Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2007
- 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 22:20, 31 December 2007.
The Carpenters[edit]
I made many, many edits to The Carpenters. I added tons more references, I did everything people told me to do. Thanks to everyone that constructively criticized it! I feel this new page is much, much better and has a slight shot at being featured. Please leave constructive criticisms if you oppose this! Thank you! Also, I don't appreciate phrases like, "Oppose per name". Instead of that, please explain what you think in your own words; not someone else's. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: I added tons of references and formatted them correctly (thanks to User:MeegsC and User:Ling.Nut), I got rid of trivia, and I abridged the discography and singles, and I expanded and clarified many topics. I also expanded the lead section, too. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
Contains a [citation needed] tag, and contains a few other problems as well.Could use a section detailing the band's musical and lyrical style. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- In your opinion, do you believe that it's closer to being featured article than before? Maybe that's not a fair question. You may or may not answer it. I shall add the musical and lyrical style. Thanks for the constructive criticism! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that (although I was not around for the article's first nomination) it does appear to have improved since that time.
Also, I would format references to internet sources with the {{cite web}} template.--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. I started a rudimentary section explaining their music (I need help with that; I'll get it peer reviewed), and I added the Cite web templates. I even threw in a few Cite video templates, too! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that (although I was not around for the article's first nomination) it does appear to have improved since that time.
- In your opinion, do you believe that it's closer to being featured article than before? Maybe that's not a fair question. You may or may not answer it. I shall add the musical and lyrical style. Thanks for the constructive criticism! --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Generally the main sections from "childhood" to "post-carpenters" should be subsections of a section called "History" - see existing band FAs for reference.- If they were "Carpenters", why is the article called "The Carpenters"?
- The page was originally called "The Carpenters", then a few of the editors moved it to "Carpenters", but when it got changed back to "The Carpenters", we were unable to get it changed back to "Carpenters". Not to mention, there is already a page existing called Carpenters and it talks about their eponymous album. I think it's fine the way it is now. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you include the "haunting" pic in the death section?
- You mean the one from 1982 with Karen in the yellow jacket (although it's grayscale)? I can move it if that's the one you mean. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done!
Template:The Carpenters needs to be edited for MoS errors and also be reduced in size; its huge right now. Use other band templates for comparision.
- I'll work on this tomorrow. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done! You can see it at Template:The Carpenters. It's much, much shorter, and I used Template:The Beatles as a reference. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The musical style and legacy sections are painfully under-referenced and POV. For the entire article, try to include at least one reference per paragraph.
- In the process of doing this. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about a band called "Carpenters", remove personal information about each of them; that is meant for their individual pages.
- Remove that table in the middle.
- But that is a piece of evidence to support the statement. I don't think it can be removed. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- More later. Indopug (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The references need to be correctly formatted, preferably using the Cite web and Cite news templates. Some of the references are extremely vague, for example ref 50. Are you citing the whole of IMDb? Because I think you need to link to specific pages, or even find a better source, because IMDb isn't the most reliable of sources. Others like ref 65 are vague as well: which issue of the newsletter do you mean?
Or was there actually only one?
- Done!
"Television Specials" should be "Television specials", "Albums and Singles" should be "Albums and singles" and "Grammy Awards and Nominations" should be "Grammy Awards and nominations".
- Done!
Also, Image:Carpenters LOGO.png, Image:A Place To Hideaway 0005.png, Image:Timerichardsolo.jpg, Image:Karencarpenter82.jpg and Image:Carpatchrist77.jpg lack fair use rationales. Gran2 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that's very detailed. Thanks for the criticism. Let me say something first. The newsletter is clarified in the full references section. It says something like "Wallace, Evelyn" etc. The newsletter was #63 I think. April of 1973. I'll add a fair use rationale template for the images. Thanks! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I did references one and two. Do they look good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll continue to work on this tommorrow. Thanks for your great ideas! Good night! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
This article is also currently listed at peer review. Can someone please archive that review? Thanks.LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have archived it. Thank you! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and close The article is now on GAC. Close the FAC, wait for the GAC to finish, then if the article passes GA, you can take it back to FAC, but you may want to PR it first. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. That sounds like a better idea. Might as well take baby steps, right? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- A couple of things: it's not on GAN, and I don't know how to close this. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 05:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Cuyler91093, if you want to withdraw the FAC, just so say so here, or leave a message on my talk page, and I will archive it. Please take note of WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I would like it to be archived, please. Thank you so much! By the way, I am Cuyler91093. This is my official alternate account for music-related purposes. – Karen Carpenter (talk • contribs • count) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The request has to come from the original nominator. Are you aware of Wiki's policies about using someone else's name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have to use your main account (Cyuler91093) to post "I want to close this FAC". --Kaypoh (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about that. I wish to close this until next time. Can someone go to my own talk page and tell me how WP:GAN works? I think WP:FAC is much more convenient and easier to understand. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have to use your main account (Cyuler91093) to post "I want to close this FAC". --Kaypoh (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The request has to come from the original nominator. Are you aware of Wiki's policies about using someone else's name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.
Rugby league in England[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it fufills the criteria. It has already passed "Good Status". It has not previously been nominated.GordyB (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a nice article, but to pass FA, as a very minimum every major claim in the article must be verified with a reliable source. I've tagged a couple of such claims, but really the article's littered with them. --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll get onto it as soon as I can.10:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GordyB (talk • contribs)
- Oppose: like Dweller--Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 08:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS?GordyB (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Despite the additional citations, there are still great swathes of uncited material in the article. Have a look at some recently passed FA quality material to see the extent to which FAs are cited... I have a candidate article here myself - see Sid Barnes. --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is far from FA:
- Referencing is not FA standard.
- Paragraphs 3 and 4 of "Post war" section are unreferenced.
- Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of "Eighties and onwards" section are unreferenced.
- Only 1 reference in "Governing bodies" section.
- No references in "Competitions" section.
- No references in "Derbies" section.
- Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of "Junior rugby league" section are unreferenced.
- Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of "Student Rugby League" section are unreferenced.
- Paragraphs 1 and 2 of "Other forms of rugby league" section are unreferenced.
- Paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of "Popularity" section are unreferenced.
- Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of "Current trends" section are unreferenced.
- Paragraphs 1 and 5 of "Rugby league and race" section are unreferenced.
- No references in "Radio" section.
Done added BBC regional radio refs •Florrie•leave a note• 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC) - No references in "Cinema" section.
- No references in "National teams" section.
- The article is not well written. It has too many short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. For example:
- "The Northern Union made reforms to the laws in 1897 and again in 1906 in an effort make the game more exciting. This resulted in Northern Union football becoming a sport in its own right rather than a form of rugby union."
- "The Challenge Cup began in 1897 with Batley beating St Helens to win the first title. The final was first broadcast by BBC radio in 1927. The Wemberley tradition was started in 1929 when Wigan beat Dewsbury 13-2 at the first Challenge Cup to be held at Wembley."
- "During the Second World War professional rugby league was again discontinued, normal leagues were suspended, a War Emergency League was established, with clubs playing separate Yorkshire and Lancashire sections to reduce the need for travel."
- "Attendances fell even further in the 1970s. Britain won the Ashes for the last time in 1970 with a 2-1 series win in Australia."
- "Universities and Colleges Rugby League in 1969 and the British Amateur Rugby League Association in 1973 responded to the need to develop the game below professional level."
- "The 1982 Kangaroos won all their tour games for first time ever, they became known as 'The Invincibles'. This was the time when the gap between English and Australian rugby league became apparent and has never been fully closed."
- "The All-Party Parliamentary Rugby League Group was formed in 1987 to support the sport of rugby league and tackle the key issues facing the game in Parliament. Ian McCartney MP was the first chairman and David Hinchliffe MP the secretary."
- "In the mid eighties Wigan began an era of domination of English rugby league that would end only with the formation of Super League. By 1995 they had won the Challenge Cup a record eighth consecutive times and the league title for a record seventh consecutive times."
- "Touch rugby is governed by the ETA who are supported by the Federation of International Touch and are affiliate members of the Rugby Football Union. They are not affiliated to the RFL or BARLA."
- "The winner of the Super League plays the winner of the Australian NRL competition in the World Club Challenge."
- "At various times English clubs have either competed in a national Championship with a Second Division and sometimes a Third Division as well or had separate county leagues for Yorkshire and Lancashire."
- "There were also county cups for Yorkshire and Lancashire between 1905 and 1993. The Regal Trophy and BBC2 Floodlit Trophy were two other knock-out tournaments. A Trans-Pennine Cup was played for a short-time but it was replaced by the National League Cup."
- "The Rugby League Charity Shield was a one-off match at the beginning of each season between 1985 and 1995. It was contested by the Champions and the holders of the Challenge Cup."
- "Some of the teams involved no longer play in the same league and so derby games are either arranged as pre-season friendlies or take place as part of the National League Cup."
- "BARLA runs the Halifax Home Insurance National Youth League as well as the Yorkshire combination, Hull Youth and Junior and London Youth League."
- "Though the game remains close to its working-class origins, changes in social demographics and attitudes have allowed many working class people to attend university where they have continued their association with the game."
- "The Student Rugby League was founded in 1967 when a team was created at Leeds University by Andrew Cudbertson, Jack Abernathy and Cec Thompson, other teams soon joined in areas of the United Kingdom which lay outside of the games traditional heartlands."
- "Rugby league sevens is particularly popular with pub teams drawn from the regulars at a pub, the reason for this is that it is often difficult for a single pub to form a full squad of 13 players and four substitutes."
- "Wheelchair rugby league was first played in England in July 2007. There are no competitive leagues or regular fixtures established as yet."
- "Although attendances outside Super League can be quite low, many of the teams play in small towns and the attendance figures represent a large percentage of the local population."
- "The success of Super League in England and the return of competitive international matches with Australia and New Zealand have seen growth for the sport."
- "The annual Powergen Schools Cup competition from 2003 onwards has increased the number of school teams from 300 to 1,500 and the participation levels to 25,000 from 6,000. Though these figures include participants from Wales."
- "Whilst rugby union was officially an amateur sport, many rugby union players came to play rugby league. In recent years this trend has reversed and some rugby league players have crossed codes to play union."
- "George Bennet became the first black player to play for Great Britain, Association football took another 44 years before Viv Anderson became the first black footballer to play for England."
- "Clive Sullivan became the first black captain of Great Britain team in 1972, 21 years before Paul Ince became the first black captain of England's soccer team."
- "The Great Britain side are also referred to as "the Lions" or "the British Lions". At international level the Women's Great Britain side is commonly referred to as the Great Britain Lionesses."
- "England has historically provided the vast majority of players for the Great Britain team, one of the major national teams playing rugby league. They compete against Australia for The Ashes, and New Zealand for the Baskerville Shield."
- "Great Britain also played in the 1999, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Tri-Nations against New Zealand and Australia. Although Great Britain never won the Tri- Nations, they finished top of the table in 2005 but lost to Australia in the final."
- "In 2007 Great Britain will be replaced by separate England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales teams, there after, Great Britain will only play on special occasions and tours."
- References 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 32 and 33 have formatting problems. References always go after a comma or full stop with no spaces in between and a space after the reference. : Done •Florrie•leave a note• 08:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should just give up making this an FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it won't make FA this time round (there's too much to do)and Kaypoh's detailed critique will help you, but Florrie, I'll tweak the "give up" advice. It's not a million miles off FA quality. Ask Raul to close this nom, work up the article, ask the RL WikiProject to help you improve it and take it back to Peer Review before coming back here. Just my 2p. Whatever you do, good luck. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's up to Gordy as it's his nom (and baby). I was just doing some drive-by editing to help out :) But I agree, an FA isn't out of reach in the future. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
However, the page isn't ready to the FA-page. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 21:43, 27 December 2007.
Oxygen[edit]
Co-nomination between mav, Nergaal and WikiProject Elements
I believe the article in the present form is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive, and therefore should be an FA. It also just passed a GA review. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This article had 26KB of prose before the FA push was started in mid-September. Since then I've added a bit over 20KB of prose and others have added more, making the total prose size 51KB. This amount of prose is necessary given the large scope of this article (it is part of 3 WikiProjects) and that it is a Vital Article. Nergaal has extensively copyedited, cited and reorganized the article to its current form and other members of WikiProject Elements, especially Sbharris, Pyrotec and Derek.cashman have helped. --mav (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. Surprising that no-one has given any comments yet, so I'll give it a go. Overall I really like the article, it is very comprehensive, nicely illustrated and adequately referenced.
- The first paragraph of the lead is very technical, and some of the details could perhaps be explained later - in order to give the lay-person a good overview first.
- Ref 37 has a retrieval date of 2997-12-16, ref 4 a typo that should be fixed. Done
- "In organic compounds" reads a bit choppy, perhaps the paragraphing could be improved? Done
- The article is a bit on the large side at nearly 80kb. The long list of examples in "Compounds" could perhaps be trimmed?
- The word "Allotrope" may not be readily understood by everybody. Can the section header be replaced by a more common term?
- From article on Allotropy: is a behavior exhibited by certain chemical elements: these elements can exist in two or more different forms, known as allotropes of that element. Somebody could switch "allotropes" with "forms" or something on this line, but then it would be confusing. I do not think that a term should not be used as a title only because it might be too technical. A similar example could be the term "isotope". Although it is more familiar, it might not be familiar to some people; nevertheless it would not be a good solution to replace it with another term (that could also be confusing).Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- "A billion degrees are required for two oxygen nuclei to undergo nuclear fusion to form the heavier nucleus of sulfur.". Degrees of what? Fahrenheit, Celsius? Done
- Probably Celsius given that the ref is from a Brit so I put that in the article. It doesn't matter because the difference in Kelvin and Celsius is well under the amount of uncertainly in the figure. Meaning, a billion degrees Kelvin is no different than a billion degrees Celsius in the world of significant digits. --mav (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are a few one line paragraphs that should be merged. Done
- Overall though, well done! henrik•talk 11:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Object for now - I've written about half the prose in this article and was in the process of finishing up. So I must object until I'm done. The points that still need to be addressed are transcluded here. --mav (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 00:55, 23 December 2007.
Liverpool F.C.[edit]
After the last FAC there has been a thorough revision of the article and I now feel it is ready to be considered for FA status NapHit (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose several key reasons jump out.
- as per WP:MOS, there are inconsistencies between the use of numerals or words for numbers. I've seen eighteen, fifteen and sixty-eight. Yet also 39, 96 and 19. Even a 3 has crept in. I'd simply opt for one to nine, (and maybe ten) then 11 onwards in numerals. But certainly have a consistent cut-off point at any rate.
- some poor sentences, e.g. However, Liverpool have never won the Intercontinental Cup nor the FIFA Club World Cup as of yet despite all the European Cups with many instances involving refusal to take part. as of yet is redundant and the rest of the sentence doesn't appear to make sense.
- problems with WP:POV, like unreferenced sentence their greatest achievement was an FA Cup final appearance in 1996
- inconsistencies with dates, e.g. 20s and 30s, yet also 1960s, etc.
- inconsistencies with capped words. Is it double or Double?
- Done
- inconsistencies of date format between date first and month first.
- a few examples would be helpful
- There's too many to list individually. I would pick an option either 16 December 2007 or December 16 2007 and go through and make sure they're all the same. Whether this is also maintained into the references section, I'm not sure, a more-experienced editor than myself may help out here. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- a few examples would be helpful
- problems with British English. Equalizer should be equaliser.
- I don't like the first line of the history section. I presume Everton played at Anfield but it doesn't say so.
- The colours section says all red. Is it really all red and nothing but red? Maybe I'm being finnicky here, sorry if so.
- It's good don't get me wrong, very good in parts, just needs a lot of brushing up. Peanut4 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
*Comment
- Oppose: The article is not neutral since it does not significantly mention acts of hooliganism that has taken place in matches involving Liverpool F.C.
- Two web-links are not functioning as per links checker. This needs to be corrected
- History section is too big, can it be broken down in smaller sections/sub-sections for better reading
- Done shortened it quite a lot
- Section 6 contains only 2 lines, making the section very small. This section needs to be expanded or the contents have to be merged to any other section.
- Done removed the section
- The article needs to be thoroughly copy-edited for punctuations and other prose issues. As an example I can see "In 1891 John Houlding", "In 1962, his", "In 1985 Kenny Dalglish", "In 1964, then" showing an inconsistent use of comma following the year number.
- Done
- Some sentences start with a numerical figure like "14 of their fans", can they be re-written. As per WP:MOSNUM, sentences starting with a number have to be avoided.
- Done
- Can the article throw some more light on football hooliganism surrounding Liverpool F.C. Hooliganism results in loss of life/property and are major incidents and hence they have to be covered in the article. Some of these that I could find are here, here and here.
