the district level and the budget of individual schools isn't really considered. Note that Stuyvesant High School, another FA, also doesn't discuss the budget. As no other similar FAs discuss budget, I don't think this is a fair standard to hold this article to, especially considering a conventional budget for the school probably doesn't exist and would have to be extrapolated based on district accounting reports, which I consider to be original research. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Usually districts know how much it takes to run a school - it is how they decide to shut down a school, for example. However if you cannot find anything, you cannot find anything. Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Besides athletics, what other kinds of extracurricular activities are there? Is there a newspaper? Drama club? Music of any kind? Radio or TV station?
  • I've added more information about music. It's not an extracurricular but rather students actually get class credit for it. The TV and newspaper are covered in the academics section as those to are part of the curriculum. Academic club performance is covered in the "academics" section. I don't really think the other extracurricular activities are particularly encyclopedic or interesting to readers... most schools have glee clubs, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, et al. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Extracurricular activities are usually a large part of high schools, as students dedicate hours to them every week. We need to cover these in a little more depth. The only reason not to cover them is because they are not a part of this high school, but that doesn't seem to be case. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 9 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [63].

Idries Shah[edit]

Nominator(s): Jayen466 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I've had encouraging feedback on the article and believe it satisfies the FA criteria. The article passed a GA review six months ago and has been stable since then. Jayen466 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • File:Idries_Shah.gif needs a source, the quoted text need licence information Fasach Nua (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What is the way to address this? Please expand. Jayen466 07:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I believe the image is owned by the Estate of Idries Shah. One of our editors has in the past been in touch with the estate's administrator, and has kindly offered to write to them, if needed, to obtain the necessary permissions. If this is a way forward, please advise the wording OTRS would require, so we can take the appropriate steps and get this right first time. Jayen466 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've had an e-mail forwarded to me from the administrator of Shah's estate; the image's copyright is apparently held by the estate, and they give permission for us to use the texts we quote. The e-mail is informal; if a particular wording is required, please advise. Jayen466 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: image, I am not exactly sure how you should write up the image description, but you might ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Alternatively, you might impose on User:Awadewit -- she gave me a very helpful image review a little while ago. ~ You might also try, if you haven't already, leaving a message on Fasach Nua's talk page, but FN has a history of simply deleting all requests for clarification without further response. Ricardiana (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment In references, "pp" refers to multiple pages while "p" only refers to one. Many references in the article have two "p"s for one page. You should fix this. One can go about this by going to the "Cite book" templates and removing the "s" at the end of "pages". This will cause the reference to appear with only one "p". Mm40 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Citation template converted to cite news format.
    • Bracelin ref dropped. It did not support any textual content. Jayen466 06:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The book was published in 1964, and the Washington Post online archive does not go that far back. I guess that without a publication date, even sitting in a US library it would be difficult to locate the article. If someone can do so, great; for now, I have deleted the quote. Jayen466 07:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - First of all, thank you for an interesting article. I read Shah's Darkest England and some of his Nasrudin tales some years ago, with enjoyment, and it was a pleasure to find out more about Shah.
  • That said, I had some comments, mainly about sources. The end of the "Recognition" section repeatedly cites the same pages of the same source, that seems awkward to me, as if you're summarizing those pages of that source, rather than synthesising material into an encyclopedia article. The related "Legacy" section suffers from a different, but similar problem: it's just rather short. In both cases, I think that more sources would be helpful; I found a number of book reviews and other articles in JSTOR that could be very helpful in rounding out the discussion of how Shah has been perceived. If you can't access JSTOR, let me know and I will try to get the articles to you. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* One other thing - I notice that the disambig link finder above finds about half-a-dozen ambiguous links. You should fix all those. Ricardiana (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thanks! I think I know what you mean; that section was written earlier, when the overall structure of the article was not established yet, and it still doesn't quite fit smoothly into the structure. It also repeats a couple of points already made earlier.
    • I can't access JSTOR, so I would indeed be very grateful for any additional sources. I have e-mail enabled.
    • Thanks for pointing out the ambiguous links. I'll look into that as well. Jayen466 20:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Ambiguous links fixed, except for khalifa; I guess the link we have is the best there is. If not, we'll have to delink it altogether. Jayen466 20:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. A great start, but the prose is rough. I suggest getting an uninvolved copyeditor to go through it. Lots of work needed on consistency and general grammar. Some examples just from the lead and first sections:
    • "mid-1950s"
    • "he founded a publishing house ... publishing" Revise to avoid this repetition.
    • "His most seminal work" Hmm.. something is seminal or not. There aren't really degrees. Suggest "One of his seminal works" or "His seminal work"
    • I see a mixture of British and American English.. we need consistency.
    • "His role in the controversy ... came in for particular scrutiny." How does a role "come in"?
    • "But he also had many notable defenders, chief among them the novelist Doris Lessing." Grammar.
    • The use of tense when discussing his written works needs review and revision. Shah wrote things (past tense) but the books discuss things (present tense). So, "The book chronicled the impact Sufism had made ..." is incorrect.
--Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say that was grounds for opposition. Jayen has a good track record for getting things fixed at short notice. Esowteric (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article not meeting criterion 1a isn't grounds for opposition? How so? --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"But he also had many notable defenders, chief among them the novelist Doris Lessing." While this is possibly a slightly old-fashioned sentence construction, it is not ungrammatical. Ricardiana (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps not ungrammatical, but certainly ungainly and a loose sentence. It's changed anyway, so I guess it's a moot point. --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
  1. The "mid 1950s" was a good catch -- another editor slipped that in and I never noticed.
  2. publishing x2 -- revised
  3. "Most seminal work" is okay -- here are half a dozen matches from Oxford University Press [64], plus several hundred general matches in google books [65]
  4. I had used British spelling throughout, but with -ize- in verbs like "organize". This is an accepted secondary form in British English. However, I have now standardised everything to -ise-. If there is anything else, please advise.
  5. "came in for particular scrutiny" is okay – perhaps we are divided by a common language. ;) Matches in google books: [66]
  6. "chief among them" is okay, see [67][68]
  7. I am not sure I agree that when we describe the content of a book published nearly 50 years ago, and its reception at the time, that we have to do so in the present tense. Cf. [69] Could you give me some more background, or a link to some style guides?
I'll have another look over the text to make things smoother where needed. Mattisse (talk · contribs) has been over it twice, though, once just recently, and judged the prose "very good" at the GA. The text hasn't changed much since then, though like I said, there have been some edits to the lede. Do let me know if anything else sticks out. Cheers, Jayen466 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pesky Google Books, always proving me wrong. As for the tense, it may be a subjective matter. If consensus is that past tense is okay, I'll drop it. I am of the opinion that written material exists in perpetual present tense. If I pick up a copy of his book today, it "chronicles". --Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ricardiana changed the tense in that sentence, and actually, looking at it now, it is an improvement. Jayen466 19:56, 14 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [70].

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield[edit]

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is FA-worthy, of course. This line has always confused me a bit. Anyway, there you go. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: some tweaks suggested: This is a most impressive article, and the following very minor comments are offered in support of its elevation. I shall have to have several goes at this, as there is a lot to get through. Here are my first gleanings:

  • "William Murray was born on 2 March 1705, at Scone Palace in Perthshire, Scotland, to David Murray, the 5th Viscount of Stormont and his wife" – we learn later that he had an elder brother, but it would be helpful to have it stated here whether he was second, third etc son.
  • "James knew the Dean Francis Atterbury" – comma after Dean, perhaps?
  • "having scored higher in the examination than any other King's Scholar" – in that year or ever?
  • "difficult for a young barrister build a reputation" – to build, presumably
  • "and traveled to London to train as a barrister" – is this article to be in US spelling?
  • "the first Scot to practice at the English Bar" – also US spelling, so presumably yes to the above – need to ensure it is consistently US, then. Shall keep an eye out for that as I go through.
  • "to have eaten five "dinners" a term at Lincoln's Inn" – why the quotes?
  • "However the House of Lords" – comma needed after "however"
  • "The Attorney General Dudley Ryder" – comma
  • "and promised to freely allow him" – cumbersome phrasing – perhaps drop the adverb?
  • "there is no evidence of him performing anything" – gerund required here – "his" rather than "him"
  • "Every day that court was in session" – ambiguous – suggest "the" instead of the "that"
  • "all barristers were invited to submit motions in order of seniority" – the seniority refers to the barristers rather than the motions, but this is ambiguous.
  • "At the time it was also traditional for all judgements to be reserved" – as a layman I say this diffidently, but I understand that the technical spelling for the pronouncements of the court is "judgments", not "judgements", though the latter can be used in the wider, non-legal context. But quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Worth checking, though, I suggest.
  • "massive inconsistencies between English law and the law of other nations made business very difficult" – could lose "massive" and "very".
  • "Carter v Boehm" – the latter is later referred to as Boem. Need to make them consistent.
  • " against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy" – another gerund needed – "the fort's"
  • "testified that Mr Carter" – he is plain Carter above and below. Drop the Mr?

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again Tim; thanks for your comments here, and again for those at the Denning peer review. Sorry about the mixed spelling; must have been a typo I missed. You are of course quite right about judgment/judgement; I knew it, but it is something that keeps tripping me up. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Note that the FA criteria state an article should be "well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". This article is based almost entirely on a single book - Heward's biography. Lord Mansfield is towering figure in eighteenth-century legal history and information about him is available in a wide-variety of books and journal articles. We cannot just present Heward's view here. Here are some the sources listed for the "Lord Mansfield" entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

G. Adams, ‘Dido Elizabeth Belle, a black girl at Kenwood’, Camden History Review, 12 (1984), 10–14 · J. H. Baker, An introduction to English legal history, 3rd edn (1990) · J. H. Baker, The legal profession and the common law: historical essays (1986) · D. B. Davis, The problem of slavery in the age of revolution, 1770–1823 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1975) · D. Duman, The judicial bench in England, 1727–1875 (1982) · E. Fiddes, ‘Lord Mansfield and the Somerset case’, Law Quarterly Review, 50 (1934), 499–511 · R. Gore-Browne, Chancellor Thurlow: the life and times of an eighteenth century lawyer (1953) · H. G. Graham, The social life of Scotland in the eighteenth century, 4th edn (1950) · P. Hamburger, ‘The development of the law of seditious libel and the control of the press’, Stanford Law Review, 37 (1985), 661–765 · A. Hamilton, The infamous ‘Essay on woman’, or, John Wilkes seated between vice and virtue (1972) · E. Heward, Lord Mansfield (1979) · J. Oldham, The Mansfield manuscripts and the growth of English law in the eighteenth century, 2 vols. (1992) · J. Oldham, ‘The work of Ryder and Murray as law officers of the crown’, Legal record and historical reality, ed. T. G. Watkin (1989), chap. 9, 157–73 · F. O. Shyllon, Black slaves in Britain (1974) · R. Stevens, Law and politics: the House of Lords as a judicial body, 1800–1976 (1978) · W. Wiecek, ‘Somerset: Lord Mansfield and the legitimacy of slavery in the Anglo-American world’, University of Chicago Law Review, 42 (1974), 86–146 · J. J. Sack, From Jacobite to Conservative: reaction and orthodoxy in Britain, c.1760–1832 (1993)

I hope this information is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Righto, well I've certainly got access to one of those at the university library. Journal articles are a bit more tricky, but I'll use westlaw and the sort to get some. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've put a lot more sources in; my thanks to Tim for helping find some of them. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I don't think you understand the huge amount of work that this article still needs to become an FA. Integrating new research takes weeks, if not months. Let's look at the Somerset decision section, for example. This is Mansfield's most famous decision, but you have only presented Heward's view of it. I know that there are differing interpretations of this case and its effect on the abolition cause and the law because I read about them for my PhD qualifying exams. The articles about this case that I listed above and the major books written about slavery and abolition are not represented in the article, thus the article does not present a "representative survey of relevant literature on the topic" - it is not even a basic survey at this point. The information you have added is simply tacked on to different sections of the article. You need to take time to read much more material and determine, for example, what the mainstream view of scholars is on the Somerset case. After you have read all of this material, you need to recraft sections of the article to reflect the research you have done. This will require a lot of work, as entire sections may have to be rewritten. One cannot undertake massive research and revision such as this at FAC. If you need help obtaining journal articles, I can help with that - I have access to a lot of subscription databases like JSTOR. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That would certainly be appreciated. Extended discussion on Somersett's Case is probably something for that article, but if you have some stuff specific to Mansfield's role in it then I'd be grateful indeed. I know exactly how much effort needs to be put into an FA, having written one myself in the past. Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you have missed my point about Somersett's Case - I'm not asking for a larger discussion. I'm pointing out that this article has one particular view (Heward's), when there are other important scholarly views available. Thus, to be NPOV and comprehensive, the section needs to be rewritten to reflect these other views. To be clear, I'm just offering to get you sources (you seemed to indicate you might have trouble accessing some sources), but I'm not going to do the research for you (I already pointed you to some essential articles and books above). Let me know what you need and I can email it to you. (By the way, I see that your previous FA suffers from the same problem as this one: over-reliance on one source.) Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The previous FA uses as many varied sources as I can; Hyde's biography is virtually the only thing that looks at him. Anyway, yeah; I wasn't asking you to do the research for me, but any sources you can find and email me would be excellent. Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've revisited this article. However, I see that only a cursory effort has been made to address my concern - for example, material has bascially only been added to the Somersett's Case section from one article. As I have explained before, what needs to happen is that the entire section is rewritten after intensive research is done to determine just what the majority view is. I have listed above the books used the DNB to create their entry on Mansfield, which includes some of the most important works on abolition and slavery, the history of jurisprudence, etc. I still think that the research underpinning this article is superficial, as we can see when we compare it to the DNB. Most of the best biographical FAs we have on Wikipedia go significantly beyond the DNB research, by the way.Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Very well. I've put the most effort into the Somerset's Case section because that's the one you particularly highlighted. I've exhausted most of the sources at my disposal, and since the way I do my "research" doesn't seem to be good enough I am, with respect, going to ignore your oppose from this point onwards. Nothing I can do is likely to be good enough, and evidently you're the only person here who holds that there are significant problems with the article. Thank you for your comments, but if there's nothing I can effectively do to change your mind ("do research. No, that research isn't good enough, look at Somerset's Case. No, that research STILL isn't good enough - you've only focused on Somerset's case") then I'm going to concentrate on doable concerns from now on. I don't necessarily have the leading texts on jurisprudence and abolition, I'm not a professional writer for the DNB, and I have no way of correcting either of those points without massive expenditure (in both money and time) in the middle of exam season. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I gave the Somersett case as an example (as I stated from the beginning). You are welcome to ignore my oppose, but it is entirely valid (it addresses 1c). You can overcome it by doing thorough research, which does indeed take "massive" amounts of time for an article as significant as this one. That you don't personally own the books necessary is irrelevant - you can go to the library and read them. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Comments. While I am inclined to support, I have a few comments:
    1. The first paragraph in 'Member of Parliament' section says that he was appointed a Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge, but says nothing about his appointment as Solicitor General (while implying that he was appointed to latter position). As I understand the membership in Parliament was a prerequisite for the appointment as Solicitor General, however, it still should be written explicitly that he became Solicitor General after he was made a member of Parliament.
    2. Murray failed to make this clear in his judgment, meaning that it read that Consideration was not required for any contract. Can you clarify this sentence, because I do not understand what it means.
    3. Almon's case was heard at Westminster Hall by Murray and a special jury on 2 June 1770, and he was found guilty. Does this mean that the composition of jury (special!) was different from two other trials?
    4. Woodfall was tried on 13 June 1770, by Murray, who held that the language used was libellous. What do you mean by "tried" here? Woodfall was tried by a jury who acquitted him. Was it kind of a two stage trial?
    5. As a result of these two trials, it became clear that no jury would convict a printer, leaving Junius free to continue sending his letters. But one printer—John Almon was still convicted.
    6. 'Abolition of slavery' is a bad title for this subsection. Murray did not abolish slavery after all; Somersett's case article is more nuanced actually. I think the lead should also be clarified in this respect.
    7. I suggest merging 'Resignation' subsection into 'Retirement' section, they are closely related to each other.
    8. Murray had been made Earl of Mansfield in the County of Nottingham on 31 October 1776 and this allowed him to sit in the House of Lords regardless of his position in the government. As I understand form this sentence, the peerage, he was granted when appointed Lord Chief Justice, did not allow him to sit in the House of Lords?
    9. I find it strange that the last section does not mention Somersett's case, which probably was the greatest accomplishment of him.
  • Ruslik (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your points. I'm afraid I don't understand how you want me to clarify the lead, or how you interpreted "Murray had been made...". It might just be me being thick; could you clarify? I'll put some more stuff on Somersett's case into the last section in a tick.Ironholds (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I meant that the sentence in the lead: where he held that slavery was unlawful in England. should be modified to make it clear that, in fact, his judgment in Somersett's case was quite limited.
    In addition, by merging Resignation and Retirement sections I meant that the merged section should be called 'Retirement' and placed after 'House of Lords' section.
    I had no problem understanding ""Murray had been made...". I simply want you to clarify why his peerage (which he obtained before being appointed LCJ) did not allow him to sit in Lords.
    It would be good if you added something about Somersett's case into 'Legacy' section, since this is his most important legacy. Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yup, I'll do all that tomorrow. I'm not quite sure how to clarify it; perhaps just make clear that it is "not done" for judges to vote in the Lords? Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okey-dokes, I've done everything but the "legacy" section; I'm not too happy with the structure of the rewritten lede, so if you have any suggestions I'd be more than grateful (ditto with the "murray had been made.." bit). I'll get onto the legacy section this afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The section about Lords says: he was only really allowed to take up his place in the House of Lords after he had resigned as Lord Chief Justice. He resigned in 1788. However, the next sentence says: He regularly attended the Lords, and the last record of him attending was of 23 March 1784. The latter date is before his resignation. There is a contradiction here. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry; essentially the time in the Lords was when he was Speaker in 83-4. I'm getting conflicting sources at the mo on when he left, though; the Heward book said he left in 1783, the ODNB said he left in 1784, which would line up with his time in the Lords quite nicely. Suggestions? Sorry to land all this on you. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry for the delay; I've got another biography coming up from London on monday-tuesday which will hopefully clear this up. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Right, I've got the book, I'm just writing bits in now. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've significantly expanded the article, put more research into Somersett's case and worked out the date problem (March 1784 was the state opening of the new Parliament, which he would, as LCJ, have been required to attend). Hope this is enough. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suggest moving the last paragraph in the Somersett's case to the Legacy section. Ruslik (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair does, will do that now. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And done. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I enjoyed reading the page. Although Awadewit was correct to point out the research, I tend to interpret it based on not giving too much weight to opinion or speculative based, and to try and include a wide range of ideas. The one source that is used heavily appears to be used in a neutral manner and forms a base, while there are many other works that are used that fill out details and the rest. I tend to be more of a stickler for this when the page is biased in one direction or too small. I do not feel as if this page is either of those two. Thus, I am supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I didn't know much about Mansfield, but like Awa, I do know a bit about Somersett's case, which I agree is not well enough covered (the background and results rather than the proceedings of the case itself). His other slavery case Regina v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton (1785) might usefully be mentioned too - it helps to show the unclear situation Somersett left. His house in town was famously attacked and I think more or less sacked by the mob in the Gordon Riots, which is not mentioned at all that I can see. Kenwood House pops up unannounced when he is retired; his ownership and remodelling of it during more than three decades before retirement should be mentioned earlier. Most of the article looks fine, but when there are lapses in areas one has some knowledge of, it reduces one's confidence about the rest. Many or most slaves in England at the time were paid in some way; payment does not demonstrate a free condition. Did he "cling to power", or to office? The latter I think.Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm, I won't really have access to my main sources again until 2 June. Do you think it is worth withdrawing this and resubmitting then, or shall I just let it potter along until then so I can address other concerns that come up? Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 13 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [71].

Ralph Bakshi[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The content of the article has been significantly improved since its last FAC and it has undergone a peer review. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images all fine, however I would prefer File:US_patent_1242674_figure_3.png on a more free licence Fasach Nua (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question:Why is his name Bakshi? Does he have an Indian lineage? Nothing about his parents is mentioned in the article. --59.182.66.154 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Bakshi is Jewish. I think that comes across as being pretty clear in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Tech. Review

Comment A very well structured and researched article. It's largely well written too--I'm sure this can get to FA status--but there are still some serious copyediting issues here. Here's just two from the first 15% of the article:

  • Lead section--"Bakshi then simultaneously directed a number of animated films, and is perhaps best-known for his fantasy work: Wizards, The Lord of the Rings in 1978 and Fire and Ice in 1983." Aside from the glaring fact that three movies are named, but only two release years given, there's this confusing phrase: "simultaneously directed a number of animated films". Which films--the ones mentioned later in the sentence? And others? What's the total number? If the sentence as a whole is to make any sense, he must have directed at least Wizards, The Lord of the Rings, and Fire and Ice simultaneously. Did he really? And if he really did, then just state so clearly.
    • That is a mistake made by a copyeditor. The "simultaneously" part refers to Heavy Traffic, Coonskin and Hey Good Lookin'. I removed the word. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • "Early life and television work" section--"With American involvement in the Vietnam War at its peak and the political climate of the United States on the rise..." Oy (or is it Ai ai ai?)--"The political climate of the United States on the rise..."

These are the sort of things that go beyond the kind of little copyedit tweaking I could dive in and do right now. I wish I had the time to go over these things with the focus they need, but I don't at the moment. You either need to give the whole article a rigorous re-read for these and other problems, or enlist a copyeditor who can really commit themselves to working with you on it. Good luck! I'll check back in a few days.DocKino (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I further edited that sentence in the lead. What you had essentially said, "Bakshi made his debut feature film.... [He] then directed a number of animated films." Very awkward flow. If you want to change it further from what I've done, that's fine.

Again, I think there's the makings of a strong article here, but a lot of work remains to be done, and it doesn't look like it's happening. Just staying, again, near the beginning of the article:

  • In the lead section, we have this: "[Bakshi] is perhaps best-known for his fantasy work [including] Fire and Ice in 1983. His directorial career declined after the 1981 release American Pop". Yes, it's technically possible to make one of your best-known works after your career declines, but this is awkward and confusing. Needs to be taken apart and recast.
  • In "Early life and television work", we find out he directed four shorts for Paramount in 1967: The Mini-Squirts, The Fuz, Marvin Digs and Mouse Trek. (In an awkward chronological structure, this comes a paragraph after a quote from 1971.) So what were these films like? Did they represent his break from the "kind of animation" he'd done in the past, or not? The chronological structure seems to imply they did; the titles seem to suggest they didn't. We need some historical description to clarify the matter.
  • Not in "Early life and television work": any mention of all the Terrytoons shorts directed by Bakshi and released in the early 1970s that one finds on IMDb. Check out these titles: The Ghost Monster, The Drifter, The Proton Pulsator, The Shocker, The Enlarger, The Duster, The Big Freeze. According to your chronology, he must have done all these for Terrytoons no later than 1966. Is that right? They sure don't sound like they starred Mighty Mouse, Heckle and Jeckle, Deputy Dawg, or Foofle. What are these films like? Why (assuming your career chronology is correct) did they sit around for half a decade or more before they were released?

