I am nominating this for featured article status because the article appears to meet all of the criteria for being listed as a featured article, per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article is well-sourced, well-written, very comprehensive and has a neutral, encyclopedic tone. The article adheres to Wikipedia's style guidelines from the Manual of Style, includes images, external images and external media, and has an appropriate length relative to the topic's coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Until the article is named properly (see talk page) it should not be featured Aperseghin (talk)
Comment. That would be my call, too, judging from the talk page. Go with a morew neutral title. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't read the article yet, but I see that there are a number of one-sentence paragraphs. Try to avoid those if you can, it doesn't flow very well. Also, you might want to try to incorporate the See also entries into the body if you can. (I personally like the title, but I have a strong POV on the issue.) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some of these one-sentence paragraphs have been incorporated into larger paragraphs, per the suggestion above. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that virtually all of the sources refer to the product as "pink slime". Per WP:TITLE, an English Wikipedia policy, "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. There will often be two or more possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus." Consensus in the article's talk page archives was for the article to remain titled as "pink slime." Furthermore, simply viewing the titles of the sources in the references section clearly confirms that this is the term that media refers to the product to. Upon reading the sources, this is further and very clearly confirmed. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as I'd love to see this article featured, with the controversy over its title, I doubt it will get far in this forum. My advice is to start an WP:RFC over the title and name the article per the result, even if the result is contrary to your preference. That way if this controversy erupts again, you can point to the RFC as a resolution that would appease most rational people. (Hey, at least this is being handled more maturely than a certain previous incident.) As to the article itself, it's generally good. However, I thought for an article of this size the lead should be no more than 3 paragraphs? Is that guideline still in effect? (I'm a little out of the loop, but the lead does seem long) Dave (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hard and fast rule, but you're right, the lead is probably too long. It's easily longer than the leads of the two longest recently promoted FACs that come to mind: Avery Brundage & Air raids on Japan. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Here are links to previous discussions regarding changing the article's title. The consensus in both discussions was for this article to remain titled as "Pink slime."
I saw those, however I have one lingering question. Was an attempt made for outside comment? If these discussions were advertised in a well watched forum (like RFC or similar), that's good enough for me. But if the discussion was limited to just whomever happened to be watching this talk page anyways, that's a harder case to make that an honest effort was tried to resolve this dispute. Dave (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I share the views above re article title and stability. However, there are other major issues. The lead is not a lead: it is not a summary of the article. The text in the lead should probably be the article's first section. The current first paragraph of the body of the article begins "In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers." There are so many problems just in that one sentence.
It should name the subject of the article, not refer to "it".
The section should in any case, as noted, begin by describing the product.
The sentence foreshadows a general issue with the article, which is that it lacks a balanced worldwide view of the subject.
There is no citation for this important claim.
The whole article has issues with being anti-product POV. For example "In fact by June 2012, forty-seven of fifty states declined to purchase any pink slime for the 2012–2013 school year while North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa chose to continue buying it." Listen carefully to the way the "in fact" at the start of that sentence is used to 'amp up' the sense of how important it is that the product has been rejected. Consider the next sentence, saying how the industry "have attempted to address public concern by citing what the meat industry describes as inaccuracies in the media accounts of how LFTB is produced". Not the use of "have attempted", clearly implying failure and "what the industry describes as innacuracies", implying that they are not. A later example: the article says "It has been described as "essentially scrap meat pieces compressed together and treated with an antibacterial agent."" Well yes it has - by a journalist from a second rate news outlet I've never heard of. And again later: "In the U.S., beef can be labeled "100 percent ground beef" even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime". Note the use of "even if", which implies the claim is wrong: clear POV. The FDA, if I understand it correctly, defines the product as beef, and it has certainly been ground (as well as pulped, gassed, mashed and god knows what else). And the allowance of labelling such as this example, exasperating though it is, is hardly confined to this product. I'm happy for lobby groups to say "even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime" and more power to them - but not our article. I've reviewed nearly a hundred GA candidates over the years and I don't know how this got through. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update – The article's lead has been revised to reflect and summarize the contents of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that isn't my view. This will (hopefully) continue to be addressed at the GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree And noting also comments at the GAR. Collect (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I commend Hamiltonstone for launching the GAR and have commented there. IMO this is not even a Good Article at present, and it is completely unsuitable to be a Featured Article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that mass media continues to refer to the product as "pink slime." Examples include:
Per WP:COMMONNAMES, part of Wikipedia's policy page for Article titles, it appears that the article's title is appropriate. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and as I indicated here, it is not that straightforward. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Most, if not all of the concerns in the GA reassessment have been addressed/corrected as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... Dear god I hope archive number 8 is the last! I think I'm mad for doing this again but here it goes! I've gone through everything from the last nomination. Aaron • You Da One 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that this is up to scratch. On the basis of reading up to the end of the 'Conception and theme' section, my comments are:
"It was released in the United States on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth single. It was released elsewhere on February 11, 2011, as the third single" - both sentences start with 'it was released', and the commas after the years seems unusual (and has the effect of breaking up these simple and short sentences)
Made into one sentence. You always put a comma after the year. It's grammatically correct. Aaron • You Da One
"Stargate, Sandy Vee and Ester Dean wrote the song; Stargate and Vee produced it." - this is a bit awkward - how about "The song was written by Stargate, Sandy Vee and Ester Dean; Stargate and Vee produced it."? (though this still isn't great). Given that about a dozen people seem to have been involved in the song's production, should Stargate and Vee receive the primary credit?
I was told in a previous nomination to write it like this. And no, Stargate and Vee produced the song, as they are producers. Other people merely contributed to the production and creation of the song, such as instruments etc. Aaron • You Da One
"Response to "S&M" was mixed. Some critics called it one of the best tracks from Loud; others criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics. " - these two responses from critics don't seem to be mutually exclusive: it would have been possible to judge that it was a good song, but its lyrics were too sexual (as an example; I think that Neko Case's album Middle Cyclone is a brilliant must-buy album, but the final track, which is a 31-minute long recording of insects in her back yard, is rubbish).
This was how it was suggested in a previous nomination/GOCE. Aaron • You Da One
"Critics complimented the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality. Photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit alleging that the video incorporates ideas from his photographs. Rihanna and LaChapelle settled the case for an undisclosed sum of money." - these short sentences are rather choppy
""S&M" was co-written, co-produced and co-arranged by Sandy Vee (credited as Sandy Wilhelm) and the Norwegian production duo Stargate, composed of Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen.[1] Ester Dean also co-wrote the song." - splitting the 'co-writers' between two sentences is rather confusing. I'd suggest naming the co-writers in one sentence, and then explain what 'Stargate' is in the next sentence.
Again, this was how it was suggested to me to write it. Aaron • You Da One
Can I just say I'm with Aaron and whoever suggested this format? I think it is best in its current form. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It was recorded in 2010 during Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth Tour at Roc the Mic Studios in New York City, Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles and The Bunker Studios in Paris.[1] The music for the song was recorded by Eriksen and Miles Walker at Roc the Mic Studios and Westlake Recording Studios and by Vee at The Bunker Studios." - this is a bit confusing
I don't know what the other reviewer found confusing, but I was certainly confused by the idea that a song was recorded, only to be told in the next sentence that "the music for the song was recorded", as though this is a separate thing. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vocal recording and music recording are two different things. Aaron • You Da One
"Additional vocal production was helmed by Veronika Bozeman" - how does someone 'helm' production?