- Apart from Heysel there is not really much more that is relevant to talk about so I will leave it as it is
- I don't think Heysel captures the entire gamut of hooliganism surrounding Liverpool F.C. There is sufficient material available from the web to write an entire section surrounding it. We can't write a mushy, mushy article on Liverpool F.C. and its successes, without significantly mentioning the darker side of it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please be clearer on what you're suggesting should be included that particularly characterises Liverpool F.C. and its supporters? Are we now going to trawl google and include every mention of every incident of some fans misbehaving in every football club article? Because that would mean including a new section on hooliganism on every club article. There is an article on football hooliganism for more general coverage of this. I agree with naphit that the specific issues which are notable for a general overview of the topic of Liverpool F.C. are the events at heysel and the subsequent ban. This has been included. Robotforaday (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- That there is sufficient coverage on Liverpool F.C. and related hooliganism in various forms of media is a good enough reason for it to be included in the article. While it is foolish to include all such incidents, sufficient article space must be devoted to it. This article is being pitched for an FA. Hence, it is imperative that it includes comprehensive information related to the Liverpool F. C. Specifically, I would like to see more incidents of hooliganism mentioned and what has been the outcome and the club's response to that. Some of the things that I could find were: "Liverpool fans were responsible for many train wrecks in the 1960s", the Michael Shields affair, Three Liverpool fans convicted and serving four-month jail sentences in France, Liverpool fans arrested for FA cup violence, Liverpool supporters accused of stealing tickets from children and causing a catalogue of trouble in Europe by a report compiled on behalf of Uefa. The Heysel incident too has been mentioned in the article as more of an accident rather than an act of hooliganism. That also needs to be corrected. I would say any article on an English football club is incomplete without significantly mentioning associated acts of hooliganism. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That last sentence is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think an agenda is being pushed here; something that's not relevant to the nomination. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the only agenda I am seeing here is that people are trying to brush the issue of hooliganism under the carpet. That the article does not even contain the word hooligan (something which is frequently associated with Liverpool) is ample testimony to the fact. I have provided so many citations above related to it but still it is being ignored. May I remind you that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a fan site on Liverpool F.C. Rather than speculating about my intentions, why don't the editors be practical and come up with explanations on why it is irrelevant to write about the long history of hooliganism that Liverpool is associated with. Since User:ArtVandelay13 has questioned the relevancy of this to the nomination, I would like to clarify that the article as it stands today violates 1b and 1d of the featured article criteria. Fails 1b (Comprehensive - does not address hooliganism) and 1d (Neutral - for the same reason) -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Google searching does not good research make. The key question here is, given an article of finite length, how we should decide what is relevant and what is not relevant for an article which is meant to cover over a hundred and ten years of a football clubs existance. I absolutely refute the idea that the article is imbalanced, given that the major tragedies of the 1980s and their consequences are well covered both in the lead and in the history section. I don't think that any article which deals with those incidents can be described as "mushy" in any sense. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further that you have provided here is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, although some may argue that the "Michael Shields affair", as you call it, is, although I personally feel that would be gross recentism. Robotforaday (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let me help you here. According to WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All sources that I have mentioned are from reputable sources and significantly covered and hence notable. When the article can include speculative sentences like "Local folklore claimed that the fans in the Kop could "suck the ball into the goal" if Liverpool were playing towards that end — and in most games, Liverpool play the second half towards the Kop.", I see no reason why the article cannot devote space to talk about the bigger issue of hooliganism -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- If interpreted literally as applying to what should be included in this article (rather than being worthy of note elsewhere, but not necessarily in this article) that guideline would imply that this article should mention every transfer in and out of Liverpool, every match, and, yes, every incident of crime in or around stadiums where Liverpool F.C. were playing. Robotforaday (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let me help you here. According to WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All sources that I have mentioned are from reputable sources and significantly covered and hence notable. When the article can include speculative sentences like "Local folklore claimed that the fans in the Kop could "suck the ball into the goal" if Liverpool were playing towards that end — and in most games, Liverpool play the second half towards the Kop.", I see no reason why the article cannot devote space to talk about the bigger issue of hooliganism -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Google searching does not good research make. The key question here is, given an article of finite length, how we should decide what is relevant and what is not relevant for an article which is meant to cover over a hundred and ten years of a football clubs existance. I absolutely refute the idea that the article is imbalanced, given that the major tragedies of the 1980s and their consequences are well covered both in the lead and in the history section. I don't think that any article which deals with those incidents can be described as "mushy" in any sense. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further that you have provided here is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, although some may argue that the "Michael Shields affair", as you call it, is, although I personally feel that would be gross recentism. Robotforaday (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the only agenda I am seeing here is that people are trying to brush the issue of hooliganism under the carpet. That the article does not even contain the word hooligan (something which is frequently associated with Liverpool) is ample testimony to the fact. I have provided so many citations above related to it but still it is being ignored. May I remind you that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a fan site on Liverpool F.C. Rather than speculating about my intentions, why don't the editors be practical and come up with explanations on why it is irrelevant to write about the long history of hooliganism that Liverpool is associated with. Since User:ArtVandelay13 has questioned the relevancy of this to the nomination, I would like to clarify that the article as it stands today violates 1b and 1d of the featured article criteria. Fails 1b (Comprehensive - does not address hooliganism) and 1d (Neutral - for the same reason) -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think an agenda is being pushed here; something that's not relevant to the nomination. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That last sentence is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- That there is sufficient coverage on Liverpool F.C. and related hooliganism in various forms of media is a good enough reason for it to be included in the article. While it is foolish to include all such incidents, sufficient article space must be devoted to it. This article is being pitched for an FA. Hence, it is imperative that it includes comprehensive information related to the Liverpool F. C. Specifically, I would like to see more incidents of hooliganism mentioned and what has been the outcome and the club's response to that. Some of the things that I could find were: "Liverpool fans were responsible for many train wrecks in the 1960s", the Michael Shields affair, Three Liverpool fans convicted and serving four-month jail sentences in France, Liverpool fans arrested for FA cup violence, Liverpool supporters accused of stealing tickets from children and causing a catalogue of trouble in Europe by a report compiled on behalf of Uefa. The Heysel incident too has been mentioned in the article as more of an accident rather than an act of hooliganism. That also needs to be corrected. I would say any article on an English football club is incomplete without significantly mentioning associated acts of hooliganism. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please be clearer on what you're suggesting should be included that particularly characterises Liverpool F.C. and its supporters? Are we now going to trawl google and include every mention of every incident of some fans misbehaving in every football club article? Because that would mean including a new section on hooliganism on every club article. There is an article on football hooliganism for more general coverage of this. I agree with naphit that the specific issues which are notable for a general overview of the topic of Liverpool F.C. are the events at heysel and the subsequent ban. This has been included. Robotforaday (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Heysel captures the entire gamut of hooliganism surrounding Liverpool F.C. There is sufficient material available from the web to write an entire section surrounding it. We can't write a mushy, mushy article on Liverpool F.C. and its successes, without significantly mentioning the darker side of it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) You still have not answered my question, let me re-iterate "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". You convince me on that and I am outta here. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that if this is a sticking point for FA then a Supporters section could be created like other articles that optionally covers the following - the City (and sometimes families) being segregated into Red vs Blue, the 'liverpool for life' ethos of some fans, supporters trust's and associations if any, charitable work, worldwide fanbase, mention of controversies that appear to paint the fans as hooligans and any refutations, such as the sun's front page about hillsborough and the UEFA claim of 'worst fans in europe' (and it's refutation by platini), banning orders and crime statistics from the home office, liverpool fc's policy on ejection/banning of anti-social supporters and a couple of examples of violence between supporter groups. By no means do i think that any of this is necessary, just trying to come up with a compromise that doesn't involve creating an enormous section on hooliganism (may take some work tho). (BTW, see this for an article that gives way to much weight to this topic). Nanonic (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The major event related to hooliganism in Liverpool's history is Heysel. The article already mentions Heysel, and not in softly-softly terms. With the possible exception of Michael Shields, the other incidents mentioned above are either minor or refuted. In the annual police statistics about football-related arrests, the figures for Liverpool are nothing out of the ordinary ([www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/football-arrests-0506?view=Binary see this UK Home Office pdf for an example]) Generally speaking, when it comes to hooliganism, myths and exaggerated stories frequently outnumber facts, the infamous Sun story being a particularly notorious example; quite a few books on hooliganism would probably be more appropriate inclusions for the fiction section than the non-fiction. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, lets look at it from the view of a layman reader who encounters this article and is interested in it. He/she sees this Heysel incident being mentioned and this being a significant event, the reader would be interested to know if this is a one-off incident or has there been a history of such hooliganism incidents related to Liverpool F. C. Also, of interest would be the club's response to such incidents and what steps has the club taken to prevent a recurrence of such events. This info is lacking in the article. While a section can be written on this, the minimum that is required is atleast a paragraph covering this. Hooliganism is no joke, else it sounds foolish to see Merseyside police working alongside Rome's police to prevent hooliganism in a match involving AS Roma and Liverpool. The reluctance of the editors to even touch this topic is baffling. It is easy to come up with cliches like "Google searching does not good research make.", which makes me wonder whether the 30-odd web citations that exist in the article just appeared out of magic, huh... Editors of the Swindon Town F.C. article have done a good job in writing a detailed section on this topic. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are making assumptions about Liverpool F.C. based upon hearsay, which you are then backing up with google searches. I could do the same about any stereotype. You are clearly pushing an agenda. Robotforaday (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well it is not me who is talking of it. It is the sources that I am pointing out to you. Why dont you talk about them? So, you feel BBC and Telegraph and all others are trying to push some unseen agenda against Liverpool F.C. I have assumed good faith till now but I have had enough. So this is the last time I am hearing this agenda stuff from you, next time it will be a WP:NPA warning on your talk page. You still have not answered my question "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". Since that is the basic point of these argument, request you to keep your responses limited to the question and keep aside the speculation of any agenda from my end. BTW, when did reliable sources from the web become classified as hearsay. Many of the citations in the Liverpool F.C. article are from websites, are they hearsay as well?. If that is the case, why are they existing in the article? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- What you seem unable to understand is that the article, in order to be balanced, cannot include every reference to Liverpool F.C. which appears on the web. A google search for "Liverpool F.C." gives me 3,510,000 hits. Very few of those are of a level of significance to appear in this article, as it is an overview of the topic. You therefore have to select those things of most significance; hence things like European cup victories, League Championships and Heysel are referred to. Charity Shield victories, transfers, and individual arrests are not; not because they are not significant per se, but because they are not significant enough to be mentioned in a general overview. My belief (and it is simply that) is that you have assumed that Liverpool has a particular hooligan problem, and you have done google searches to back up your assertions. (You have clearly misunderstood my point about hearsay - I think your assumption that hooliganism is an issue is based on hearsay, and that you have google searched for individual incidents in order to back up that hearsay.) That is your prerogative, however, I am pointing out we need to have stricter criteria of significance for inclusion on this article than simply "I saw this somewhere on the web; don't you think it should be included?". Yes, web citations are used in this article, but the crucial point is that not everything on the web pertaining to Liverpool F.C. can be included. Rest assured that if someone was insisting that the history section mention every time Liverpool have won the European Super Cup (and somebody has done this in the past) I would say that they are being ridiculous then as well. As for whether or not you are pushing an agenda, you can stick whatever you want on my talk page, I'm a grown-up and I can take it. I simply don't like people pushing stereotypes of any sort. Robotforaday (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problems (as I see it) come in a few different forms, firstly the use of the word "hooliganism" is a very emotionally charged word that implies pre-meditated violence and proving that such a culture exists around any club without objective sources isn't easy. Violence between fans in English football itself is nothing new, usually in heat of the moment exchanges pre and post match. It can be (and has been) argued in the wider football community that the elements of "supporters" who actively arrange and engage in pre-meditated fights is slim compared to the overall fanbase of a club, therefore it is seen by some that the labelling of a club as having problems or an association with hooliganism is therefore painting all fans as such. Each act of violence draws its own wide press attention for being notable, and yes none should be ignored when considering what to add, but on inclusion; a balance must be struck in the article between both "good" supporters and "bad" supporters to avoid accusations of bias. In a lot of cases the acts themselves are few and far between, but when they do happen they get a fair amount of press. In some cases it is another club that commits the acts of violence such as in the BBC story you linked above about Liverpool vs AS Roma, should this appear in the Liverpool article because some of the clubs fans were stabbed or in the AS Roma article as club-related hooliganism? It is also widely perceived amongst football fans that some hooligan "firms" exist purely for violence and their attachment to the club is only a means to achieve this, the comment oft quoted is that they are not "true fans" of a particular club and tarnish the image of a club by association with it. Do we include groups and acts that are in some cases only tangentially associated with a club in an article? And lastly the latest arrest statistics don't seem to point to any problems with "hooliganism" per se, of the 78 arrests of Liverpool fans made during the 2005-06 premier league season - 51 were related to non-violent acts (mainly alcohol related offences), 16 were for public disorder, 4 for violent disorder, 1 for vandalism, 2 for carrying offensive weapons and 1 was for racist chanting (with 3 miscellaneous). That's only 78 arrests in 38 games with an average attendance of 44,000 per game (approx 1,672,000 supporters). It all really boils down to is there a significant hooliganism culture associated with the club? and if there is can it be presented in a balanced way that doesn't over weigh the article? Nanonic (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well it is not me who is talking of it. It is the sources that I am pointing out to you. Why dont you talk about them? So, you feel BBC and Telegraph and all others are trying to push some unseen agenda against Liverpool F.C. I have assumed good faith till now but I have had enough. So this is the last time I am hearing this agenda stuff from you, next time it will be a WP:NPA warning on your talk page. You still have not answered my question "Why is it irrelevant to mention the history of hooliganism associated with Liverpool F.C. in this article despite many reliable sources talking about it?". Since that is the basic point of these argument, request you to keep your responses limited to the question and keep aside the speculation of any agenda from my end. BTW, when did reliable sources from the web become classified as hearsay. Many of the citations in the Liverpool F.C. article are from websites, are they hearsay as well?. If that is the case, why are they existing in the article? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are making assumptions about Liverpool F.C. based upon hearsay, which you are then backing up with google searches. I could do the same about any stereotype. You are clearly pushing an agenda. Robotforaday (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, lets look at it from the view of a layman reader who encounters this article and is interested in it. He/she sees this Heysel incident being mentioned and this being a significant event, the reader would be interested to know if this is a one-off incident or has there been a history of such hooliganism incidents related to Liverpool F. C. Also, of interest would be the club's response to such incidents and what steps has the club taken to prevent a recurrence of such events. This info is lacking in the article. While a section can be written on this, the minimum that is required is atleast a paragraph covering this. Hooliganism is no joke, else it sounds foolish to see Merseyside police working alongside Rome's police to prevent hooliganism in a match involving AS Roma and Liverpool. The reluctance of the editors to even touch this topic is baffling. It is easy to come up with cliches like "Google searching does not good research make.", which makes me wonder whether the 30-odd web citations that exist in the article just appeared out of magic, huh... Editors of the Swindon Town F.C. article have done a good job in writing a detailed section on this topic. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- The current tenants Everton F.C. refused to meet his demands and moved to Goodison Park.[1] Everton F.C. moved to Goodison Park after a seven year tenancy. - ugly prose, needs tightening up.
- Done, I hope. Robotforaday (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Liverpool won their first Football League championship in 1901, and were champions again in 1906 - use season format and wikify, please.
- Done Robotforaday (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Kop_ynwa_banner.jpg is not licenced by the original creator under a GFDL-compatible licence.
- Over the next 15 years he [Shankly] transformed Liverpool into one of the top club sides in Europe. - WP:PEACOCK - no disrespect to Shankly or his achievements, but he never won a European Cup and this casts doubt on that statement.
- Done - removed without any real loss to the article Robotforaday (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fourteen of their fans received convictions for involuntary manslaughter. - citation needed for completeness' sake.
- Done, although it's just a repetition of the citation earlier in that paragraph. Robotforaday (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ninety-Four fans died that day - use numerals
- Done Robotforaday (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Final two paragraphs of the History section cover just three and a half years, which is too recentist - this should be reduced to be in proportion with the rest of the section.
- Image:Liverpool Champions League.jpg is not GFDL-compatible and not, in my view a unique picture - I find it hard to believe, for such a recent event, that it is not possible to find a good quality fans' photo of that night that can be licenced as such.
- Notable players - as notability is quite subjective, I would scratch this section entirely in line with other club FAs such as Arsenal F.C. and Chelsea F.C. and replace either with a list of players of the year or nothing at all.
- May I please make a plea for this section (expressing my interest as the creator of it a year ago). The reason I added it was precisely because the subjectivity made a list untenable, as people were adding and removing people from the list arbitrarily. The prose section is well sourced and has remained largely stable (save for some peer-review based improvements). Each individual added has a particular sourced claim for inclusion, and I believe it reads better and is more managable than a simple list, while removing it entirely would mean only the loss of useful and referenced imformation about key individuals in the club's history. Robotforaday (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Local folklore claimed that the fans in the Kop could "suck the ball into the goal" if Liverpool were playing towards that end - uncitable, should be removed.
- Image:Anfield The Kop 2005-01-15.JPG is just about OK but I bet a better freely-licenced photo of the Kop could be found.
- Under Rafael Benítez, Liverpool FC has gained a Spanish influence... - this entire paragraph is spurious, Liverpool are not a Spanish club in any real sense nor is their any evidence that the Spanish staff have had an influence on the club's (or their supporters') culture.
- Liverpool's victory on November 6, 2007 against Beşiktaş JK in the Champions League is the record win in the competition. The 8–0 is the biggest winning margin ever achieved in the Champions League. - unnecessary repetition
- The current tenants Everton F.C. refused to meet his demands and moved to Goodison Park.[1] Everton F.C. moved to Goodison Park after a seven year tenancy. - ugly prose, needs tightening up.
- On the whole though, it is a good article and generally well sourced. The pose just needs a little tightening and resolution of image copyrights required. Qwghlm (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quick comment - unless I'm being very thick, this sentence in one the references is just plain wrong: "They have won more Football League titles, European Cups, UEFA Cups, League Cups and European Super Cups than any other English team, equalling the amount won by every other English club put together." Adding up the total number of times that Liverpool have won those five trophies does not come to the same figure as the total won by all other English clubs, because, for starters, clubs other than Liverpool have won over 100 Football League titles. Am I misreading what it's meant to say, or is it just wrong/poorly written......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment hooliganism facts do not directly regard a football club history. What a football club does is to play games and possibly win trophies; in my opinion, notable hooliganism events should not deserve more than a short and quick citation in a paragraph about supporters. --Angelo (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Object - Article is massively recentist. About 30% of the history in about the 20th century. Also the list of notable players is also massively recentist. Yes Gerrard and Owen are very well known, but I'm sure that Liverpool produced better players than Carragher who are not included. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't quite understand your objection here (especially the second sentence), could you please explain a little more, so I can think about taking steps to resolve the issue? Robotforaday (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also in teh club culture part, there is an unsourced paragraph and a one sentence paragraph.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Oppose: look at it-wiki. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
- I like the Italian wiki article, BUT there are many aspects to it which would clearly be objected to in a En-wiki FA nomination; it is quite recentist, there are NPOV issues, especially in the section headings, and it has very few citations. Having said that, I do like it! So could you please elaborate; what is it that you see in that article which is missing here? Robotforaday (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -No references in intro -still in need of a thorough copyedit. As pointed out above several of the statements are misleading and not written from neutral viewpoint. Potentially an FA with a bit of work though but a long way to go yet. Keep at it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now, this is something which interests me. We USED to have a fully sourced lead for this article, but someone removed all of the citations, citing WP:LEAD, which seemed reasonable. So should leads be fully cited even when everything in the lead will be cited later? Could someone please clarify this, as the previous editor was clearly acting in good faith. Robotforaday (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, on a seperate point, could you please clarify what exactly you feel it is which is not written from a neutral viewpoint in the current version of the article? Robotforaday (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.
Parâkramabâhu I[edit]
previous FAC, peer review I, peer review II.
Failed initial FA nomination mainly due to manual of style issues. Extensive suggestions in the first peer review have been corrected, it has undergone major copy editing and the few suggestions from the second peer review have been incorporated. I believe the article now satisfies all featured article criteria. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, the previous FAC does not indicate the candidacy failed for manual of style issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I made that assumption since most users opposed the previous nom due to the peer review not been complete, where most issues were related to WP:MoS, and User:AndyZ indicated he opposed "mostly due to WP:WIAFA 1(a) and 2)". In any case, I think all the issues brought up at both peer reviews have been resolved. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support: Most of the claims already have been addressed and I see no further reasons to held back this this excellent article from being a FA.Iwazaki 会話。討論 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I haven't reviewed the article in its entirety yet, but a quick overview on it looked promising, and well written.
The images need some more attention. Royal palce and Image:Polonnaruwa samudra images are split across different sections. Also certain images have bigger size than the remaining. See if you can make them consistent.More later.. - KNM Talk 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Well written, but needs some work. For instance,
1)the Table of content is too long. So, some sub-sections can be merged. Example: The birth, childhood and coronation can all be in one section, perhaps with the type of formating that does not enlarge the TOC.
2)The images should be in their default sizes to accomodate easy viewing in all browsers.
3)There are multiple paragraphs in quotations. While they are cited well, can one more more of this be converted into simple prose?