A suggestion: I see that there's just one citation of Gibson and McDonnell's Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. It looks like some more time would be well spent with this book. Doing a Google Book Search, I can see there's a variety of books that describe the films mentioned above, though often not with full page views--a library trip may be in order. And have you made an attempt to recruit a copyeditor?DocKino (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Given the latest response by the nominator, I have no choice but to oppose. The nominator claims that "no verifiable information can be found" on the short films directed by Bakshi that were released in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is false. I have already noted that a Google Book Search indicates that verifiable information is available on these films. The nominator also seems uninterested in accessing the major published text devoted to Bakshi's career. It is clear that FA-level research has not yet gone in to this article and, unfortunately, it now seems clear that there is no current intention to do the necessary work.DocKino (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Those "films" you mention are actually episodes of the TV series The Mighty Heroes. All of the significant, verifiable information is presented here. Secondly, Unfiltered is an art book. There is very little information that could be culled from the source that hasn't already been provided from other sources. Your attitude is perplexing. This article has been extensively researched. There's no further work that needs to be done. It should have been listed as a FA three nominations ago. (21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
  • We're still left with this passage: "In 1967, Bakshi became head of the animation division of Paramount Pictures. Because of the political climate in the United States during this period, Bakshi felt that he could no longer continue to produce the same kind of animation as he had in the past." This description is supported by a following statement of Bakshi's, dated 1971. The result is confusing and unclear. Does Bakshi's work at Paramount reflect his feeling "that he could no longer continue to produce the same kind of animation as he had in the past"? Or is the work he produced at the studio along the same lines as the "kind of animation" he'd done "in the past" (and he left the studio partly as a consequence of his response to the political climate)? The matter needs to be clarified, and there are sources out there that appear to describe the work he did at Paramount that have not been accessed.DocKino (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And here's something else (we're still in the very early part of the article): Lead section says, "Bakshi moved to Famous Studios in 1967". "Early life and television work" subsection says, "In 1967, Bakshi became head of the animation division of Paramount Pictures". Please reconcile and/or clarify the terminology here.DocKino (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also in the "Early life and television work" subsection, what does "producing animation his own way" mean? Please explicate or eliminate.DocKino (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And the subsection ends with more confusion: "With producer Steve Krantz, Bakshi worked on a number of low budget television series, such as Rocket Robin Hood, which aired from 1966 to 1969, and Spider-Man, which aired from 1967 to 1970." This passage comes after the one in which you establish that he founded Ralph's Spot in 1969. So was he working on these two series with Krantz even before he founded Ralph's Spot (in which case they need to be introduced before Ralph's Spot)? Or did he begin work on these series only once Ralph's Spot had been organized (in which case the earlier run dates of the series need to be referred to in some other way)? Again, the answer is, at present, entirely unclear. You say you "requested and received multiple copyedits". That may be so, but they missed a lot.DocKino (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better. Still a couple discrepancies between lead and main text to be dealt with--the first having to do with nomenclature, the second with dating:
  • Lead: "Bakshi moved to Famous Studios in 1967".
  • Main: "In 1967, Bakshi became head of the animation division of Paramount Pictures." [The link on "animation division" is insufficient to address the confusion readers are apt to experience. How about: "In 1967, Bakshi became head of Famous Studios, the animation division of Paramount Pictures." But there's another concern here: our article on Famous Studios indicates that its name had changed by 1967, so that by the time Bakshi joined it, it was called Paramount Cartoon Studios. Please verify the nomenclature and edit accordingly.]
  • Lead: "Through producer Steve Krantz, Bakshi made his debut feature film, Fritz the Cat, in 1972."
  • Main: "In 1971, Krantz produced Bakshi's first feature film, based on Robert Crumb's successful underground comic book Fritz the Cat."
Also, this passage needs a bit more cleanup: "In 1969, Bakshi founded his own studio, Ralph's Spot, establishing it as an alternative to mainstream animation houses and accelerating the advancement of female and minority animators. He also paid his employees a higher salary than any other studio at that time." Was Ralph's Spot "establish[ed]...as an alternative" in some way other than in the mentioned employment practices--that is in, say, visual style or subject matter? If so, please describe and cite. If not, recast something like this: "In 1969, Bakshi founded his own studio, Ralph's Spot, establishing it as an alternative to mainstream animation houses: he paid his employees a higher salary than any other studio at that time and accelerated the advancement of female and minority animators."DocKino (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid it's not done. I asked, if there was a basis for stating the Ralph's Spot was founded to pursue alternative visual styles and subject matter, that a citation be provided. The source cited at the end of the sentence supports the claims about Bakshi's employment practices, but not these "alternative" style and content claims. In addition, the language you use to discuss those employment practices is too close to the language of the original source:

  • Article: "...accelerating the advancement of female and minority animators. He also paid his employees a higher salary than any other studio at that time."
  • Source: "he accelerated advancement of women and minority animators...and his company always paid better than any other studio at that time."

Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then go through the article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely.

You'll note I added the release date for Fritz the Cat--if we're going to refer to it as a 1972 film in the lead section, then 1972 has to appear with it at some point in the main text. I used the Michael Barrier article. Reading that article, we find some interesting facts, a couple of which contradict what appears in our Wikipedia article:

  • The description of one of the shorts Bakshi did at Paramount, Marvin Digs, might be worth dealing with. ([72])
  • Bakshi worked on Rocket Robin Hood even before founding Ralph's Spot. ([73])
  • Animation began on Fritz the Cat in June 1970, not 1971. ([74])

The claim that Fritz the Cat was "the first independent animated film to gross more than US$100 million at the box office" needs to be reworked. Professional discussions of the box office grosses of American films generally begin with their domestic grosses before moving on their worldwide grosses. When left unstated, the general assumption is that a box office figure is domestic. This figure, however, can only be worldwide and even then it is questionable (yes, the source is Variety, but it's a passing sentence in an obituary). Here are some other sources:

Ultimately, I think the claim about its worldwide gross needs to be both clarified and moderated. It also needs to be made clear that while, yes, the film was surprisingly successful on initial release, it made its very impressive money over the long haul.DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I reworked parts of the article, and added the mentions of his films at Paramount. The Variety article doesn't refer to the gross as being worldwide. It states that the film was the first independent animated film to gross more than $100 million. The reason that Variety is believed to have the most accurate figure here is because it is a major industry publication, while these other figures are given by scattered publications by authors whose research might not have been extensive or accurate. Variety has better access to the actual figures than Cohen, Lenburg, the Chorons or Moore. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
No way. You can't simply cite an obituary of the producer and ignore multiple published sources that shed a different light on the box office figure. The article at present leaves the impression that Fritz the Cat made over $100 million at the American box office. If it had, that would have made it the second-biggest film of 1972 (behind only The Godfather) and bigger than any film released in 1971. That's simply incredible for a film whose distribution and potential audience were limited to theaters that would show a film with an X rating. Take a look at this promo for the film that reproduces the Variety page giving the grosses for the week ending June 7, 1972, when the film hit #2 on the charts: since its release in April, it had made a total of $1.8 million at the domestic box office. And you want us to swallow a single obituary as a source for it clearing $100 million? If you put such faith in Variety, how about you do some real research, go to the library, and examine the actual box office charts for 1972/73.
Okay, done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
You have requested in personal communication that I retract my opposition to this article's promotion. Why in the world would I do that? I have identified a host of errors, gaps, and confusions in the article over the past ten days and have barely gotten through a fifth of it so far. You have claimed, "There's no further work that needs to be done", when--despite all the fine effort you've put in--in fact it is abundantly clear that a lot of work remains to be done. On May 2, I made the following suggestion: "You either need to give the whole article a rigorous re-read for these and other problems, or enlist a copyeditor who can really commit themselves to working with you on it." You have quite plainly failed to do either. I'm exhausted. You have two reasonable avenues right now: (1) Withdraw this nomination and don't nominate the article again until it is up to snuff, or (2) <<deep breath>> Enlist a copyeditor who can really commit themselves to working with you on it. If you choose the former avenue, of course, our work on this page is done for the time being. If you choose the latter avenue, I am happy to revisit this article at the end of the week. For the moment, since you have so far chosen not to take the necessary major step to address the article's evident weaknesses, I have no intention of devoting any more of my time to it. If you do choose to enlist a dedicated copyeditor, please have that person communicate with me directly after they've worked through the entire article with you and I'll return here.DocKino (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I have addressed the biggest issues, which were really minor. The article doesn't need any more work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. After careful review of the article (not for the first time), I concur with DocKino's assessment. The unfortunate pattern that has emerged here is paying lip service to reviewer concerns while vehemently disagreeing that any serious work needs to be completed. However, it has been demonstrated over the course of many, many nominations that more than surface fixes are needed. Suggest withdrawal to work with editors who are serious about thorough copyediting and examination of the research. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, the real pattern here is that reviewers like you take no effort in assessing the article, and even though the article is clearly up to snuff, you continue regurgitating the same assessment that was wrong the last time. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
This type of comment is inappropriate, and I strongly encourage you to strike it. While nominators are not required to act on all objections, they are expected to act in a calm and civil manner, without resorting to personalizing the issues. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm sorry but the prose is far from FA standard; there is redundancy and lack of logical flow. In my view, the article requires extensive third-party copy-editing. Of more concern, I am not convinced that the sources verify some of the points made. Please do not shoot the messenger.Graham Colm Talk 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have reviewed and re-reviewed the sources over and over again. Everything is properly verified. There have been several copyedits. Maybe you should try working on the prose yourself? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Thank you for your kind offer, but I have to ration my time here, and my priorities are virology articles, FAC reviews and admin duties. Graham Colm Talk 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is my opinion that you probably should not have commented on the prose if you didn't have the time to look at it yourself and fix the problems that you see. Another editor would not see the same problems you see, and it is likely that even after several copyedits, the specific elements of the article that you perceive to be flawed would still remain. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
You are doing your cause no favours with this beligerent attitude Ibaranoff. The prose is clearly not up to the standard required of an FA, and you would be well advised to take the advice that's been offered and find a good copyeditor to help. I will look at the article again once you think the current copyedit has been completed before giving my final opinion on this article. Right now though I would be opposing its promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to know why every editor that perceives any "attitude" on my part has a bit of attitude themselves? (By the way, there's a typo in your comment.) (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
"I would like to know why every editor that perceives any "attitude" on my part has a bit of attitude themselves?" Strange that, isn't it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I read the article and found it interesting. I didn't find any major issues with the prose. Pergamino (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I've just spent a sizeable amount of time going through the nitty gritty of the prose, grammar, punctuation etc on this article. I cannot see any significant problems which would inhibit its progress. I'm open to any more suggestions, however, please could we be specific. Cite a particular section or sentence and I'll be happy to correct it, but comments that just say "it needs copyediting" aren't helpful without specifics. HJMitchell You rang? 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking just at the "Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic" subsection:

  • "Fritz the Cat featured the voice work of Skip Hinnant, Rosetta LeNoire, John McCurry, Phil Seuling, and Judy Engles, and it was made using a number of experimental animated film production techniques that Bakshi would continue to use throughout his career, including live-action footage, photographs and documentary-style recording techniques." Major run-on. Uses both "use/using" and "techniques" twice--each repetition is readily avoidable. Several entirely unnecessary words.
  • "According to Variety, the film was the first independent animated feature to gross more than US$100 million worldwide." Sure, according to a single Variety obituary. See my earlier notes. Differing WP:V-standard sources have been completely ignored, even in footnote.
  • "Reviews of the film were largely positive." Yet, of five reviews quoted or summarized, two are positive, one is mixed at best, and two are described as "mixed". That's largely mixed. And did the film receive not a single negative review that might be referenced?
  • Repeated bad punctuation and callout placement: everyone."[5]; // audacious",[5]; // back-to-back[21],
  • "In 1973, Bakshi began production on Heavy Traffic, a personal tale of inner-city street life." OK, but "personal" could mean several things. It could mean he wrote the tale. It could mean it had a lot of personal meaning for him. It could mean it was autobiographical. it would be helpful to the reader to be a bit clearer and more specific here.
  • "The film incorporated many of Bakshi's trademark filmmaking techniques from his debut." Oof. "Trademark" is very arguable--he'd only made one feature film to date. "Trademark" and "from his debut" are redundant--one is sufficient to make the point. The whole sentence is redundant--you say, just two paragraphs above, that Fritz the Cat "was made using a number of experimental animated film production techniques that Bakshi would continue to use throughout his career."
  • "During the production of the film, Bakshi sparked an instant friendship with producer Albert S. Ruddy (via a screening of The Godfather)." The structure of this sentence--in the context of the preceding two sentences of the paragraph--suggests incorrectly that Ruddy was the producer of Heavy Traffic.
  • The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter each linked twice in same subsection.
  • "though it went on '...However, it is also an authentic...'" Use either "though" or the quoted "however"--not both.
  • "Thanks to Heavy Traffic, Ralph Bakshi became the first person in the animation industry since Walt Disney to have two financially successful films released back-to-back[21], despite the film being banned by the Film Censorship Board in the province of Alberta, Canada when it was originally released." Non sequitur. In 1973, the entire province of Alberta had a population about half that of the city of Chicago. It's hardly a shock that a film could be financially successful "despite" loss of access to such a small share of its potential market.

To the nominator: No more personal communications on this matter, please. I've got both the article and this discussion on my relatively small watchlist. I can see perfectly well what's going on. And what isn't.DocKino (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment I think DocKino's notes indicate that this needs more than a surface-level grammar audit, which is what it has received thus far. It appears that serious examination of content, flow, and cohesiveness is needed, as well as addressing the 1c concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 16 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [75].

Release the Stars[edit]

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it qualifies and I have improved the article based on suggestions made during a previous peer review and FA nomination. Unfortunately, I did not receive a lot of feedback during my last nomination, but I'd like to try again. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I can argue is that this chart mentions that statistics are archived at Chart Stats, though I am not sure who put this list together. However, this concern was raised during the last FA nomination session. Unfortunately, I cannot find another archive for UK Singles Chart positions that lists "Going to a Town", nor can I find the position verified by a newspaper article. Does this mean the statistic needs to be removed? Can any one offer any other suggestions for finding UK Singles Chart positions? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This book is probably your best bet. If I pass a bookshop over the weekend, I will endeavour to a) check that the position is actually correct and b) get you the page number etc so you can cite it to the book...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found the book, confirmed the chart position, changed the ref for you........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, thank you, thank you sooo much! Seriously, much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments
    • "released under Geffen Records" - is it a standard American usage to say that an album is released "under" a record label? It sounds very bizarre to me here in the UK, where we'd say "released on Geffen Records" but if it's a standard Americanism then I guess it would be OK per WP:ENGVAR
Done. Ah! I always write "under", as in under the umbrella of the DreamWorks label, even though it has been questioned several times with other articles I have edited. I have changed "under" to "through", and will try to remember to do so in the future.
    • "charted in 12 countries" =>"charted in twelve countries"
Done. I was under the impression numbers larger than 10 were to be written numerically. However, I have changed "12" to "twelve".
    • "his mother's (folk musician Kate McGarrigle) cancer diagnosis" - I realise it's technically correct, but the separation between "mother's" and "cancer" makes it read very strangely. Maybe something like "the cancer diagnosis received by his mother (folk musician Kate McGarrigle)" might be better, I dunno.....
Done.
    • "lasted on the chart for two weeks total" => "....two weeks in total"
Done.
    • "Claiming that he wrote the song in just five minutes, the political track....." - as it stands, the subject of the first clause grammatically is "the political track". As the track did not write itself, it needs to be changed to something like "The political track, which Wainwright claimed he wrote in just five minutes......"
Done. Thanks!
    • "While she conceded Release the Stars" => "While she conceded that Release the Stars"
Done.
    • Don't need to relink Sanssouci, Frederick the Great, etc in the "Reception" section as they were all linked previously
Done.
    • "Following is a table of 2007 "End of Year" list placements by various publications:" - sentence fragment, could do with being changed into a proper sentence
Done. Now reads: "The following table displays some of the 2007 "End of Year" list placements by various publications." If you can think of a better sentence, feel free to let me know.
Thanks so much for your time, suggestions, and assistance. Much appreciated, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All seems goos now, support (apologies for taking so long to revisit) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much! Feel free to let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - Non-free image meets WP:NFCC and the free image has a verifiable license and an adequate description. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments Support – Pretty good, I have some suggestions:
    • In section: Conception:
  • Remove the parentheses around "folk musician Kate McGarrigle"
I believe this is an example of apposition, but with the extra commas, I thought the sentence came across as a confusing run-on. Therefore, I felt parentheses were the most appropriate form of punctuation.
  • A citation is needed after "fueled his creative intensity in some kind of displaced attempt to get her well".
Citation is located at the end of the sentence. I did, however, change "fuelled" to "fueled", as either can be correct but the former is used more often by the British.
  • Marius de Vries, who produced both of Wainwright's previous albums (Want One and Want Two) offered his skills to Release the Stars, as did longtime band members Jeff Hill, Jack Petruzelli, and Matt Johnson. – offered his "skills"? I assume you mean experience or expertise?
Done. Changed to "expertise".
    • In section: Track listing:
  • Should be: All songs written by Wainwright on the album:
Done.

I look forward to supporting this article. ceranthor 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! I appreciate your suggestions and support. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "twelve countries"-->12 countries per WP:MOSNUM
Done. Had "12" originally, but was suggested to do otherwise above. Reverted to numerical form.
  • I think the "Songs" section could be renamed to "Styles and themes".
Done.
  • No citation for "Wal-Mart online bonus track".
There really isn't one for it. The song was available on Wal-Mart's site for download when the album was released, but it is no longer listed there (so cannot provide the link).
  • No need to link 18th century.
Done.
  • "Marius de Vries, who produced both of Wainwright's previous albums (Want One and Want Two)" Comma after here.
Done.
Done. Thanks so much for your help! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. The writing isn't bad, but the major problem for me is the over-abundance of quotations. I don't feel like I was reading a Wikipedian's writing so much as I was reading a patchwork of Wainwright's and others' words. Unless what someone said is so profound that it bears direct quoting, we need to paraphrase and write our own prose. The meat of this article consists of quotations that you've patched together with transitional prose. This won't work. I also feel there is a significant gap in research having to do with the actual music on the album. You've got a lot of information on the inspiration behind the songs, but what about the actual musical analysis?
I completely agree that I tend to over-quote. However, I think it's based more on my fear of plagiarism, so I often use direct quotes to describe songs, their inspirations, themes, and criticisms. If you see any instances where quotes can be paraphrased, feel free to re-word. It's a habit I am trying to work on, believe me. Can you further detail what you mean by a gap in research having to do with the "actual music" and its analysis, or direct me to a great example of this? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some other minor niggles:

    • MoS problems spotted—please check for logical punctuation in quotations. I fixed a couple but there are more.
Thank you for the corrections. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Revealed in January 2007, Wainwright declared the overall theme" Dangling modifier. Wainwright was not revealed, the theme was.
Changed to "Revealing the overall theme in January 2007, Wainwright declared the album was..." --Another Believer (Talk) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The following week (May 26)" I don't follow how May 26 is the "following week" after May 5.
I corrected this. Now contains right dates.
    • "'Going to a Town' was released as a single in digital format ..." This will mean little to a lot of readers. Why the wikilink and better explanation further down for UK?
    • "and is about the perspective 'someone has who looks at athletes, but who is not an athlete'." Is this quotation transcribed properly? It doesn't make sense.
Better? I hate to admit it, but Wainwright's speech and lyrics are often grammatically incorrect.
    • Three sentences about the Cover art and liner notes? If that's really all your research could bear, it doesn't need its own heading.
It's more that I wasn't sure where else to put it. Any suggestion?
    • "... and a winning act was chosen for each concert." Passive voice eliminates the subject. Who chose? If it was Wainwright, that is worth stating since they usually get a PR person to do something like that.
It's uncertain, though I'd imagine it was Wainwright's management team.
--Laser brain (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I was just re-reading the article, and that was the sense (over-quotation) that I got, leading to some instances where the tone is not quite what we're looking for. Example: ""Do I Disappoint You", the album's opener, "sees [Wainwright] present a withering defense of his own human frailties, while one orchestral battalion after another mount their attacks and Martha Wainwright summons 'CHAOS!' and 'DESTRUCTION!' like a marauding Fury"." This is an ideal example sentence that has a lot of fluff but doesn't really capture the essence of the songs or themes. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for information about paraphrasing. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Laser, thank you for your feedback and suggestions. I made some edits, and look forward to more feedback. I am willing to do what it takes to get the article to featured status. Dabomb, you've helped in many ways as well, with this and other articles I have put together. I would appreciate any help in improving the article. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response about overquoting, it cannot be the reviewers that do this work—you'll have to take some time to examine the prose and make revisions accordingly (or contact a copy editor). As I stated, anything that is not profoundly memorable or difficult to paraphrase should be paraphrased. If the speaker has poor grammar, as you acknowledge Wainwright does, that is all the more reason to paraphrase. On the topic of musical discussion and analysis, take a look at the Music heading of Loveless (album) for example. There, you have substantive research and discussion on the actual instrumentation and methodology of the songs. You may have to move into a library search of print sources. --Laser brain (talk) 18:19, 13 May 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 10:48, 16 May 2009 [76].

Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Minas Gerais was a ship that turned the world upside-down when Brazil ordered her. As such, there is a decent amount written on her at that time. However, later on in her life, her condition deteriorated and was not able to play an active role in anything. Hence the shorter paragraphs toward the end of her career. Thanks for all of your comments, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahoy there Ed, interesting read but " twelve 10 in (25 cm) guns in five twin turrets" - too many guns or would there have been a sixth turret? ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, good eye! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also "and its blockade of the mainland." I'm pretty sure that Britain was not blockading France or Italy in WW1 - you might want to review that bit. But I'm not sure whether the British policy of not carrying coffee was a general allied policy, or what happened with neutrals like Spain. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll take a look. I may have made a mistake in trying to summarize it too succinctly... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After looking at the source again, I've rewritten the beginning of the paragraph. This included the addition of "For one, Britain's import policy prohibited coffee, as the space on merchant ships could be used for more "essential items". In addition, coffee was placed on a blacklist, so every Brazilian shipment to any of the Central Powers was subject to search and seizure, and even shipments to neutrals was barred to ensure that no coffee would get through." Does this address your query? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, I'd be surprised if rubber wasn't also embargoed as my understanding was that even food was restricted. But if your sources don't cover that fair enough - its somewhat peripheral to this FA. ϢereSpielChequers 07:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be surprised as well, but I don't want to go hunting for a detail like that. ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Ed, Two more questions. The Cook or a Cook? I'd be surprised if a ship that size had only one. And if the 4.7" guns were reduced from 22 to 4 in 1921 what happened in the next ten years to result in them being increased from 12 to 14 a decade later? ϢereSpielChequers 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Minor comment "The war had only a small need for rubber" – really? As a key ingredient in everything from automobiles to uniforms to aircraft, I find this very hard to believe (a significant proportion of the Nazi research effort in WW2 went towards developing synthetic elastomers precisely because they were cut off from natural rubber supplies); if it really was the case, a statement this extraordinary definitely needs a reliable source. – iridescent 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This was brought up in the MILHIST A-class review. Remember that this was the First World War; automobiles and aircraft were in their infancy, and fabric rather than rubber was used to cover the wood of planes. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments Support - This review will take more than one sitting, so I'll begin a list of comments here and give a verdict when I'm done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*"Brazil entered the twentieth century as the third-largest South American naval power . . . Marshal Deodoro class and two cruisers." - Although size does not necessarily equal power, this part seems a little contradictory
  • "caused an influx of money into the Brazilian economy." - date?
  • and was supposed" - "and was intended"
  • Instead, all construction that had been done was torn down" - a bit inelegant. Perhaps "Instead, all exisiting construction was scrapped"
  • "After this was completed," - This what? Say it fully "Once the new plans were completed,"
  • "was formulated" - "drawn up" is the more usual term isn't it?
  • "Even though this meant that only two ships could be completed immediately" - why?
  • The above is good, but "plans went ahead." that follows it needs looking at, try "constuction went ahead.", or just remove the phrase "plans went ahead." and the "Although" that begins the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Apologies for how long it is taking me to get to these; schoolwork is stealing a lot my free time, which was quite unexpected. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "for this reason" - redundant
  • "Brazilian minister to Great Britain" - Is this his official title? Not "Ambassador to the United Kingdom"?
  • "Her first action" - "maiden voyage"?
  • "coupled with" - a bit picky, but coupled with means linking two things and you've linked at least three, try "combined with" instead.
  • "Many were sons of or former slaves who were forced to enter the navy; as they were barred from leaving the service before they served 15 years, "racial abuse and physical violence" was often seen in the navy." - Firstly, in what way were they "forced" into the Navy (and should Navy be capitalised or not?), secondly you repeat "navy" too much and do not provide a causal link between the long service and the abuse - how are they related?
  • (@ first comment) - exact quote from source: "Most sailors were ex-slaves, or the sons of slaves, who entered the navy against their will." ...so I have no idea. :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Its still not fully clear how the long service automatically led to the physical abuse.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "began earlier in 1910" - confusing tenses, try "began early in 1910"
  • "When the punishment was administered, the punishment did not cease" - repetition of punishment
  • "so they sped up their timetable and rebelled on 21 and 22 November." - inelegant, "who increased their preparations and rebelled earlier than anticipated, on 21 and 22 November.
  • Better? 'Although they were not ready and could not revolt at a moment's notice, the incident infuriated the mutineers, so they quickened their preparations and rebelled earlier than originally planned on 21 and 22 November." —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good, but a minor suggestion: "Although they were not ready and could not revolt immediately the incident infuriated the mutineers, who quickened their preparations and rebelled earlier than originally planned, on 21 and 22 November."--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take another look? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and keeping British engineers," - keeping them hostage?
  • "A major issue" - I'd suggest problem rather than issue, and state explicitly who is was a problem for.
  • "The government did give them" - use "issue" rather than "give them".
  • "that it was neutral and maintained this stance for most of the First World War, but it had crushing effects on Brazil's economy" - these don't seem to be cause and effect, which is how they are presented here. Try "that it was neutral, and maintained this stance for most of the First World War, which had crushing effects on Brazil's economy" instead.
  • "coffee were blacklisted" - "was blacklisted" and explain a bit more what this was
  • "Despite this, Brazil was pro-Allied for all of this time" - "Despite these restrictions, neutral Brazil was pro-Allied"
  • Good changes, but I've tinkered slightly with the sentence in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "However, this exposed" - no need for "However"
  • "When coupled with Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, Brazilian ships were soon lost, which drove the country closer to declaring war on the Central Powers" Inelegant, is there a better way to phrase this?
  • Suggestion - "Due to Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, Brazilian ships were soon sunk, driving the country closer to declaring war on the Central Powers"
  • "when First Lieutenant Hercolino Cascardo and seven second lieutenants, along with others, commandeered the ship. " - Fragment
  • "Almost every ship in the Brazilian Navy was old and mostly obsolete by this time. The old mainstays" - repetition of "old", would also consider revising the "mostly obsolete" comment (perhaps "most were obsolete").
  • "For this reason, both Minas Gerais and São Paulo were used in the role of a "floating batteries". Although Minas Gerais had been further refitted during 1939–1943, she was still too old and in too poor a condition to play an active role in this war, so Minas Gerais defended the port of Salvador in northeastern Brazil for the entire war." - Slightly confused sentance structure here, the first part should come after the second part.

Thats all I saw, mostly prose issues. When they are sorted out let me know and I'll take another look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thank you very much! Hope you found the article interesting. :-) I left some replies interspersed above, and the others I have addressed. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment: The article on the Sao Paulo mentions participation by both ships on the government side in the Tenente Revolt, but this information is missing from this article, please incorporate it. (As an aside, I recommend working some of the suggestions above on the Background section into that article as well) Otherwise a very interesting and well researched article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Studying is consuming a lot of time I htought I had. I will address your concerns as soon as I can... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At long last, I believe that I have addressed all of your remaining concerns, Jackyd. Thank you very much for the thorough review! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent work, although there are still two minor things to go: the "minister to Great Britain" doesn't sound like the correct title to me, and I'm still not certain about the causal link between long service and physical violence in the 1910 revolt. Once these are dealt with I will happily support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(@ minister) - I used the wording from the New York Times because I wasn't certain that meant ambassador. Other articles have referred to a "minister", so...I dunno.
(@ causal) - take another look, I think that I have addressed this. Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I still have a problem with the following sentence: "They were barred from leaving the service before they served 15 years; this policy led officers to target black crewmen with "racial abuse and physical violence" - how does this necessarily follow? Since its from a source I'll leave the minister/Ambassador thing for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I flipped the sentence to read thusly: "It was common for officers to target black crewmen with "racial abuse and physical violence", and they could not escape it as they were barred from leaving the service before they served 15 years." —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, got busy and somehow overlooked this. An excellent article on an interesting and obscure subject. Your changes have greatly improved the prose and I am now happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: This ship is officially known in Brazil as the Minas Geraes, and I've never seen it spelled the modern way (Gerais) in any local sources. Has this been brought up or discussed before? I'd also be happy to help with any Portuguese-language sources, although it doesn't seem you need any :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • So that's why the NYT spelled it that way. The reason why I used the "i" is that all of the books in the bibliography (Conway's, Schenia, Whitley etc.) use "Gerais" (as opposed to Bennighoff and the NYT articles). After looking at the Brazilian Navy's website (specifically this page), I'm thinking that the article should be moved now; what does everyone else think? (And if it is moved, can somebody do an AWB run and replace "Minas Gerais" with "Minas Geraes"? (if possible—don't change the city's name!)) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, actually, the NYT would have spelled it that way because it was the correct spelling (until 1943, if memory serves). The article should certainly be moved IMHO (and it's a state, not a city ;)
      • I also echo Jackyd's concern—the article should certainly mention Minas Geraes' role in the Copacabana fort revolt (even though she never actually fired on the fort, only São Paulo did). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'll move it now, and a state is what I meant. :)
        • I know that Minas Geraes didn't fire at the fort, but the only source I had saying that was a Brazilian Navy webpage I read through Google Translate awhile back that is now gone? I'll go hunting for a different site.
        • Also, random question, seeing as you seem to know about Brazilian history. In this part of a sentence ("... along with a discovery of gold (bringing "the hope of great wealth" to the country), caused an influx of money into the Brazilian economy."), I took the info from Conway's, but now that I am going through other sources, the only gold rush I've seen is the big one that occurred in the late 18th century. Would you happen to know any more? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also: In Early career: "September 1910 found Minas Geraes visiting France, where officers of the ship quarreled with members of the Maritime Prefect." The reference doesn't support this, at all—the article claims the officers of São Paulo, not Minas Geraes, called on the Maritime Prefect; and they did not quarrel, they were turned away and "left warmly indignant". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • *Sigh* the small mistakes one makes. I used "quarreled" becuase it was described as a "disagreeable incident [that] took place at Cherbourg this week between officers of the Brazilian battleship Sao Paulo and the Maritime Prefect", but I'll move it over and change it. Thanks (again) for all of your help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Comments: I've gone through and done a copyedit and I am close to supporting, but would like to see a few items addressed:
  • (Full disclosure: I reviewed and promoted this article for Good Article status in February 2009.)
    • There's one weasel-word phrase (marked with {{who}}) that need to be attributed or reworded.
    • I think the article is supposed to be in Commonwealth/International English and have changed a few spellings to support that. If that is the case, I hope that a 'native speaker' of Commonwealth English can check it to get all of the armors, harbors, authorizes, defenses, etc. spelled properly. If my assumption is wrong, please let me know and I will restore the American spellings that I changed.
      • I wrote it in American spelling because that's the spelling I know, but I'm not opposed to that changing. The reason that there were a few "defence"s still about was because I believed that they were official titles (I.e. Minister of Defence), and
    • There are several places where references (as opposed to notes) are in the middle of sentences, rather than in the more typical post-punctuation placement. It's disrupting in a sentence like Between June 1931[34] and 1935, Minas Geraes was totally reconstructed[39] and modernized at the Rio de Janeiro Naval Yard. to have the mid-sentence interruptions.
      • Well, I know that it is disruptive, but the different sources cover the different parts of the sentences. Should I just move them all to the end? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd like to see citations for these sentences or phrases:
      • The phrase leather whips tipped with metal balls is quoted without an in-text attribution or a citation immediately after.
      • Even though the First World War did not touch Brazilian soil, it had crushing effects on Brazil's economy.
      • Almost every ship in the Brazilian Navy was old and most were obsolete by this time.
    • I'm not clear to which ship this phrase referring: Initially prevented by a "dense fog" from picking up the body… — Bellhalla (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Please change source links from JPGs to HTMLs per WP:IUP. It is best to link the HTML page so that any information about the image can be seen. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am working on. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be done. Also, before I get too carried away with myself, this image is allowed becasue it was on the navy's site, right? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks that way to me, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't want to upload ten photos that were not taken by the Navy of Brazil just to see them deleted. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Maralia I've just started a copyedit; a few issues:

  1. I am confused whether this is intended to be British English or AmEng ('Second World War" but also "modernized", "modernization", etc).
    I must confess to helping propagate the confusion. My understanding (now) is that it was intended to be American English, but the use of Conway's (which uses Commonwealth English) for spellings like programme and defence confused the issue; and my copyedit compounded it. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...and my non-explanation didn't help much either. I think that American English, because that's what we know, would be best in the absence of a good AE->BE copyeditor. However, I think that "Minister of Defence" should stay with "defence" as it is an official title. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would think—but am no expert on Brazilian political/military offices—that the official title would probably be in Portuguese and not in, say, English… — Bellhalla (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The same thought occured to me while I was off eating dinner and talking about the article with my mom. *Ed trundles off to correct his stupidity...* —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've changed the "armour"s and "defence"s to AE; if someone feels that the article should be in BE, feel free to revert. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Erm... if the article contains any instance of "Minister of Defense" or "Ministry of Defense", it shouldn't. There was no Ministry of Defense in Brazil before 1999 :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I need to start reading the article before I comment here. I think that was in there somewhere, but evidently not anymore. Or I'm confusing this article with Design 1047 battlecruiser :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. In the infobox, why do some, but not all, of the armor values have inch to mm conversions?
    Good question. I'll add them now. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. You still seem flummoxed by whether or not to hyphenate ship class names. To clarify, without italics: "Deodoro class" is one adjective (Deodoro) modifying one noun (class), and does not need a hyphen. However, "Deodoro-class battleship" requires a hyphen to join the two adjectives (Deodoro and class) modifying the noun battleship. Make sense?
    Haha. I've got it now :))) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More as I continue editing. Maralia (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - I wanted to note that I helped Ed find some references and did some minor copyedit reviews a while back. I did not perform any content contribs or anything like that. I do not see anything on the recent check through the page that causes me concern. I am confident that any of Maralia's future concerns will be met. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now, 1a. This really isn't bad, and it's damned interesting, but it needs a good run-through for cohesiveness and polish. Some example issues from the first few sections:
    • Are we writing in British English or American? I see "programme", but "armor". Or am I daft?
    • Parenthetical phrases are inconsistently punctuated: "In 1924," but "and by 1900 the only relatively new ships"
    • "Some of the proceeds from this economic growth was" Some were, I think.
    • "Instead, all construction that had been done was torn down" This isn't terrible attractive. Would losing "that had been done" change the meaning? It seems clear that one couldn't tear down construction that hadn't been done.
    • "materials that had already been made" Seems off-kilter; normally you make things out of materials, not make the materials.
    • "After this was completed ..." Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to a previous thing or concept. Always restate/paraphrase. This construction is mind-boggling to ESL readers.
These are a start. Not miles off, but not ready either. --Laser brain (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Steve got the BE v. AE, and I've fixed the other things you have mentioned. I will be trying to find a copyeditor. Thanks for the review! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on criteria 1a and 2a. EDIT: Struck one, will look again at other later. Steve T • C At first glance, I thought the prose needed only a light brush, so resolved to copyedit the lead to provide examples of the sort of tweaks that are required. Unfortunately, upon editing the section, I became bogged down in problems that perhaps only a more in-depth copyedit will resolve in the rest of the article. Each of these paragraphs needed surgery to repair things such as dangling modifiers, an Easter egg link, ungainly repetition, and redundant statements. These edits are broadly representative of what seems to be required throughout the article. It's not terrible—the content is good and largely well-presented—but it might do the article some good to have a third-party copyeditor take a look at it, as quite often the writer of an article is too familiar with the text to spot the areas that need attention. I also strongly recommend a read through of these redundancy exercises; removing unnecessary words and phrases is 90% of the copyediting work. The 2a opposition comes from the fact that the lead does not seem to adequately summarise the rest of the article. Read through for major facts that might be appropriate for inclusion. In particular, the second and third paragraphs tease the reader by hinting at—but not providing full resolution to—the "Revolt of the Whip" and São Paulo mutinies. Each ends with the reader in limbo. Otherwise, this is a very interesting article; as Laser brain says, it's not a mile off, and I feel sure that it can meet the FA standard if these issues are resolved (or successfully rebutted!). All the best, Steve T • C 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is going to sound a little weird, but could you take a look through another one of the sections to ensure the problems you mentioned are in the entire article? I'm half-assuming that they are, but I want to be sure. The lead was one of the things I had not worked on in awhile; actually, the version of 9 April was remarkably similar to just before your helpful c/e. Most of it was written prior to Design 1047 battlecruiser's FAC, where Tony linked me to those same exercises; they are rather helpful, aren't they? :) In addition, the lead's early writing is probably the reason for it not covering everything.
    • I'll try to start going over it myself right now, but I have a heavy work schedule coming up over tonight and the next couple days. I'll also attempt to find a copyeditor. Thanks for all of your help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The curse of the lead! I have to admit I've unfairly judged entire articles many times by their leads. For some reason, the lead is often the weakest part of any given article. At any rate, ping me if you can't find anyone to look at it, because I'd really like to see this pass and I might be able to run through it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It's because it is hard to condense everything you originally wrote into three (or in this case, four) paragraphs. ;) I will try EyeSerene (talk · contribs), as Maralia (talk · contribs) has copyedited two of my articles in the recent past and something like four overall (I kinda feel bad...); if ES cannot, I will come back here begging for your help. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hi! I'll echo Laser brain's "curse of the lead" comment; the majority of my FAC reviews comment on each section, but after falling behind my mental FAC review quota I chose to shortcut the process somewhat. I did read the whole article, and felt the specific comments I made on the lead were generally representative, but I agree that my making comment on the other sections would have been helpful. I'll try to give some specific pointers tomorrow. One last thing: are we happy with the DMY date format? The usual US format—which the article uses for spelling etc.—is MDY (though it bothers me not at all). All the best, Steve T • C 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Thanks for all of the help, both of you. :-) I believe that DMY is the accepted format for military-related articles; it was discussed in another one of my FACs, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Connecticut (BB-18), although I think that pertained to the U.S. military only. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Just taking a look at this now, and something that strikes me as odd in the Background section is the statement, "Some of the proceeds from this economic growth were used to finance a 1904 building program... Approved by the Brazilian Congress in 1905..." The discrepancy feels odd; I assume 1904 was when the program was first conceived, yet it wasn't approved until 1905? If so, and unless the official name for it is "the 1904 building program" or somesuch, this could require some clarification in the notes. Steve T • C 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Well, Conway's 1906–1921 on p. 403 says "The Brazilian Navy launched a massive acquisition programme to create a modern fleet. Titled the Building Programme of 1904, it was refined for a few years before orders were placed for warships. The major controversy was over the size of the battleship to be purchased [pre-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts]." What do you think I should add in a note? Note that I did not include this "title" of the program in the article because I think that was a Portuguese -> British English translation (why would the real name of a program be in a non-native language?). Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Cool, just double checking the dates were right is all. Looking again, a note probably isn't necessary. I had a chance make a few edits to that section earlier today; you were right, it did need less work than the lead, and was more along the lines of the "light brush" I mentioned before. If you're happy with the changes (and by all means call me on any you disagree with), I'd be happy to go through the other sections over the next day or two. Steve T • C 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Double checking is a good thing. :) The edits I have been able to check the limited time I have had have looked good; I'll check all of them later tonight. Thank you very much! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (out) - no problems. [78] You unreffed a para and had two semi-colons in a sentence, but that was easy to fix; thanks so much for the copyedit! FYI, this was fine; I don't know where "after" came from... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:15, 15 May 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 Dabomb87 23:29, 13 May 2009 [79].

Nicol David[edit]

Nominator(s): Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it had already undergone major imporovements since December last year. I have already added appropriate tables, sections, references, image and infoboxes to suit with the page style. Many of the featured article came from sports like football, golf & tennis — but there is simply nothing on squash. Please also do correct mistakes that I've made. Feedbacks are welcomed. Thanks. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong oppose – Sorry, but I don't think this is close to meeting the featured article criteria. At a glance, I can tell that the article has a strong point of view in favor of David, needs a major re-write to improve the prose, and has no details on her 2006 or 2007 seasons. I strongly encourage you to withdraw the nomination and take this article to peer review, where other editors can offer further advice for fixing the article's problems. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawal suggested In addition to the points made above, the article does not "a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic", as required by FA criterion 1c. It extensively uses http://www.squashsite.org.uk/forexx/today.htm, which doesn't seem to be high-quality or even reliable. I also see Facebook used, a definite no-no. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the withdrawal, but didn't agree with the saying that squashsite.org.uk isn't reliable. Squashsite.org is the alternate site for the current squashsite.co.uk and the site are sponsored by the world biggest squash bodies such as WSF, WISPA and PSA, how can you tell me that it is an unreliable site and seem not to be of high quality. If you still don't believe me, try to take a look at this http://www.squashsite.co.uk/2009/tournaments.htm and try to look at the Forexx Dutch Open 2007, it directly link you to squashsite.org.uk. I totally didn't agree with that. Anyway, thanks for changing this – to this — on the article, is it in the rules anyway ? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've brought this article to WP:PR, but still there isn't any comments about the article, I really need to know my wrongdoings so that I can improve my contribution in the future, I also need some example of corrections made to the article, so that I can know where do I did wrong. Any kind of help is very much appreciated. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You sent this to PR yesterday (12 May), and it will be attended to, but be patient; PR is a crowded place with a backlog awaiting attention. You might have to wait a few days, but the article won't be forgotten. All the problematic issues can be discussed there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey thanks for the info Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This thing really make me confused, i thought you were using —, but you're not, under the "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." sentence, there are two – −, which one should I use? Can I straightly press it from my keyboard (beside 0 and =)? Or is there any shortcut to do it from my very own keyboard ? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the only nominator, I officially withdraw this article nomination from FAC Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pls, can someone make the process faster, I've waited for days for it to be closed, the article cannot be reviewed on WP:PR if the FAC isn't closed Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 03:44, 16 May 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 Dabomb87 02:45, 13 May 2009 [80].

Battle of Panipat (1761)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zak (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third Battle of Panipat I am nominating this for featured article because it has the potential to become a featured article and deals with one of the major battles in the Indian sub continent Zak (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong Object - large swathes of unsourced content. POV quotes headlining sections, some by poets not historians. A novel is cited as a source about ten times. Article should not be written with contractions. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The nominators should save this off to their hard drive(s)... Can someone please tutor these folks in writing? I'm not joking or being sarcastic... Alas, I fear that one or more contributors may be less than fully adept at the task of citing/quoting. I fear this article may be rife with copyvio (?), as at least the bit about "an equal and dreadful concert" is lifted directly from The Fall of the Moghul Empire in Hindustan (Keene), and can be found repeatedly in Google Books... I didn't look for further examples, nor did I check the licensing issues. Perhaps someone else should.. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comments noted please archive this link ..thanks --Zak (talk) 23:51, 11 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [81].

Korean Air Lines Flight 007[edit]

Nominator(s): Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is for the most part demonstrably as well as factually correct, and possessing good indicators for further research on the divergent understandings on the shootdown of KAL 007. The article exhibits very capable treatment that is non polarizing of a controversial and potentially explosive subjectBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments It seems the references need some cleaning up
Do references like 8 and 9 have page numbers?
I'm not sure if reference 5 is formatted correctly (pages, spaces, etc.) Could you look and see if it's written correctly?
Some refs like 13 and 15 use "pg". This should be changed for consistency with the rest of the article.
Some refs like 12 and 49 need periods and spaces in regard to the page numbers.
Reference 14 needs the regular template with more information.

I suggest you look at all references at the bottom of the page to make sure there is nothing that needs fixing. Or, if you want, I can point out all problems later. Mm40 (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, fix these 3 disambiguation links. Mm40 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
  • There are bare urls in the references that should be formatted with link titles.
  • There are books references in the footnotes without page numbers (including Sputnik, and Kleiner, there are many others)
  • Consistency on use of p. or p or pg etc.
  • Please alphabetize the references. right now the Journals and Online sources sections are out of alphabetical order, making it more difficult to find the sources from the footnotes.
  • Current 9 (Kilroy) is referring to an online database, which is currently listed in the books section? What makes this a reliable source?
  • http://www.planesafe.org/books/desiredtrack.shtml deadlinks
  • Current ref 27 (CBS' "60 Minutes" interview, Jan. 3, 1983) isn't given in the references that I can find.
  • Jean Kirkpatrick's Address to the United Nations". New York Times. 2983-09-07. pp. 15 Do you mean 1983 rather than 2983?
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 46 (Uriel Rosenthal...) needs a page number
  • 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
  • Current ref 72 (The Current Digest of the Soviet Press) I can't find any information on this source in the references
  • Current ref 124 (Associated press and a date) isn't helpful with finding the exact source, as the AP puts out a LOT of information per day
  • This book http://books.google.com/books?id=CcMeKQAACAAJ was originally published by http://www2.xlibris.com/, a slef publishing book company. What makes it reliable?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • The links to the notes section should read "Note 1" not "Notes 1".
  • "departed for Seoul at 13:00 UTC (4:00 AM Alaska Time) on August 31, 1983." Give the actual Alaskan time first with the UTC in parentheses. Also, it is not consistent with UTC and GMT.
  • It's not standard to say (Photos of passengers[14]). There seems to be links to photos for other things, but they are in the notes. Also, that cite is a bare reference and needs to be in a template. Ref 61 and 117 also need to be formatted.
  • There is inconsistency in measurements. Sometimes it is kilometer (mi) and sometimes mile (km).
  • There is also inconsistency in date styles: 8 September 1983 vs. September 8, 1983. Pick one and use it throughout the article. There is mostly Month-Day, but there are a few Day-Month scattered in there.
  • Also check periods. You had UN and U.N. in the same sentence. U.S.S.R. vs. USSR.

Overall, this is a very excellent article! It was really informative and is well referenced. Reywas92Talk 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Is there any better image than File:KAL007747-2.png to use as your lead image? This is a very strange image – what's with the bright circle around the nose, for example, or the fact that the white areas of the aircraft are shaded orange? – iridescent 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the other circles (less visible than the one on the nose) I'm guessing it's a lens flare effect. --Golbez (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an artist's rendition, not a photo. I don't know what the plume (?) in back of the plane is meant to be. It could be construed as a flame. If so, the orange tinted white of the aircraft may be meant to be the reflection of the flame. Just a note - ICAO analysis indicates that no wreckage presented as associated with KAL 007 shows burn marks. I'm for getting a better lead imageBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:16, 6 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [82].