Not anywhere I've heard English spoken! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Well again this was how it was suggested in previous nominations. Aaron • You Da One
What involvement did Rihanna actually have in the song's conception and writing process? The 'Conception and theme' section implies that it was based on her ideas, but she's not identified as having contributed anything to the development of the song (and, importantly, she's not credited as being one of the writers)
She didn't, hence why there is no info about her involvement. Just because a singer sings a song, doesn't mean they have involvement in it apart from singing it. She didn't co-write the song either. It's not in the album credits. Hence why he is not listed. Aaron • You Da One
Aaron, your answer makes sense in terms of the credits for the track, but it doesn't fit with the (slightly confusing) section of the article "conception and theme". If Rihanna did not have anything to do with the writing of the song, she should not be the focus of the lead sentence of the section on conception and theme. My second point is that Dean, to be blunt, osn't making a lot of sense in her interview with Billboard. That isn't your fault, but if readers are going to understand the conception of the article, they are going to need something better than Dean's gabble. Specifically the sentence "When people have a great track that speaks to me, it feels like it already has a story in it" bears no relationship to the sentence that precedes it. I've done some tweaking also, to try and bring the article closer to the idea expressed by Rihanna in one of the cited sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence is about her "love", I suppose, for kinky sexual things lol. That interview was done after the release of the album. Aaron • You Da One
"Rihanna told Spin magazine that the lyrics are metaphoric. She said that it is mainly about being confident and comfortable enough to do whatever one wants, and about being impervious to rumors and criticism." - the second sentence here is rather awkward, and these sentences also appear to contradict the start of the paragraph, which states that the song directly reflects Rihanna's "interest in bondage and other sadomasochism activities". Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, from looking at some of the previous nominations, it appears that prose issues have been the main problem. While I think that there are also some serious limitations to the article's content (for instance, in regards to how the song actually came about), I'd suggest that you withdraw this nomination and not renominate it until someone from the Guild of Copy Editors has worked on the prose and the article has been put through a peer review. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been through the GOCE and it has been through a peer review. To be honest, after 7 nominations, different people are telling me to remove/change things which other people have said to add. Aaron • You Da One
To be entirely honest, that's probably because you've repeatedly nominated the article before it met the FA criteria. In one of the previous reviews Graham Colm stated that he wouldn't be comfortable with seeing this article on the main page as it's not an example of our best work, and I'm afraid that I think that this is still the case. As explained above, I think that the article falls short of the FA criteria on prose and content grounds. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it falls short on either. I really don't. So many people have been involved with this. The content is fine. I've seen FAs with less content that S&M and yet they have passed. You're asking me add information that simply does not exist. I've been working on this article for over 12 months, I know what information there is, and it's all in the article. The article shouldn't be judged on what you think it should have but doesn't exist. It should be judged on what is in front of you. Just because Rihanna sings the song, doesn't mean she had anything to do with its creation at all. Aaron • You Da One
Comments:
Are the entire Britney Spears lyrics really necessary in the Remixes section?
Yeah, because they are different to the original. Aaron • You Da One
In critical reception: Cinquemani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that compares to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope". Quotation mark after The Velvet Rope
Live performances and covers. "She gave an interview about the album and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears." I don't know why this sentence is included, since we are told nothing about what was said in that interview - as a result, it just doesn't seem notable to me.
It's background info about her GMA performance. Aaron • You Da One
I don't know what GMA is, but anyway, it still appears irrelevant. Can you explain why it is relevant that she did an interview with Spears, given that we are told nothing of what happened in the interview? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GMA is Good Morning America. Rihanna and Spears BMA performance was deemed as controversial because of the sexual outfits they wore, how they sexually interacted with each other and the general theme of the performance, and how it was broadcasted earlier than content of that should be. So, at GMA, Rihanna was asked about the performance and she gave her opinion on it, after she had performed S&M on GMA. Aaron • You Da One
Then either tell us some of that information or delete it. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This passage has one citation: "Although she had planned to perform "S&M" in its entirety, she only sang the chorus and one verse, in between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?". She changed the arrangement because the BRIT Awards corporation wanted to avoid complaints similar to those received following the finale of the seventh series of The X Factor, on December 11, 2010. Rihanna was criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed". However, the citation was published prior to the BRIT awards and as such, cannot be the source for what she actually did on the night. The source does appear to cover the other facts.
Added another source saying that she was angry that she was asked to not perform S&M in full and that she was planning to scrap it. Aaron • You Da One
That's OK. But my other point still stands - the source is from before the event, so it can't be the source for what actually happened at the event. It tells us what she's thinking of doing / planning doing, but not what she actually did. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BRITs asked her not to perform S&M in full, so she didn't, and performed a medley instead. Aaron • You Da One
Calvin, I don't know how I can be clearer than I am. I'm not asking you personally what happened, I'm asking for a reliable source that tells us what happened. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done now. Hopefully it is more clear now. Aaron • You Da One
On the same passage: I've never heard of the expression "watershed" before, so I found the reference to "before the watershed" to be very confusing. The link certainly cleared that up for me, but i wonder if it can be expressed less technically. Also, I kinda don't get why she was the one being criticised: she isn't the broadcaster. Oh well. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In England we know what the watershed is. I've linked it now. I believe Americans call it a "safe harbour". Aaron • You Da One
Query (you may have answered this somewhere else): in the infobox, why are Stargate credited as producers, but the two individual members of Stargate cited as co-writers, when the article text says that Stargate were co-writers and producers (ie. why give their names in one part of the infobox and not the other)? Why not just use "Stargate" both times, and let the explanation of who Stargare are stand, as it currently does: in the body text?