- Done I removed the which contained descriptions of happenings only and converted them to text. I however left two direct quotations, one from Parakramabahu to his generals and the other from the King of Bagan to Sri Lanka envoys, as they directly indicate the feelings of the two individuals. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- More later......Dineshkannambadi 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I will do some copy edits as I go through the article. This will help in fully screening the article. If I inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence, feel free to revert.Dineshkannambadi 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Image captions should be as short as possible and no more than 3-4 lines.Dineshkannambadi 19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Calling a King great is fine. But including the term "great" in his name can be controversial, unless significant number of scholars use that terminology.Dineshkannambadi 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)- Comment He is known in Sinhalese as "Maha Parakramabahu (which translated means "Parakramabahu the Great") kind of like Richard the Lion Heat or Ivan the Terrible. Most Sinhalese literature refers to him as "Maha Parakramabau, not "Parakramabahu I" (example chapter XI of Paranavitana's History of Ceylon is titled "Civil War and the Emergence of Parakramabahu the Great"). I cited that in the intro. It's not really saying he was great, it's just a name he is known by. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The usage of the term "maha" is very common in Indian history as well. Inscriptions and Literatures written as eulogy of kings often used the term "maha". For instance the 1158 inscription of Bijjala II which called him Mahabhuja Parakramashali which literally means in Kannada language "King with great arms and valour", just as an example. Very often, kings have been even compared to gods, such as the comparison of King Ranadheera Kanteerava Narasaraja Wodeyar of the Kingdom of Mysore by his court poet Govinda Vaidya in the writing Narasaraja Kanteerava Vijayam, or the comparison of king Durvinita to Yudhishtira and Manu in the Nallala grant etc. However this high eulogy is best left to the literatures and inscriptions and not brought into encyclopedia material. However it is okay to write a few sentences indicating that such and such inscription or literature called him "Parakramabahu the Great". This is very acceptable and encyclopediaic. This is also what I have done in various FA's. Just my opinion.Dineshkannambadi 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I agree that simply because ancient literature uses such terms they should not be used in the article. I don't believe the article text explicitly call him "great", the only place the word is used is in the intro where his Sinhalese name "Maha Parakramabahu" is translated to English. So I unbolded the translation and bolded the Sinhalese name. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In the "Youth" section, please clarify in brackets what is Kalinga and Arya.Dineshkannambadi 15:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)- Done It's mentioned in a previous section,
- Furthermore all three were the descendants of Vijayabahu's sister, and thus had a strong claim to the throne; they are referred to in the Culavamsa as the Arya branch of the royal dynasty, whilst Vikramabâhu I is of the Kalinga branch.
- so I changed the text to clarify that "Kalinga" and "Arya" are two branches of the royal family. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A few issues:
- 1) The article is almost entirely sourced to the Culavamsa, which is not considered entirely reliable or credible. See, for example, Geiger's introduction to his translation of the Culavamsa, where he argues that the Dhammakitti's approach to history makes it at best a distorted source.
- As such, I'm not sure the article in its present form quite meets criterion 1(c).
- 2) In addition, the Culavamsa is a primary source and, given that Wikipedia policy prefers secondary sources, I'm not sure it is appropriate for an FA to base itself so much on one single primary source. There are a few promising secondary sources in the footnotes - would it be possible to cite more of the article to them? -- Arvind 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, the Culavamsa is not a primary source, it was compiled using primary source (inscription etc.) around the 13th century and is backed up by other contemporary records. It is regarded (sadly other than by your usual quota of racists) as an authoritative source, and most Sri Lankan history is compiled through its accounts. Any other book you find will be based off the Culavamsa. Also, where the authors' of the Culavamsa's opinions are expressed, they are directly attributed as such (note the sections like "according to the Culavamsa ...") --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment of the Culavamsa (it is a primary source for the same reason Herodotus' history of the war with Persia is a primary source). Is your only response to Geiger's criticism to call him a racist? Anyway, if you're not inclined to change the article, I'll leave it to the other editors here to be the judges as to whether it meets WP:FACR. -- Arvind 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Geiger did not say anywhere that the Culavamsa was inaccurate. He pointed out that the opinions of the author may have bias in them, which is why such opinions are directly attributed to the author of the Culavamsa in the article. Also, all text in this article is cited from the first part of the Culavamsa, which was written around the 13th century. To quote Paranavitana on the matter,
- "The historical facts of this part of the Culavamsa are repeatedly conformed by a large volume of epigraphical evidence found here (in Sri Lanka) and in South India, as well as by archeological evidence. The second and third part of the Culavamsa ... are of little historical value ...and fall short of the standards of the Mahavamsa and the first part of the Culavamsa."
- Compare it to whatever you like, but all authorities on Sri Lankan history, from Codrington to de Silva to Paranavitana to Blaze use it as the main source for their accounts of this part of Sri Lankan history.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the passage from Geiger I was thinking of:
- "Now if we look closely at the figure of Parakkamabahu as it meets us in the Culavamsa, especially at the period before he achieved universal sovereignty, we find ourselves faced by a series of contradictions and improbabilities. We are convinced that things did not happen historically in that way. Nor is it possible to form a harmonious and credible picture of the single acts attributed to the youthful Parakkama. The explanation lies in Dhammakitt's conception of the way in which his task was to be achieved. From literary sources, from what he had read he drew an ideal picture of an Indian king. The man whose glorification was his aim must correspond to this picture. He must have all the qualities belonging to an Indian king and employ all the methods of statecraft which political science prescribes or recommends. All these individual traits the compiler combines with the data furnished by tradition, without question as to the probability or improbability of these."
- This is precisely why I am concerned about relying almost exclusively on the Culavamsa. That the history narrated in the section of the Culavamsa dealing with Parakramabahu's reign is based on fact isn't in dispute, nor is anyone saying that the author of the Culavamsa tried to distort history; the issue is that the manner in which the Culavamsa is presented doesn't quite give us a complete picture. Secondary sources which use the Culavamsa are able, as it were, to provide for these drawbacks by comparing its narrative against epigraphical and other evidence, and our knowledge of Sri Lankan history generally. Geiger himself does something of that sort through the footnotes to his translation. Which is why we should be basing the article on them, rather than on the Culavamsa. Is this really so difficult to do? -- Arvind 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the passage from Geiger I was thinking of:
- Geiger did not say anywhere that the Culavamsa was inaccurate. He pointed out that the opinions of the author may have bias in them, which is why such opinions are directly attributed to the author of the Culavamsa in the article. Also, all text in this article is cited from the first part of the Culavamsa, which was written around the 13th century. To quote Paranavitana on the matter,
- I disagree with your assessment of the Culavamsa (it is a primary source for the same reason Herodotus' history of the war with Persia is a primary source). Is your only response to Geiger's criticism to call him a racist? Anyway, if you're not inclined to change the article, I'll leave it to the other editors here to be the judges as to whether it meets WP:FACR. -- Arvind 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, the Culavamsa is not a primary source, it was compiled using primary source (inscription etc.) around the 13th century and is backed up by other contemporary records. It is regarded (sadly other than by your usual quota of racists) as an authoritative source, and most Sri Lankan history is compiled through its accounts. Any other book you find will be based off the Culavamsa. Also, where the authors' of the Culavamsa's opinions are expressed, they are directly attributed as such (note the sections like "according to the Culavamsa ...") --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
comment. There are two maps that show the extent of the Chola Empire, the first from the time of around Raja Raja Chola, the next from the time of Kulotunga Chola. The second map conveys only part of the information that is required. While the alliance between Parakramabahu and Pandyas may have defeated the Cholas in Sri Lanka and driven them out of that region, the defeat of the Cholas to Western Chalukya Vikramaditya VI in battle of Vengi in 1093 and again in 1118, and again the defeat of the Cholas to the then Chalukya feudatory, the Hoysalas of Belur in 1114 expelled them from the Kannada speaking regions and Coastal Andhra. There was also a strong Sri Lanka - Chalukya alliance during the early 12th century when Viramaditya VI described the Island kingdom "a natural ally". Just some interesting information.
I will continue to read this article this week. So far looks good.Dineshkannambadi 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Well written and interesting reading. Just one more issue. There is no need to write "the Culavamsa mentions" when the citation itself references the Culavamsa. You could just write, It is mentioned, or written or known.Dineshkannambadi 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
"Death and legacy" section has its last sentence uncited and is currently has {{fact}} tag. The "See also" section just has two articles listed, and if those articles are already covered as part of the article content, this section can be removed.If not, more relevant articles, which are closely related to this article may need to be mentioned. - KNM Talk 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Cited the requested quote. See also section contains articles about 2 kings of Sri Lanka who rival Parakramabahu in notability. They aren't mentioned in the article (because they ruled many years apart) so I think it's best if we leave the section. I'll try to find additional related articles to add to it. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support The monarch's importance extends beyond Sri Lanka. It is well written, easy to read. I strongly support featuring this article.Bodhi dhana 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - All the concerns I had brought up have been addressed. Well written, well referenced and informative. Meets FA criteria. - KNM Talk 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Objection per Arvind. While the article has been better dressed up, Arvind has made an exceptional point that the article is merely a 'container' of accounts of the contradictory Culavamsa. The accounts in the Culavamsa should not be taken literally and merely adds mythological significance. That alone is not a problem since there are articles on myths, but this article is a biography on a king and can't just rely on mythical accounts (historical propaganda) as its mains source. This fails FACs criteria and I think is poorly sourced, much like a school text book. Some of the disclaimer raised in Arvind's comments need to be dealt with, before I can change my mind. Sinhala freedom (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please read Arvind's point. Culavamsa is part of the Mahavamsa creation myth. I have nothing against myths, but this article is meant to be a biography not a myth. Sinhala freedom (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is written from propagandic material of Culavamsa. Culavamsa , like the Mahavamsa, are NOT RS. These are books are Mythological (like Sinhala Freedom says) and cannot be used as RS. These are the same books that say that a race evolved from "Lions" and that these ethnic people are of "Lion Blood". Watchdogb (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this article fails FA Criteria (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.. This article glorifies this particular person. The whole article reflects this persons image as god. Of course, according to Chaluvamsa and Mahavamsa, he was a grate King. This article is like writing about God using Religious text. Watchdogb (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Already mentioned this, per Paranavitana,
- "The historical facts of this part of the Culavamsa are repeatedly conformed by a large volume of epigraphical evidence found here (in Sri Lanka) and in South India, as well as by archeological evidence."
- By the way, the last time I submitted this article to be Peer Reviewed, weren't you blocked by User:Blnguyen for trying to disrupt the article? Is this just a continuation? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was only blocked unfairly by Blyguyn. Noting that Blynguyn claimed something that was offending the whole Tamil Race I am not too worried about his blocks. Also where did your quote for the reliability from ? As far as I see anything that says that any race of people evolved from the Lions (mated by human) there is nothing that makes it RS. Go ahead bring some RS that says that this is RS and not some citations from people like "Rohan gunaratna". Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Already mentioned this, per Paranavitana,
- Strong Support This monarch has done great service to Sri Lanka in all areas including irrigation, agriculture and defense. It is interesting and valuable info, and anyone who reads it will enjoy and learn. I strongly support featuring this article. Supermod (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well written article. Almost all go with the WP:MOS and meets the WP:FAC criteria. All major sections have been well cited . Also it is very interesting to read and informative. Great work Snowolfd4. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Mahavamsa and Culavamsa are reliable historic documents, The original scriptures are in Pali, sometimes people have misinterpreted the mention of race evolved from Lions as actual Lions, rather it implies a race that evolved from "People who are as brave as Lions" , to elaborate more "Richard the Lion heart" does not mean king Richard had a Lions heart, rather it implies he was very brave, fierce etc (this is open to lot of interpretations again). Most of Sri Lanka's history is from these scriptures. And Professor Paranavithana's archaeological discoveries have further strengthened whatever said in these sources. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let make statements and intepretations as we want. Do you have reliable evidence indicate what you have said Sinhala freedom (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The article reads well and is uncomplicated.. but some areas seem to require a couple of rounds of copyedit. Has the WP:League of copyeditors been requested to go through the article already? If not, I think it would be a good idea to bring them in for a quick makeover. Sarvagnya 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it may be a good idea to harvardize the refs. For pointers about how to go about it, please check India article and do the needful.
- Comment of the 96 citations 43 are Culavamsa - Large sections seem to have only Culavamsa as a source (OR?). Is this due to it being the only source available? Perhaps a better way to organize would be "according to culavambsa" and "according to archeologists"? Some note should be in the article about recent discoveries, scholarly activity, on who he was, etcetera.--Keerllston 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, how can Culvamsa-Mahavamsa (called the Mahavamsa) be considered a biographical source, when it defies modern science and claims people descended from lions. The Culvamsa section should perhaps say this is a mythical account of the king. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
We should read Primary sources for clarification regarding using Culavamsa this many times in a to be featured article Taprobanus (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, how can Culvamsa-Mahavamsa (called the Mahavamsa) be considered a biographical source, when it defies modern science and claims people descended from lions. The Culvamsa section should perhaps say this is a mythical account of the king. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A well-referenced, informative article. Its also unique, considering we do not have too much information on Sri Lanka.Bakaman 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well references with Primary sources, I might add Taprobanus (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- We lack coverage on both Sinhala people and Sri Lankan Tamils. This article is not just a good article, but a beacon for better edits in the future, and for expanding the community.Bakaman 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a good article in that it glorifies someone with a help of non-RS sources that is full of myths. Watchdogb (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I dont have a problem with articles such as these becoming featured. We need more of our history, conflict and just plain living properly documented fit for an encylopedia, except those who are pushing for this to be featured are being lazy, because there are number of secondary sources by very emmminent historians that deal with this subject matter. All what they have to do is look it up and cite it properly instead of relying on a primary source for 75% of the article. Taprobanus (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a good article in that it glorifies someone with a help of non-RS sources that is full of myths. Watchdogb (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- We lack coverage on both Sinhala people and Sri Lankan Tamils. This article is not just a good article, but a beacon for better edits in the future, and for expanding the community.Bakaman 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Objection -[1c] lacking reliable secondary sources in large parts of article.
- "According to the ancient chronicle Culavamsa, Parâkramabâhu's birth was predicted by a figure akin to a god seen in a dream by his father, King Manabharana of Dhakkinadesa" does not seem quite encyclopedic in tone and clearly shows the problem at hand. --Keerllston 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see your point here. The story of his life is derived mostly from accounts in the Chulavamsa, a historic chronicle written centuries after his death. It is not a primary source as defined by Wikipedia. Accounts in any recent book which I believe you refer to as "reliable secondary sources", for example Paranavitana's "History of Ceylon", will be derived mostly from the Chulavamsa. That's what makes this article so good. Instead of referencing books that selectively chose parts of the Chulavamsa, most of the article is directly cited to the source of those books. For example, instead of the Chulavamsa saying "Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata in 1153", Paranavitana quoting from the Chulavamsa to say "in 1153 Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata" and us then citing from Paranavitana's book, the article directly cites the Chulavamsa for such facts. Other sentences, like archaeological finds and opinions of historians, are referenced from modern day books. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to mislead editors here. Culavamsa is as primary a source as using Illiad for wrting an article about Ancient Troy. Enough said, hit a library and get some secondary sources, a featured article is not a link farm. Do the hard work and then this will be featured Taprobanus (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)- The research seems to have already been done, Taprobanus. I don't have the subject expertise to check the veracity of every single fact in the article that's attributed to the Culavamsa, but I do know that there are three main areas where the Culavamsa's account is generally considered misleading - namely, its suppression of the defeat of Parakramabahu's army in Tamil Nadu, its gross exaggeration of the Burma campaign, and its attribution of the construction of a whole lot of tanks to Parakramabahu which were actually built by others, and with which often had no connection whatsoever. The article duly acknowledges all of these, and sets out the scholarly consensus on what really happened, which wouldn't have been possible if at least one of the authors hadn't reviewed the key secondary sources. I think the real issue here is not that the contributors don't want to do the work - they've done it - but that they genuinely think that it's better to cite the Culavamsa than Codrington, de Silva, L.E. Blaze and others. Once again, I would urge the contributors to read Geiger's 1930 article "The Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa" (the section on the Culavamsa begins on page 212), and especially the paragraph starting at the bottom of p. 215 where he points out that the Culavamsa is a legitimate source for writing history, but must be used with "cautious criticism" to "find out the actual course of the events." That sort of cautious criticism isn't something we can use our own judgment over on Wikipedia - we must rely on secondary sources, and since you've obviously consulted the secondary sources, why not just cite them? -- Arvind (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, my point was perhaps unintentionally unclear, due to it's concise nature.
- Whether a father foretold a birth or not is the kind of thing that would be part of a myth, not part of an encyclopedia, especially since such a tale comes from an unreliable source, and given that such is common in mythology - "omens preceding birth" - myths rather than facts.
- From the article the Trustworthiness of Mahavamsa:
- "It is, therefore, clear that Parakkamabahu I was the favourite hero of the compiler of the first portion of the Culavamsa" does not seem to say that the first part is trustworthy - in fact it seems to say it is biased.
- "There is a good number of fables, legends and tales of marvels in the Mahavamsa, and we must in each particular case attempt to find out whether there is in the narrative an historical kernel or not." seems rather supporting of the idea of the source as a primary source.
- I read only till page 210 - I may have missed other parts that certify it's trustworthiness, however the article does not treat it as a trustworthy source, just as a source that has "some basis" in fact.
- --Keerllston 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Concerns not Addressed Citations 14-46 are all Culavamsa - a primary source
from "the trustworthiness of culavamsa
"It is clear that in the passages where the chronicler deals with the deeds of his favourite hero, scepticism is justified, for the panegyrist is always prone to make exaggerations, suppress facts or even to invent stories."
--Keerllston 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see your point here. The story of his life is derived mostly from accounts in the Chulavamsa, a historic chronicle written centuries after his death. It is not a primary source as defined by Wikipedia. Accounts in any recent book which I believe you refer to as "reliable secondary sources", for example Paranavitana's "History of Ceylon", will be derived mostly from the Chulavamsa. That's what makes this article so good. Instead of referencing books that selectively chose parts of the Chulavamsa, most of the article is directly cited to the source of those books. For example, instead of the Chulavamsa saying "Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata in 1153", Paranavitana quoting from the Chulavamsa to say "in 1153 Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata" and us then citing from Paranavitana's book, the article directly cites the Chulavamsa for such facts. Other sentences, like archaeological finds and opinions of historians, are referenced from modern day books. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support provided previous reviewer's concerns over 1c are resolved. Tony (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- More on 1c. Ref 71 has no date accessed. Who on earth is the author? His/her name appears on that single, rather slender page, but is this person authoritative? I can't find the cited title on the site. It doesn't seem to support the caption to which it is appended. Unsatisfactory. Ref 81, no author's name is specified on the site. Who wrote it? Why is it to be regarded as reliable? In fact, none of the web references appears to be at all satisfactory. Tony (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- If this article is about a person, please add
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] - There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- apparently
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- I am also concerned of the quantity of information from a single primary source and the support received by people who appear to be from that region of the world (I'm not saying the region is untrustworthy, but "I liked it" is hardly good support for an FA article; furthermore, this is common for any article that attracts a group of viewers who like a certain subject).