Loihi Seamount[edit]

Nominator(s): ResMar 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criterea. This article has undergone a MASSIVE overhual, from just 5k to 51k.[83] Me and Viriditas have been hitting it pretty hard, and the article underwent a formal Peer Review, although most of the improvement came through disscusion on the talk page. In addition Michael Devore did a comprehensive copyedit, and I think it's finally ready! ResMar 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment It appears reference 26 is lacking a publisher. Mm40 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, I think. ResMar 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Images look balanced. ResMar 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • There are 0 ref formatting errors, checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
  • There are 0 dead external links, checked with the links checker tool.
  • Fix the four disambiguation links, checked with the dab finder tool.
Fixed, except for the Loihi self-dir. I'll try to find it. ResMar 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed the self-redirect. It was in the table in the 1996 event section. Oddly, the link sends you to the section that it's located in. —Kal (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references (such as SOEST)
Friends fixed this, according to the highlighter the only place where the abbr is used is in the sources.
Which is precisely where I asked for it to be fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree; the abbreviation is spelled out in the article...ResMar 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's an expert on volcanology, and the site has information on thousands of volcanoes, including lesser-known ones. The information is confirmable I'm sure. ResMar 15:22, 22 April 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 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply - I'll save ResMar some sweat with this one :).
[84]
Refers to site
"gives you some very good background information about volcanoes." I should think that about works? Ceranllama chat post 22:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll concur with Mattisse here, the first one is from a travel section, and the second one is from a news release that merely says the site "monitors volcano activity". The third one is an opinion column. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you guys dislike the source, I can remove it. The existance of Nana Vents is confirmed by the other sites, I just need to find the depth elsewhere in order to remove Seach entirely. ResMar 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's gone now. ResMar 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition I made a table listing the vents. Note that earlier in the article it says "a new hydrothermic vent was found in 1996..." while the table lists five such vents. In reality, two (Ula, Maximilian) are diffuse vents (non hydrothermic apparently), and the other two are located within Pele's Pit. ResMar 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional support - Coverage and organization is good but prose may have some issues. I'm not an expert in that area but will consider my support conditional to addressing any future comments / objects in that direction. If that does not happen, then consider this a support. --mav (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come on-doesn't anyone wanna comment? This is going really excruciatingly slow... ResMar 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) As Mav requested, I'll look at the prose:

  • "In 1996, Lōʻihi was rocked by the first ever directly observed eruption of an active underwater " Can we find a better word than "rocked"? Delete the unnecessary "ever".
  • "most likely it will merge and coalesce with the other volcanoes making up the island of Hawaiʻi" "merge and coalesce"—are these not the same actions? "making up"-->that compose
  • "Unlike most Pacific volcanoes which form" "which"-->that
Actually, which is proper, because using "that" sugests that Loihi too formed on a plate rim. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you make a mention of around when the volcano formed (in the lead)?
  • "and is monitored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Geological Survey for changes." Last two words are redundant IMO.
Someone fixed it, a believe, as I cannot find that line anymore. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Mattisse has been doing some very helpful copy-editing. Also, could you not strike reviewers' comments, per FAC instructions ("nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors")? The reviewers decide when a comment is resolved, not the nominator. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K. It's just nice to have this nomination rolling again, after 2 weeds of threadbare activity. ResMar 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Hawaii Undersea Geological Observatory (HUGO) provided valuable real-time data of Lōʻihi from 1997 to 2002. Lōʻihi last erupted in 1996." "valuable"—is there such thing as "useless" real-time data?
Point taken. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Lōʻihi is a seamount (underwater volcano) located on the flank"
Um...I don't see your point. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It is the newest volcano in the massive Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, created by the Hawaiʻi hotspot." For chronological purposes, I think it would make more
More what? ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I meant to delete that comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "northwest-southeast" En dash.
Can you be more descriptive? I'm not all that familair with the MOS's technical specifications, and I don't see the problem from the information given. ResMar 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind, I see now. Mataisse fixed it. ResMar 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "with 200 m (660 ft) walls." What dimension are we referring to? Length? Width? Depth?
  • "western-most pit is the oldest, with the eastern pit being of a younger age and Pele's Pit being easily the youngest (having formed in 1996)" The noun + -ing construction is ungainly. Try "western-most pit is the oldest; the eastern pit is younger and Pele's Pit is the youngest (having formed in 1996)".
  • "Thick walls (about 20 m (66 ft))" Once again, ambiguity on what numbers are describing.

It's not bad, but needs polish. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments - In the section "Microorganisms", do you need two pics plus a table? The section does not display correctly in my browser, as the table gets pushed under the pics into the text and sandwiched. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved table to bottom, into its own subsection. ResMar 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest using only one of the pix under "Microorganisms" as they duplicate each other a great deal, and the section still remains crowded even with the table moved into its own section. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, okay. I don't personally think so, but the image is not that important anyhow. ResMar 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might consider wikilinking to pit crater rather than volcanic crater, but I actually don't think it makes any difference. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. ResMar 22:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This is a very interesting article presenting quite a complete picture of the topic. You have obviously done a a great deal of work. (I am confused that the article does not seem to be on the FAC list. But I don't always understand these things.) One detail, do you have page numbers for all the book references? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 10 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [85].

Dillo[edit]

Nominator(s): —Remember the dot (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There's not much to this topic, so the article is fairly short, however I believe it is well-written and meets the featured article criteria. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources from the project are mainly used to reference information about Dillo's features and development, which seems fine to me. Are there any specific sources that you'd like to see referenced instead? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not familiar with the subject matter, so I wouldn't have the first clue how to find something to source information. However, I don't need to be familiar with the subject matter to know that sourcing an article from information by the subject can be a concern. It'd be like writing a biography of Richard Nixon only using his autobiography, while it's possible to write something that way, it may not be the best method. Is there no substantial third-party coverage of this browser in reliable sources? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have cited the available third-party sources wherever appropriate, and have strived to avoid bias within the article. I think that's the best anyone can do. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at this, too, but I am unsure what should be cited to primary sources and what should not in this area. I'm sorry I can't help more. Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - This article is clearly written, but I'm wondering if it can be expanded in a few areas.

  • The lead is not a summary of the article. Some of the history of the development of Dillo is presented in the lead and not repeated in the article. For example, the origin of Dillo is only presented in the lead.
    • The lead section is meant to be both a summary and an introduction, presenting background information that will not be repeated later in the article. Repeating the same information about Dillo's origin and goals one paragraph later would be redundant. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Actually, according to WP:LEAD, that is exactly what the article is supposed to do: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Here is what I see in the lead that is not repeated in the body:
        • Dillo's license, the GNU General Public License. This is also given in the infobox.
        • The year of Dillo's first release, its "birthday" if you will, again given in the infobox.
        • Dillo's "parent" Jorge Arellano Cid, once more given in the infobox, and referenced in the "Development" section as well.
        • Dillo's primary goal of democratization, referenced in the "Features" section but not repeated again at length.
      • Facts like these are ideal for an introduction but repeating them a paragraph or two later would be awkward. I do not feel that any of these statements constitute "hinting at startling facts without describing them." —Remember the dot (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The second paragraph of the lead reads this way "Chilean software engineer Jorge Arellano Cid conceived of the Dillo project in late 1999,[5] publishing the first version of Dillo in December of that year.[6] His primary goal in creating Dillo was to democratize access to information. Cid believed that no one should have to buy a new computer or pay for broadband in order to enjoy the web." The "Development" section then continues "Jorge Arellano Cid is still Dillo's lead developer today." - This origin story is only in the lead and the lead is not structured as a summary. There are different ways of reading Wikipedia articles - some people only read the lead and some people only read the article body and some people read both. We need to accommodate all of those styles. Writing a summary of such a short article may be awkward, but that is how our articles are structured. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I compared this article to Opera (web browser) and the "Features" section is much shorter. Can anything else on security and usability be added?
    • Not really; Dillo doesn't have many features. As far as security, the security company Secunia doesn't have up-to-date information on Dillo's vulnerabilities (if there are any). Dillo doesn't support HTTP Secure, nor does it support HTTP cookies. Both of these characteristics are already mentioned in the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is "in development" for Dillo? Could we have a "Future plans" section?
    • CSS and HTTPS support. CSS is mentioned in the "Development" section and HTTPS is mentioned in the "Features" section. There isn't enough material to make a whole section about it. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article! Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very welcome! —Remember the dot (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will be happy to support after the lead issue is resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose from Cryptic C62. The article does not conform to WP:LEAD and presents some information in a non-encyclopedic way. Details:
    • "other aspects of web pages, such as scripting and styling, it ignores" Awkward sentence structure. Either start with "it ignores" or replace "it ignores" with something more substantial: "other aspects of web pages, such as scripting and styling, are ignored entirely.
    • "Jorge Arellano Cid is still Dillo's lead developer today." This is a bad way to start this section. I realize you mentioned that Cid was the lead programmer in the lead, but the lead is meant to summarize facts that are already presented elsewhere in the article. You should review WP:LEAD. This section should start from the beginning; the sentence in question drops the reader right into the middle.
    • This goes hand-in-hand with the previous comment, but the Development section should probably start with the programming paragraph and transition into the funding paragraph; this is a more logical sequence than the current one.
    • "Work toward supporting CSS started in 2002, but a stable version of Dillo that supports CSS has not yet been released." One-sentence paragraphs = bad. Also, why would a sentence about 2002 come after a paragraph about ~2008?
    • Again, the features section should include the relevant information presented in the lead.
    • "...and home page can be customized by editing a configuration file" Wikipedia is WP:NOT an instruction manual; details such as how to customize things are not necessary.
    • "For both privacy and performance reasons, the web cache and history are automatically deleted upon closing the program." This could be relevant information, depending on how you write about it. Suggested rewrite: "While most web browsers retain the web cache and history after the program is closed, Dillo automatically clears them to improve performance." or some such.
  • More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 7 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [86].

Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article basically follows the standard, set by Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race - a FA. The article has passed the GA review and I believe it meets the criteria for a FA now. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Tech. Review
I fixed it by renaming one of them, and renaming all references to that reference. (If you know what I mean...) EdgeNavidad (talk)
Yeah I do ;)--Truco 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 11 (Henry Sanderson...) is lacking a publisher.
Fixed. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • 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.
I can't find what this refers to. Should we spell out BBC? The only links that look like abbreviations are AM (ABC Radio) and AOL, but these are the official names. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
I noticed the "OC Press office" publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Together with all the other links to the official website, I changed the publisher to "The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad", as that is the name the website gives copyright. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Current ref 22 (Mat Mackay...) is lacking a publisher.
Fixed. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Current ref 27 (Staff and agencies...) is lacking a last access date.
Fixed. (it was in the template but without parameter, but I accessed the link and it still worked so I replaced today's date.) --EdgeNavidad (talk)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -

  • "where Nicole Cook proved the strongest." Seems like something that would be found in a post-race news story and not an encyclopedic article.
Changed to "they were together until the sprint, won by Nicole Cooke."--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "By winning, Cooke earned the 200th gold medal for Great Britain , as well as the first medal for Britain at the 2008 Olympics." "as well as" → "and". Makes it less wordy.
Changed to "Cooke earned the 200th gold medal for Great Britain and the first medal for Britain at the 2008 Olympics." Even less wordy. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Qualification: Move the full name of the UCI to its first use. That one stopped me cold for a second.
Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "which was taken from the countries ranked 17 to 24th in reversed order". Replace 17 with 17th?
Done. Btw: is it "reverse order" or "reversed order"?--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "The maximum quota of the event was set 67 cyclists". Add "at" before the number.
Done.--EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Course: "with the Badaling Pass gaining..." is a noun plus -ing sentence structure. To find out more about this hard-to-spot prose error, including how to fix it, please read this guide.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll take a look at the rest later. 204.210.154.189 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has already been changed by someone else. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
That's my forgetful friend up there. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are a few more prose issues I saw later in the article. Most of these are from the race section, where the most work is needed.
  • Cadel Evans could be linked in the third paragraph of Course.
Has been done. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • Race: Comma after Natalia Boyarskaya.
Check! --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • A citation is sorely needed for the criticism of the course's marking.
I added citations, but they do not refer to other occasions where confusion arose. Perhaps this should be removed. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If sources can't be found for it, then it should probably be removed. Can't imagine that no one in the media would have mentioned it, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've limited the text in the article to the Boyarskaya incident, as I didn't see any references that talked about marking more generally. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The chase for Boyarskaya was led by Christine Thorburn, bringing Boyarskaya's lead down to 34 seconds...". To improve the flow of this sentence, try something like, "The chase for Boyarskaya was led by Christine Thorburn, who brought her lead down to 34 seconds...".
Check! --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "with 22 km caught Boyarskaya and formed a three rider breakaway." > "caught Boyarskaya with 22 km remaining and formed a three rider breakaway."
Has already been changed. --EdgeNavidad (talk)
  • "With 7 kilometers remaining". This is the only kilometer use fully spelled out, and it doesn't have a miles equivalent. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Question: In qualification, should it be "providing that these athletes qualified" or "provided that these athletes qualified"?

Comments - (I am one of the main contributors to his article, but I think I can still make comments here...)

  • In conditions: "Thunderstorms, resulting in persistently heavy rain and strong winds, resulted in" A different word should be chosen?
    Oops. Fixed. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In race: "The poor marking of the designated race course led to similar confusion on several other occasions and criticism after the fact." I guess a source should be given for this. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Partly solved, partly addressed in another comment.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


comment - The full classification of racers would be copyrighted property of the IOC, It either needs slimmed down or a fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can the results be copyrighted? I seriously doubt this is an issue here. --Tone 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To get this list an olympics games had to be organised, and I would say the organising of this event would not be devoid of all three of skill, labour and judgment. The site referenced gives the claim "Copyright The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad" Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This still does not convince me. I raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Tone 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From that discussion, it followed that the results are facts that can not be copyrighted. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment - Images should be alternated left and right per WP:MOS#Images Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Tone 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently, the previous form is better according to WP:ACCESS. I am fine with that as well. --Tone 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

query - The title name is very long and unwieldy, I assume this has come form the wikiproject MOS, but is there not a shorter alternative? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's long but this is the standard naming for Olympic articles. See Men's race also. --Tone 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My school teacher would often ask if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump as weel? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the case, this naming was agreed on in the project. The other possibility of the name would be Women's cycling road race at the 2008 Summer Olympics what is just the same. Any attempt to shorten it would create confusion. --Tone 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, consistency is key. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved concerns from Parutakupiu
  • Comments. First of all, thanks for bringing this article to this level. As a member of the Olympics WikiProject, I really appreciate your effort. Nonetheless, here is a rather long list of comments, arranged by section:
    • Lead section:
      • "It took place on 10 August 2008 at the Urban Road Cycling Course; 66 women from 33 countries competed." — the semicolon could be removed and the two parts joined with something like "... featuring 66 women from 33 countries."
      • You have Urban Road Cycling Course linked twice. Unlink the second instance or, even better, remove the first instance completely ("at the Urban Road Cycling Course"), since the venue details are given when the second instance appears.
      • "Cooke earned the 200th gold medal for Great Britain and the first medal for Britain at the 2008 Olympics." — This might shorten it a bit more: "Cooke earned Great Britain's first medal at the 2008 Olympics and 200th gold medal overall.".
      • Don't discriminate nations :P If you wikilink Spain (this could point to Spain at the 2008 Summer Olympics) in the third paragraph, link Sweden and Italy as well, in the second.
      • "... for the event" is unnecessary.
    • Qualification:
      • There is "17–24" and "17th to 24th". It would be good to show some consistency by picking one format.
      • "UCI-standing". Is the hyphen deliberate?
      • Redirect Sung Eun-Go to Gu Sun-Geun. What happened to Hae Ok-Jeong and Thatsani Wichana that, despite qualifying as is stated, do not appear on the results table nor are given as DNF-ers?
        • Is this the same person? As for the other riders, I asked the same question on review, apparently, they only earned their national NOCs free places, not qualified themselves. --Tone 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Yes, it's the same rider. As for the Hae Ok Jeong and Thatsani Wichana, you're right: they gave quota places for their NOCs, which were occupied by a different Korean and Thai cyclist. Still, it would only help specifying that they ended up not competing at the Games. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Mauritius only sent 12 competitors to Beijing, being this event one of the few they've entered. I think the country's name could be linked to Mauritius at the 2008 Summer Olympics. "South Africa" and "New Zealand" could take this train too.
      • That last paragraph with only two sentences (which can be perfectly merged) looks out of place.
    • Preview - conditions:
      • Here is the first instance of Marianne Vos, but it is only linked in the next sub-section.
      • "... high pollution in China Beijing." — Pollution is a problem per se. Also pollution in other regions of China were not important for this event.
      • I'd shift the temperatures note, between em-dashes, to the end of the sentence. Unlink the temperature units, as per WP:OVERLINK.
    • Preview - pre-race favourites:
      • "...adept at climbing..." — climbing experts?
      • Again, the last paragraph could be merged to the remaining text body.
    • Course:
      • This section is about the course, so there's no need to add the scheduled time here. Shift it to the "Race" section, instead.
      • Badaling appears linked only at the word's second instance.
      • Something wrong with {{convert}} because m=1,150 ft.
      • "The final 350 m (1,100 ft) of the race..." — race is already mentioned at the sentence's end.
        • Interesting to observe, I put 350.0 and now it's working. --Tone 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • There is a link for Chongwen; Changping is not linked in its first instance.
      • Why is Stuart O'Grady linked and Cadel Evans not?
      • "... request that security restrictions be eased for the time trial to follow, but this plea which was ignored"
    • Race:
      • The text can start with the scheduled time, taken from the "Course" section. Try to merge the first paragraph (less than two lines) with the remaining text.
      • "and subsequent criticism after the fact."
      • "bringing Boyarskaya's the lead". Avoid close repeated names.
      • Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 can be merged as they describe the race dynamics.
      • Link Tatiana Guderzo; both Cooke and Johansson are linked, anyway.
        • I unlinked the other two instead, they are linked well above. --Tone 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "...with 22 km (14 mi) caught Boyarskaya and formed a three rider breakaway." — Perhaps this would do better: "... and caught Boyarskaya with 22 km (14 mi) to go, forming a three rider breakaway."
      • "...with 200 m (660 ft) to go. She claimed, claiming the gold medal with a clear margin.
      • "...rainy weather conditions."
      • "...prior to before the race..."
    • Doping incident:
      • This section is filled with short sentences. Try to connect them more, somehow.
        • I'm still not very content with the changes, but I can try and edit it myself, if you'd like.
      • Abbreviate "International Cycling Union" to just UCI, already linked before.
      • Do not link words in quotes, as per WP:MOSQUOTE.
    • Final classification:
      • Align to the center the rank numbers on the left table.
        • I can't locate the problem, the parameter in the table says centre... --Tone 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • General:
      • Not one single time "Beijing" is wikilinked. As host city of the Olympics, I think it deserves it.
      • I guess it might be an Herculean task but... can't stubs be created to red-linked cyclists? At least for those that appear along the prose.
        • Those will appear sooner or later. It's not a FA requirement and I'd prefer users to write decent articles to writing stubby place holders. --Tone 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I find mixed formats for dates in references; either YYYY-MM-DD or DAY MONTH YYYY. I guess some consistency should be reached.
  • All in all, it's mostly little things that can be easily fixed. Hope to see this article at the level of (or better than) its "male" counterpart. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. All my comments have been addressed and this article feels to be FA standard. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I left a note in the middle of my comments above; was it missed? The nominator hasn't edited since April 24, which is slightly concerning to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I think I've addressed that note of yours now. I don't know why Tone hasn't edited recently, but I'm willing to pitch in and try to address any other issues. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am extremely busy these days so I don't have almost any time for WP... Thank you for fixing the issue, are there any more concerns that I've missed? --Tone 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only some comments from Fasach Nua that appear solved to me. I contacted him/her some time ago to ask if he/she thinks these comments have been dealt with properly, but have received no answer sofar. I see no other open issues now, but I don't know what the FA-procedure is and how long we should wait for other comments. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments

    • There is no source for the fact that the extra Chinese and Austrian spots were given away, and why.
      Added source showing that Chinese and Austrian spots went to South Africa and New Zealand. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Probably need a citation for "Other riders, such as Katherine Bates (who did not finish), prepared by wearing cooling vests before the race and stocked up on ice packs during it."
      Added source for that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not entirely happy with the prose. I've done a ce on some of it, but I think the article needs another pass.
      I've taken another pass through the prose. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think I'd switch the order of "pre-race favorites" and conditions, and I might do away with the subheadings, as each of those sections is pretty short.
      I agree. I've done it. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I feel like we are missing a few sentences of background. For example, this was the Xth time that the women's race was included. Are there any Olympics-over-Olympics comparisons for number of competitors or distance? How did the distance generally measure up to other women's road race events (longer, shorter, about the same)?
      I've added some of that background. It was 7th time the race was run, it was the longest to date (126 km to 119.7 km), and the number of qualified women was the same as the previous year, though the one dropout affected the actual competitors. I've had trouble finding anything that specifically does a longitudinal analysis, but did compare the distances and competitors from prior races and did cite references for those numbers. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      That is useful background, but some of it only appears in the lead. I've added a new first sentence to the QUalification section to tie it all together a bit better. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 5 May 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 22:58, 9 May 2009 [87].

    John Marshall Harlan II[edit]

    Nominator(s): Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    The article was written by User:Lord Emsworth (who unfortunately has retired) a few years ago. My involvement with this article began, when I saved it at GAR. Later I added new sources and improved some parts of it. Now I am nominating the article for featured article because I think it is ready now. Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    Fixed all. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments a fine article, and kudos to Ruslik for salvaging it. As an attorney, I figured I should review this:

    I'm a bit concerned about the name of the article. I see it was discussed in 2006 but nothing was done. Perhaps John Marshall Harlan (grandson)? To use II implies it was part of his name (a la MLK III) or else, I suppose, king! Now to substantive points.

    First, I find the fourth paragraph of the lede a little weak. The lede is to be a summary of what is to follow. It is not terribly significant to the article that Harlan's papers are at Princeton. The general rule I follow is that the first paragraph of the lede is an overall summary, the next two discuss the subject's life, the final his death and then somewhat of a valediction. Your mileage may vary, but I think more meat is needed there.

    Looking at the references, it is customary to give both the first page of the case and the page that you are relying on to give your point, and also the year. For example 500 U.S. 285, 312 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting). (that's an invention, just for an example). This article may be consulted by lawyers and judges, who would expect to see references in the form most useful and familiar to them.

    The section "Supreme Court career" concerns me. I understand that a lot of the material on his career there is contained under "jurisprudence", but cannot more be said about his time on the court? Have you consulted biographies of other justices, say Warren, Black, and Douglas, to see what is said about Harlan and his dealings with his colleagues? Two specific points, I see that he appeared before the Judiciary Committee. The article indicates that this was not unprecedented, yet it was Harlan's appearance who set the precedent? Perhaps a rephrase is in order. Also, the final paragraph reads like someone eulogizing Harlan. Is this a direct quote? If so, it should be attributed, and perhaps done as a blockquote.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]

    His civility is frequently mentioned in various reviews (in Dorsen, for instance). Here I tried to emphasize this fact. So it is me who is "eulogizing Harlan". Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably best if you cited the various sentences, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Harlan is frequently referred to as John Marshall Harlan II. See for instance Supreme Court Historical Society. So, I think, the title of the article is OK. I also replaced the last sentence in the lead, with one about Rehnquist. Ruslik (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I copy-edited the lead and added page number as you suggested. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As to hearings before the committee. Before Harlan only some justices were questioned by Judiciary Committee (Stone in 1925, for instance), however it was not an established practice. Beginning with Harlan the committee questioned every candidate. Ruslik (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Jurisprudence:

    Equal protection clause: "sided with the civil rights movement". Perhaps that could be rephrased. In each case, there are parties that justices either side with or don't, not movements.