Stargate consist of two people and is their production name, and is who everyone knows them by. In the prose itself, I've explained who Stargate is by writing both their names. Aaron • You Da One
I think you've missed my point. You are right to have explained who they are in the body text; that's fine. But in the infobox, I don't get why they are named individually as co-writers, but by their production name under producers. Shouldn't one do either one or the other for both categories? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's just how it is done, and how it is written in the album booklet.
"that's just how it is done" is not going to get you far at FA. If that is how it is written on the album booklet, why didn't you say so?hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is how it's done. FAs are like it too. Writers are not teams, so they are listed with their own names. Production teams are teams, so production teams are listed as their team name. This isn't really something to focus a debate on though. Aaron • You Da One
I have never heard of something being "serviced to" something. Even if this is some sort of industry jargon, it shouldn't be in the article. Can you clarify what it means? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use this, I'd simply use released, but it was used as part of previous nomination comments/GOCE. Aaron • You Da One 11:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a copyedit to try and fix it without repeating the word "released" (which I suspect is what the copyeditor didn't like). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because as a GA class article that has been through recent peer review and copy edit processes, I feel that the article is comprehensive enough and rounded enough to be considered for featured article status. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN3: page?
be consistent in when you provide locations for newspapers
Pearson 1966 or 1967?
Missing bibliographic info for Fleming 1963
No citations to Feeney Callan
Bennett shows The James Bond Phenomenon being published in Manchester, while Lindner says London - which is correct?
Given that Xlibris is a self-publishing company, what makes Caplen a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done (I think), but please let me know if I've missed any. Caplen is a borderline case, but I've given a different source for this direct quote from Fleming, as there are a number of others that also carry it. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
Lead section
*"and his father was Member of Parliament for Henley from 1910 until his death" . Missing "the" between "was" and "member"
"He was married to Ann Charteris, who had been divorced from the second Viscount Rothermere because of her relationship with Fleming. The couple had one son, Caspar, although both had affairs during their marriage." --> "He was married to Ann Charteris, who was divorced from the second Viscount Rothermere as a result of her affair with Fleming. Fleming and Charteris had a son called Caspar." I would leave "although both had affairs during their marriage" for the body of the article.
Birth and family
Do we need to mention his birthday again here? It's already in the lede and info box.
Education and early life
"Fleming was sent in 1914 to Durnford School, a preparatory school on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset." --> "In 1914 Fleming attended Durnford School, a preparatory school on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset." sounds better.
"The school was near the estate of a family called Bond".--> "The school was near to the estate of the Bond family" sounds better.
The Eton College image would be better moved down so its not squeezing the text against the quote box.
"Although not one of the academic stars of the school" --> "Although not one of the highest achieving students of the school..."
"While in Geneva, Fleming became engaged to a French-Swiss woman, Monique Panchaud de Bottomes" --> "While in Geneva, Fleming began a romance with Monique Panchaud de Bottomes and the couple were briefly engaged"
"Fleming bowed to family pressure in October 1933, and moved into the banking world with a position at financiers Cull & Co.[19] He was not a good banker, and in October 1935, became a stockbroker with Rowe and Pitman on Bishopsgate, London, a position in which he also performed poorly." --> "Fleming bowed to family pressure in October 1933, and moved into the banking profession with a position at the financiers Cull & Co. In 1935, he moved to Rowe and Pitman in Bishopsgate as a stockbroker. Fleming was unsuccessful in both roles."
World War II
"(whose) Biographer Andrew Lycett notes that Fleming had "no obvious qualifications" for the role."