- — BQZip01 — talk 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment First: The book Early History of Ceylon from G.C. Mendis (1932) gives only 12 lines for the history of Parâkramabâhu I, but it would qualify for a reference which is not Culavamsa. Second: The article CW Nicholas (1954). "The irrigation works of king Parakramabahu I". The Ceylon Historical Jour. IV. would be a good addition, as it is one of the few direct mentionings of Parâkramabâhu I in science articles. The two other articles on irigantion projects in Cylon R. A. L. H. Gunawardana (1971). "Irrigation and Hydraulic Society in Early Medieval Ceylon". Past and Present (53): 3–27. doi:10.1093/past/53.1.3.Rhoads Murphey (1957). "The Ruin of Ancient Ceylon". The Journal of Asian Studies. 16 (2): 181–200. doi:10.2307/2941377. JSTOR 2941377.
also credit Parâkramabâhu I with major distributions. This references should be part of the article and also the achivements in irrigation.--Stone (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.
Dick Rifenburg[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was quickly promoted to WP:GA and has improved since then. I think this is an interesting Bio. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- in 1944 and1946-1948. red links are distracting and there is a missing space
- I fixed the space, but I believe we are expecting articles for most of these season, which I think suggests we should leave them linked. If this is not the case let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is ironic that - is an awful way to start a section, you havent told us where and when he was born in the body --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- High School - should the s be capitalized? You use "high school" in the article --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Wben-logo.jpg needs a fair use rationale
- I have done what I can. I am waiting for User:Cbl62 to fill in the source, since he found the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC
- It is not looking good for this image. Cbl62 does not know anything about the source. I have put a call into his son about getting an image for the page. I ended up getting his daughter-in-law on the phone and hope the message got through.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have done what I can. I am waiting for User:Cbl62 to fill in the source, since he found the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC
- Rifenburg died in December 1994 at age 68. - how? old age? heart attack? accident? M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The obituary does not say.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
The date ranges should use unspaced endashes, not hyphens - I spotted at least 2 (in the lead and the infobox), but there could be more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The infobox still has a hyphen, but that's in the template, not the article, so I see no reason for the template's fault to detract from this. The template could be fixed easily enough - I didn't do so, since consensus would probably be needed among its users. Carre (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In College, I don't think "12 -to-7" is the usual way of expressing scores. Isn't it normally something like "12–7"?- You are referring to a direct quote. See the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Conversions from US units to metric: the article does the conversions in the High School section, but not elsewhere.- It is common in sport not to convert between yards and meters. American football is a case where WP:UNITS might say "conversion would make a common expression awkward".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed a couple of typos, so a quick run through checking for more would be worthwhile, I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)In College again, is "All-All American teams" another typo? I haven't the faintest idea, so I didn't change it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)"However, sportswriters of that era had a bias against Michigan at that time" - "of that era" and "at that time" seems redundant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Might be worth looking at the repetition of "Rifenburg" throughout the Family section - 4 times in the first 5 sentences?Carre (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- Is there a reason we do not have a photo of the person in the article?
- There are several photos in the external links that are copyrighted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can we avoid terms like glowing praise
- It is not clear why Rifenburg did not finish higher. However, sportswriters of that era had a bias against Michigan. - This is a POV
- It is not a POV when substantiated by facts as this claim is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did he always perform well on the field? I am no expert on his game but I find it intriguing to see no negative criticisms on his performance in the article -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- He did not have a lengthy career so there is little criticism to be found from my sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 16:41, 17 December 2007.
2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team[edit]
This article has been a GA for quite some time. A couple months ago, I went through and added a lot refs that the article was lacking. This has had two peer reviews, but the PR process does not really work past a certain point. So, I'm putting this up for FA to see what else needs to be done, if anything, to get this to FA. I have tried to follow the feedback given here first.NMajdan•talk 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support — A very good article with excellent citations. I've got just a few things that jumped out at me:
- In the individual game subsections, would it be possible to use the team name rather than the nickname in the linescores?
- Every other yearly article I've seen does it this way. We already use the university name as the section header so why use it twice?↔NMajdan•talk
- My thought was that new/less-familiar readers would understand the name of the school easier than the nickname of the team. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are there any more pictures that could be used? Ideally, I think each game subsection should have at least one picture, and it might be nice to have a few more scattered around.
- In an ideal world, getting a picture for every section would be great. But its hard, especially now that a year has passed since the events took place. I'll look around but I'm pretty sure I've got all the images I can off of Flickr.↔NMajdan•talk
- Yeah, I know how tough that can be. No big deal. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In those individual game subsections, it'd probably be a good idea to stack the pictures on top of or below the linescores. Right now, the text for some of the game sections is squeezed between the linescore and the picture and doesn't show up well on smaller-resolution screens. In particular, the 2007 Fiesta Bowl section seems a bit squeezed. It looks great on a cinema-style screen, but on a low-resolution screen, it looks a bit crowded.
-
- Looks good to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some text in the coaching staff section would be good, just as an explanation of who these guys are, what their history is, and any major events that effected them before/during/after the season. Forex, did any leave for new jobs after the season? Did they assume new responsibilities? Did they miss any games? Were any new in 2006 — Patton says one year of experience, but is that one year going into 2006, or one year after 2006?
- Some color might be nice in the statistics infoboxes. They seem a bit gray, and a red/white color scheme, if done correctly, could look really nice.
- Eh, I'm typically against using team-specific colors too liberally like that. I don't even know what I would change. If more reviewers feel the same, then maybe I'll consider it.↔NMajdan•talk
- I think the main thing I was thinking of with this suggestion was back in 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, where I had two infoboxes with the same headings but for different teams. There, it made sense to use team colors in order to help differentiate. Here, I guess, you don't have that problem. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- None of these are deal-breakers, and none are really in-depth, but they're things that just came to mind after a read-through of the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose — See below.
- This isn't encyclopedic: "The previous year's team did not quite reach to the expectations that head coach Bob Stoops has set for his teams."
- "This season saw the Sooners re-emerge to the forefront of college football." Who says so?
- Done Removed.
- Do these really belong? If so they need cites: "Some of 2006 signees will make an impact in coming years but several were given the chance of making an immediate impact on the 2006 season. Signees from 2005's number one recruiting class made even more of an impact this year."
- I think you need citations for the win/loss box.
- The tense is wrong in this sentence: "Of the 72 players listed on the latest roster, only nine of them are scholarship seniors".
- You need to go through the entire article and fix the tense. This is last season so it should be in the past tense.
- Nonencyclopedic: "While Stoops decided to stay in Norman, the Oklahoma coaching staff did get a bit of a shuffle."
- The game notes sections need a lot of work. Citations are needed for all the opinions and claims made. I went through the first one adding fact tags.
- From just a quick glance at the citations I noticed a number of access dates missing.
- I added fact tags from the beginning of the article until the game notes section
I am going to oppose for now because I think you have a lot of work left to do still. If you feel that you have adequately addressed all of these issues drop me a note and I will reevaluate. Also, have all the suggestions on the talk page been addressed? KnightLago (talk)
- Ok, keep working on it. KnightLago (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 17:22, 16 December 2007.
Trent Reznor[edit]
- check links LuciferMorgan (talk 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
After a fairly straight-forward GA nomination, I am confident in the article's quality, and would like to give FA a shot. That said, I'd like to note right off the bat that an article such as this one might be a difficult one to review, mainly since it is a fine line between Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor. I've done my best to focus the article specifically on the person rather than the one-man band, especially when dealing with any NIN-related content, but if anyone has any suggestions along those lines I'll do my best to incorporate them. As always, any general comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The body of the article is meant to contain everything the intro has, yet doesn't mention Reznor's date of birth. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- A photo of the young Reznor would be nice, if possible (although this is by no means required.)
- "Split with Interscope Records" really doesn't need to be its own subsection. There's like, a total of two sentences in the whole section.
- The "Nine Inch Nails" section of the article could be a lot more expansive. It doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) huge, but it seems a bit small as it is considering that it is certainly the most important part of Reznor's life.
- The article would benefit from a section detailing Reznor's musical and lyrical writing style.
- I feel like a lot more space could be spent on Reznor's interactions and relationship with Marilyn Manson. They've worked pretty closely together, and they also had that feud - I mean, wasn't "Starfuckers, Inc." basically about Manson? Seems noteworthy.
- The paragraph about David Bowie in "Personal life" should probably be in "Work outside of Nine Inch Nails"
- Saul Williams remixed some songs for Year Zero Remixed, which should be included in the Saul paragraph
- There isn't a whole lot on Reznor's political views, or his views on file sharing (OiNK and the "steal my music" speech come to mind). A lot of Nine Inch Nails#Corporate entanglements could be copied to here. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm afraid, per comprehensiveness concerns. It's a solid Good Article, but I think this is rushing to FAC. As Brandt Luke Zorn pointed out, there are a number of areas that could be and should be expanded. There are more sources available on Reznor that you should consult to develop the article further (for example, I've got a 1994 Guitar World article and a 2005 Spin article with good information on Reznor), especially given how comprehensive and well-referenced Nine Inch Nails is. I think with another month or two of good research this could be a well-developed and authoritative biographical FA, but right now it's just not ready. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's also the odd Nine Inch Nails bio that might contain extra info. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions everyone! All of your suggestions are very helpful, and I'll do my best to take them all into consideration. For the meantime, I'd say it's impossible for me to get the article up to snuff soon enough, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. But the article will be back soon, stronger than ever! Drewcifer (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Moved to archive; please wait for the bot to update the article talk page, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.
Hindu-German Conspiracy[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because this I believe is a comprehensive article and well referenced article, and I have tried to put due weight and ground on the aspects it covers, namely the German Global effort during Word War I, the Indian independence movement, Asian immigration to North America and other aspects. Any suggestions where this article falls short will be welcome and I will try to correct these. Any help will be welcome. Rueben lys (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment – Much obvious thought and effort has gone into this interesting article but I'm afraid the English lets it down. Here are a few examples:
- Typos etc: vice-counsel, vice-consul; most expensive trial, most expensive trials; German Foregin office, German foreign ministry; Dayals, Dayal's.
- Style: inconsistent use of capitals/hypens: Consul General, Consul-General; Head Quarters, headquarters; Middle Class, middle class.
- From China, Gupta proceeded to Japan to try and procure arms, as well as try and enlist Japanese support for the Indian movement. (From China, Gupta went to Japan to try to procure arms and enlist support for the Indian movement.?)
- The proposed agreement offered China German military assistance and right to one-tenth of the materiel shipped to India if she allowed her borders to be used for shipping arms to India. However, this negotiations were also unsuccessful on he face of Sun Yat Sen's opposition to an alliance with Germany.
- In the meantime, Early 1900s also saw large scale movement of Punjabi immigrants to Australia and North America, including Canada and United States in the midst of a depressing economic scenario in India especially after 1907. However, this influx was soon met by the Canadian government by a series of draconian and racist legislations that sought to limit the entry of South Asians into the country and limit the political rights of those already resident.
- Please do not fix these examples and ask me to change to support. They are examples of weaknesses in the article as a whole. It needs a complete close copy-edit by an uninvolved editor familiar with MoS. Otherwise, it really is excellent.
- --ROGER DAVIES talk —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- reply to comment Anybody offers to help?Rueben lys (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Copy-editor now sorted. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What's this in the External links section Feb 26, 1961. Pp 34-35; March 5, 1961 P. 45; March 12, 1961 P.41? KnowledgeHegemony 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- reply to comment That is actually the citation for the issue of the Illustrated Weekly of India when it was printed back in the sixties. It seems not to fit, although I am trying quite hard to stop it from being unruly.Rueben lys (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Now sorted.Rueben lys (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Support: If all the [citation needed] tags I have added are replaced with sources. KnowledgeHegemony 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Believe this is done.Rueben lys (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Object. Too many unreferenced claims; for example the entire 'World War II' section has not a single reference.There are several big unreferenced chunks throughout the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done:WW II section is now referenced. Please put a {{cn}} where you think needs cited, and these will be inserted. I didn't wish to overcrowd with citations (there are 108 or so already), so I gave general references at the end of the paragraphs.Rueben lys (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Needs a lot of work:
- Referencing is not FA standard. First paragraph of "Background" section, the "Procuring arms" section and second paragraph of "Note on the name" section has no references. Some long paragraphs need more than 1 or 2 references.
- References 9, 10, 16, 21, 32, 33, 52, 53, 66, 67, 75, 88, 89 and 90 have formatting problems. Always put the references after a comma or full stop.
- My English is not very good but I can see the article is not well written and the English needs to be improved. These examples are only from the "Background" section. I did not look at the other sections but I think they also need work.
- "Early 1900s also saw" sounds wrong. Add a "the" before "early".
- Done
- "those already resident" Huh?
- Done
- "its subjects commitment" Maybe you need to add an inverted commas.
- Done Now changed
- "comprised of immigrant Indian population" A word is missing, between "of" and "immigrant".
- Done
- "This included labourers, security guards, students, etc." and "These included seditionist, socialist and revolutionary literature...and others" sounds wrong. First, is it "this" or "these"? And I think you should not use "etc." and "and others".
- Done
- The comma between "circulating" and "it" should be changed to a full stop or something else.
- Done
- "Ghadar philosophy was end of" Missing word between "was" and "end".
- Done
- "rural and Military" Why is "military" capital?
- Done
- "by the time that WW I opened" I think "open" is the wrong word.
- Done
- "The collaborations evolved at least six or seven years before the war, and survived the war." "the war"..."the war"...and "survived" the war?
- Done
- "came to be friends" is too wordy.
- Done
- Again, "as well as a number of others" is too wordy.
- Done
- "For this, the links...was used to tap into the Indo-Irish network in the United States." Something's wrong, I don't know what, but I can feel it.
- Done
- "Intelligence bureau" Capital problem.
- Done
- reply to oppose: The referencing is done per the Harvard style done in a number of articles including in Satyajit Ray. Only one reference falls outside this style, and this is because I cannot find the ISBN number. The formatting problem raised is getting sorted now, everything else seems to be working perfectly. I dont know how this can be improved further unless you wish to suggest something. The references themselves are peer reviewed journal articles in reknowned journals and I think are the best references obtainable amongst wikipedia history article (see Reliable sources)
- The language problem has already been raised in the first comment and is currently getting sorted. I have already asked that you put a {{cn}} tag where you think need cited. The one or two references given in long paragraphs are themselves journal articles (between 15 and 19 pages long if not more) on those specialised topics and addresses what is contained in the paragraphs, see reply to previous ibject.Rueben lys (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- reply I think those were to reference a specific claim as opposed to a general reference, I am going through the article at the moment, please let me know if find anything else, cheers.Rueben lys (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Add I think Kaypoh's formatting concerns have been addressed now. I couldn't find any fault with the refs no. 52,53,66,88 and 90, otherwise have tried to address the points raised. I will start on the other problems mentioned now.Rueben lys (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done', the specific points raised in Kaypoh's first edits have now been adressed.Rueben lys (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Copyedit notes from Maralia
- Hindu-German Conspiracy#Ghadar Party
The sentence about Berkeley implies that the names listed are all from Berkeley, but V.G. Pingle is described in the next paragraph as having been contacted in India, so I removed him from the Berkeley sentence.Barkat Ullah is also in the Berkeley sentence but doesn't appear to have been from Berkeley; can you clarify?The sentence about the Indian National Congress needs some context; its relevance to the surrounding content is not clear.I changed the name of the 'Ghadar Newspaper' to Hindustan Ghadar to reflect the name used in the linked article.- I have changed a name from Barkat Ullah to Maulavi Barkatullah, as you refer to him by 'Barkatullah' later, and this is in agreement with the article named for him.
- Hindu-German Conspiracy#Irish involvement
- Hindu-German Conspiracy#Conspiracy
I have commented out a phrase about what Har Dayal did in Switzerland, because it was an incomplete sentence that I could not fix.I find it very strange that this section contains only one cryptic sentence about the Komagata Maru, but exhaustive details about the Korea incident. My (extremely inexpert) opinion is that Komagata Maru warrants at least as much focus here as Korea; if you agree, can you try to balance the coverage of the two incidents?
- Hindu-German Conspiracy#Pan-Indian mutiny
- Can you clarify what 'the Rodda company' is?
- I've italicized the word 'dacoities' as it's an unfamiliar foreign term. In context, it reads like some form of fundraising; I was quite surprised when I followed the link and read the actual meaning. Could you find a way to tweak the sentence to hint at the meaning?
- Reply
- V.G Pingle was a student of Berkeley who returned to India in 1914 as a part of the conspiracy.
- Barkatullah held chairs in Japan and Tokyo before joining UCB.
- The Indian National Congress led the mainstream, constitutional movement for dominion status through peaceful means, the conspiracy was totally opposed to this.
- SS Moraitis was the first effort to ship arms into India and was planned between Ghadarites and the Irish republicans and was thwarted by W.C Hopkinsons work.
- Hope this clarifies.Rueben lys (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Donereply to Maralia on Komagata Maru and other things.. Not a problem, I will add this first thing tomorrow morning (honest, gotta catch up with real life).Commenting out Har Dayal's swiss endevaours is fine, it is not very important to the conspiracy itself.Rueben lys (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- DoneAddressed Rodda company, dacoities, SS moraitis now addressed.Rueben lys (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Well written article. Some comments --
- To make it even better and to ensure FA quality, can someone check the relevance of these Auto PR comments and address those that are relevant.
- Shouldn't the word Conspiracy in the article title be conspiracy that is with a small 'c' instead of a capital C.?
- "with a series of Canadian government with a series of draconian and racist legislations" is POV. What is draconian and racist according to one point of view, may be perfectly valid from another point of view. Can this be changed?
- "Discontent and protests grew within the Punjabi community, hitherto an important and loyal force of the British Empire who expected the government to honour its subjects' commitment." This sentence has confusing grammar especially the last part. Can it be reworded?
- "A large number also moved to the United States, and soon faced similar problems". What problems?
- "The American State Department was pressured to suppress Indian revolutionary activities and Ghadarite publications emanating from California, especially from San Francisco". This sentence does not seem to be formed well. Do we need the word California here, since the publications were mostly from San Francisco. How about Ghadarite publications which emanated mostly from San Francisco?
- "The SS Korea debacle led, on the insistence of Zimmermann, to the US organisation's transfer to Herambalal Gupta". Which is this US organisation?
- "In India, a still optimistic Bagha Jatin went to his death in a desperate last stand against the armed police at Balasore in September 1915 while awaiting the arrival of the same shipment." - Not clear what this means
- "News reports Later investigations by the Directorate of Naval Intelligence is known to have found extensive links to the Irish movement, the Indian Movement, as well as the Communist elements" - Malformed sentence
- The article is quite big at around 100 KB which makes it difficult to read. Can it be summarised in smaller sections with sub-articles containing more details. Please see this guideline on article size. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to Comment- Addressed
- The word "Conspiracy" here is a noun and not a verb so it should be Capital (Per OED).
- DoneDraconian and racist now removed. Problem clarified as political and social.
- Done*Ghadar publication word now changed.
- DoneBagha Jatin removed from top sentence since it has a seperate section on it.
- DoneMalformed sentence on directorate of naval intelligence now removed .