    • "similar to his grandfather, the only dissenting justice in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case." Of course the latter is true, but did Grandpa vote that way in other civil rights cases, or is an extrapolation being drawn from Plessy? What does the source say?—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]
      I copy-edited the paragraphs. As to older Harlan, I agree that it may be difficult to compare him with his grandson—they lived in different epochs. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Due process clause:

    • The Supreme Court has sided with Harlan: I find phrasings like this, which occur several times in the article, unbearably fuzzy. Harlan wasn't a party. Perhaps "The Supreme Court has since adopted Harlan's approach ..." ?—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Incorporation: The last paragraph has a very confused timeline. If I were to read it as a lay person, I would assume that before Warren got his mitts on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, led by Harlan, ruled that only fundamental rights were incorporated, and then Warren nefariously snuck in and wildly expanded the number of fundamental rights. (I'm exaggerating for effect). That, we know, is not the case. In addition, the first phrase is fuzzy, as I've indicated.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]

    First amendment:

    • "Justice Harlan concurred in many ... " do you mean he noted concurrences, or did he join in the majority opinion? Or did he do both? Same applies in "Criminal procedure"
    • "but felt that the guarantees of the First Amendment applied more stringently to the federal government than the states because of the federalism principle he believed implicit in the Constitution." Technically correct, I guess, but it may be lost on the layman. Can you rephrase and say what the practical effect of the principle applying more severely to the Feds than to the states would be?
    • "Harlan delivered the opinion of the court" Yes, Supreme Court opinions do say that, but unless Harlan actually read it from the bench (which does happen, though more often with dissents), I'd probably say "wrote".—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]
      Fixed. I rearranged this section to emphasize Harlan's belief that the federal obscenity statues were unconstitutional, while those of states were not. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Criminal procedure:

    • Can you consolidate the two references to Gideon?
    • Katz: You say his concurrence is "often cited", yet surely that is not verifiable by looking at the reference, which is the text of the Court's (and no doubt Harlan's) opinions in the United States Reports.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]
      What do you mean by consolidate? I removed "often cited" . Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean you mention Gideon, go on to mention another case, then come back to Gideon. It probably would read better if you were to bring the two mentions of Gideon together.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Voting rights:

    • Justice Harlan rejected the theory that the Constitution enshrined the so-called "one man, one vote" principle, or the principle that legislative districts must be roughly equal in population. Citation needed, only cites in section are directly to cases.—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]
      I added a reference to the lecture of Hickok. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Retirement and death:

    • I believe the lowest ABA rating is "Not qualified" not "unqualified". Can you check this against contemporary reports?—This is part of a comment by Wehwalt (of 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: Reply[reply]
      This report also says unqualified. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Generally a fine article, and I look forward to supporting. It needs closer attention to legal fine points, and also a bit more about Harlan the person. There's very little about his personal life. I see he married and had one daughter, but for all the article tells me, his wife was dead by 1930 (I'm not sure if the daughter's name gives a married name or a middle name). Surely Warren, or Burger, or Nixon eulogized him when he died, and we can get something from that? I come away thinking I know more about Harlan the judge, but not Harlan the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    His personal life was not especially remarkable, and I do not have sources except Dorsan, which is a collection of anecdotes about Harlan. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose on criterion 3

    All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    These issues should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • For the first I found artist's name, but not date. For the second I found source, but no other information. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      We still have no information that suggests that the second image is in the PD. Have you checked to see if it is from the Library of Congress? I looked around a bit but could find no additional information myself. If nothing further can be found, this image will have to be removed from the article and deleted. Since Harlan died in 1971, photographs of him looking this old are likely to still be under copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I checked the Library of Congress and found nothing. Well, I asked User:Postdlf (who uploaded it) for a clarification. Ruslik (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Can you find any PD pictures of the nine members of the Court from that era? Then you could crop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I replaced the image with one from the Supreme Court collection. Ruslik (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the changes. I will read it again over the next couple of days and also pull the NY Times obit on Harlan and see where we are. How do we know his private life was unremarkable?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comments -
    • Current ref 2 (Ariens...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    • Current ref 9 (http://www.harlanfamily.org/book.htm) what makes this a reliable source? First, it's a self-published genealogy book (even professional genaologists don't trust family history books) and second it's a blurb on a family website adverstising the book!
    • Current ref 10 (Leitch..) needs page numbers
    • 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
    • What makes http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=447 a reliable source? Find a grave is user submitted.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. Ariens is "is a Professor at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas." He is a publisher of this information.
    2. I got rid of ref 9 and replaced it with ref 10 (Princeton Companion).
    3. I do not know page numbers in the printed version of Princeton Companion, but I added a link to the web version.
    4. Findgrave is only used for illustrative purposes, i.e. to show readers Harlan's grave.
    5. I will fix newspapers titles.
    Ruslik (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On the findagrave, if it's only used as illustrative, it should go in the external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I removed a ref to 'Find a grave', but added a note to the previous ref stating that the photos can be found at 'Find a grave'. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What is the problem with Ariens? Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He's self published, so he needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I eliminated Ariens. As to Princeton Companion, I can not find page number in the print edition. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So it has no page numbers? How many pages does it have? (i.e. is it a pamplet?) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not have this book so I do not know. Ruslik (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    559 pages, see [88]--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (outdent) With that many pages, we really do need page numbers for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're aware the link is directly to the Harlan entry in the electronic version of the book hosted at princeton.edu? 86.44.26.233 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments from Wehwalt:

    Thanks for clearing up those issues. I'm still concerned about the lack of info as to Harlan the person in the article; we don't even know if his wife survived him (or survived very long). Have you consulted newspaper obits? They should not be hard to find. In addition, any info on whether Harlan helped decide any cases of note in his year on the 2nd Circuit? Also, I do not think it is necessary, and just take it as a suggestion, but an image of the nine justices at some part during Harlan's career would be good in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The New York Times did a fine article on him on his retirement, one of the "Man in the News" articles it used to do, on September 24, 1971, it is quite interesting. Did you know he represented Gene Tunney? And the Times did a long obit, four thousand words. I would find someone with access (I do not have time to help out, I am sorry) and get some of this info in the article. By the way, his wife did survive him and died in June 1972. But right now, I would have trouble supporting on comprehensiveness grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I found found only two relatively interesting cases in which Harlan participated as a circuit judge (this and this). However I am not a lawyer and I do not know how important they are. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are not cases that I have ever heard of before, but I have never done an espionage or treason case (few have). I don't think they are likely to be important.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just noticed that defendants in these cases have article in Wikipedia (see John David Provoo and Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn). Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You might want to mention those, just to have something to say about his service on the Second Circuit. Please try to get access to those Times articles (another newspaper with the same amount to say about Harlan would be fine. This isn't so great, but at least it is free. Always run a Time Magazine search. They even have a little note in Time about his engagement and they did at least three feature articles on him ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I created a new section - 'Family life' and added some information into 'Supreme Court carrier' and 'Death' sections. I also added a paragraph into 'First Amendment' about his decision on Smith Act as both circuit judge and justice. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    (outdent) It's better. Still would like to see more on the cases Harlan did as a private attorney. Please see if you can get those Times articles, the cost is not exorbinent if you can't find someone with a subscription.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I expanded this part. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is good. I'll probably try to add a bit myself as time permits. However, please take a close look at your expansion and clean up the typos. It is getting near the point that I think I can support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Support I find it simpler to simply add the needed material myself. I think the article minimally meets FA standards. It contains all the information it needs to. I'm not thrilled with the choppy prose, and it arguably could use a good copyedit, but it minimally meets the standards, and I think will be promoted once this process is done. Another couple of images, perhaps of the Warren Court or of Frankfurter wouldn't hurt, and if you are completely desperate, the court building will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thank you for your review and additional information that you added. Ruslik (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One thing more: please be sure that info in the lede can be found elsewhere in the article, and then you should not have refs in the lede unless there is a very good reason to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think Greater Toronto Area is a more direct than environs of Toronto, Ontario.
      • in Greater Toronto Area Canada does not seem proper construction. Maybe in the Greater Toronto Area (with or withoug Canada).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Hey Wehwalt, something still looks odd about this construction. How about a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I think it is awkward and anachronistic, given that the term GTA did not come in until the 1990's. I also don't like the parenthases. If you feel you have to have the word Canada in there, I suggest something like "He then attended two Canadian boarding schools in the Toronto area, ...". If you want to pipe GTA to Toronto area, I'd have no problem with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            Piped. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why is U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York linked in the text and not the WP:LEAD?
    • One of them -> One such case
    • What does "who was a sister of John Gottlieb" add if it is neither linked nor explained?
    • I would link colonel, Presbyterian.
    • What is Route Clark?
    • I don't know what "Circuit Justice responsible for the Second Circuit" means. Did he monitor behavior, finances, rule adherance?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comments:
    1. Replaced.
    2. Linked.
    3. Fixed.
    4. I excluded John Gottlieb, because it would require several paragraphs to explain who he was, and unfortunately there is no article about him in Wikipedia.
    5. Linked.
    6. It was a misprint (in the cited source). Should be Root, Clark, Buckner & Howland—law firm.
    7. I linked Circuit Justice.
    Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jurisprudence section
    • It seems to me that Precedent is an important technical term here deserving of a link.
      Linked. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • we say that "Harlan was an ideological adversary—but close personal friend—of Justice Hugo Black", saying "his contemporary Hugo Black" is doubly redundant in that we already know his first name and know he is a contemporary. They latter may be a stylistic redundancy, but the former is absolutely unnecessary.
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Now that I see constitutional adjudication, I feel Judicial interpretation should have been linked or piped when interpretation was used in the WP:LEAD.
      Linked. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Does political process mean legislative activity? If not, what does it mean?
      It means more than just legislative activity. I wikilinked it. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It seems that Dissenting opinion is an important link for the Great Dissenter. civil rights, Majority opinion should also be linked, IMO.
      Linked. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It seems to me that Gomillion v. Lightfoot touches upon either general Redistricting, Redistribution (election) or Gerrymandering. However, I am not sure what I should be looking up about this article. You might want to link to one of those.
      I added a hatnote. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Many legal and political terms such as "federalism" and "separation of powers" are left unlinked and unexplained. Other terms you may consider linking include "substantial arbitrary impositions", "purposeless restraints", "free speech", "at trial", "on appeal", "Eavesdropping", "search", "petitioner", "warrant", "jurisdiction", "congressional district", "right to vote"
      I linked the majority of them. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As I see it, "substantial arbitrary impositions", "purposeless restraints", "free speech", "at trial", "on appeal", "Eavesdropping", "search", "petitioner", "warrant", "jurisdiction", and "right to vote" remain unlinked and unexplained. This may be the disagreement that caused you to withdraw the nomination. I like to overlink, but many of these terms seem to warrant a link or an explanation. Give me a ten word or so explanation on why you do not link each so that I may understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I linked all except "substantial arbitrary impositions" and "purposeless restraints", because they are from the quote, and I prefer not to link anything in direct quotes. They are Harlan's words not mine, and readers should decide for themselves what these words mean. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The way "at trial", "on appeal" are linked they don't explain the idiomatic use. I.e., you only linked the second word. Is that the best we can do? Maybe a Wiktionary link or two or a contextual explanation would help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Did I miss the links for "free speech", "search", "warrant", and "jurisdiction"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          I guess you don't think any context should be added to "substantial arbitrary impositions" and "purposeless restraints" for the reader. I don't really understand the terms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would change "the only exceptions" to "the exceptions" since there are so many.
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why are there underscores in Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn?
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Does List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by time in office belong in the see also section of this article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose 1a. The problems don't look to be many, but at the very least, this needs a good copy edit for consistency by a third party. For one, comma use to separate parenthetic expressions is all over the map (i.e. "Upon his return to the U.S. in 1923 Harlan worked ..." and "Later he served as ...", but then "Historically, Harlan's family had been ..."). Please get someone to polish it up. Wehwalt characterized it as a low-grade FA, but I'd say high-grade GA is more apt. --Laser brain (talk) 22:08, 4 May 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 15:20, 5 May 2009 [89].

    Stanford Memorial Church[edit]

    Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because it fulfills all the criteria to become an FA. It is an accessible article (especially its "Architecture" and "Organs" sections) with an interesting story. As its main editor, the way "MemChu" drew me in was a surprise, and a great joy. Promoting this article would greatly serve the Wikipedia community, since there are relatively few FAs about architecture and even fewer about church buildings. MemChu is a beautiful, awe-inspiring church in a very unlikely location, Stanford University, so beautiful that it was hard to avoid the peacock terms, but I believe that we were successful. Thanks for the consideration. --Christine (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • In years past, only alumni could be married at MemChu; this page doesn't say if that is still the case. Can that be sorted? It reads now as if anyone can be married there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've done extensive research on MemChu, and this is the first I've heard of this. I would agree that the source you cite does read as you interpret it. Not even User:Erp, a Stanford student and/or alum, has brought this up, and she's been my main "researcher" for this article, filling in information and sources I've been unable to dig up. Until there's a source, there should be no mention of this, of course. --Christine (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If someone doesn't track it down, I'll call to find out if this has changed recently. It should be sorted; perhaps User:Erp is too young to remember. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Current policy is only people with an affiliation to the University can be married there[90] (alum, full-time student, regular staff, current faculty, established member of the congregations (catholic or the main church) or child of these). Similar policy also applies to memorial services. Weddings also include mandatory pre-marital counseling. They are having a wedding faire this Saturday which is apparently driving them frantic. My guess is that the policy has always been similar (i.e., it was never solely students and alums) --Erp (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, that is what the policy has always been; can it be somewhat clarified that only persons affiliated with Stanford can be married there? It reads as if anyone can "hire" MemChu, which is not the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've modified and added references to more specific info. I didn't go into specifics beyond affiliation in the article as that I suspect is too much detail (plus I suspect there is a bit of give, if a university trustee wants the wedding of his niece in MemChu, I suspect he gets his way).--Erp (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I made some minor changes as well. Man, it's expensive to get married at MemChu! --Christine (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think that specifically naming Mary Gallagher, the wedding coordinator, is bordering on Trivia; not sure that's needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yah, but....she is staff; would mentioning Robert Huw Morgan, the organist, also be Trivia? Or any of the chaplains? --Christine (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Images The stained glass gallery images should be cropped to remove the dark area of little interest. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Hmm, I hesitate to do this, since I'm not the original photographer. And to be honest, I'm not sure this is necessary. --Christine (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess its the difference between what is acceptable and what is best practice Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment Multiple references contain the content "Harvey, p. 7" so a reference name should be used for all of them.
    • Um, according to the search I just did, all of these instances already have a ref name. Could you please list the instances for me, in case I've missed them? --Christine (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It appears that references 6 and 40 need publishers.
    • I fixed #6, but #40 is giving me problems. The code lists the publisher (Stanford Historical Society), but for some reason it's not showing up in the text. Perhaps it's because it's a PDF document? Someone more knowledgeable about this needs to solve this problem, please. --Christine (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm wondering if you can find an author for ref 10.
    • No, I cannot. ;) The original newspaper article listed no author, according to Erp.--Christine (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • According to this you have not made any contributions to this article. Mm40 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you hold your mouse over the word "Christine", you'll see that it links to her username, Figureskatingfan — the one who made 222 edits. Scartol • Tok 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yup, dat's me! First time anyone's had a problem with it. Thanks for the comments. Picky, I like; it means that this article is in good shape. ;) --Christine (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Support. Exhaustively researched, engagingly written, lovingly illustrated. Nice work on this one, Christine/Figureskatingfan! Scartol • Tok 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • This "although" isn't working, and the "as a result" doesn't follow:
    • Although the Stanfords were religious, but not formally committed to any Christian denomination, they viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship".[1] As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Not sure if it is proper etiquette to give an example of rewording on this page. Would "Although the Stanfords were religious and viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship", they were not formally committed to any Christian denomination.[1] As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational." work better? (I don't think we actually have in the article the 1966 revision to Founding Grant [which required petitioning the courts] that allowed denominational services such as Catholic or Jewish in MemChu and elsewhere on campus, I'll get the notes to Christine)Erp (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's OK to just make whatever adjustments might help without reviewing them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh, I added Erp's info about the above a couple of days ago, but forgot to report it. I have now added it, thanks again Erp. --Christine (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The article text needs close examination for following the structure and phrasing of sources too closely. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches; Awadewit might be able to review for this.) I saw quite a bit of this, just picking one example from the lead and one other:

    Source

    The church itself and much of the original campus was designed by 28 year old architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protege of Henry Hobson Richardson who had championed a Romanesque style with carved natural stone, massive columns, low rounded arch ways and red tiled roofs. The cruciform design (see the church plan) of the church (190 feet in length and 150 feed in width) incorporated an impressive clock and bell tower with an 80 foot spire.

    Article text

    Designed by architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protegé of Henry Hobson Richardson, the church has been called "the University's architectural crown jewel".[1]

    The building is Romanesque in style, with carved natural stone, massive columns, low rounded archways, red tiled roofs, and a cruciform design.

    Source

    The Stanfords, who were religious, but not committed to any denomination, decreed that the church was also to be non-denominational. Adopting such a philosophy, they felt, would permit the church to serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community. The Stanfords also saw spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship.

    Text

    Although the Stanfords were religious, but not formally committed to any Christian denomination, they viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship".[1] As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational. She believed that adopting this philosophy would "serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community".[1]

    Perhaps Awadewit will have a look. I also see that the sources add a sentence clarifying Leland Jr. vs. his father, founding of the University vs. MemChu; I think that one sentence would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Stanford, who may confuse father and son. The article alludes to the death of the Stanfords' son without ever discussing it. The article could also benefit from some discussion of the placement of MemChu on campus in relation to the Quad. I'm also wondering why there is no picture of the interior of the church, other than the windows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Sandy, I totally get what you're saying. The surprise for me is that you're the first one to say this kind of thing. I admit that when I'm unfamiliar with a topic, like architecture and organs, my writing tends to parallel the original source. Although how else can you say that Coolidge was a protegé of Richardson? And the list you mention: how differently can you describe the church's red tiled roofs? I know that I've read something somewhere about this, but not knowing enough about WP policies, I can't remember where. Do you think that there's plagiarism in this article? If so, that's pretty serious, and something needs to be done about it. That being said, Awadewit participated in this article's peer review, and she never said anything about it. We've all worked hard at making certain sections, like the above-mentioned Architecture and Organs sections, both accessible for readers new to the topics addressed and clear for experts. I believe we've made a good attempt and been successful. --Christine (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I suggest asking Awadewit to specifically look at this issue (I wouldn't label it as "plagiarism", as that's a loaded word, but she knows more on the topic than I do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I see my name popping up here. I did not review this aspect of the article before, but I will do so now. Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As per your suggestion, I added information about Leland Jr. in two places: in a note at the beginning of the article, in the "History" section, and again when he's mentioned regarding the stained glass window that honors him in the "Interior" section. I have also added the church's exact placement. Please understand, though, that I've never even been on campus, so it'd be great if one of you who has could make sure that the sentence sounds coherent. To answer your final question: the reason there are no images of the church's interior was that there are no free images available. The Hall book (which is a great little resource, btw) has images of the interior of the original church, though. Since it was published in 1917, it's public domain, so we could use them. (That's where I got the first image in the "History" section.) Do you suggest that we do that? --Christine (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Have you asked the church if they will release a current image of the interior? This is the kind of work that went into Ima Hogg and Museum of Bad Art, for example-- writing to them and asking for an image. Without it, the article doesn't do justice to the church. Also, anyone who was married there has one taken from the balcony. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All interior wedding photos have to be done by a professional photographer (Church policy so the ceremony isn't disrupted by random photos) and professionals tend to be very protective of the copyright on their pictures. I'll see what I can do through other means. So we want one general interior picture ideally perhaps taken from the organ loft looking towards the altar and one good picture of the Last Supper mosaic (the best mosaic in the church) behind the altar? --Erp (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Some discussion of the breadth and comprehensiveness of this article in relation to other articles like Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York), Netley Abbey, and St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery would be helpful. The article is about the building and the church; is the congregation/membership well enough covered, as well as construction details and architecture? The discussion of these, and the church interior, seems brief. For example, the many mosaics are mentioned but hardly discussed. What is the seating capacity? The destroyed apostles that used to be in front of the niches around the altar are mentioned, but the niches aren't discussed. There seems to be a focus on staff, mosaics and organs, but gaps in other content. There's very little discussion of the damage sustained in 1989, which was significant. I can find no mention of height; did I miss that? I'm concerned that this article relies too much on what is available from websites and hasn't been thoroughly researched via other sources. By looking at pictures of the interior of the church—missing from the article—one can understand how much architectural discussion seems missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I'm fairly certain that I can address your concerns here. Yes, you missed the height; it's in the Architecture > Layout section, the final sentence of the first paragraph. Regarding the congregation: this church is different than most because it doesn't have a traditional congregation; it's congregation is the student body of Stanford University. MemChu is part of the ministry of the Office for Religious Life, which serves the students, faculty, and staff. I'd bet if you asked any of the chaplains, like all college chaplains, they'd respond that their "congregation" is everyone affiliated with the school. One of the most exciting aspects of this article, I think, is its "Influence" section, which describes how the chaplains, especially Elton Trueblood, changed a strongly secular university that was antagonistic towards all things religious to an institution with one of the best religious studies programs in the US. That says a great deal about MemChu's "congregation" and its influence on the campus.
    • (the following is my observation) Actually the Sunday morning congregation does contain some people whose only affiliation is through the Sunday morning service (and who also use the chaplains as pastoral advisers); it is not exactly large (except for Easter or Christmas [though Ash Wednesday got a surprisingly large turnout [admittedly that might be in part because the Catholic congregation and the Pentecostals joined in]]). I would guess the Deans see several circles (some disjoint, some intersecting, and some subsets). (a) The regular Sunday morning congregation but no formal tally of who is in it (beyond the choir), (b) The Catholic congregation (who use MemChu, the CIRCLE, and the student union for services), (c) the other religious groups such as Chi Alpha or Hillel or the Islamic Society of Stanford (interesting bit on their history[91]) which mostly meet in the CIRCLE rooms (except Hillel which has its own house), (d) the greater Stanford community (usually gathered for Baccalaureate or at tragedies local, national, or international [there was one for the major Chinese earthquake last year which was well attended, Stanford has students from that region]). One question is whether this article should contain much info on the greater religious community at Stanford or concentrate only on the building? --Erp (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The article you cite about the ISSU is interesting, but it says nothing about MemChu, which brings me to my opinion about your question, Erp. This article is about the building, not about the religious communities at Stanford. This article already mentions the church's importance to these groups, as it has influenced them. Perhaps there needs to be another article about the communities, and their histories. --Christine (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The article isn't only about the building, art and architecture; there is extensive discussion of staff. Confusing; scope of the article is unclear. If it's only about the building, then more architectural depth is needed. If it's about the church, more breadth is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Regarding the "gaps in content": I respectfully disagree. The sources used range from websites (the Office of Religious Life, the Stanford Historical Society) to books to newspaper articles from the time periods it discusses. See, I've always thought that the way that you write a Wikipedia article is you gather all the reliable sources available and construct it from them. There are so many aspects and architectural details to the church; is it responsible to go into excruciating detail about everything? The mosaics are mentioned twice, in the "History" section and in the Architecture > Interior section. Hall lists each mosaic and what they depict; did you want to include that here? (BTW, he also lists all the windows and the inscriptions.) --Christine (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In my opinion, yes, a list of each mosaic is crucial. When writing about the Sistine Chapel, for example, it is imperative that each fresco be listed. The same goes for the its lesser cousin. :) If this information is available in RS, it should be included. We don't necessarily need to go into "excruciating detail", as you say, but listing the mosaics is not excessive detail - it is letting the reader who cannot go to the church what kind of art is in the building. Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ok, I'll go back to Hall and see what I can add from it. He spends a great deal of time discussing the history of mosaics and how they're made, though, which isn't appropriate for this article. --Christine (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We should probably list all the windows also perhaps mosaics and windows by each section of the church (east nave, east transept, east balcony, ...); we might want to use a sandbox until we are happy. I assume we don't want to do all the quotes (though I note the article doesn't mention the quotes at all which it should do). --Erp (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose Let's fix the paraphrasing problems that SandyGeorgia has raised above and I have provided more examples of at the FAC talk page. Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • So it looks like we need to work on the paraphrasing problem and write up a list of the artwork in the church before we go farther. Perhaps we should close this nom, especially since both issues are major and will require some time. --Christine (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I do think there are a number of major issues here. First, is the issue of following sources too closely. Second, the images are just not at FA quality (for example, the stained glass windows ... when the article includes sufficient architectural detail, much better images can be included in each section, and the gallery should be eliminated. An image of the interior of the church is needed, as well ... there is too much left out ... what about the "Faith" "Love" etc. mosaics on the outside? Free Flickr images are available.). Third, the article is simply not comprehensive; it is lacking in breadth and depth. Please compare to the other FAs that I linked earlier in the FAC, and note that these other FAs include comprehensive discussions of the building as well as the church. Fourth, there is a bit of trivia in the article that could be better presented, particularly with respect to staff. A list of every Dean could be better written into paragraphs as History. There are MANY free images available on Flickr; I think that someone who hasn't been on campus might have a hard time envisioning all that could be and should be written about MemChu (for example, location on campus in relation to the Quad, and there is still scanty detail on the 1989 earthquake damage and resulting repairs). This is a very fine start, and an excellent article, but it's not quite where it needs to be yet for FA quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for doing that, Elc; in addition to the interiors you uploaded, there are many excellent images of architectural detail on Flickr. Some samples:
    I suspect that better images of the stained glass windows can be found, or the black should be cropped out of those we're using as suggested above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A suggestion: how about bringing in Ceoil (talk · contribs) and Giano (talk · contribs)? With a bit more work, this article can be truly fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are also multiple views of the Dome on Flickr that are superior to the one included in this article's gallery, which isn't really adding anything useful to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Another question for Elcobbola or Awadewit: does copyright allow us to do this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    In my opinion, yes. I don't think such a basic floorplan can be copyrighted. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 3 May 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 15:20, 5 May 2009 [92].