- On Article size: I know this one is pretty big, but the problem is that the event itself was so long, (nearly eight years), involved so many different people and resources (I have actually put down condensed version of history). Moreover, some of the individual parts require the context of this article and dont stand out to actually make new sub articles encyclopaedic (like the arms efforts in China and Japan, or the counter intelligence, etc). I will try to merge the Kabul Mission and Middle east since they have the common thread of the Silk Letter conspiracy. Otherwise, I dont see how it can be condensed significantly. I will point out though that some FAs are actually just as long (eg Battle of Normandy).Rueben lys (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- 100kb is including templates and photos. Its fine if its less than 10,000 words. Can someone use user:Dr pda's tool to check the 'actual' article size. KnowledgeHegemony 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is 11047 words (67kb; text only).Rueben lys (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A Request: Can all the editors who leave comments or opposes the nomination please revisit at somepoint to check if their concerns have been addressed. Cheers.Rueben lys (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Note on opposing reviewers The opposing reviewers Piotrus and Kaypoh have been requested to review their oppositions on two occasions each (here, here, here and here), they have not returned to the nomination page to revisit the improvements.Rueben lys (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—To receive our gold star, the writing must be rather good, yes? I've looked at the lead and was disappointed to find that a lot of improvements are necessary. For example:
- "Among a number of plots planned, the most prominent one was to ferment unrest"—Spot the redundant word. Also, "was to" is ambiguous—does it mean "was intended to" or is it this narrative past tense people seem to use (= "the most prominent would ferment unrest")? And you might consider dropping "planned" from the subsequent sentence.
- The the most prominent plan was to... I dont see how you can confuse this. Besides, this is how Karl Hoover as well as Giles Brown introduces the topic in their journal articles. Nonetheless if this still needs clarified, I will do so.
- Done
- "The February mutiny was ultimately thwarted at the last moment as British intelligence successfully infiltrated the Ghadarite movement and arrested key figures." Do be careful of "as", which can mean "while" or "because". I'm still not sure which meaning is intended here.
- Done
- "The Indo-Irish-German alliance and the conspiracy caused a worldwide British intelligence effort, which was ultimately successful in preventing further attempts. It also resulted in the arrest of key figures by American intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen affair in 1917." Caused effort? Is "ultimately" necessary? We can avoid my hated "also" (yep, PMA's right, I'm having a war against it), by a neater sentence structure: "The Indo-Irish-German alliance and the conspiracy prompted worldwide British intelligence activity, which was ultimately successful in preventing further attempts and resulted in the arrest of key figures by American intelligence agencies in the aftermath of the Annie Larsen affair in 1917." That's my hunch.
- I am a bit reluctant to use the entire prose that you suggest merely because the conspiracy did not cause the intelligence effort, the presence of Indian nationalists in foreign countries (even beofre the conspiracy formally started) did. The '"also" was neccessary because those two weren't the only things the British intelligence did with relation to the conspiracy, and"ultimately" was neccessary because American intelligence agencies were initially reluctant to arrest the Indians (not the Germans), the British intelligence managed to convince the americans and that was the last major event that spelled the end of the conspiracy. This bit is going to take a bit more of time.
- DoneChanged prose, please review.
- I am a bit reluctant to use the entire prose that you suggest merely because the conspiracy did not cause the intelligence effort, the presence of Indian nationalists in foreign countries (even beofre the conspiracy formally started) did. The '"also" was neccessary because those two weren't the only things the British intelligence did with relation to the conspiracy, and"ultimately" was neccessary because American intelligence agencies were initially reluctant to arrest the Indians (not the Germans), the British intelligence managed to convince the americans and that was the last major event that spelled the end of the conspiracy. This bit is going to take a bit more of time.
- "The conspiracy led to legal trials like the Lahore conspiracy case in India and the Hindu German Conspiracy Trial in the United States, the latter being one of the longest and most expensive trials in the country at that time." I have a personal preference for "such as" rather than "like" in a formal register (and for although). You don't have to follow it. No hyphen for "Hindu-German"? Does "the latter" refer to the US? "that" --> "the"; because the item is so easy to identify from the context, the stronger back-reference is uncomfortable.
- "Such as" would be wrong, because the Lahore conspiracy trials and Hindu-Geman Conspiracy trial were the only two major trials on the conspiracy. "Such as" will suggest there were more.
"The latter" refers to the "Hindu-German Conspiracy trial" (the latter of Lahore conspiracy trial and Hindu-German Conspiract trial in the preceding sentence) in the US (the country, I dont see why this is a problem. I will change "that" to "the".
- Do we need both "subdued" and "suppressed"? They're subtley different, but ...
- "... the Indian National Army. The activities of the Indian National Army ..."—ungainly repetition, and both are linked!
- I know the differences are subtle, but difference is there, and that is what is meant.
- "The activities of the Indian National Army and the events surrounding it were crucial in uncovering the details and impact of the conspiracy." I'm going to be difficult and picky: so the army helped to reveal the impact of the conspiracy? And do events do the uncovering, or people?
- Done Changed.
This indicates the need for a thorough copy-editing. Is User:Fowler&Fowler around? Or User:Snalwibma or User:Samir? Some of those who helped on the Ahmedabad article did a good job.
Fascinating topic. Tony (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- First of all the article has undergone (and still undergoing) quite an extensive look through and c/e, mostly by Maralia and Amarrg, since I nominated it last week. The problem is, the prose of one editor is seen as unsuitable by some others, which is a bit frustrating. I had invited Fowler&fowler earlier to help write the article, but dont think he had the time. If you suggest somemore, I will try to put it through.Rueben lys (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additional notes on closing. 66KB readable prose size suggesting better use of summary style, WP:OVERLINKing (see WP:MOSDATE, solo years are not linked), some footnote cleanup needed (double punctuation and missing info, for example dates on BBC, see WP:CITE/ES), external links should conform to WP:GTL (not all are links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.
Bonaparte Crossing the Alps[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it covers the topic well, is fairly well-written, and corners all aspects of the topic. I also think that it makes good use of images, formatting techniques, and is well-referenced. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Would it not make sense to order the references alphabetically? MeegsC | Talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It sure would, I'll do it now. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, by the way. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It sure would, I'll do it now. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent article, well written and sourced. No issues here. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reads nicely, but I feel it could do with many more sources. There's a lot of parts that are wholly unreferenced. Redrocketboy 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Such as? All paragraphs have at least one cite, and most have more than three. Please be precise when making constructive criticism. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - the first paragraph of the second section has none. Does the one reference cover everything in an entire paragraph? Redrocketboy 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my apologies - I will cite that. And yes, when I use one cite for a whole paragraph, it infers that the one cite is for the whole thing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - now fairly well-cited, I believe. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my apologies - I will cite that. And yes, when I use one cite for a whole paragraph, it infers that the one cite is for the whole thing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - the first paragraph of the second section has none. Does the one reference cover everything in an entire paragraph? Redrocketboy 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Such as? All paragraphs have at least one cite, and most have more than three. Please be precise when making constructive criticism. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (And apologies for length in advance) I realize that I am not a regular here, and I freely admit that I do not know as much about FAC as the regulars, but I do watch AD's talk page, and it led me here. I would like to make a couple notes, and I realize they are lower-priority, but for FAC, I think that the little issues should be worked out, when possible. Wikipedia:Accessibility would be an issue with this article, for a couple reasons:
- Editors with very poor vision, have to read Wikipedia with large fonts, and low resolutions, and this results in display issues when images are forced oversized, as all the images in this article are. The first image takes up nearly the entire width of the article for someone using a low (600x800) resolution, and if one increases font size, it leaves no more than one word to the sides of images. While the introductory image is often oversized, I think this size is just a bit too large. This is in part, due to the Infobox's settings, however, and not the article itself.
- The Image manual of style also discourages forcing oversizing, as it over-rides an editor's preferences.
- MOS also discourages using left-aligned images under second level (===) headers, for this reason, as the text for some readers can be hidden behind the image. The image in "Historical background" is left aligned under a second level header. (To see this in action, see Mount_St._Helens, which is a featured article, but for me, much of the text is hidden behind the left-aligned images in the "General" section (for the record, I run 1680x1050 on a 22" widescreen, and use default font size).
- The excessive citing in the "Historical background" section, third paragraph, first sentence. Six references to cite the date and number of army members? Could some of these citations be moved to another sentence, or removed without harming the verifiability?
- The only other thing I can think that would help, is to remove the two refs that are in the middle of the last sentence in the "Contrast to David's depiction" section, to the end of the sentence. They are placed in the middle (after "mule") without any punctuation, and are a bit distracting. Since the sentence ends with "rather than a horse", moving the citations that verify it was a mule to the end of this sentence, would not change the information cited, and would move them from the middle of a sentence.
- And, on a personal aesthetic note, I'd like to see the gallery centered for visual page balance.
I really like this article, which is one of the reasons I decided to comment here, because I'd like to see it accessible to all visually, as well as become a FA. Ariel♥Gold 07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for commenting, Ariel, and for identifying those issues. I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns - I have made the first image smaller (please: is it small enough? Please, please tell me if it is still too large), I have placed the said image in the Historical background section under the first level (==) header (not sure if this actually does remedy the said issue - give me a yell if the problem with overlapping image persists), reduced the 5 cites to three (the "fourth""cite"is, in fact, a note, not a ref), moved the outsnading refs in the Contrast section to the end of the sentence, and centred the gallery. Was there anything else? Thanks again, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks AD! Great job fixing all that, and thanks for understanding why they present issues to some readers. I would still suggest removing the forced oversizing of all the images, and allowing them to be standard, by not specifying any image size. This allows users who wish to see images smaller to not have them huge, and allows editors who set their preferences to display images larger, to see them as they intend. Most of the images are forced to 250px, and default is 180. The full images can, of course, be simply viewed by those who want to by clicking on them. That would be my only concern, otherwise it looks excellent! I hope it makes it to FA! Ariel♥Gold 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support All accessibility issues addressed, article is a fine read, a good resource, and well sourced by a wide variety of references, both online and offline. It is visually pleasant to both the average reader, and to those with visual difficulties. The issues with sourcing have been addressed, and I now think it would make a great addition to the Featured Article lineup. Ariel♥Gold 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The issue of the mule, a rather large part of this article, needs some work. First, link to mule. Second, the comparison of mule vs horse conflates two other, separate comparisons: ordinary animal with magnificent animal (grade horse vs thoroughbred), and cheaply rented/"borrowed" from a peasant vs expensively bred, bought, trained, and tended. Some mules are magnificent animals, many horses are one step away from dog meat. I am not sure what the real story is here, but the discussion as it stands seems to reflect more prejudice about mules than insight into the cultural significance of Bonaparte's mount. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another thought about this. The paintings were made in an era when the education of a gentleman included horsemanship. I suggest recruiting some horse people (besides myself) to weigh in on the significance of Bonaparte's mount. Reading the little bit of text about where the mule came from, my first thought is that it is a wise man who, when riding across mountains, chooses to ride an experienced mountain-hardy working mule rather than a war horse that has lived most of its life indoors. --Una Smith (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would be happy to more clearly explain why Bonaparte chose a mule, but I will not go into immense detail; please remember that the article refers to the painting, not Bonaparte or his mule. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have added more relevant information about the mule, and why it was used over a horse, in a note in the "Notes" section. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, User:Anonymous Dissident, you have misunderstood the point of my objection re the mule. The issue relevant to this article is not the man's choice of mount, but rather the social context in which the various painters depict that choice, and the meaning conveyed by the depicted qualities of the chosen animal. --Una Smith (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would be happy to more clearly explain why Bonaparte chose a mule, but I will not go into immense detail; please remember that the article refers to the painting, not Bonaparte or his mule. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry to emerge from retirement to do this, but I still read the articles, and this one isn't FA quality. Among other things, it isn't comprehensive and needs a copyedit. Some factual errors, omissions, or misrepresentations picked at random:
- we are never told that Delaroche is usually known as Paul (to distinguish him from his father).
- the painting is also sometimes called Napoleon Bonaparte Crossing the Alps.
- what is the original French title (or titles)? Or was it always titled in English?
- nowhere does it mention that Napoleon was dead at the time the painting was produced.
- there are at least three copies of the painting in existence, yet we don't get any history at all.
- which copy of David's painting was in the Louvre? Almost certainly not the one illustrated, which was owned by the family of Joseph Bonaparte at the time
- why does the info box put the location as Musée du Louvre when the original is almost certainly the version held by the Walker Art Gallery (purchased from Onslow's estate)?
- David's painting weren't a series but five versions of the same portrait
- considering that the reason for the commission was that David's painting was unrealistic some decent analysis of the differences is necessary.
- why aren't we told that the reason that Napoleon is depicted on a magnificent steed in David's painting is because he requested to portrayed like that?
- most of the elements of David's picture are "irrefutably untrue", why pick on the horse?
- the line about the light and Napoleon's pigeon chest is referenced to a source which in fact discusses the composition of Jean-Baptiste Isabey and Claude Vernet's Revue de Quintidi and mentions David's picture only in passing and Delaroche's not at all.
- no mention of 18 Brumaire in the historical background? I'd rate it as more important than the amount of cheese that was eaten by the troops.
- the mule wasn't borrowed from a peasant but from the convent (as the article later states when it contradicts itself).
- how do we know Napoleon's concealed hand is ungloved?
- David, not Delaroche, was named First Painter (another misquoted reference) - Delaroche would have been seven at the time of Napoleon's coronation. On a similar note, Delaroche was born during the Revolution, so it is also unlikely that he was frequently commissioned to create banners for revolutionary parades. I assume this is a result of the same confusion between David and Delaroche. This error is compounded by your own statement of opinion in the last line of the article.
- the quote from The Atheneum is reused which indicates to me that you are grasping for sources.
- what is the purpose of the images in the gallery? Why a detail of Napoleon's face from David's portrait? How does that help?
- many of the points raised in the initial GA review are still unaddressed, as are many of the suggestions I made when you first started work on it.
- there are many unreferenced claims or statements assigned a reference that does not support the claim: Delaroche's attention to detail and literal precision in this painting evidences and demonstrates the slow but steady evolution of realism in art during the 19th century, and how its popularity began to rise for example is cited to a source which makes no such claim (what is literal precision anyway?).
- It also needs copyediting. There are doubled words, redundancies, poor word choices, and vague, awkwardly constructed sentences. This could be an FA if you can find some decent discussion of the painting, but even if you correct the points mentioned above, it simply isn't thorough enough at the moment. I only look in occasionally; I'll try to look at this again but feel free to email me (though I doubt I'd change my opinion without a complete rewrite using additional sources). Yomanganitalk 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additional notes on closing, some ref cleanup needed to conform with WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.
Metroid Prime[edit]
Self-nomination. I've been editing this article since February 2006 (before I even owned a GameCube!), organizing the information already there, adding references, creating sections such as development and reception, and doing every possible move to improve the article: Wikiproject Assessment, GA nomination (passed), peer review and one failed FA candidacy. And now seems the article is good enough for trying the FA status. igordebraga ≠ 18:49, 3 December 2007
- Support Chensiyuan (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks reliable references, and the prose is not as good as it could be. It also seems to be unstable. Redrocketboy 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Explain better the first, give me examples of the second, the third isn't much true (the only problem are somewhat sparse vandals). igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- By reliable I mean ones that are accessible to everyone, not dead links and review sites. The prose could do with a copyedit if it hasn't already, some sentences are overly long. Thanks. Redrocketboy 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Umm...review sites are generally considered to be reliable. What is your idea of a reliable source for this topic? bibliomaniac15 05:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Specially because besides reviews, news which involve interviews, FAQs (and a similarly written page on version differences) and some sites used only as secondary sources, most sources are reliable. But you're right about one dead link - Nintendo removed the GameCube games from their page, and now I'm searching archive.org or similar ways to reach that "Developer interview". igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- By reliable I mean ones that are accessible to everyone, not dead links and review sites. The prose could do with a copyedit if it hasn't already, some sentences are overly long. Thanks. Redrocketboy 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Explain better the first, give me examples of the second, the third isn't much true (the only problem are somewhat sparse vandals). igordebraga ≠ 01:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure how the "bonuses" section fits in. It seems a little guidish to me. Other than that everything else looks fine. bibliomaniac15 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments More needs to be done before this becomes an FA.
- Nitpicky things about refs (but hey, this is FAC ;) ): refs should go immediately after punctuation with no space in between.
- Done
- The pull quote on wide monitors looks weird (it gets placed to the left of the Style guide sketches image. Is there any way to place it so that it appears immediately below the image no matter what the width of the monitor?
- Done See if it works now.
- You introduce terms specific to the video game without describing them well for people such as myself who are unfamiliar with it ("Morph Ball mode", which isn't described until later, "Scan Visor", "gravity suit", "have sealed off Metroid Prime" <-- a short description of this character is needed ...I shouldn't have to click on the link and read another article to discover that this is the main antagonist of the video game).
- Done, but I don't know if I should translate "Scan Visor": "Gameplay" mentions The display can be altered by exchanging visors, with (...) one with a scanner that searches for enemy weaknesses and interferes with some mechanisms such as force fields and elevators..
- Needs another copyedit, as I spotted some minor grammar errors (using between instead of among, inconsistency of "Retro Studios": is it singular ["Retro Studios was created"], or plural ["After establishing their offices"]?, comma abuse: "separated by doors, that can be opened", "Retro Studios was created in 1998, by an alliance") and awkward and confusing sentences ("that provides the player with a general idea of where to go, such as indicating "seismic activity" in a certain room"...how are these two ideas related?). "During the final cutscene, a dying Metroid Prime steals Samus's Phazon Suit, which then downgrades her back to the gravity suit, and, unbeknownst to her, becomes Dark Samus." Who becomes Dark Samus? Currently the grammar of this sentence indicates that the Phazon Suit does.
- I made some progress in that area, but more work is needed. --Herald Alberich (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Anything else in this area? igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gameplay section is weak and confusing for those unfamiliar with the game. Ex: "...Grapple Beam, which latches onto special hooks, called grapple nodes"...not a very helpful description. What does the Grapple Beam actually do? The second paragraph of the section is confusing, and seems a bit plot-heavy to be in the "Gameplay" section.
- Done
- ...because "they couldn't come out with any concrete ideas". Who's they? Who said this?
- Done
- I assume at least some of the articles used as refs have authors. Why isn't that information given in the refs? 140.247.131.86 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nitpicky things about refs (but hey, this is FAC ;) ): refs should go immediately after punctuation with no space in between.
- Comment Some of the citations are incomplete and there is inconsistent formatting. Some web refs have "accessed" and others have "retrieved". Jay32183 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- I've also noticed that the "Gameplay" section refers to Samus doing things. This section should be written as the player controlling Samus. As long as it explains how the game works rather than how to play the game, it isn't a game guide. The way it is written now makes Samus seem like part of the game that acts on its own, rather than the player controlled character. Jay32183 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, unless you think it's not enough. igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Plot contains what I consider to be buzzwords: in-universe phrases that are not explained and leave the reader scratching their head and having to click on links to figure out what it is, which is poor prose. For instance, it mentions the Varia Suit, but never explains what that is or why it's important to mention it (note: found it in the beginning, gameplay). What is the purpose of the Magmoor Caverns if there are no bosses? From the description, it sounds like that it's the equivlant to the castle in Super Mario 64, but I could be totally wrong. What is the Gravity Suit? Is it the first suit she wears? Can it be mentioned in the first paragraph of the plot?