    National Lampoon's Animal House[edit]

    Nominator(s): J.D. (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of work has gone into improving this article. It is has achieved GA status and I think is ready for FA status. J.D. (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Support — Looks complete and thoroughly researched. Excellent references. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

    Oppose per the following concerns:

    • Judging from the length of the article, two paragraphs in the lead section seems short. No way to expand? The section lacks production information and critical consensus as well.
    I have added production info and a bit about the critical reaction.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Plot" section is bloated at 800 words. This should not be a complicated film, so I foresee it at 500-600 words instead. We should just give the reader the broad strokes of the film to have context for the rest of the article body.
    I've trimmed it down some.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Characters" should be "Cast", especially if you're leading off with actors' names. Bold formatting should be removed; with bulleted items this closely clustered here, there is no need for this kind of emphasis.
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • File:Animal House Deltas.jpg has no fair use rationale on its page and is too big to boot. Not seeing any established significance through critical commentary in the article, so it should be removed. A cast shot may seem significant, but if there is no critical commentary about the particular shot, the reality is that it is not.
    Removed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Other significant characters" sounds like a poor section heading, and I doubt that everyone in this subsection had a role that would be considered "significant".
    Changed to Supporting characters as they are all fairly important to the film at certain points.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nix Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic from "Critical reception" since the film is too old for these websites to have made a contemporary assessment. Also, what was the critics' consensus of the film at the time? Was it as popular then as it is now?
    Zapped RT and Meta. And added a bit about how it was received back in the day with citation.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "TV series, sequel" is another poor section heading. Perhaps a term that can describe this kind of follow-up media instead.
    Changed to "Spin-offs" which seems more inclusive.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "DVD editions" is DVD-centric and neglects other home media... surely it was released on VHS and who knows what else. What about Blu-ray?
    Switched to "Home video" and added bit about being released on videodisc.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In "Legacy", the AFI recognition information seems rather detached from the initial paragraph. Merge?
    Merged. Actually removed as that info is already included.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "See also" section is pretty sparse; no way to mention Meyerowitz in the article body at all? If not, I recommend pointing to "similar works" (see Allmovie for a few selections) so readers can explore them.
    Thanks for the suggestion. I added a few similar works.--J.D. (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In "External links", is the MP3 interview relevant to the film? The description does not seem like it.
    Removed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Considering that this was a pretty famous film, is there no serious academic coverage about it? There is no book of any sort being referenced for this article, which surprised me for a Featured Article candidate about a famous film.
    Well, there really isn't much out there that isn't directly tied into the film itself. Chris Miller's book is more of a memoir of his actual experiences as to what happened on the film itself. I think that because it is considered a low-brow, gross-out comedy, there isn't much academic study or attention brought to it outside of pop culture mags like Entertainment Weekly. The Biography Channel ran an excellent documentary on the film but it mostly recycles info. already sourced in this article.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Although at first I chuckled at the idea of "serious academic coverage" of Animal House, lo and behold, this book claims Animal house shaped a generation of films (that's well documented), but also comic actors, and to some extent, the youth of the 1980s. There's also an academic article in Journal of College Student Development called Cinematic College: "National Lampoon's Animal House" Teaches Theories of Student Development. And here, Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article called "Animal House" at 30: O Bluto, Where Art Thou?. So there's academic coverage of Animal House... who knew? I have no idea if it's notable but it's there. You might look into the Google Books/Scholar/JSTOR results though. --Chiliad22 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wow! Who woulda thought? Thanks for tracking these down. I'll look into 'em.--J.D. (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    These are my major concerns, and there may be more, likely in regard to writing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As for printed sources, surely some of these [93] would be helpful?
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
    Some of those sources look like they might be OK but I know that Wired book, the biography about Belushi is pretty notorious and slammed by many people who knew him so I don't know if it's too reliable. heh!--J.D. (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 27 April 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [94].

    Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

    Nominator(s): Aaron charles, Lwalt, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM),


    I am nominating this for featured article because at WP:PR we have addressed most of the FAC1 concerns.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    • The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, use a ref name instead, found using WP:REFTOOLS
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/national/inauguration09/main4729489.shtml?source=related_story|title=Obama Takes Train Ride To History: President-Elect Retraces Lincoln's Route From Philadelphia To Washington; Next Stop: Inauguration|accessdate=2009-03-05|date=2009-01-17|publisher=CBS Interactive Inc}}
    • {{cite news |first=Amy|last=Hamblin|title=The First-Ever Neighborhood Inaugural Ball |url=http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/the_first-ever_neigbhorhood_ball/|work=Presidential Inaugural Committee|date=2009-01-05 |accessdate=2009-03-28}}--Truco 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Image review - Before I check all of the images in this article, let's begin by removing some of them. This article is overillustrated. Please be more selective. Many sections are illustrated by two pictures when one would do. The "Ceremony" section, in particular, is poorly laid out. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I changed the position of images that were placed above the section and subsection headings to which they belong so that the images are positioned below their respective headings and "see also" links to other articles. According to guidelines in the Wikipedia MOS, "images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." Source: MOS:IMAGES#Images. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The layout of the images in this article is poor. Note that the MOS suggests images be staggered. All of the images in this article are on the right-hand side of the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    * I left messages for the person who filed the deletion request and the one who posted the audio file. This matter has been unresolved since January 2009, and it looks like the consensus is keep for now. But, I haven't heard anything back about resolving the deletion request, though. →Lwalt ♦ talk 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    Done Matter has been taken care of, and the analysis of the consensus for the audio file is Keep. Someone (administrator?) took care of this per my message on the Administrator's notice board at Commons. →Lwalt ♦ talk 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Look here. I found the page for the DoD photo on the DefenseLink site based on the photographer's name taken from the image page at Wikipedia. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We need to link to the HTML page, if possible. I did look through the album of images provided via one of the links, but I couldn't find this particular image. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Image update I see that the images are changing in this article. Please let me know when they have stabilized and I will recheck all of them. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • The inclusion of images in this article have stabilized for the most part. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses at this time. Awadewit (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments -

    • 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. (I noticed NPR, but there may be others)
    • NPR has been revised. IHS, FAA, JAG, PAC and VMI also converted. Most others like FBI, HBO and ABC are common. We can review any others that are questionable. Aaron charles (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's an astrology blog. You know the drill, you need to show they have a reputation in third party circles (and NOT astrology circles) that they are factual, etc.
    O.K. I do not see any third party sources establishing his reputation in terms of publishing. However, do either of his offices as the president of the Association for Young Astrologers as well as the Research Directory of the National Council for Geocosmic Research serve as third party verification of his credibility?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Frankly, no. Surely the official website gives the exact time! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Isn't that a very grey area. I think it counts as a recognition by his peers that he is a credible expert. What official site has the times?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're talking astrology here. If you were trying to discuss the astrological aspects of the inauguartion, his abilities as an astrologist would be germane. Since you're using it to source bare facts, the fact that it's astrology is going to count against it. And the official site of the inauguartion is what I'm referring to. Surely there was an official schedule, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tomorrow, I will spend some time reviewing how essential the content is and whether it can be substituted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would welcome some feedback from the other editors. I think it is possible we might be able to replace the first two uses of this source, but unlikely that we would be able to source the last two. I consider all four additive to the article. I have not yet found an alternative and will look tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All the timetables I am finding were the anticipated schedules and not what actually happened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Timetable and chronology searches came up empty. However, there is hope. I have found live blogs by otherwise WP:RS such as this. This takes care of two fo the four times. I will search for more live blogs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have found some sources. Some are good and others are decent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Current ref 82 (Warren, lowery..) has a formatting glitch.
    • Current ref 93 (2009 gifts) is this lacking a link?
    • Current ref 155 (Watch Barack Obama's ...) is lacking a publisher
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    oppose File:Obama-Biden_Presidential_Inaugural_Committee_logo.png if excluded would not damage the readers understanding of the subject, hence fails wp:NFCC#8 and FAC#3 (if this logo was real I would be stunned if it wasnt the work of the US federal government) Fasach Nua (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Why is this file not PD? I thought that PIC work was PD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It has a fair use rationale, and a copyright-logo template on the image page. For what it's worth, I also believed it to be PD: The Presidential Inaugural Committee is organized by the US Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, one of the US congressional committees which is a legislative sub-organization of the US Congress. As the Congress is part of the Federal government, first thoughts would be it is PD, but if you read the PIC website's Terms of service, it says everything is copyrighted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, I think this article would be well served by a clarification of the distinction between the PIC and JCCIC (or USCJCIC). I will take a look tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. See posting on Talk page for the Obama inauguration article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This image has been removed from the article. Is that the consensus at this point? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    oppose FA criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I mistakenly thought that there were two OPPOSES. There should only be one in bold as it is confusing to other reviewers. Please unbold at least one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see the image has been included in the article at this time. Could you explain what you think is insufficient about the fair use rationale? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Committee website [95] says "The entire Website is copyrighted...Please contact us directly for special copyright permissions." Would noted permission resolve the issue? Aaron charles (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Sub-Headings. What is the difference in content under the sub-headings "Missteps in administering the oath" and "Missteps while administering the oath?" →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. I took care of it by revising the section. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comment We still have one left side image under a level three header. However, It is in a short section where I am not sure what rearrangement to make to move it to the right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I think its okay to move the retake audio up under the original audio file to make room to move the pic to the right. See how that looks. Aaron charles (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments

    • Perhaps we need to mention in the Planning section the attempts of the event to be "green", as lofty a goal that is for such a big event.

    Thoughts? (I am looking for feedback) Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Done
    • I am not sure that we need the pics of "Entertainers at the President Obama Home States Inaugural Ball" The pics of the Obama, Biden and their wives could suffice.

    Done.

      • Personally, I would have kept the Common picture because it is very sharp.
    Removing the picture of the entertainers is fine with me...no other entertainer (not to mention, Beyonce, who serenaded the Obamas) appear in the articles and including the picture here with the performers here seem to elevate them over other notable ones. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would love to see a picture of Beyonce, but since we don't have one that does not mean you can not add another lesser performer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree that the image of the parade route is better suited to the United States presidential inauguration article, since the parade followed the same route for previous inaugural parades. I did not find in the news coverage of the inauguration any mentioned changes in the usual route for the inaugural parade. My view is that a picture of the parade route is relevant to inaugural parades in general, not to a specific president, unless changes in the parade route occurred because of security concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The parade route from the Capitol to the White House appears to have been static over the years for the most part. For history's sake and a past example of a map of an inaugural parade route, here's a photo of the Kennedy inaugural parade route in 1961 (photo credit: The Washington Star Collection, DC Public Library; ©The Washington Post). The picture of the Kennedy inaugural parade route is the third image in the photo gallery on the left. →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's there for the viewing...click the third black and white photo in the first column of two on the left side under the red heading "Photo gallery." The image shows a diagram of the route on the "Parade Route & Stand Location Plan" featured in the photo, and the caption refers to a review of the 1961 parade route by Edward B. Foley, Maj. Gen. C.K. Gailey F. Joseph Donohue. This photo and the one posted in the Obama inauguration article would be ideal for contrast and more relevant for the United States presidential inauguration article. Although the planning sometimes changes as logistics become complex, the parade route seems to have remained static over time, with the route starting from the east side of the Capitol, traveling down Pennsylvania Avenue, NW DC, and ending at the White House, usually somewhere near the Old Executive Office Building on the 17th Street, NW side). →Lwalt ♦ talk 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Look a little more closely. That one starts on a diagonal. I think it must have started on the West side of the Capital on Pennsylvania. Our year started with a northward jog from the east side of the Capitol. I think the image you are pointing to supports inclusion in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The image review was completed this afternoon. However, I still support my earlier recommendation and the one offered by another editor about this issue. I'm only here as an encyclopedist to help the WP community elevate the quality of articles under principle of good faith, not to WP:WIN over degrees of a starting point. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My point is that in some years the inauguration has been on the east side of the Capitol and in some years it has been on the west side. This year, with it on the west side the parade route started on the east side. I doubt it always starts on the east side in years the inauguration is on that side. Thus, I believe the route differs from year to year although it always generally goes from the Capitol to the White House along Pennsylvania Avenue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have just noticed this removal, which came before my argument above. I have reverted it for the reason above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have linked to the map as "Further information". Could this be a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Compromise is not the issue. I have had at least a half dozen images I have created removed from the article and agree with almost all decisions and thus have not pressed any points. I disagree strongly with the removal of this particular image due to its encyclopedic content. The average reader would not look at the image and say "I already knew that was the route". Furthermore, as I explained above, the route almost surely has varied throughout the course of history in non-trivial ways although they all probably went up Pennsylvania. The map serves to teach the reader the general route (up Pennsylvania) and this particular one starting from the east side of the building. Do you think the average reader already knows the route or do you think the map has instructive value?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think the map has enough value to be included in the article. The route of the parade is not that significant, especially since nothing important happened on the route that needs to be identified as happening at a specific place (an assassination attempt, for example). The reader does not gain any significant information from the map that is not already in the article, for example. Note also that in my version, the image is not totally removed - it is linked clearly for the reader to access, if they want to see the map. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have added a lot of value to a new map that I just included in the article. It presents the reader with information about several events in one map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those are good additions, but I continue to think that it is not vital to know precisely where the buildings are located in relation to each other (the purpose of a map). I think linking would be sufficient. Other thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree strongly. I think a picture is worth a thousand words. In addition numerous secondary sources include a map of the parade route, which should clue us in to the fact that it is something the reader wants to see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suggest that the map of locations be posted at the top of the "Planning" subsection as "further information", similar to how the parade route map is posted in its section. Let the reader choose to click or not. Aaron charles (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That seems like odd placement to me. Many articles get tagged requesting maps. This should almost be in the infobox, IMO. The problem with linking the image is that it loses much of its value without a legend that would be in a WP:CAPTION. I don't see how we caption it without including it in the main article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering there is a "strong oppose" by Karanacs below, I suggest the editors work on addressing those issues and return to this one (which is only standing in the way of FAC because it is making the article unstable) at a later date. Awadewit (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey guys, read MOS:IMAGES. There are two competing rules that we seem to be bucking up against. One says: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." and the other says. "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." I keep moving the images to be in line with the second and you guys keep reverting to be in line with the first. I am going to make an attempt to be in line with both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both rules were likely suggested in the MOS guidelines to limit a sub-heading appearing as an orphan line in the printed document in cases where where a left-aligned image is placed on the first line of the first paragraph for that section. The only way to know how the printed article will be presented to the reader is to do a "Print Preview" of it in the browser (FYI - audio infoboxes are not included in the printed and preview versions of the article, and multi-images aligned side-by-side are instead aligned atop one another).
    One or both of the other rules (I say the second one) that handles placement of left-aligned images needs to be clarified by adding "where applicable" to the guideline - perhaps a suggestion to post as a comment on the Talk page for the MOS?
    I went back to move down the picture in the Luncheon section because the subheading was the last line on the page as previewed in portrait orientation within the browser as I looked at the article in preview from a reader's perspective. Now...how to handle orphan headings without images is another story.
    Also, I moved down the right-aligned image of the Obamas and Bidens to the paragraph starting with CIC Ball to allow the single line paragraph beginning with "The nine other official balls..." (13 words) to display as a full line across the page when the article is printed on paper or previewed within browser in "print format." This edit allows keeps with the same presentation of the single-line paragraph lead (18 words, counting each part of the date as a separate word) to the bulleted paragraph for the Obama Staff Ball. '→Lwalt ♦ talk 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I e-mailed legal@pic2009.org on 4-13-2009, but I've not yet received a response. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Strong oppose by karanacs. This article still needs a great deal of work to meet the FAC criteria. I only read about 1/3 of the article closely, and I've listed examples of the issues below. In general, the prose needs significant work and the article needs to be better focused on its topic; there is too much trivia and other unnecessary information. Please note that in most cases fixing only the example I listed will not satisfy the underlying objection.

    • The table of contents is completely overwhelming (that is a violation of 2b). There are quite a few very small subsections that don't really need to be set off as their own section.
    Recommended breaking the international reaction section in a new article for this reason. See article Talk page. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm having trouble understanding the paragraph on bars in DC. If senators were concerned that extending the closing times was a safety issue, why was that legislation passed?
    Rewrote paragraph to address concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I added back some color that got lopped off along the way to make it clear that the original legislation called for 5AM closing for liquore and twenty four hour food service.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The image caption says that 1 million public invitations were issued. I don't see this info in the article, so it would need a citation in the image caption.
    • Might it be useful to have at least a sentence or two at the beginning of the article that has a bit of background about inaugurations in general? Perhaps define what an inauguration ceremony is, and for how long the US has done so, and perhaps when the election was?
    Not relevant to subject of article. Info would be more relevant, as discussed in general terms, in the article about United States presidential inauguration. A link to this article already existed at the time of your reading at the beginning of the Events section. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This sentence doesn't make sense to me "Apart from its commitment, the committee did accept donations from individuals, who had active lobbying interests but were not classified as registered lobbyists"
    • To cover the projected shortfall, the mayor of the District of Columbia and the governors of Maryland and Virginia - we haven't been told that there will be a shortfall, just the estimates of how much they think they will need to spend.
    • Did Congress agree to pay DC, MD, and VA for their security costs? The article says they asked, but didn't say what happened.
    • Probably need a citation for Obama departed from Philadelphia on the Georgia 300, a vintage railroad car used by past presidents and the same one he used for touring Pennsylvania during his presidential primary campaign
    • lots of white space in Oath of office section, likely due to stacking of files.
    Fixed. 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a lot of what is unnecessary informqation in the article. Some of this is essentially trivia. Some of this might not be considered trivia if it had more explanation. In other cases, the information is probably useful, but it does not really belong in this article. I feel as if the article content is not focused enough on the topic. For example:
      • Do we care that the inauguration schedule didn't use the full middle name? Unless we know (and can document) the reason why not, this seems very, very trivial to me.
    Yes. Obama made a deal of it, as widely reported in news reports. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I merged the two references; one in the planning section and the other in oath section. I think that should help. Aaron charles (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Closing hours of bars in DC is worthy of mentioning here? That seems to have little bearing on the inauguration activities.
    Disagree. The planners over at the Senate made a media event of the move because of public safety and security planning for the inauguration. DC City Council reconsidered the temporary law to address these and other concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think somewhere in the mix we lost the fact that the original plan was for 5A.M. closing for liquor and twenty four hour service for food. Without that detail, the complainant has a point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As per the article discussion, I do wonder if the bar hours have merit now and doubt in the future that they will offer much historical context. Aaron charles (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Do we care that some of the tickets had silver borders? Since the article doesn't mention any other colors, I think we can leave out some of that specificity.
    A mention of the colors for the other tickets - orange, yellow, purple, blue, are mentioned in this section at the time of your reading. The silver tickets, in particular, were mostly issued by the U.S. Congress to the general public by lottery or on a first-come, first basis. This story became the subject of wide media coverage because of the unprecedented demand for them - not to mention that some in Congress were begging for more silver tickets to the reserved areas for the general public because of the demand. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Do we really need to know how much was spent on GW Bush's second inauguration? I don't think that belongs in this article.
    For comparison and contrast, it does matter, given the widely-reported news that emphasized money raised and spent for this inauguration compared to the previous (and other) presidential inaugurations. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If we aren't going to hear about the "special stories" of 16 of the 41 people, do we really even need to mention them?
      • Why so many details about the train ride? I think the core information that is important to understanding this section could be given in two relatively compact paragraphs.
      • I still don't understand why we need to know to the minute what time activities occured (and their duration) during the inauguration ceremony. Does anyone care about that now? Will anyone care in 5 years? (probably not) The only exception to this would be the fact that the oath finished after Obama officially assumed the presidency.
      • Do we need the transcript of the oath? The article has already spent several sentences explaining what happened, and we have the soundbyte in the article. It seems redundant to have the exact wording transcribed again.
      • The menu at the luncheon? That is sooo overly detailed.
    Disagree. Paragraph also places in context that the historical practice of basing the menu on foods from the states of the new President and Vice President. That, you know, changes from one President/Vice President to the next. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The prose is still not where it needs to be. The following are EXAMPLES ONLY.
      • Watch for redundant wording. EXAMPLES only "Relying on the inaugural theme, Obama marked the occasion of his inauguration" -> inaugural/inauguration twice very close together
      • Watch for overly wordy sentences. Example: "Relying on the inaugural theme, Obama marked the occasion of his inauguration and the anniversary year of Lincoln's 200th birthday[3] "to give Americans reassurance that today, as in Lincoln's time, the country would find its way through any crisis," both on the economic and foreign policy fronts.[13]"
    Revised sentence to address concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Watch for agreement between various parts of a sentence. for example, this sentence Unlike political campaigns, an individual or company can contribute to an inaugural celebration without legal restrictions on the amount of the donation, is actually comparing "political campaigns" to "an individual or company" rather that to the inauguration celebration, which I don't think is the intent.
      • There needs to be a good comma audit. There are commas in some places where there should not be.
      • Watch for redundancy within paragraphs. In one sentence, we are told the total amount of money that DC, MD, and VA budget for security, then we are told in the next sentence how much two of the three named entities individually estimated. Why the duplication?
      • I don't like that the article occasionally refers to things as "notable". We shouldn't need to point out specifically that something is "notable"; we should instead strive to show that it is notable.
    Revised to address. Aaron charles (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Overlinking: march, poet, minister, etc.

    Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    As used in the article, the terms "march" (a piece of rhythmic music; "Hail to the Chief" is called a march), "marching band" (group of musicians and dancers on team that perform outdoors in events, such as parades) and "March on Washington" (a historical event where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech) have distinct meanings. Each of these terms is linked only once in the article. Could you provide details on where exactly each of these terms are overlinked? →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't mean that the terms themselves are linked multiple times, but that it is unnecessary to link to many common terms. If you think march is necessary to differentiate between the different ways that word is used, fine, but there are a lot of other words that shouldn't be linked at all. Karanacs (talk)
    Note about trivia: I noticed in the comments given above that one of the reasons for including things is that it got covered in the press. The press covered many pieces of the inauguration in excruciating detail. That level of detail is not necessary to an encyclopedia coverage of the event. We should be taking the whole of the press coverage and distilling out the most important pieces and leaving behind the excess detail. (As an example, after expanding Battle of the Alamo from my sources, I trimmed about 1/3 of the article out - some to subarticles/other articles, and some info completely left out - because the detail got in the way of seeing the big picture. This article could benefit from a similar large-scale cut.) Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK...here's what I think:
    • Delink common, words typically used in an everyday context (cello, violin, manure, and so on). However, two editors had a debate on the merits of linking/delinking links in the caption (looks cleaner without most of the linking, though). That concern must be addressed.
    • I definitely think that the international response section should be in a new article. This section is becoming rather long in terms of the weight the section adds to the article. The title that I had in mind (International reaction to Obama inauguration) redirects to this article. Apparently, someone else likely had the same idea, but may have been vetoed in some discussion that I'm not privy to.
    • Since the transcript of the oath flub has been documented elsewhere, only links to the sources are sufficient. The article already covers the missteps in administering and reciting the oath.
    • The image of the parade is not germane to the subject of the article; therefore, the parade image should be moved to an article for the U.S. presidential inauguration.
    Have more to cover and tighten up, but will be back at another time to do that. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments I will start by listing concerns, as it ia a long article with a lot of research (kudos on that). I only have a short amount of time right now, so I will come back to this a couple of times, most likely:

    • "and an inaugural prayer service that featured religious diversity." Surely that is an odd phrasing. A prayer service no doubt features prayer, or devotion to God, or some such. Perhaps "conducted by clergy from several religious denominations"?
    • "which led to a retake on the day after the inauguration." Why be so wordy? What's wrong with "which led to a retake the following day."? And isn't retake a little informal? Why not "Due to the variance, the oath was readministered to President Obama the following day."?
      • I think we want to try to stay with active voice in the WP:LEAD as much as possible. However I changed "retake on the day after the inauguration" to "readministration the following day"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "In contrast to a larger than usual celebrity attendance at official and unofficial ceremonies, the Presidential Inaugural Committee increased its outreach to the public to encourage greater participation in inaugural events by ordinary citizens compared to those of the recent past." Problem here. The contrast is between a large celebrity attendance and the PIC's outreach. Maybe start the sentence with the PIC's efforts, then mention the celebrities last? Continuing the Lincoln theme, to evoke a phrase attributed to Lincoln, (though he never actually said it, though Nixon alleged he did in the Checkers speech), God must have loved the common people, he made so many of them. Put them first. I think the paragraph will flow more easily as a result.
    • Also, just looking at the article, the constant drumbeat of repetition of "Obama" is a problem. I tend to do the same thing, actually, constantly repeating a given name, and have to go back and spice it up later. Suggest eliminating about one in three usages of the name "Obama" to refer to the Prez and substitute "he" or "the President-elect" or "the President" or even "President Obama".

    Anyhow, I'll be on later. A hasty read shows it to be very comprehensive, and kudos for bringing it up on such a timely manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Oppose. Although the quality of the content is very good, the sum of its parts are not. The most concrete example of my objections is the ten inline references in the lead, none of which appear to be justified by the spirit or the letter of WP:LEADCITE. This issue is symptomatic of a larger problem in that the article has evolved from a gush of news media coverage that gives no consideration to the historical value of particular facts. This has overwhelmed the article with opinion and commentary from every direction capable of turning news media heads without any explanation of why any such opinion is of relevance, especially encyclopedic relevance, to the event itself. I'm aghast at state of the lead section's final paragraph. Conservatives had reservations about the speech and liberals liked it? People in general liked the overall event? It's like ending the Forrest Gump article with "audiences generally felt warm inside after leaving the film". The peril of staving off a barrage of biased editing is that you can forget that articles are not written to pass judgement on "how good" something is. Sometimes things just happen and they get reported, and this article is hopelessly naive of this. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • More comments. Planning: Why is "a new birth of freedom" a particulary historic phrase? It certainly isn't the best remembered quote from the GettAddr. I'd strike the word historic.
    • I would come out and say why Lincoln is relevant to Obama. You assume people know.
    • "His middle name had caused some controversy during the election campaign when detractors tried to imply falsely that he was a Muslim". Well, don't know about the controversy. I'd say "During the election campaign, Senator Obama's detractors tried to use his middle name to falsely imply that he was a Muslim."
    • "scooping up manure from horses used in the parade to sell at a farm" The farm sold manure? Surely this is "to a farm"!
    • "Invitations and ball tickets for the inaugural events were produced using recycled paper, and recyclable and biodegradable products." I'm confused by the final phrase.
    • I agree the extended bar hours should be in the article, but I would delete the various proposals, and simply state the outcome. Slows down the read. Similarly, I would just say "extended Metro service was paid for by ..." and pipe "Metro service" or "Metro" to WMATA. This isn't the CTA, you know, people just call it Metro. Even the buses.
    • Invitations. I'd insert the words "ambassadors and other ..." before "chiefs" in the first sentence.
    • Fundraising: The first paragraph is ambiguous. It could be read to say that the 2009 committee was trying to raise less money than the 2005 committee; I don't think that is the case. I understand what you mean, unfortunately you don't say it clearly. Easily fixed though.
    • "To underscore its commitment to change business as usual" A little POV there. Probably non-members of the Obama nation would disagree.
    • "The federal government contributed a budget of about $49 million" Strike "a budget of". And does that include FEMA funds?
    • Lincoln's train trip: Philly to Washington was not whistle-stop for Lincoln, read the last paragraph of the reference, he was snuck through Baltimore. Perhaps make it Springfield to Washington whistle-stop, and rephrase the second sentence to eliminate the "Springfield to Washington", I believe that would be accurate.
    • More later. This is such a sprawling article that all I can do is a section at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ledbetter: Obama signed legislation to overrule the SupCt decision very quickly in his presidency, might be worth a mention.
    • Biden: Worth mentioning that he was well known for commuting on Amtrak between Wilmington and Washington?
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Obama reminded the crowds that 'we should never forget that we are the heirs of that first band of patriots, ordinary men and women who refused to give up when it all seemed so improbable; and who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew.'" I'm a bit confused. The paragraph is talking about phrases associated with Lincoln. Here, though, we seem to be talking about 1776ers.
    • "homemade signs and American flags" If the flags were not homemade, reverse these two items.
    • Jill and Ashley Biden: Who dat? Not previously introduced.
    • More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Events:
    • "emcee" Surely master of ceremonies? Yes, I know she's a woman, but the term still applies. I would not use "emcee" as a verb, perhaps "preside over"?
    • Warren: Perhaps mention the controversy around his selection?
    • Still more later. This is a very long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Back to the salt mines:
    • Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh decried Lowery's benediction as racist, while democrats disagreed. Why did they so decry? And democrats should be capitalized.
    • Neither Obama nor Warren made references during the inaugural program to issues of direct concern to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. Unsourced, and well, so what? And a bit of a laundry list. Can you consolidate?
    • Lowery used both humor and sincerity as he delivered the benediction, including messages of sincerity Too much sincerity. You might do better with a direct quote from coverage on the humor and sincerity anyway.
    • U.S. Congress for its approval. Senate.
    • Luncheon: Since you mention the attendance of former presidents and VPs, you might want to start the paragraph with "As former President and Mrs. Bush began their journey to their Texas home ..." to stress they did not attend.
    • "A luncheon at the U.S. Capitol has been part of the inaugural program since 1953 (before that time, the luncheon was usually held at the White House and hosted by the outgoing President and First Lady" OK, but the last time they had an outgoing President and First Lady before 1953 was 1933. What'd they do for the four intervening Inaugurations, which saw an incumbent taking the oath of office?
    • Parade: in the new armored limousine "the" would only be justified if the limo has been previously mentioned, which it hasn't. Perhaps a quick mention that it was new for 2009?
    • "Vice President Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden" OK, by now we know who she is. I realize she's a pain to keep introducing because "Vice President and Dr. Biden" looks funny. I'd strike the words "his wife,", though.
    • "eight-time finalist " In what?
    • "Biden's alma mater, the University of Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens, known as The Pride of Delaware" He graduated from U of D, not from the Fightin' Blue Hens. I'd laugh more, but as I have a graduate degree from NYU, home of the (presumably Fightin') Violets, I'm not in a position to. I'd rephrase slightly so that alma mater clearly refers to U of D, not the Fightin' Blue Hens (I can't help it) or the Pride of Delaware.
    More later. Pass the cream glace, Senator Byrd.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    non free content - How wer the licences for File:Barack_Obama_inaugural_address.ogv File:Inaugural_invitation_2009.jpg and File:44_CongInvitation.jpg determined? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The tickets (silver one posted here) were issued by the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies for admittance to reserved areas on the Capitol grounds for the swearing-in ceremony and distributed to the general public by members of Congress (this one was provided by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies issued invitations (pictured in the article) to constituents from the general public who received tickets to reserved areas at the Capitol. The video program of the inauguration has been released to the public through the website of the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies here. Only the relevant clips of the Obama swearing-in and inaugural address appear in this article. Therefore, these items were products of the U.S. congressional committee that planned the inauguration.
    About the video clip of the Obama swearing-in ceremony - This version may be the one released by the White House which contained title cards that mentioned it as the source (picture for video clip was once a featured picture candidate). →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comments continued:
    • Barack's tuxedo. Borderline trivial.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "breaking with tradition". Two First Ladies are not enough for tradition. How about "breaking with the recent practice of Hillary ..."
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "was also reserved". Lose the word "also". Also, the list of inaugural balls "included", past tense, unless some are still going on.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The Commander-in-Chief's Ball, National Building Museum, held only for the second time in history, " If the first time was 2005, then lose the words "in history". It's just a recent creation.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "On January 21, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. EST," Why is "EST" needed? And if it is, shouldn't it be linked?
    • "and his wife, Hillary Clinton, in the front pew" Give her her dignity. Either call her Secretary of State-designate, or say, *"who would be confirmed as Secretary of State later in the day"
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "who delivered inspirational scripture readings and prayers throughout the service" Who says they were inspirational? A little POV.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "also drew in part passages" Huh?
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The featured sermon for the inaugural prayer service was delivered by Reverend Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the first woman to deliver the featured sermon for the inaugural prayer service.[137] In her own sermon, Watkins integrated passages from a variety of interfaith sources, such as passages summoned from sources rooted in the Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Cherokee faiths.[136]" Featured sermon used twice in penultimate sentence, "own" in final sentence not needed, "sources" used twice, and I'd strike the word "interfaith" as not really needed in view of the laundry list at the end.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • airline crew: People will probably associate it more quickly if you mention that it landed on the Hudson River.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Operation Iraqi Freedom. As this is a redirect, why not just say serving in Iraq? Also some might consider it more neutral.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Celebrity guests included the actors Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson and Denzel Washington, talk show host Oprah Winfrey and director Steven Spielberg, among other celebrities. The Department of Redundancy Department orders you to lose either the first or final phrase.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • the ceremony was the highest attended event ever held in Washington, D.C. Unless marijuana was distributed by the PIC, suggest saying "had the largest attendance".
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Crowds: Consider combining the last two paragraphs, and also combining the last two sentences.
    • "The Obama inauguration is the first one of a president since the September 11 attacks." F-ck yeah, W in 2005 didn't count, he was just a resident! Oh, that wasn't what you meant to imply? Never mind. Umm, maybe a very slight tweak here?
    Revised per suggestion, I think...let me know. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • had to stretch their imagination to anticipate unthinkable security threats, Slight contradiction here, perhaps "previously unthinkable"?
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The District of Columbia police force temporarily doubled in size" Were the police around the US members of the DC Police? Perhaps "the police presence in the District of Columbia temporarily doubled, augmented by ..."
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "The Federal Aviation Administration maintained airspace restrictions over Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." There are always airspace restrictions over D.C. Suggest rephrase.
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "the fact that no arrests were made by any agency during the inaugural events was unheard of for a record crowd of the size that gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Obama inauguration." But there had never been a crowd that big (which doesn't diminish the point, I simply suggest a rephrase is needed).
    Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    OK, that's all for now, I'll finish later in the day. I don't see anything hopeless.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    More stuff:

    • "The Raleigh-Durham market had the largest TV audience" Probably not, perhaps "highest TV rating"? Similar fix needed in the sentence about the top 10 TV markets.
    • "In addition, schools and workplaces across the country allowed viewing of the inauguration because the event occurred on a weekday." I'd say something like "In addition, schools and workplaces across the country allowed students and workers to watch the inauguration of President Obama."

    International reaction:

    • "the president of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki extended his congratulations to Obama for the inaugural occasion." Perhaps "to Obama on his inaguration".
    • "Office of the Prime Minister of Canada released a statement:" perhaps add "on behalf of Prime Minister Harper" with a pipe to Stephen Harper.
    • "Obama was honored for the inaugural occasion by the retired principal of the school," Odd phrasing, and how was he honored?
    • North Korea: Both sentences seem to have similar content and can surely be merged.
    • Australia: The U.S. embassy and consulates in Canberra, Melbourne and Perth, in addition to the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney and the American Australian Association. Very confused laundry list there.
    • UK: "the United Kingdom, which is home to 300,000 Americans." I would hope the US is home to them ... suggest "where 300,000 Americans reside".
    • "Another citizen commented that "Obama won't get the same treatment,' ... 'But he won't have too long to prove himself to us.'"" Why the close single quotes and reopen after the ellipsis? combine into one. And remember that a nonbreaking space is used before the ellipsis. Also, Israeli President should be piped to President of Israel. Please check to ensure you aren't having too many redirects.

    That's about it. I'll wait until I see changes made. Also, is the international reaction being spun off or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 1 May 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [96].

    British Cypriots[edit]

    Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for FA status having recently achieved GA status and remaining stable since. I believe that it is well written and thoroughtly referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    Have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Stelios launches easyOffice.jpg - This image needs OTRS approval. The release on the website is not under a specific license nor explicitly into the public domain. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for help on this matter. Once this image has been approved through OTRS, I will strike this oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you provide an example of where Template:Citation is used in the article? I can't find it.
    I will look for an alternative source for the Leon Osman point as the source used doesn't state a publisher. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You don't need a new source, just state it's his personal website on the reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As for the citation template, it shows up as a template in use when you edit the page, but I can't find it either. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think that it is his personal site though. It states at the bottom of the page that "DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SITE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. This is a purely informational site about the individual and it is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the individual. This information on this site was obtained from public sources, and may not be accurate, complete or up-to-date." Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then, yes, you need a new source. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Found and added. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    question the caption for the image is notable British Cypriots, what is the definition of a notable British Cypriot? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Good quesion. I didn't add the images, User:Pankration2008 did. They are notable per WP:NOTABILITY, but why they were chosen above other potential candidates, I can't say. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In that case, it fails FA criteria by containing original research, that fails WP:VERIFY Fasach Nua (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, so do you have a suggested solution? Should I remove the image? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would be more concerned with a whole section of WP:OR than the single image. As for images, perhaps a map of geographic distributions of B. Cypriots, Cycpriot Orthodox churches in Britain (if there are any), Cypriot food shops/restaurants in Britain, or other physical objects in Britain, rather than images of indiviuals may be more appropriate. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By which I presume you are referring to the notable individuals section? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since Fasach Nua has not replied, does anyone else have any views on whether the notable individuals section constitutes original research? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Fasach Nua's suggestion is a good one - the selection of individuals does seem arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So shall I remove the images and the notable individuals section? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose, at least for now. I have a some concerns about the coverage of this article, which seems rather thin to me.
    • The article discusses only Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but there is also a significant population of Armenian Cypriots living in the UK. One of my oldest friends is an Armenian Cypriot, born in Nicosia and now living in Surrey.
    • From the lead: "Migration from Cyprus to the UK has occurred in part due to the colonial links between the islands ...". Which islands are these? The UK isn't an island.
    • From History: "Before the First World War, very few Cypriots migrated to the UK and the British Cypriot population at this time was around 150 ..." Before the First World War is an awful long time to call "this time". Was this an estimate of the population in 1913, for instance?
    • What impact have the British Cypriots had on the areas they settled in? I know, for instance, that the Bank of Cyprus at one time had five or six branches in London catering almost exclusively to the Cypriot community, perhaps it still does. Any cultural impact? Any restrictions on British Cypriots, such as branches of the military or security forces they're not allowed to join?
    --Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 2 May 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [97].

    Robert Hues[edit]

    Nominator(s): JackLee –talk–


    I am nominating this for featured article status because I think the article is good enough to deserve that accolade. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    • Disambiguation links have been fixed. — JackLee, 08:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose on criterion 3

    Crucial image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Fixed. I wasn't sure what you meant about linking to the HTML pages, so I converted the GIFs to JPEGs and uploaded the latter. — JackLee, 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is best to link image sources to the HTML page on which they are displayed rather than directly to the JPG file (see WP:IUP). Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: The correct image is now displaying. Must have been a caching issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comments -
    • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comments This is looking good—I'm leaning toward supporing. I had some initial reservations about comprehensiveness, but after searching for a while I'm confident you have made the best use of the sources available. Could you humor me and look at the following issues?
      • "In 1594, Hues published his discoveries in the Latin work ..." This whole sentence in the lead is confusing. "that had been made and published" sound like they go together; however, I'm sure you mean the globes were made but the Latin work was published?
        • Comment: Hello! The articles I have read seem to use the term "published" in relation to globes as well (perhaps because globes are essentially maps mounted on spheres?). But if this is really jarring to you I don't have any problem changing it. — JackLee, 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Okay, that makes more sense then. I've just never heard of globes being "published". --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "travelled on the Continent" is probably too colloquial, requiring a wikilink (in two places, and an easter-egg one at that) for reader comprehension.
        • Comment: I would have thought that "the Continent" was quite a well-known expression, particularly when used in relation to an Englishman (Hues). I added the wikilink (admittedly an Easter egg) out of an abundance of caution. Doesn't "travelled on Continental Europe" sound a bit stilted? — JackLee, 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • This may just be a matter of opinion—I won't be upset if it's not changed. Although, I'm quite sure almost no one in North America is familiar with this phrase. Your second example does sound stilted. I would prefer "travelled through Europe" but that may be introducing ambiguity. I've talked myself out of it by now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "This has been disputed for lack of evidence." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" to refer to a prior concept. Instead, restate the concept: "This <whatever> has been disputed"
        • Comment: Since this sentence comes immediately after the disputed fact, I would have thought there was no ambiguity whatsoever. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You'd be surprised. ESL readers are routinely confounded when "this" is used to refer back to something that isn't explicitly restated. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Comment: The relevant sentences are: "Wood stated that Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's 'constant companions, and were usually called the Earl of Northumberland's THREE. They had a table at the Earl's charge, and the Earl himself did constantly converse with them, and with Sir Walter Raleigh, then in the Tower'. This has been disputed for lack of evidence." Honestly, I don't know much clearer this can be. Wouldn't it be unnecessarily repetitive to change this to, say, "Wood stated that Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's 'constant companions['] ... The fact that they were Northumberland's companions has been disputed for lack of evidence"? — JackLee, 12:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Laser brain (talk) 20:40, 29 April 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [98].

    Para Siempre[edit]

    Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I think is ready to do so. It is about a Mexican traditional music album, and this genre is often despised since the main market for this kind of music is older people (at least in México) and this album approached a diferent audience. Para Siempre is already a Good Article but I see potential on it to become FA. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: I left some edit summary samples of things like WP:DASH fixes needed. Please have a look at WP:V#Non-English Sources and review WP:FCDW/Plagiarism for a discussion of caution needed to avoid too closely paraphrasing text on translations. For example:
    • The late Tex-Mex performer Selena was the only performer to achieve this feat, when her album Dreaming of You replaced her own Amor Prohibido at the top of the chart in 1995.
    • Selena era la única que había logrado semejante hazaña, cuando en 1995 “Dreaming of you” sustituyó a “Amor Prohibido” en la primera posición.
    Re-arranging the words on a translation doesn't avoid plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did some rewording for that part. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Has this issue been completely resolved? I cannot read Spanish so I can't check it myself. Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Tech. Review
    • Comments -
    • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference (current ref 3 (Biograffia...) which seems to lead to a deadlink page also?. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose I have some concerns about the comprehensiveness and organization of this article.

    • Copyediting - I would suggest finding a good copyeditor to look over this article. There are a few infelicities that seem to stem from the article being written by a non-native speaker. If you cannot find one, I would be happy to finish the copyediting I started once the other issues I raised are resolved.
    • I'm not sure where the third paragraph of "Recording" goes in the chronology. It seems to come after the events in the second paragraph, but I am not sure. Also, the paragraph begins with a quotation, but the reader is not sure who is saying it.
    • I would suggest creating a "Composition" or "Musical style" section. As this is a musical album, one of the major areas of interest about it is going to be the music. There is some material in "Recording" that could be moved into such a section, but some additional research might be required. You could also include a short audio clip. (See Adore (album), for example.)
    • The "Reception" section is mostly a listing of awards. Are there more relevant reviews that could be added?
      • Did not find any. Latin albums are not reviewed by many critics, and for regional mexican music, the reviews are very, very few.
    • We usually don't include "Controversy" sections but rather include the information where it is most appropriate in the article. I would suggest moving this information into the "Commercial release" section. I'm not quite sure why the song was prohibited in the first place - could you make that clearer as well?
      • Fixed. Neither Fernández and Sebastian release an statement about the issue. I though the note was interesting enough to appear in the article, but I didn't find their opinion about it. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Oppose, 1b, 1c. I concur with Awadewit that some material seems to be missing. At the very least, I would expect more prose about the album's style and quite a bit more detail about the musical elements of the songs and album as a whole. More research is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thank you both for your reviews, I am researching to expand the article. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:16, 30 April 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 22:03, 2 May 2009 [99].

    Typhoon Tingting[edit]

    Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments
    until dissipation near the international date line on July 13 - until it dissipated near to the international dateline
    That makes the wording awkward. Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There seems to be a Twenty day gap from the governor of Guam submitting his request to it being signed off by George Bush which i find strange.
    US Government = fail :P Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The differences between warning centers section is that operational or BT data - it should mention both IMO
    Would referencing with the BT be OK? Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    more later Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Since Cyclonebiskit has adressed my comments and ive had a read over i now Support this articleJason Rees (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment
    I've fixed the disambiguation link. Thanks for the ref/dab review. Cyclonebiskit 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Umm....There shouldn't be any references in the lead since it's supposed to be a summary of the article, meaning there is no new information requiring a reference. Cyclonebiskit 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, references are discouraged within the lead if the information is already cited in the body of the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've put no new information into the lead, so I don't need references there. Cyclonebiskit 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments (it may look like a lot, but the article is decent and is close to FA status). I think the biggest problem (but it’s not a huge problem) is the met. history. I feel it is a bit scant on good details. For example, what were its origins? (monsoon trough? ITCZ? Tropical wave?) What meteorological events allowed the typhoon to intensify? (warm waters? Strong anticyclone? low shear?) Be sure to emphasize how favorable the conditions were, or were not, as opposed to mentioning them passing. You mention “further strengthening was anticipated” after you mention its peak, but you don’t say how strong it was forecast to be. That would be a good addition. Why did it eventually turn to the northeast? As you mentioned when the eye formed, when did it dissipate? When/why did the extratropical storm eventually dissipate?