- Finally, it seems that the underlying point of the game is to find all the artifacts to beat this Metroid Prime – this single entity – but to me at least it was a bit ambigious and required several readings in order to understand that, which shouldn't happen. For instance, I had to scroll up to the gameplay to find out what the artifacts were; I think they should have been mentioned in the second paragraph of the plot. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Edited Gameplay, and expanded/changed Plot with the Scan Visor logs. igordebraga ≠ 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.
Degrassi: The Next Generation[edit]
SELF-NOMINATION I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it is of equal quality to other FAs about television series. Before I started working on the article, it was basically a character list with a trivia section. I used Lost (TV series) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) as guidelines to rewrite the page, it now includes production info, actor details, a response subsection, etc. All statements are now backed up by fully formatted references.
The article is pretty stable with regards to vandalism, considering the age of the article's subject's fanbase, any vandalism is removed immediately, as is incorrect information.
Any comments and suggestions to further better the article are welcome, but they may take a day or 2 to implement because I'm now forced to access the internet using a PDA. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral for now
Oppose. Just from a quick skim, the layout and writing need work. I see several paragraphs made up of one sentence, and one paragraph that takes up two-thirds of my page. There's a lot of repetition in the "special episode" sections with regards to the opening statement in each paragraph. After this is taken care of I'll give it a deeper read.-Wafulz 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Wafulz. Hmmm... I copied the layout from the FAs mentioned above, so I'm not sure what's wrong there. I rewrote the intros for the paragraphs in the "special episodes..." subsection, and renamed it to "complementary media". With regards to the one sentence paragraphs, and the one that takes up two-thirds of your page, welll, I'm using a PDA, so it's hard for me to know which ones you're referring to. Can you point them out to me perhaps? If there's any other writing needs working on, please advise. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- This paragraph is the issue. I think this may be one of those times where a chart works better than prose. Also, it uses a contraction ("don't"), so that should be changed to "do not".-Wafulz 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whether to use a list or a paragraph is actually personal preference, and in my opinion that paragraph is not an issue. If it was converted into a chart, I feel that would be worse. However, this is all personal preference, and isn't supported by the FA criteria. Therefore, the paragraph isn't a legitimate concern. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I changed "don't" to "do not", as for that paragraph, I'll wait and see if there are any other comments on it before making a table. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whether to use a list or a paragraph is actually personal preference, and in my opinion that paragraph is not an issue. If it was converted into a chart, I feel that would be worse. However, this is all personal preference, and isn't supported by the FA criteria. Therefore, the paragraph isn't a legitimate concern. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- This paragraph is the issue. I think this may be one of those times where a chart works better than prose. Also, it uses a contraction ("don't"), so that should be changed to "do not".-Wafulz 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Wafulz. Hmmm... I copied the layout from the FAs mentioned above, so I'm not sure what's wrong there. I rewrote the intros for the paragraphs in the "special episodes..." subsection, and renamed it to "complementary media". With regards to the one sentence paragraphs, and the one that takes up two-thirds of your page, welll, I'm using a PDA, so it's hard for me to know which ones you're referring to. Can you point them out to me perhaps? If there's any other writing needs working on, please advise. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing your mind, Wafulz, is there anything (other than that table) that I can do to the article to get your support? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The article has a few problems:
- I see a few short paragraphs with only one sentence. This suggests it is not well written.
- Many unreferenced paragraphs in "Main and recurring roles" section. One unreferenced paragraph in "Concept" section.
- IMDB and message boards are not reliable sources.
- References 4, 15, 58, 93 and 113 have formatting problems. References always go after a comma or full stop with no space in between.
- Links like http://www.degrassi.tv and PAX should not be in the article except in references or the "External links" section.
- Improve the article and try GA first.
--Kaypoh (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed some that were able to be merged into others, there are some I just can't think a way to fix.
- The paragraph in the concept section is the last one, right? would the cite episode template suffice, citing the first ep? As for the main and recurring roles section, the reference is the series itself, isn't it?
- All I can say is that other FAs like buffy use imdb in the same context this article (ie producers previous work). The messageboard is at the official site, and the only cited pieces are from "ExecProducer", confirmed as Stephen Stohn in the series' official guidebook.
- Done
- Done
- Thanks for your comments, so far. I've fixed what I can, please advise on anything else -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still see a few short paragraphs with only one sentence. Some of them are unreferenced. I don't think the "Main and recurrent roles" is like the "Plot" section - if it is like the Plot section you can assume the show is the reference. The article needs a copy-edit but I cannot help you with that because my English is not that good. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, well thanks for all your comments. I'll keep working on it of course, references aren't a problem; my skills in writing in-so-far-as expanding those paragraphs is! -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.
Prairie Avenue[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an important historical street in the city of Chicago and as WP:CHICAGO director, I am trying to balance out the types of WP:FAs that we have in the project. I have researched most related topics in the Encyclopedia of Chicago and feel this is a fairly broad and extensive representation of the street. I feel it is well written and well sourced. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:FAC instructions, "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." You've still got South Side (Chicago) in the oven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will withdraw this nomination if it is requested. The other one I thought was about finished as it had been up for 3.5 weeks when I nominated this one. I did not anticipate it being restarted. The other one is more a WP:CHICAGO nomination. I even needed help from coeditors responding to certain queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It could use more information on the indian trail its name derives from; I looked at Prairie Avenue on Google Maps and couldn't see where said trail would have left the route. --NE2 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will make a stop at the main Chicago library tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- What I could find was a better source describing the location of the Fort Dearborn Massacre, which occurred on Prairie Avenue as Fort Dearborn occupants embarked for Fort Wayne. How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will make a stop at the main Chicago library tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Short, sweet, and well sourced. However, the Lead/Intro's last paragraph is a bit short, clocking in at only two sentences, this should be merged to the prior paragraph, or expanded. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- Oppose—MOS (Cr 2) and prose (Cr 1a)
- "north-south"—See MOS on en dashes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Easy ways of improving the prose, for example, the second sentence: "This street has a rich history in which it began as an important trail for horseback riders and carriages." Why not "The street has a rich history from its origins as a major trail for horseback riders and carriages."? I replaced "important" with "major" because the former hits you again shortly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, "this" is too strong a back-reference; "the" is better: "a 6 block section of this street"—see MOS on hyphens and spelling out numbers. Subsequent sentences same deal. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tweak the wording and pipe the link to avoid ugly repetition: "historical figures in the history of Chicago".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "north-south"—See MOS on en dashes.
Loving care required. The nominator could fix all of the MOS issues, leaving a run-through of the prose throughout to someone with strategic distance from the text. Tony (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- PS Ref. 4—I can cope without the author's name, but where exactly on that site is the supporting info about the National Register? Help our readers? Tony (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. the ref following the sentence that says "Now, historic northern section of the street is part of the Chicago Landmark Prairie Avenue District that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." merely confirms that it is a Chicago Landmark. Note that Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL. I don't know of a direct link for historic districts in the NRHP program.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I added the best link I could find for the readers on the NRHP topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. the ref following the sentence that says "Now, historic northern section of the street is part of the Chicago Landmark Prairie Avenue District that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." merely confirms that it is a Chicago Landmark. Note that Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL. I don't know of a direct link for historic districts in the NRHP program.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- More eeny-meeny-miney-mo samples:
- "During the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s, upper Prairie Avenue residence were central to cultural and social fabric of the city"—"residence"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Light industry and vacant lots overtook Prairie Avenue by the mid and late twentieth century."—"and"? Better "during the second half of the"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- "A few of the mansions of the heyday still remain in the 1800-block including the National Historic landmark designated John J. Glessner House designed in 1886 by architect Henry H. Richardson.[6] These provide some sense of the street's former character."—"Some" --> "a". Link with a semicolon instead of the period.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- "This district also includes two other houses from the late nineteenth century as well as the Henry B. Clarke House,"—Remove "also". "Two other houses from the late 19th century? I can only see one; the other is in the 1800s block, but not previously labelled as late 19th century. Logic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hyphens missing here and there.
- I am not sure if any of the following phrases need hyphens and would appreciate feedback: "turn of the century", "second half", "twentieth century" and "twice relocated".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to add some hyphens, but I may have been mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- "During the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s, upper Prairie Avenue residence were central to cultural and social fabric of the city"—"residence"?
Needs work throughout. Someone else as collaborator? Tony (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would love a great copyeditor.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.
Odex's actions against file-sharing[edit]
Self-nomination. This article is about a saga that mostly took place during the month of August 2007 in Singapore, with extensive coverage by the local and international media. It has undergone a peer review and copyedit request. Any suggestions for improvement is certainly welcomed. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- although i do think some portions of the article need an update. E.g. "By 16 August 2007, up to S$3,200 have been pledged for the campaign." -- not so contemporaneous now? Another comment: slightly copious use of "also". Chensiyuan 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thanks, replaced/paraphrased and deleted some uses of "also" and time-sensitive phrases. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Minor point: is it "a", or "an", NUS law professor...? Chensiyuan 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Changed to "an", thanks. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Minor point: is it "a", or "an", NUS law professor...? Chensiyuan 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is sorely not ready for the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. You should try GAC first, but take note that:
- The controversy occured only two months ago, and the outcome of the company's appeal has yet to be determined. Is the article stable?
- All-or-nothing. Unfortunately, I don't believe in going through GAC first. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article is reasonably stable given little additions being made for the past month, and that the existing content is not going to change significantly even with the appeal. (which will be on an add-on basis) If an outstanding lawsuit is enough to render the whole article unstable, then the article is never going to be stable. This is a non-actionable factor. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, no instability here. Chensiyuan 06:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article desperately needs a copy-edit. If I didn't have an E Maths paper in half an hour, I would help you look through it for language errors.
- I've put up a copyedit request, went it through myself, and looking for copy-editiors. Do point out what errors are in the article, so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't see how is this actually actionable other than what is already done unless the copyediting errors are specifically pointed out. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've put up a copyedit request, went it through myself, and looking for copy-editiors. Do point out what errors are in the article, so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The lead section is a little weak.
- Would appreciate that you point out in what sense the lead is weak. Please elaborate so that I can improve it. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done After correspondence, I certify in good faith that this article meets or exceeds the requirements of WP:LEAD. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would appreciate that you point out in what sense the lead is weak. Please elaborate so that I can improve it. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The disappearance of the "Anti-piracy alliance" section (all it need was references) and the lack of information about the reactions of international media (despite the first sentence of the Reaction section proudly claiming that Odex's actions "attracted international media") suggest the article is not comprehensive, although it probably is broad in its coverage.
- The alliance's text, currently in a separate article does not have much to do with the incident itself, and hence split. I will, however, be drafting a few relevant lines on the alliance's role in the incident. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done (AVPAS) Per earlier comment. - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
'Downgraded' to national; it is surely covered extensively by the local media. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)- I've put it back as 'international', as it appears that now the C&D emails are hitting internationally and gaining attention from the world. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The alliance's text, currently in a separate article does not have much to do with the incident itself, and hence split. I will, however, be drafting a few relevant lines on the alliance's role in the incident. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Avoid self-references, such as the wikilink in "several criticisms of Odex were added to its article on Wikipedia".
- Done Removed. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The controversy occured only two months ago, and the outcome of the company's appeal has yet to be determined. Is the article stable?
- Have a nice day! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support: Quite a gem really, but I have to say occasionally I get the feeling I'm reading a well organized collection of newspaper reports! Manderiko 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- It's fine and readable. Leranedo 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Few things but not sure how you would want to handle them. First, Reference 2 (Kicking kids for profit?) is just a blog entry that as far as I can see doesn't add anything that the professional new articles don't already cover - might want to just remove it. Second, reference 56 to Salon.com's Asian Kung-Fu Generation doesn't lead anywhere (dead link?). Third, in "Modus operandi" it says "...in all three cases." but at that point in the article only the first two cases have been introduced - the third case isn't mentioned until the next section. --maclean 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Ref 2 removed. (no implications, covered by other sources). - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ref 56 is live and working. Appears perfectly fine in Internet Explorer, might work erratically under FireFox for some reason. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added the suit against PacNet in said point of article. The lead-in also introduces the third case in a brief summary format to give the reader what to expect in the following sections. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, great article, well written. Meets all criteria for FA. Terence 13:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: "This data is then used to subpoena the courts to require that ISPs reveal the personal information associated with the given IP addresses." appears to sound wrong -- I mean if you click on the wikilink to "subpoena" one wonders how does one subpoena the courts? Could there be an error here? Chensiyuan 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thinking aloud again. "letters of legal threat" in first para of lead -- is a letter threatening legal action condensed legitimately into a "letter of legal threat"? Chensiyuan 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've changed subpoena to request. It should sound a lot better now. For "letter of legal threat", according to Ars Technica article the term they have used in the context to compare with RIAA is "pre-litigation letters", so I've adapted to that accordingly as well. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫, and I support this article. *winks at Mailor diablo* 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- (^_<)☆ - Mailer Diablo (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a. Gosh, the opening is a blooper: you shove "the company" in there under the assumption that we already know what you're referring to. Then, you tell us that it's Odex, and provide a little context for the company. "Odex alleges"—present tense is when? Will this last for readers in a year's time? "Out-of-court"—hyphens not required unless attributive. "RIAA"—do we have to interrupt our reading and hit the link to find out what it is? You spell out ISP earlier. "Criticisms towards"—no, "of". "exacerbated by one of its directors' poor response towards the situation"—POV even with the reference (couch it in better wording); "towards" should be "to"; check this word throughout the article. "which ... which". Is this article going to be updated? "Pending an outcome". It's a kind of unstable topic; unsure that it's suitable for FA status on that basis. Now that's just picking random samples from the lead. The whole article needs careful work. Tony (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- you shove "the company" in there under the assumption that we already know what you're referring to. Then, you tell us that it's Odex, and provide a little context for the company.
- Done Company context inserted in first sentence. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Odex alleges"—present tense is when? Will this last for readers in a year's time?
- Now. The enforcement action is still ongoing. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Out-of-court"—hyphens not required unless attributive.
- Done Fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, in legal parlance, hyphens are the norm, but never mind. Chensiyuan 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- "RIAA"—do we have to interrupt our reading and hit the link to find out what it is? You spell out ISP earlier.
- Done RIAA -> Recording Industry Association of America. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Criticisms towards"—no, "of".
- Done Fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- "exacerbated by one of its directors' poor response towards the situation"—POV even with the reference (couch it in better wording); "towards" should be "to"; check this word throughout the article.
- Done Removed.
- "which ... which".
- Done Fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is this article going to be updated? "Pending an outcome". It's a kind of unstable topic; unsure that it's suitable for FA status on that basis.
- The arguments by both parties are summed up. It is now pending decision by the judge. I would reiterate per above, the article is stable even with this lawsuit. It can be updated accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now that's just picking random samples from the lead. The whole article needs careful work.
- Okay, it goes through the League of Copyeditors then. There's just simply not enough copyeditors around; feel free to point out what needs more to be done so that they can be fixed. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Objection [1b and organization] It's well written, very well referenced, very nice in general, I think it was smart to move it straight into FAC.
it's organization is in need of substancial improvement - no "history section" and no "media coverage" section and "illegal downloader reaction" instead some kind of mix between all three. Suggest better organization.
"modus operandi" should be mostly integrated into history section, kept as separate however, perhaps renamed into a less criminal investigation sounding term.
Suggestion: "Context" section speaking about the surrounding actions of RIAA, MPAA
--Keerllston 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your suggestion, but this proposed structure looks very odd to me to be implementable, were you having another particular article in mind? Even if implemented it will require stripping and rewriting the entire article top-down. Other comments :
- Odex's actions are currently ongoing, and to have a "history" section would sound like the whole operation is already over.
- "Illegal downloader reaction" is essentially the current "reaction" section as its current form.
- "Modus operandi" is justifiable being it is considered widely as a form of clampdown or enforcement action. (As indicated within article)
- Please guide me on how the "Media coverage" should be written; To describe the extent of media coverage would constitute original research. Same goes for "Context", as Odex and RIAA are not directly related in their respective enforcements, just the similarity, I have not even heard of MPAA in any of my sources.
- If we were to reorganize it into the three sections, what should be done with "Odex v. Pacific Internet"?
- Thanks, - Mailer Diablo (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- History of many countries is currently ongoing, I'm sure you agree, and includes proceedings such as the making of treaties and famous trials (including in this history the case vs. Ocean and other IP providers)
- "Reaction" - could be more precise than that, could be more NPOV-ly than "Illegal downloader reaction" - may I suggest "P2P community reaction" or similar?
- split away new section "media coverage" from "Reaction"- by which I did not mean the extent but rather the coverage by newspapers and what they said - like one of japan that it notes was pro-Odex and in fact wanted more.
- "Modus Operandi" is also latin, and this is an english-language wikipedia, doesn't that encourage you to change it? I think a good option is "Methodology" or "Method"
- - Latin is often used where there is an english translation by the Catholic Church and by intellectuals who have learnt latin or want to pretend that they have, it's also used used by Legal and Police authorities in such as "in loco parentis" and "ergo" and "modus operandi", I don't believe Wikipedia is any of the above.
- --Keerllston 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I still do not see what a "History" section would contain or would be of use to this article? Also, please explain "History of many countries"? - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done "Modus Operandi" changed to "Methodology". - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't just the P2P community, but it is the Anime community in general. How about that, having the one "Reaction" section further subdivided into "Anime community", "Media coverage", and "Legal opinons" would be better? - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice Work!
History is basically "Chronology" - we are alive in history - we are making history (not that we are heroes or anything) - so far Chronology is not really treated very well in my opinion. and somewhat divided into Methodology, Cases, Reaction - which is perhaps strange but not necessarily objectionable
I like Reaction being split into Anime Community Reaction and Media Coverage.
I like the existence of the section called legal opinions
I also suggested a section on "Context" - how do you feel about the hypothetical section?
--Keerllston 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)- I don't think there's enough content to make up a separate "context" section. For the rest, working on it. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice Work!
- Rejoinder My previous post comprised just random examples. Please find others with strategic distance to copy-edit it. Research the edit summaries on the history pages of similar good articles in this field. Ask them nicely. Tony (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.
Russia[edit]
Self nomination. I have been working on this article for quite a while now and believe it now meets all of the criteria. The main problem at the last FA nomination was the insufficient number of citations. Since the last FA nomination the article has passed GA and the amount of references has doubled while the body of the article has been substantially reduced.--Miyokan 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I see many of the same issues raised in the last FAC: readable prose size is still 66KB, it still relies heavily on Encyclopaedia Britannica, and citations are not fully and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). The citation level is improved, but one can still easily pick out uncited opinion (example: Others have acknowledged that despite its inertia and repression ...) There are many good candidate sections for better use of summary style to shorten the article (for example, Geography and climate and others). Also, see MOS:CAPS#All caps on reducing caps in citations, and see WP:OVERLINK about reducing links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers. External links might be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. There are also external website jumps within the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I have pruned the external links, reduced links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers, fixed the caps in citations, fixed that external website jump within the text.
I am starting to replace the Britannica referencesI have whittled down the number of Britannica references from 20 to 5. If more people think that the article needs to be reduced I will start doing that.--Miyokan 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I have pruned the external links, reduced links to words commonly known to most English-speaking readers, fixed the caps in citations, fixed that external website jump within the text.
- Comment, well, it became much better, but many of the issues raised during the previous discussion are not addressed. BTW (a minor point), as for The Fabergé Eggs have become a synonym for luxury and are regarded as masterpieces of the jeweler's art, it is POV. They are often considered kitsch (for a good reason), played marginal role in the Russian art, and at any rate I have never heard of them as masterpieces. Something other would fit better, e.g. a picture of Kizhi, or if it shouldn’t represent architecture, something like early Soviet posters (they are likely to be PD).
- Reply Perhaps they are not art but they are indeed the pinnacle of craftsmanship - According to author and Fabergé expert, Géza von Habsburg, "They are the absolute summit of craftsmanship. They are unbelievably made. They were the sort of apogee of what Fabergé was able to do, and he lavished everything he could on them."[7]. (I can also give you many examples where they are referred to as masterpieces- Fabergé Eggs: Masterpieces from Czarist Russia by Susanna Pfeffer[8] Each egg was a masterpiece.[9]"The discovery of this masterpiece is the most exciting of my 40-year career."[10]masterpiece creator Carl Faberge...[11] - perhaps the word "masterpiece" could be replaced with "the pinnacle of craftsmanship" if you prefer?--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The picture of taiga is not really that of taiga, it is a grove of young larches near tree line.
- Reply Done Yes I agree, I have been trying to find a picture of real Russian taiga for quite a while now, but I will rename the caption to just its location.--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
- As to Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF, with disastrous results, remove disastrous results at least. It is a blatant POV violation. The issue is complex (too complex for a summary-style article). After all, thanks to them Russia was rescued from the verge of starvation. Colchicum 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Done--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
- OMG, this is awful. The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in the economy being shattered, with tens of millions plunging into poverty and a severe fall in the standard of living, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organised crime. The removal of price controls caused hyperinflation and people's savings were wiped out. Russia took up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, even though its population made up just half of the population of the USSR at the time of its dissolution. Guys, this is a controversial issue. And at least hyperinflation was not caused by the removal of price controls, it merely became evident (well, even this is not entirely correct). The causal link between the policies and corruption is also far from obvious. even though -- kak plaksivaya baba, excuse me. POVish concatenation of facts. Colchicum 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Done I replaced the opening phrase, "The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in..", with "The dismantling of the planned economy towards a market based one resulted in"--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
- for far less than they were worth – this is meaningless at best. The value is not an inherent objective property. It emerges as parties exchange. It is impossible to sell something voluntarily for less than it is worth. Colchicum 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Overall, only cons are presented concerning Yeltsin's era, only pros are there as to Putin's rule. This is POV. Corrpution and nepotism are still rampant, but for some reason the article is silent about it, while painting Yeltsin all black. It could be more even. Colchicum 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I think you misread. The article clearly says Corruption and nepotism has run rampant -ie present tense, not had run rampant. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat this statement again in the Putin era to save space. Indeed the article does not say that all these problems were fixed in the Putin era. If it still bothers you I could change it.
- Corruption and nepotism has run rampant, including within the Yeltsin government—for example, Yeltsin's son-in-law became the CEO of Aeroflot, Russia's largest airline.- the including within the Yeltsin government—for example, Yeltsin's son-in-law became the CEO of Aeroflot, Russia's largest airline. -
the second part could be removed to remove the 'anti-Yeltsin bias' if you wish so it simply reads Corruption and nepotism has run rampant Done--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't have a problem with the size of the article—Russia, after all, is huge, and there is only so much material that can be trimmed down without having to compromise article's quality. I do, however, have a problem with excessive number of Britannica quotations, as I do not believe that a feature-quality article should rely on summaries in tertiary sources at all. I also agree with SandyGeorgia on that there are still quite a few things that can and should be referenced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I added about
1520 new references and removed unreferenced information.I am starting to replace the Britannica referencesI have whittled down the number of Britannica references from 20 to 5.--Miyokan 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I added about
- Further comments
- I think one should review the references in order to make sure that the authors are non-partisan and that the issues are not controversial. Ideally, the article should summarize more specific articles. It is not always possible, because the latter are often in poor shape, but when there is some disagreement, the information shouldn't be included (it is technically impossible to represent all POVs in the summary-style article). I am still not entirely satisfied with the description of 1991-1993. Maybe it would benefit from contributions of other users.
- Statements of the Russian government absolutely cannot be taken as non-partisan, yet now an address by Putin is used to substantiate that during Putin's presidency there have been improvements in the Russian standard of living. True as it may be, such sources are inappropriate. If something is sourced from the Constitution or other prescriptive documents (I mean the section on government and politics), it should be explicitely mentioned, because the reality doesn't necessarily correspond to legislation (cf. studies referred to in Judiciary of Russia). BTW, Russian transliterations (Federalnoye Sobraniye, Gosudarstvennaya Duma) are unnecessary here.
- It is strange that the 1993 constitutional crisis and the referendum on the Constitution of Russia are not mentioned in the sections on the Russian Federation or on Government and politics.
- I am worried that Russian Orthodoxy is confused with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is wrong. There are many other orthodox denominations in Russia. The Act of Canonical Communion is an event in the history of that specific church, I am not sure that it is significant enough for the general article.
- nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions – Very dubious statement misrepresenting the source [12] As a general rule, ethnic groups united in their own statehoods live in compact groups within their respective republics, regions and autonomous areas (except for Jews and Evenks). And yet, 70.8% of the Mordovians, 68% of the Tatars, and 49.6% of the Maris live beyond the borders of their ethnic republics. I think it has too many exceptions and can safely be omitted.
- Colchicum 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Done I removed the Putin address reference, made clear what was from the Constitution, mentioned the 1993 constitutional crisis in the Russian Federation section and mentioned the referendum on the Constitution in the Government and Politics section, removed the statement about the Act of Canonical Communion and removed the statement nearly all groups live compactly in their respective regions.--Miyokan 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
- Comment, congratulations on writing an FA quality article on a very controversial topic. However, i have some things i'd like to see improved. First of all i find the Subdivisions section to be quite confusing. After reading it two times, i still have trouble understanding the subdivision structure of the Russian Federation. More specifically, I am confused about the differences between the different types of Federal subjects, and how the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is different from the other oblasts. Also, looking at the map it appears that some areas are governed directly by the Federal district government, and not by a Federal subject, is this correct? Reading the text didn't alleviate my confusion. Secondly, parts of the Culture, Sports and Imperial Russia sections appear to me like "walls of text"; dividing them into more paragraphs would, in my opinion, make reading them easier. Anyway, good luck on the FAC - I'm prepared to support it you respond to my suggestions. :) --Aqwis 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support! - Really an obvious example to a feature article. Reliable references, important information, images. An exellent article! Infact, it is so good that i was shure it's already a feature article. No Free Nickname Left 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another comment - As to the economy section, I would suggest to get rid of forecasts and expectations. They are useless. Noone has been able to produce accurate long-term predictions so far. Instead, some information on taxation would be really appropriate in this section. Colchicum 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Done--Miyokan 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
- Oppose - sorry but the article seems to be too unstable and still gets too many radical changes from time to time for a FA. Avala 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply "Too unstable"? Looking at the edit history, this article is very stable. There aren't daily edit wars. In fact, there hasn't been an edit war for months. Also, vandalism is virtually non-existant on this article. And what "radical changes" are you referring to?--Miyokan 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—Not well-written; tons of MOS breaches. Tony (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) PS plus POV: for example, the section on religion has no mention of the ways in which the Russian Orthodox Church has had itself massively favoured over other denominations since the Soviet period.
"in-depth educational system"! Even if it's the CIA Factbook that says it, I start to want more than a single source for sweeping attitudinal statements such as "is one of the best mass education systems in the world". "expenses on education took a big blow"—this is not formal English, BTW.It's all very fancrufty. Publicity brochure? Written by the Russian Ministry of Information? Same for this clanger:"Russia's economy has adapted relatively quickly from the world's largest centrally planned economy to a market economy."Hmmmm. There are issues in every paragraph. Tony (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I removed the, "is one of the best mass education systems in the world", "Russia's economy has adapted relatively quickly from the world's largest centrally planned economy to a market economy" and "expenses on education took a big blow" comments. I am surprised that someone has said that the article is not well written - Aqwis disagrees with you and says that the summaries are well written. The prevalence of the Russian Orthodox Church is already discussed through the statements which establish that the huge majority of Russians are part of that faith, and that "the church is widely respected by both believers and nonbelievers, who see it as a symbol of Russian heritage and culture". It goes without saying that the Russian Orthodox Church is favoured when "63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslim and less than 1% considered themselves either Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Jewish".--Miyokan 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the only the Soviet Section in History divided into four pieces where all the other sections are undivided?--Dwarf Kirlston 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Done It was because the Soviet Russia section is the largest one. You are right in that it should not be divided if the others are not. I removed the divisions.--Miyokan 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
OpposeWeak Oppose - The section of history need to summarise a bit first.Coloane —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)- Comment: After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly-independent Russian Federation emerged as a great powerand is also considered to be an energy superpower. are you sure? the great depreciation of rouble; great cut in military part, relatively high rate of inflation after the breakup of the Soviet Union didn't make me believe it is/was a great power.
Energy superpower? how about Brazil or S. Arabia? what do you mean exactly? can you quantify these figures compare to other oil-production countries?I think it is much better (i.e. NPOV) for you to depict Russia as one of the biggest suppliers of natural resources (e.g. crude oil / natural gas or whatsoever, actually it doesn't matter).
- Comment: After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the newly-independent Russian Federation emerged as a great powerand is also considered to be an energy superpower. are you sure? the great depreciation of rouble; great cut in military part, relatively high rate of inflation after the breakup of the Soviet Union didn't make me believe it is/was a great power.
The part (sub-topics) of Ancient Russia, Early East Slavs and Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow should be merged. For general readers, who really cares the nitty-gritty and differences between these two. Look at the first sentense from the paragraph of sub-topic of Grand Duchy of Moscow: The most powerful successor state to Kievan Rus' was Moscow. It seems to me it is still talking about something from the above sub-topic, isn't it? Tsardom of Russia and Imperial Russia should be merged. The last paragraph from Imperial Russia should be moved to Soviet Russia, didn't it talked about the revolution and establisment of Soviet Russia?The history section needs to write a bit shorter. It's too long indeed!!!
- For the health section,
are traffic accidents, violent crimes catergorised as preventable diseases? do you think they are suitably putting under the category of preventable diseases? are you sure violent crimes were mostly induced by psychiatric causes?The primary causes of Russia's population decrease are a high death rate and low birth rate.(i.e. misleading) well, maybe! but who knows? tons of Russian every year were moved to the United States, Canada, the UK (mostly for wealthy Russian) and Australia for good, to name a few. Why didn't you mention them?
7 pieces of photos were forcibly put into the sub-topic of culture, don't you think it is too much?Coloane 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The history section fails NPOV really badly because of similar concerns to those that led to History of Russia losing its FA status. In the light of my experience on the previous article, I doubt whether it would be worth my time trying to make this article more neutral since most of the same problems are all present and correct here too (plus some new ones). Let's just take one example from the current article under discussion: "[Lenin] was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the rights of women, and teaching all Russian people to read and write". Source? Lenin himself. But that fits with the general "nice Lenin, bad Stalin" tone of the page (a long-exploded myth). No Cheka, no War Communism, all the Bolsheviks' opponents are "anti-socialist monarchist and bourgeois forces" or foreigners (what happened to the Socialist Revolutionaries or the mass of Russian peasants who rebelled against Bolshevik control?). Another underlying canard: this article seems to follow the old Russian nationalist line that Moscow had a manifest destiny to "gather in the Russian lands". The bit about Georgia is laughably distorted (I'm not even sure why it's there in the first place). Russia's role in the Napoleonic Wars begins in 1812 and so on and so on...There's also the same reliance on 19th century Russian sources which is really unacceptable. There's no way you could put this on the front page as an example of our best work. --Folantin 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Folantin 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- (NB: Oh my God! I've just realised this has already received Good Article status! I never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this...) --Folantin 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Update I still oppose per criterion 1 (e). NPOV issues apparently unresolvable. This page, like most national histories (which tend to get delisted), is inherently unstable. Plus, it's badly written (e.g. the section about World War One and the 1917 Revolutions is particularly confused) and there seems to be a failure to understand criterion 4 ("summary style"). --Folantin 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- (NB: Oh my God! I've just realised this has already received Good Article status! I never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this...) --Folantin 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, strongly. I share Tony's concerns, and also those of Folantin. The Chechnyan conflict, although briefly mentioned, is probably not given enough space, and events under Putin are presented in altogether too positive a light; yes, he's done well with the economy, but significant social problems remain (this is not really mentioned) and the issues of increasingly limited civil liberties and restrictions on freedom of speech that have been raised during Putin's presidency are brushed under the carpet; this topic has received significant commentary in recent times. Moreschi Talk 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I added information about criticism about Putin, and I added a counterbalance in the form of his strong domestic support and the world public opinion poll. I also added a sentence saying that significant problems remain with corruption, infrastructure and health (plus the health problems are already detailed in the "Education and health" section and there was already a sentence, "corruption and nepotism has run rampant"). Deeper discussion of these topics should remain in the relevant articles as this is, after all, meant to be a summary article about Russia, and there is a lot of ground to cover.--Miyokan 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
OpposeStrongly Oppose-Dwarf Kirlston
- Badly organized: beginning of Topography -not "The Russian Federation stretches across much of the north of the supercontinent of Eurasia. " but details on the two fathest points from each other still in Russia. Focus on "Foreign Relations" in on NATO and EU, when Foreign relations of Russia is much clearer and talks about relationships with ex-soviet countries. Furthermore attempts have been made to keep the TOC small, despite it not being that long as compared to the article -
Education and Health are completely different topics in the article yet remain under one heading. Climate is part of the study of the earth and topic does not need to be called "Geography and climate". When I compare this English language GA Russia to the portuguese FA Rúsia the difference in formatting is shocking. Especially in Culture where six images are bunched up together in the English version and it is divided into sections in the portuguese. - History NPOV: the article would be better off in this respect as only about the Federation of Russia rather than about "Russia". No real mention of the effect of purges, of lowering population of Russia
from the most populated european country, from 250 million,to 150 million. No real mention of recent economic history including the financial crisis of 1998.Why is Ivan IV and not the terrible and the great and not Ivan III? - Economy: "The average salary has increased to $540 (about $920 PPP) per month in August 2007, from $65 per month in August 1999, at the worst of the collapse" what was the average salary in 1994 before the financial crisis? What was the size of the economy at the end of the Soviet Era?
- The articles it links to are many times in bad shape, to improve those would help the main Russia article.
- I think Miyokan has been extremely diligent and hardworking in improving Russia.--Dwarf Kirlston 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion continued in my talk page -Dwarf Kirlston —Preceding comment was added at 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - this a top level article summarizing literally tens of thousand articles. Many of them been quite controversial. There is always some trade off between the size of the article and the breadth of the illustrated topics, between size and the depth of explanation of controversies. I think the article is a good compromise between those trade-offs. I think lumping together realated topics like Health and Education is one of those trade-offs. Despite many topics been controversial the article is reasonably stable. I do not see a lot of sins against MOS but if they are identified they could be fixed. Alex Bakharev 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for now.
I thought about reading the article through to give decent review. But the first section is already so overwhelmed by peacock terms and obvious nationalism/patriotism that I don't even bother to continue reading. Like this one: Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering almost twice the total area of the next-largest country, Canada, and has enormous mineral and energy resources... I am not saying this is only occurence in intro.The article doesn't seem to be written from neutral point of view aswell. Suva Чего? 07:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC) - Comment: Intro seems to be mostly cleaned up now. I need to check rest of the article as well for more constructive comments or vote change. Suva Чего? 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. I have my doubts about some of the remarks up here, and I am afraid they are going to be fixed. Silly remark? Seriously, folks, too much history? --Paul Pieniezny 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Afraid they're gonna be fixed? This article has had 250 edits since it's nomination - I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are. The fact is though that these are the ones found right now, in its current state. It's nomination was for it at it's current state, not for what it could be. If the necessary edits are not made during this nomination, it will not deserve FA status during this nomination.--Dwarf Kirlston 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I fail to see why this article is subject to a POV. Because it doesn't mention Georgia? Please... It highlights both facts that Russians can be proud of and facts that aren't so pleasant to the Russian people. For example, "significant problems remain with corruption, infrastructure and health". Completely agree with Alex Bakharev. This article is very controversial and covers thousands of even more controversial topics (Chechen War, Cold War, Communism, Lenin, Stalin etc..), and it does a very good job of keeping it all in a neutral perspective. I've read over about half the article and I didn't notice any MoS gaps, which is probably because I'm not a native English speaker. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of the language could actually go over the article instead of just "Opposing" the promotion and doing nothing about it. Miyokan has done a wonderful job bringing this article up to FAC status, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be promoted.
- PS, Just by reading his comments, it seems to me that Folantin just doesn't want this article in the FA category. (" never thought it would be possible for me to have even less respect for the whole GA process, but congratulations to whoever "reviewed" this", " I doubt whether it would be worth my time..."). I honestly don't get what your problem is...Regards, Bogdan 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- An FA article is an Outstanding, thorough article and a great source for encyclopedic information on which no further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Somehow It seems people have forgotten this.--Dwarf Kirlston 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What Dwarf Kirlston said. Is this really an example of our best work? Of course, nasty old Folantin just wants to spoil everybody's fun...--Folantin 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think what is happening is that russian nationalism comes to the fore, and supporting this candidacy is akin to supporting Russia's current state, and objecting is akin to persecuting those who support Russia. It is further complicated by --Dwarf Kirlston
- (You forgot to finish your sentence!) Yep. I have friends who are Russian (some of them might even define themselves as "nationalist") but they've studied history and they wouldn't put up with some of the things going on in this article. It's been a few years since I dealt with mainstream Russian history but I did read some pretty solid books on the subject. I can make a pretty good guess at what an expert's reaction this page would be. An editor who makes statements like "most peasants were pro-Bolshevik" doesn't inspire confidence. I get the impression most of the research for this article went no further than cobbling together a few encyclopaedia or newspaper articles found online. I'd expect more background reading to produce an FA candidate. Some editors - mostly Russians or Russophones - seem to be trying to hustle this article through to FA status as fast as possible rather than solving the underlying problems. --Folantin 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- (I did... only to remember now... I suppose I was going to say it's further complicated by the fact that people appropriate pages, and also consider it a personal affont to them if criticism is done to it.) the Great Purges according to my historical knowledge had killed at least 20 million people and possible way more - but that article notes at least 2 million and for the western reaction notes "minimization of the extent of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and small but passionate groups of modern-day Stalinists." -did revisionist scholars and stalinists edit great purge? --Dwarf Kirlston 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- (You forgot to finish your sentence!) Yep. I have friends who are Russian (some of them might even define themselves as "nationalist") but they've studied history and they wouldn't put up with some of the things going on in this article. It's been a few years since I dealt with mainstream Russian history but I did read some pretty solid books on the subject. I can make a pretty good guess at what an expert's reaction this page would be. An editor who makes statements like "most peasants were pro-Bolshevik" doesn't inspire confidence. I get the impression most of the research for this article went no further than cobbling together a few encyclopaedia or newspaper articles found online. I'd expect more background reading to produce an FA candidate. Some editors - mostly Russians or Russophones - seem to be trying to hustle this article through to FA status as fast as possible rather than solving the underlying problems. --Folantin 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think what is happening is that russian nationalism comes to the fore, and supporting this candidacy is akin to supporting Russia's current state, and objecting is akin to persecuting those who support Russia. It is further complicated by --Dwarf Kirlston
- Comment What Dwarf Kirlston said. Is this really an example of our best work? Of course, nasty old Folantin just wants to spoil everybody's fun...--Folantin 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment--Dwarf Kirlston
"Russia has a revered and recognised tradition of ballet." - revered?- Reply Done--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
"The Russian language, renowned for its richness and flexibility" - renowned?- Reply Done--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply
- Left out in Foreign relations: relations with other ex-soviet countries
- Reply The relationship with ex-Soviet countries is too complicated to fit into this article (and the Foreign relations of Russia article is filled with inaccuracies). Organisations with ex-Soviet states are mentioned.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Left out in Culture: Architecture, crafts-making - it's not because there's not enough room, there's more information on the rather not very notable Russian cuisine than on Russian Ballet, Architecture, Crafts making put together, despite there being 3 pictures of famous russian architecture and one of the fabrege eggs, (which are not talked about at all). And there are strangely no images for cuisine and cinema, despite the plethora of images.