    • ’’ Around that time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert for the storm, classifying it as Tropical Depression 11W at 1200 UTC’’
      • That implies that the TCFA and the first warning were issued at 1200 UTC, which generally doesn’t happen.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ’’ Twelve hours after being classified a depression by the JTWC, the JMA upgraded…’’
      • I find it weird to cross the warning centers like that. Since the JMA is gold, I think it’d be better to give the amount of time after JMA labeled it as a depression.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ’’ At 0600 UTC on June 26, the JTWC classified Tingting as a tropical storm’’
      • I suggest adding “also” between “the JTWC” and “classified”. As an overall suggestion, you should put the emphasis on the JMA when it comes to stuff about classification.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ’’ This followed development of outflow in all directions.’’
      • That is pretty unclear, and is a poor way to start a paragraph. Perhaps something like, “As Tingting continued northwestward, it continued to develop outflow in all directions.”
    Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”The ridge which was steering Tingting towards the northwest was forecast to strengthen and cause the storm to travel more to the north”
      • This is unclear and awkward. Did the ridge actually strengthen and cause the storm to travel more to the north? If so, avoid the “was forecast”, as the tense stuff makes it confusing. I see it later says “Around this time, the storm also began to turn towards the north”, so see if you can avoid the redundancy and confusion.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”At 0000 UTC the next day,”
      • I assume it means June 28th, but since the previous sentence didn’t mention a date, I would add the date to that for when JTWC upgraded to typhoon.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”within 95 km (60 mi) of Iwo Jima”
      • Which direction did it pass by the island?
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”The next day, the JTWC downgraded Tingting to a tropical storm”
      • Again, bad way to start a paragraph. You need to mention the date.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”After becoming an extratropical cyclone, Tinting”
      • Be careful with typos. I spot you using “Tinting” instead of “Tingting” three different times.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”as a strong Category 2 or Category 3 typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale”
      • I’d avoid calling it a Category 2 typhoon on the hurricane scale. Why not just say the person estimated those specific winds?
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As a general comment, all of the damage figures are in 2004 USD, but you don’t specifically mention that anywhere. Maybe when you mention the damage total in the lede, you could put a note saying that all damage figures are in 2004 USD.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ”A total of 300 people evacuated” – really? Was it exactly 300 people?
    Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The first two sentences of the Preps/impact section don’t mention any locations. Sure, the sub-section is “Marianas Islands and Guam”, but you still need to mention a location. Also, wouldn’t “Marianas Islands and Guam” be redundant? I’m typing this review offline, but IIRC the Marianas Islands include Guam, whereas Guam is a separate territory from the commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Try re-writing the first paragraph of the preps/impact, as it’s confusing jumping between “the islands” and “Guam”. You should also explain what “Tropical Cyclone Condition of Readiness Four” means.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The second paragraph of preps/impact also feels disorganized. You’re jumping around, and since you already mention every island’s peak wind report, why not just say “Tingting produced strong winds throughout the region”, rather than “TS conditions on X, Y, Z, and when it became a typhoon, typhoon conditions on W and V”.
    Done Cyclonebiskit 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Basically, for the impact, I think you should go island by island, rather than by each type of impact. While it’s nice seeing all of the rainfall totals in one paragraph, I’d rather see the impact from the record-breaking rain on Guam, rather than waiting to see the lesser rain on Saipan and Rota.
    • That’s it for now. The content seems decent in the article. I think it needs some cleaning up. Let me know when you get all of this done, as I might be ready for a support by then. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have one issue with the dissipation of the storm as the JMA doesn't state how it dissipated, it just says that it was last mentioned near -location-. I've changed it so it says that it was last mentioned to the west of the Aleutian Islands. For the impact, do I have to put it island by island? Some islands had little impact and it would make confusing stubby paragraphs. IMO, it's better to keep it the way it is, especially since it's how most articles are laid out. Cyclonebiskit 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I checked the Tropical Weather Outlooks from the JTWC and it doesn't say anything other than the pre-Tingting LPA developed out of an area of convection. Cyclonebiskit 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, I think I've gotten most of what you've mentioned above (other then the ones I've commented about). Thanks for the review :) Cyclonebiskit 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've found the dissipation (sort of) through a link Hink showed me on IRC. Hopefully that's most of the issues now. Cyclonebiskit 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I personally think it would look best to have preps and impact separated for each of the islands, which is more how Typhoon Pongsona is, and Pongsona is the closest analog to Tingting. I just don't think it's appropriate to lump the islands together, as they're all distinct geographic entities. For the shorter ones, as with Pongsona, they could be merged together, but at least Guam, Saipan, and Rota could probably be better organized as separate paragraphs.
    • As I mostly looked at just the met. history, I haven't gotten too much into the impact. I'm a little worried about the "Bonin Islands" section, specifically that no damage was reported. Well, the source doesn't directly say that - the source didn't know of any damage in the path of Tingting! I'd try finding a local report from there, or at least get another source confirming the lack of damage. Get back to me if you decide to switch up the order of the impact (which I strongly suggest). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I weakly supportoppose, as there is still more work. Watch out for unit consistency in the impact section. If one unit is rounded to 2 digits, then the other one needs to be as well. The writing isn't quite up to par, so even if you keep the format how it is, it needs work. I still think organizing it by each island would be better, since you say each island name a lot of times; Guam is mentioned 12 times in the impact section, vs. 4 for Tinian, 7 for Saipan, and 4 for Rota. Also, in the last paragraph, you mention the Guam death, but that was the first time in 9 lines that you mentioned the island.
      • Due to the lack of sufficient observations on Tinian, the highest sustained winds recorded were suspected to be lower than what they really were. Winds of 56 km/h (35 mph) were recorded several times with gusts to 84 km/h (52 mph).
        • Really, did you have to say that much? That could easily be one sentence, in which it would be much better organized. I suggest you find a pair of outside eyes to see how much you can eliminate. Remember, it's not how many words you can use to say something - it's how concise you can.
      • The highest winds during Typhoon Tingting throughout the Mariana Islands were recorded on Pagan Island where 106 km/h (66 mph) sustained winds were recorded along with a gust of 212 km/h (132 mph)
        • You use the phrase were recorded twice in the same sentence. I would oppose on the writing, but I think the content is decent. Try getting some fresh eyes. I won't point out every writing error, but it needs work. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Seeing as there are still some writing problems, I think the article could use more time getting ready. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's only one Japanese source for Tingting in the Bonin Islands, which I added now :P Cyclonebiskit 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

    • "Typhoon Tingting (international designation: 0408, JTWC designation: 11W) was a relatively weak but destructive typhoon which produced record-breaking rains in Guam." "which"-->that
    • "Tingting originated out of a tropical depression "-->Tingting originated from a tropical depression
    • "traveled towards the north"-->traveled northward
    • "breaking both the "
    • "A total of 71 homes were destroyed and hundreds were damaged by the storm throughout the Mariana Islands with total losses amounting to $11.2 million." Several things wrong here: "A total of" is redundant, so but we can't start sentences with numerals, and writing out "seventy-one" is rather laborious to read. "by the storm" is unnecessary as readers will know this by now. Also, the noun + -ing (gerund) structure is ungrammatical. So, try this: "In the Mariana Islands, 71 homes were destroyed and hundreds were damaged throughout the Mariana Islands; total losses amounted to $11.2 million."

    That's all I have time for now. These issues were from the lead only. Please go through the rest of the article (or better yet, get somebody else to) and audit for wordiness. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Weak oppose.

    • What is the JMA? Used in the lead but no link or explanation
    Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What is diffluence? Not wikilinked or explained in first section
    Linked Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not sure what this means - it was retired because the name did not represent Hong Kong and China, being that the name was contributed by Hong Kong
    The name was retired because it only represented China but since Hong Kong and China are one county, it needed to represent the two together. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That still doesn't mean anything to me. Why did it need to represent China? Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's all I really know about it, there really wasn't much of a reason. I think they just felt like retiring it. Cyclonebiskit 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not an appropriate answer. There is a reason given in the article, it just needs to be clarified. You may have to find additional sources that explain the naming conventions. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I find myself agreeing with Cyclonebiskit here. They usually don't give a rationale for retiring storms; it can be presumed that it was a result of the severe damage, but that would be original research. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Normally, I would agree with you, but the article did list a reason (the name didn't represent China), and I don't understand what that reason meant. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as i am aware it doesnt have too represent China (ie Dolphin 2008)- i think the reason the HKO gave for retiring Tingting was an escuse so they could go around Hongkong and raise awareness of the Tropical cyclone signal system that the HKO use for TCs. Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There is still a lot of wordiness in the article that could be trimmed. That would make the sentences flow a little better. For example (example only) Most of the northern areas of the island received more than 510 mm (20 in) of rain but the southern areas of Guam could easily be changed to eliminate the last part of the sentence "of Guam" for being redundant
    • Watch for consistency in spelling out numbers. For example, when discussing the number of homes destroyed, one sentence uses four, 24, four, 71, and 101. This is not consistent within this little list.
    • I wonder if it would make sense to pull a lot of the rainfall amounts out into a table. Currently, it makes for a very dense paragraph that pretty much lists X island got YY mm (ZZ in) of rain...
    There aren't enough rainfall totals to do that. There's already a rainfall map which, IMO, eliminates the need for a table. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Tables don't have to be very big, if they are just tucked into the side of the text. My biggest concern there was that the paragraph was extremely dry and difficult to get through because it was jam-packed full of numbers. Generally, a table is a better way to display those things, but I'm open to other ideas you may have for improving the paragraph.. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Prose needs a good cleanse. Here are examples from the lead. Can you find someone else to do it?

    • Opening para: can the first "intensity" be removed? It works without, I think, given the subsequent sentence. "a few days"—can't we be more precise? "for two to three days"?
    • "a combination".
    • Why a straight link to "Japan"? Surely pipe it to the "Geography" section in that article.
    • "a record 554.99 mm (21.85 in) of rain fell in a 24-hour span, breaking the daily and monthly rainfall totals for June.—"fell in 24 hours". "totals" should be "the records".
    • "One fatality occurred during the storm as a result of flooding and nine others resulted from rough seas produced by Tingting." Why not bin the last three words? Perhaps smoother with a comma after "flooding". Tony (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note Due to my upcoming trip, I wont have access to a computer for roughly two weeks. Because of that, I'm going to have to withdraw this nomination unless someone can fill my spot and make the corrections for the article during my absence. Another possibility would be to allow this nomination to remain open until I return, which I would greatly appreciate. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    i dont mind keeping an eye on this FAC on Cbs behalfJason Rees (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm encountering enough issues with the prose that to list them here would be counter-productive and only serve to dissuade other reviewers from participating. I've no issue with the sourcing, presentation or the editorial choices made, and I made several minor modifications myself because at a very quick glance I felt this could reach FA status pretty quickly. Closer inspection while doing this unfortunately revealed that the writing needs more in-depth work before the article will be suitable for promotion. I strongly advise going through each section to eliminate redundant language that tends frustrate the reader, who only wants to get to the next piece of information without getting bogged down in sentences that have finished telling them all they need to know. Some random examples: "traveled towards the northwest"; "fairly common"; "located to the south of"; "under Tropical Cyclone Condition of Readiness Four, the lowest level of readiness"; "as Typhoon Tingting approached. As Typhoon Tingting approached..."; "The highest winds during Typhoon Tingting throughout the Mariana Islands" (implicit); "to the northeast of"; "In the span of 24 hours" (perhaps "Within"); "but the southern areas of Guam"; "a total of 287.78 mm"; "over a 30-hour span" ("over 30 hours"?); almost every instance of "a total of" (there are lots). As I say, these are just examples, but they are fairly representative of the rest of the article. Other quibbles (some minor):
      • Mild overlinking. If a term is already linked, in an article this short it probably doesn't need to be again.
      • "With low wind shear and favorable diffluence, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert for the storm." Dangling modifier; the storm had low wind shear and favourable diffluence, not JTCW. In addition, "favorable" sounds odd in this context; it was favorable, so JTCW issued a warning?
      • Pet name or a name for pets?
      • As the article seems to use AmE, "toward" is more common usage than "towards", or so I'm told.
      • Inconsistent use of eastwards / north (sans "wards"), etc.
      • "a counter-clockwise loop though July 10".
      • The {{Clarify me}} template.
      • "Tingting was 150 km/h (90 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 160 km/h (105 mph) 1-minute sustained." I'm assuming that this means the top speed measured over 10 minutes, and that over 1 minute. I think an addition to the "Notes" section might make this clearer.
      • "near Paris, France." Doesn't seem relevant.
      • "Due to the lack of sufficient observations on Tinian, the highest sustained winds recorded were suspected to be lower than what they really were. Winds of 56 km/h (35 mph) were recorded several times with gusts to 84 km/h (52 mph)." Clumsily-phrased. Perhaps just state the recorded speeds, before mentioning that these were suspected (by whom?) to be lower than the actual top speeds due to the lack of sufficient monitoring/observation.
      • Inconsistent use of "Japan Meteorological Agency", "Joint Typhoon Warning Center" and "JMA", "JTWC"; if the abbreviations have already been stated and defined on first use, their use for the rest of the article would be better.
    • Again, these are just random examples that are representative of issues throughout the article. None are irresolvable, but added to those outstanding issues from other reviewers might mean the FAC has difficulty gaining support this time around, especially with the nominator on holiday for another week or so. Steve T • C 11:26, 28 April 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 21:50, 2 May 2009 [100].

    Atlantic blue marlin[edit]

    Nominator(s): Grander13 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make this article as good as it can be.--Grander13 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Tech. Review
    • zoo is a ref name that is used more than once, it should only be used once: checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
    • Fix the four disambiguation links, checked with the dab finder tool.

    I think these are fixed.--Grander13 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Why is it not a reliable source?--Grander13 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I have never used Zipcode zoo in my FAs because it is not a reliable source. It is not an on-line version either of a book or of a peer-reviewed journal, nor is it published by a source that would itself confer reliability (for example, I've used the European Zoo and Aquarium Association as a reference on the captive breeding of Northern Bald Ibis because they clearly have dependable expertise in that specific area, similarly the BTO for egg details). Some of the zipcode stuff is referenced, but not the bits you have used. That's not to say it's wrong, but it's not properly sourced. jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Current ref 20 (Understanding...) is a book and should be formatted as such.
    Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: jimfbleak (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Image of larval fish has only metric measurements, but the meat pic has only US.

    I will address that. --Grander13 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I think I fixed it.--Grander13 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • When mature, Atlantic blue marlin primarily feeds on a wide range missing the or should be feed. What's the point of primary does it eat things other than those stated?

    It should be "feed." The point of "primarily" is because blue marlin will eat just about anything if it is available to them. --Grander13 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Well, it doesn't really make sense as written. I would either lose primarily or rephrase something like When mature, Atlantic blue marlin feed mainly on a wide range of fish (such as tuna and mackerel) and cephalopods (such as squid), but also take.... jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • rod and reel because of the catch's rarity. if it is rare, why does not currently consider it a threatened species.?

    Of all the ocean species targeted by fishermen, atlantic blue marlin are probably the rarest. It is really good to catch just one in a full day. A lot of days you may not have a bite. --Grander13 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • The distribution of Atlantic blue marlin expands in a northerly direction during the warmer months and contracts towards the equator during colder months. I'm not clear what happens at the southern limit of its range

    I'm not sure I know what you mean?

    • It's confusing to me. First, what are the warmer months - this fish straddles the equator, so are we talking about the warmer months in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere? Assuming the usual US-centricity, I suppose it's the northern summer, but that's not explicit. If it it is the northern summer, I understand that the northern edge of the range expands north as it gets warmer, then contracts as the seas cool. What is happening at the southern edge of the marlin's range? Does that contract north in the southern winter (northern summer) or does it stay put? Again, there is an implicit bias in that it only seems to be the northern range, accessible to the US, that matters, and what is happening south of the equator doesn't merit a mention.

    First of all, this is more of a general statement, since the migrations of this species as a whole have not been mapped out very specifically. Either way, the "warmer months" are warm whether they are in the southern hemisphere or northern hemisphere. They are just at different times of the year. I am talking mainly about the northern hemisphere because almost all the good and famous blue marlin spots are located in the northern hemisphere, except for Brazil. I could mention this I guess. I still don't understand what you mean by what happens at the southern edge of the marlin's range. Do you mean where do they move to? or how they behave. I don't really know for sure how they behave in the southern hemisphere since I have not seen it mentioned in any articles. I assume the opposite of northern hemisphere fish. move south in the warmer months and north in the warmer months.--Grander13 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I think you are probably right, but if it is just an assumption could you state that movements in the southern part of the range are unknown/have not been studied? jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The movement between the Caribbean Islands and Venezuela and the Bahamas is presumably not a seasonal movement since it's a completely separate paragraph, but it's unclear when it is happening. Also the phrasing is unclear. First time I read it I assumed the movement was from the islands south to Venezuela and north to the Bahamas, whereas you probably mean from the islands and Venezuela north to the Bahamas jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You are probably right about the direction of travel, it makes more sense. Also, I say there is currently not enough information to determine when the "migrations" occur.--Grander13 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Why is the one-paragraph species controversy not part of taxonomy? jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I can make it part of Taxonomy and naming. Should it be under a sub-heading or just be a regular paragraph?--Grander13 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I personally don't like one para sections, so I'd be inclined to just add as is jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The refs are a mess
    • 6, 7, 14 at least have both the binomial name and the English text italicised - this can't be right. If the English text needs to be italicised, the binomial should become Roman jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 14, 17, 18 why does every word start with a capital? - not MoS, not consistent with other refs
    • 15, 17, 19 urls visible because of white space/breaks in the ref text - I've fixed 17 to check what the problem was, but not the others, (and I've not fixed the caps in 17) jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The map is a problem. The map description claims that it is based on a tiger shark map
    • the map it is sourced to does not exist
    • Is it saying that the range is the same as the tiger shark's. If so, it needs a reference
    • If the non-existent Tiger Shark map has been adapted for this species, you need to say that with a source for the changes jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry this review has been very bitty. I hadn't intended to do more than add a few comments, but it's gradually building to a full review. jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose Sasata (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I failed this article in its first GA review, and the article has improved by leaps and bounds since then. But at the FA level, I'm going to have to oppose on the basis of 1(c) "well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic." Unfortunately, the article fails in this respect, as no attempt has been made to review the scholarly literature on this creature, and provide an overview about the research that has been done; instead the article relies largely on easily-accessible web sources. A Web of Science search turns up close to 150 papers that haven't been mentioned here; the judicious addition of choice cited tidbits from some of these article would make this a much better article, in my opinion. I realize of course, that I have the advantage of being able to access most of these articles with a couple of mouse clicks, and the work involved is going to be much more difficult for a high-school student, who would likely have to make multiple trips to a University library to access these papers. But that doesn't mean that the FAC standards should be lowered... There are some other minor issues like the length of some paragraphs, and reference formatting, but those can be dealt with later once more content is added.

    I would just like to say that there is no University library anywhere near where I live or any library that is reasonably nice. Therefore, I do not have access to most papers of interest. However, I agree that the standards for FA should not be lowered.--Grander13 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    That's too bad. How about you withdraw this nomination, I'll help the article by adding the information I have easy access to, and we can resubmit as co-nominators in a couple of weeks? Does that work with your class schedule? Sasata (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that's a very good idea, I was beginning to feel that there was too much to do to get to FA this time, but it can get there with with a bit more time. I've no expertise or sources for fish, but I've written many FAs, so I'm happy to help with the technical and prose side if that would be of any value jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 30 April 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 21:43, 2 May 2009 [101].

    Phineas and Ferb[edit]

    Nominator(s): —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I am nominating this for featured article because the page is full, completely sourced, long, of high quality, and has very good writing and images. The page was a hard work from me and the community, and displays the great quality that it can reach. The sections are all right, the images are not cluttered, all comments are sourced, etc. I don't see any issues with it in it's current state, which I just rewrote. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Comment just looking at the lead:
    References should always be after punctuation, so an example sentence should read like: Blahblahblah.(reference). Please fix this.
    Link B-Plot as some readers may not know what it means
    There is an extra period after reference 5 in the lead
    In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I think boy's should be boys'.
    As I said, this is just the lead, but it seems the rest of the article is better. Mm40 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I fixed all of the points you mentioned, except for the first one, as I wasn't very sure of what you meant. I, as well, removed a red link, as I realized that might not be good. Also, for some reason a "copyright image" tag is up, saying there's to many of them. Does it mean that I instead need to hotlink to the same image on Wikimedia, or, what? —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, let's start with references. References should be formatted using the citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.), not just left as bare URLs. In addition, while I admire the intensive amount of information you added, I feel that there is something more that could be added. Compare this article with .hack//Sign or New Cutie Honey, for example: There is simply a great deal more information in the .hack//Sign or New Cutie Honey articles than in this one. I am unsure if this is because there are not very many sources (it happens), but even Avatar: The Last Airbender has ~4,000 words of readable prose; this article has just around 2,000. Are you sure that the article is comprehensive enough, and that you couldn't write a bit more with the sources at hand? I can't really point to anything specific, but I just got an overall impression of incompleteness after I finished reading the article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose, encourage withdrawl. 1st - It's not even a Good Article yet, how is it supposed to be Featured? 2nd - I see grammatical errors skimming the article. 3rd - One section is labeled as needing expansion. 4th - Way too many copyrighted images. 5th - Not a fan, barely knew the series existed, but the article seems like doesn't have enough information to be a Featured Article. Congratulations on your work so far, and I hope you can get this article to Featured Status. Good luck and שלום, mynameinc 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    • From what I can see, those pages have just as good amount of information as this one. I suppose I could search around and find some more information about the merchandise, add characters, and expand the writing and artistic styling. Would that help? Now, onto mynameinc's comments, all of those tags were added after I made it. Nothing I read ever mentioned GA being needed, so I never tried it. What grammatical errors are you talking about? What is wrong with a couple of copyrighted images. They are all tagged correctly, I don't see why it's such a big issue. The Simpsons has plenty of images, one of which is huge and clutters it's section. I also guess I can add more info, I just thought it had as much as other FA Emma Watson. Anyways, I guess if I get another opposal I'll withdraw this, fix points, try for GA, then FA. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not all of The Simpsons' images are copyrighted. And it helps a lot if the community agrees to GA first, a traditional steping stone to FA. I said I wasn't a fan, so I wouldn't know if this article could be considered done. Those tags are there, my response was not dependent upon the time when the tags were added. I think copyrighted images in an FA is a "big issue", because our FAs are supposed to be the best our community can offer, and I think there could be a lower copyrighted picture/word count density. FA is supposed to be the absolute best. If you see an obvious way it can be approved, it isn't FA material. The amount of information for an FA is dependent upon the subject, but, regardless, this page has less information than The Simpsons for Emma Watson. mynameinc 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I see at least one that (more than likely) isn't needed in the article. mynameinc 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I explained on your talk page, and it is good to compare to other FAs, preferably more than one, so that editors new to FAC and you can see the standard. mynameinc 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    See WP:FAC/ar and please leave templates in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 2 May 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.
    1. ^ a b c d "Overview". The Office for Religious Life at Stanford University. Retrieved 2008-10-13.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2009&oldid=293392627"