- Reply I replaced the Bolshoi image with a 'cinema' image. There IS not enough room. We can't add all aspects of Russian culture, there has to be a compromise somewhere. (btw The Bolshoi and Winter Palace weren't meant to represent architecture - The Bolshoi Theatre image represents theatre and ballet, the Winter Palace represents cultural institutions) but (Sergei Eisenstein).--Miyokan 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is too long, yet "Russian cuisine represents a bouquet" deserves a place? Russian culture#Cuisine is in all ways better in talking about cuisine
- "While in the industrialised nations of the West, motion pictures had first been accepted as a form of cheap recreation and leisure for the working class" POV and bloat, the article can do without, should do without in order for succinctness yet it is there.
- Reply It's not POV, that is exactly what Encyclopedia Britannica says [13].--Miyokan 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I am objecting because it is the first sentence on Russian Film in the article, it is not POV if in proper context, as introduction it is POV - to elaborate: one can start the article on France by saying "The French-men have lost many more wars than the Americans" even if the facts are true, it is POV. To say that "Russian Film was not produced as entertainment as in Western countries" is concise and remarkably more NPOV.--Dwarf Kirlston 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Inexpensive by the way is not cheap I would further refer you to wiktionary:cheap. (cont.) cheap means: of bad quality, of little worth, and inexpensive. Is this article saying that cinema in the west was of bad quality and little worth? Or does it attempt to say that the tickets were inexpensive and isntead use an unencyclopedic term?--Dwarf Kirlston
- It is too long because it is bloated. it doesn't treat these things not because there's not enough room, it's because notability and succinctness are ignored in general.--Dwarf Kirlston 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Left out in Economy: Any discussion of the Soviet Economy or Financial Crisis. The article had been saying that 'Oil had been decreasing in importance in Russia economically since 2003' before this hour, it is still 80% of the exports, (the difference in the amount of imports and exports was what led to the collapse).
- Reply Its decreased in importance because the economy is less dependant on exports.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Left out in Demographics: Any discussion of the Deathtoll from Civil War, WWI, WWII, Purges and the effect on lowering population.--Dwarf Kirlston 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Demographics is not a history section, wars and such are left to the 'History' sction. Affecting of population numbers throughout history is never done in the Demographics section.--Miyokan 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:Bloat in Culture:Cuisine: "Traditional Russian cuisine is an important part of Russian national culture." as opposed to the unimportant architecture which is not even mentioned?
- Its foundations were laid by the peasant food of the rural population in an often harsh climate, with a combination of plentiful fish, poultry, game, mushrooms, berries, and honey.Flavourful soups and stews centred on seasonal or storable produce, fish, and meats how is this notable? this does not belong in a Russia article, this is detail!
- "Large areas covered by woods and forests were abundant in berries and mushrooms." maybe this belongs in geography?
- Russian cuisine was renowned for diverse delicacies, especially refreshments (zakuski), made of fish, yielded by Russian rivers, lakes and seas.
- "Soups and stews, made from the poultry and meats that were hunted," really? they were hunted? why that is interesting, perhaps both relevant to the fauna still existent, to hunting the sport, to endangered species perhaps... but is it really so notable and relevant to Russian culture that it is more important than one statement on Russian Architecture?
- "Bread is a staple of Russian cuisine" I wouldn't be surprised, but it this notable?
- "Russian cuisine represents a bouquet of many cultural traditions and influences that have been absorbed over many centuries." I didn't know that Russian Cuisine represented a bouquet. furthermore, it should stop at influences, even better at cultural traditions.
Furthermore the issue of the formatting of the images remain. Images are NOT next to their respective topics in Cuisine. They are isntead arranged at the top like this:- Image:St Basils Cathedral-500px.jpg|right|thumb|Saint Basil's Cathedral (1555–1561) is a showcase of medieval Russian architecture]]
- Image:Ilya Efimovich Repin (1844-1930) - Portrait of Leo Tolstoy (1887).jpg|thumb|upright|left|Leo Tolstoy]]
- Image:Peter Tschaikowski.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]]
- Image:Coronation Egg.jpg|right|thumb|The Fabergé Eggs have become a synonym for luxury and are regarded as masterpieces of the jeweler's art]]
- Image:MayaPlisetskaya.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Maya Plisetskaya in Swan Lake]]
- Image:Sergei Eisenstein with skull.jpg|thumb|right|Sergei Eisenstein]]
Image:Winterpalast zwei seiten2.JPG|thumb|right|The Winter Palace, part of the Hermitage Museum]]- As a result of this comment the section on cuisine was entirely deleted. four photos were deleted.
- --Dwarf Kirlston 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't as a result of your comment, the culture section needed trimming.--Miyokan 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that the comment had any unreasonable effect, merely that it was reasonable, and that it had an effect, and this effect was, in short, the trimming. Or are you saying that you the editor that deleted it did not read my comment? I posted my comment on 15:58, 7 November 2007 and on 05:55, 8 November 2007 the section on cuisine was deleted. If the culture section needed trimming it needed trimming always, why was it only done after I posted the comment? It is my personal opinion that it was done because of my comment, I believe the facts point to this interpretation.--Dwarf Kirlston 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment let me congratulate you guys first. The history section has improved considerably over the last days. I'd have few comments. The Dual Power: the soviets versus Russian Provisional Government and Alexander Kerensky after the February revolution are not mentioned, instead it reads ...Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called soviets. The statement is misleading, the fact is the first fully democratic elections in Russian history were held on November 12, 1917 as scheduled by the Provisional Government even though the communists had sieged the power by that time. The elected Russian Constituent Assembly was dissolved by the Bolshevik government after it became clear that the communists didn't win the elections. One might argue that the act fueled further the Russian Civil War. Also, the execution of the Romanov family on July 17, 1918 might be worth mentioning. One key factor seems to be also forgotten. The Soviet Land reform that redistributed the land between landless peasants that made them support the Communist government and helped the Communists to win the civil war. --Termer 07:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS.The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia...eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship sounds like a POV of a disappointed revolutionary I think. I'd avoid statements like that. Also, the "October revolution" itself might need something more neutral as the event has been called the bolshevik/communist Coup d'Etat of 1917 by many sources [14] that was in fact a counterrevolution to the democratic revolution in February.--Termer 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- "..sounds like a POV of a disappointed revolutionary I think." - not a disappointed revolutionary, MSN Encarta [15].--Miyokan 09:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- MSN Encarta can and constaly is improved upon,
and seem to have different policies in regards to tone.You linked to a rather long article and the backing you sought was at the very least not in the introduction. Could you clarify it's location?--Dwarf Kirlston 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- MSN Encarta can and constaly is improved upon,
The second revolution led to the rise of the modern Communist movement and to the transformation of the Russian Empire into what became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia. However, the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship, which lasted until 1991.
- was the editor copying directly? he should have put it in quotes, this is currently a direct copy of non-free copyrighted material on wikipedia
- "The communist ideal was democracy and equality, the communist reality was bureaucratic dictatorship" is also true, but it doesn't seem to fit NPOV either.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is true? excuse me but this can only be an opinion of the editor who wrote the entrance into Encarta. The fact is , the political goal of the communists since Marx up to Lenin was the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and that one was what turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship. Again, for some reason I don't see this fact mentioned in the article, instead it gives political commentary written as it appeared by an Encarta editor. I'd suggest to keep the article factual and avoid such opinionated commentaries in the text.--Termer 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is not what is written in the Encarta article, it's what Dwarf Kirlston said, I don't know why he put it in quotation marks.--Miyokan 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- the only thing that matters here is what the article on WP says. And it still says The goal was...social equality and economic democracy in Russia etc. this is waht you'd call a judgemental statment meaning bias. an alternative biased statment would be: the goal of the October communist coup was to seize power by all means. The point is, once such opinionated statments are used, it should clearly at least say: accoding to who? Now, once such bias has been included into the article it should also list the opposing views. But currently the opinion reads like a fact and therefore it's not appropriate for a featured article on WP. That was the point.--Termer 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I, Dwarf Kirlston agree with Termer, I'm glad he understood my comment, I strive for clarity. -note: I have altered my signature slightly as you can see.--Keerllston 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- the only thing that matters here is what the article on WP says. And it still says The goal was...social equality and economic democracy in Russia etc. this is waht you'd call a judgemental statment meaning bias. an alternative biased statment would be: the goal of the October communist coup was to seize power by all means. The point is, once such opinionated statments are used, it should clearly at least say: accoding to who? Now, once such bias has been included into the article it should also list the opposing views. But currently the opinion reads like a fact and therefore it's not appropriate for a featured article on WP. That was the point.--Termer 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is not what is written in the Encarta article, it's what Dwarf Kirlston said, I don't know why he put it in quotation marks.--Miyokan 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The communist ideal was democracy and equality" is true? excuse me but this can only be an opinion of the editor who wrote the entrance into Encarta. The fact is , the political goal of the communists since Marx up to Lenin was the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and that one was what turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship. Again, for some reason I don't see this fact mentioned in the article, instead it gives political commentary written as it appeared by an Encarta editor. I'd suggest to keep the article factual and avoid such opinionated commentaries in the text.--Termer 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely a feature article. This guy made hell of a work. The more people like him Wikipedia has, the better it will work. No Free Nickname Left 20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- User Review Time?--I believe you "voted" already-- perhaps you thought it had been renominated after no consensus?
- --I believe you are refering User:Miyokan, he has done a pretty good job: he has been persistent, hard working, and in this candidateship he has shown an ability to take some criticism and change things - all these qualities are great and beneficial to the working of wikipedia.
- However:he informs on his userpage"This user is a paid member of the KGB Internet troll squad.", and various pro greater russia opinions as well.
- He seems to be political aka anti-NPOV-His actions are what you'd expect to some extent of a nationalist russian. To the extent that he goes against NPOV he is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia.
- KGB "troll" - troll refers to the type of communication with others. Whether there is actual dialogue or whether it revolves around debate of superficial points. Wikipedia is neither a bureocracy nor a battleground and therefore a troll is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia. To the extent that he is a troll he is antagonistic to the workings of wikipedia.
- There is good and there is bad. He is not a troll, he is not political, he is not beneficial, he is not antagonistic. He's somewhere in between. Judging from this FAC I would say closer to beneficial.
- --Keerllston 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- (Forgive any procedural error - I am new here) As I have proposed to Miyokan himself, I suggest the merger of the "Armed Forces" section into the "Government" section, as well as "Foreign Relations." Most of the FAs I've read here of different countries do not seem to emphasize such sections. I feel that both these sections contain information that is not pertinent to the general description of Russia. I think the "History" section can be reduced in the same way - merge and reduce the first three sections and focus instead on the Imperial, Soviet and modern eras, which is more pertinent to general Russian history. An example is at user:Miyokan/Sandbox (the size there has fallen from 115k to 98k). I also feel that multiple citations should be removed, for the sake of the size. K a r n a (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The article still needs work. It is currently overlinked, prose and sources need some improvement also. As an example of this problems here are some comments on the first subsection of the History section:
Why such a long title for the first subsection ("Ancient Russia, Early East Slavs and Kievan Rus'"), it seems to me "Ancient Russia" encompasses all the rest. Also the main articles linked at the top of this subsection are already linked in the text below. I don't see the point of having repeated links, specially as some of them are pretty specific.In the first paragraph, second sentence, what does the word "steppes" refers to? To the Eurasian Steppe as a whole or only to the "vast lands of southern Russia" referred to in the preceding sentence?In the same sentence, the clause "which would often move on to Europe" seems out of place and even redundant. Is it necessary?In the third paragraph, the first sentence talks about Khazars and then, without further intro, the second sentence talks about Varangians. Some info is needed on why the Varangians are relevant to Russian history.There's no mention on when and why the Slavs arrived to what is now Russian territory. That needs to be rectified.- The sentence "In the tenth to eleventh centuries this state of Kievan Rus became the largest in Europe and one of the most prosperous because of diversified trade with both Europe and Asia" looks like POV, it needs to be sourced. The following sentence about the Rus' decline could also use an inline citation.
- The text does not say when did Russians as such appear. It just talks about "Russian principalities" without saying where did they come from.
The website http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml does not look like a serioues enough source for a featured article, specially if used to source controversial statements such as "About half of the Russian population died during the Mongol invasion". It should be replaced by more scholarly sources.
The whole article should be checked for this kind of problems. --Victor12 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've striked issues already dealt with. Here are some observations from this section:
- The phrase "Prior to the first century" refers to the 1st century BCE or CE?
- Why the link to Bosporan Kingdom as a main article at the start of the section? This entity is not mentioned in the text and it was not located in what is now Russian territory.
- The section "Early East Slavs" is quite short (one paragraph), it would be better to merge it with the preceding one.
- The reference to http://www.state.gov/t/pm/64851.htm in the statement of the Kievan Rus' as the most powerful state in Europe doesn't seem adequate to me. It is not an scholarly reference about Russian (or Ukranian) history, just an abstract from the CIA World Factbook. Could you replace it with a more scholarly source? For instance, a History book.
- Still no explanation for the change from Slavic people to Russian people (Russian principalities are mentioned without any introduction). --Victor12 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. user:K a r n a has listed a number of missing issues which need to be rectified at the bottom of Miyokan's talk page. Brief mentions of things like the rich/poor gap and corruption, gangs etc would make this article much more balanced, and thus potentially FA worthy. Buckshot06 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE: The large number of "strongly oppose" comments and the quantity of the work thus proposed present an adequate challenge for any team of contributors. Many opposes have not been adressed. And it will take a long time - not within the scope of FAC in my opinion - to address the current opposes.
My comments in particular, regarding the culture section's exessive trimming and lack of comprehensability, have not been adressed.
--Keerllston 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.
James Strang[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I've been following the progress of this article. I think it meets all the criteria of an FA. It's a great article. Elliskev 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per the instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, please close and archive the peer review to oldpeerreview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Done by Allen 3 on 11/11 -- Ecjmartin 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.beevision.com/JAB/images/father/IMG_3006.jpg){kind=link}
- You have many paragraphs of very small size, some that are only two sentences long. I would condense paragraphs to make a few, larger ones. Let me know when you do and I may support. Perspicacite 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your feedback; I could clearly see your point after I examined the article with that in mind. I have combo'd some of the shorter paragraphs and expanded some others; check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks again for your feedback! - Ecjmartin 02:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jose João 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This is definitely a good article, but probably needs a bit of work to get it into FA shape. The footnote style is inconsistent. See FA Criterion 2(c). It's not a good idea to use two different footnote styles in the same article. Moreover, the meta:cite format is preferred. Also, many important points in the article are not cited. In addition, I'm not convinced that mormonbeliefs.com is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. There are also citations to blogs. I would also work on fleshing out the citations, being careful to note who the author of each cited article is and other bibliographic information ({{Citation}} is a helpful template). COGDEN 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! (1) Footnotes are not my strong suit, but I can look into this. The footnotes were reformatted and corrected by another editor (for which I was very grateful!), but I added to them after she was done, so that may explain the inconsistancy. I'll see what I can do about that. (2) I believe mormonbeliefs.com is as reliable a source on Strangite beliefs as one can find, being a Strangite website. The citations I make from that site are to published Strangite materials or to Strangite beliefs which they present and/or elaborate on. In my opinion, a Strangite website is as reliable a site for information on their beliefs anywhere else on the internet. Might I ask you to elaborate on your specific objections to this particular site? (3) If I'm thinking of the right one, the blog citation was from the footnote on Emma Smith and her alleged support of Strang; I have pulled all reference to Emma (including the blog citation) from the article, since I couldn't find a better source to cite, and the info on Emma neither adds nor detracts significantly from the article itself. (4) Which "important points" in the article weren't cited? I'd be glad to get citations for any that I can. (5) I've compared the citations in this article to other recent feature articles, and I can't see where they are deficient compared to those in other feature articles I've looked at (Honoré de Balzac, Matthew Brettingham, Henry, Bishop of Uppsala, just to name a few). Of course, some other articles' footnotes are indeed "fleshed out" more, but I'm not sure these compare all that poorly to others. Thanks again for your consideration and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the one that did the references initially. I didn't consider it two different formats, really. WP:LAYOUT states "'Notes' is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). 'References' is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise 'Notes and references' should be combined." In this article, there is "Footnotes" and "Citations". But, as is my understanding, WP allows for various titles to be used. That's an easy fix, if not, however. Also, Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes is where I got the idea from. Although, rather than use Harvard style referencing with the reflist style, I used lettered footnotes. I believe it looks better and works better to pull the notes out of the references and place them in their own section. I don't believe that violates criteria 2c, but I could be wrong. Lara❤Love 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! (1) Footnotes are not my strong suit, but I can look into this. The footnotes were reformatted and corrected by another editor (for which I was very grateful!), but I added to them after she was done, so that may explain the inconsistancy. I'll see what I can do about that. (2) I believe mormonbeliefs.com is as reliable a source on Strangite beliefs as one can find, being a Strangite website. The citations I make from that site are to published Strangite materials or to Strangite beliefs which they present and/or elaborate on. In my opinion, a Strangite website is as reliable a site for information on their beliefs anywhere else on the internet. Might I ask you to elaborate on your specific objections to this particular site? (3) If I'm thinking of the right one, the blog citation was from the footnote on Emma Smith and her alleged support of Strang; I have pulled all reference to Emma (including the blog citation) from the article, since I couldn't find a better source to cite, and the info on Emma neither adds nor detracts significantly from the article itself. (4) Which "important points" in the article weren't cited? I'd be glad to get citations for any that I can. (5) I've compared the citations in this article to other recent feature articles, and I can't see where they are deficient compared to those in other feature articles I've looked at (Honoré de Balzac, Matthew Brettingham, Henry, Bishop of Uppsala, just to name a few). Of course, some other articles' footnotes are indeed "fleshed out" more, but I'm not sure these compare all that poorly to others. Thanks again for your consideration and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ "Sandman - definition". MSN Encarta. Retrieved 2007-11-23.