Many thanks Cassianto—much appreciated. I've covered all the points with the exception of the birth date, which is a bit of a moot point. Both the infobox and the lead are supposed to reflect what's in the article: the citations for the info are connected to the reference in the article as opposed to the ones in the lead to reflect this. If you think it's a bit of overkill having it there, then I can remove it and drop the relevant citation into the lead sentence. Let me know your thoughts. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I don't like info boxes and never use them so I'm not sure of the regs around this. Sorry I mislead you. The mention in the lede is essential. My point was for the repetition in the Birth and family section to be addressed. The full use of it in the opening para of the first section in the body is somewhat divided. I personally think it is not needed see here, here, and here for FA's not using it. I'm not fussed about this point as like I say, some do repeat the full birth date and some don't. Maybe we could barter on this and just include the year? -- CassiantoTalk 14:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A worthy compromise! Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
T-Force
*"Fleming sat on the committee that selected the targets for this unit, and he helped create what were known as the "Black Books" issued to the officers of this unit." --> "Fleming sat on the committee that selected the targets for the T-Force unit, and helped create what became known as the "Black Books" which were issued to the unit's officers." Do you know what the "Black Books" contained? Did they contain the targets?
"It was responsible for securing targets of interest to the British military" --> To the British military or for the British military?
Personal life and interests
"Fleming was a bibliophile who, from 1929 onwards and with the assistance of bookseller Percy Muir, collected a library of over one thousand of what Fleming described as "books that made things happen." --> Fleming was a bibliophile who, from 1929 onwards and with the assistance of bookseller Percy Muir, collected a library of over one thousand written documents Fleming described as "books that made things happen." -- I have used "written documents" but it may be books or something similar. Whatever it is, there feels like there is word missing between "thousand" and "of".
"The name of the house and estate where he wrote his novels has many possible sources. Ian Fleming himself mentioned both his wartime Operation Golden Eye and Carson McCullers' 1941 novel, Reflections in a Golden Eye." --> As what? inspirations for the name? Why did he mention these?
"On Fleming's return to civilian life in May 1945, he joined the Kemsley newspaper group, which at the time owned The Sunday Times. As Foreign Manager, Fleming oversaw the work of the paper's worldwide network of correspondents." --> "Upon Fleming's demobilisation in May 1945, he joined the Kemsley newspaper group, which at the time owned The Sunday Times. Fleming was employed as Foreign Manager and oversaw the work of the paper's worldwide network of correspondents."
"Baron O'Neill, who would be killed in action on the Italian front in 1944." --> "Baron O'Neill, who was killed in action on the Italian front in 1944.
"She then expected to marry Fleming, but he decided to remain a bachelor, so on 28 June 1945, she married the second Viscount Rothermere." --> "Her desires to marry Fleming were not mutual as he decided to remain a bachelor, so on 28 June 1945, she married the second Viscount Rothermere."
"In 1948 she gave birth to a daughter by Fleming, Mary, although the child lived for only a few hours." --> "In 1948 she gave birth to a daughter called Mary, who was fathered by Fleming, but the child lived for only a few hours."
Many thanks once again: all now done (with two minor tweaks: "one thousand copies of what.." and "Her desire to marry Fleming was not mutually held". I'm not sure about my version of the second one tho... - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit also looks good. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing career
*"He started writing the book at Goldeneye on 17 February 1952, typing out 2,000 words in the morning directly from his own experiences and imagination and completing the script in just over two months." --> "He started writing the book at Goldeneye on 17 February 1952, gaining inspiration from his own experiences and imagination. He completed the script in just over two months."
I would mention the fact that Jonathan Cape is a publisher as saying simply "Jonathan Cape" is a bit ambiguous.
"At first, Cape were unenthusiastic about the novel, but Fleming's brother Peter, whose books they had published..." --> had they published Peter's books prior to this or after?
Any chance of a current equivellent of 10s, 6d?
"Three print runs were needed in April and May to cope with sales, and they all sold out." --> "Casino Royale was a success and needed three print runs to cope with the sales, all of which sold out."
Was the earlier mentioned John Bond beared in mind during Bonds creation?
Dr. No (1958) to Octopussy and The Living Daylights
"That began to change in March 1958 when Bernard Bergonzi, in Twentieth Century, attacked Fleming's work..." --> Sorry, what is Twentieth Century?
Biographer Andrew Lycett --> Again, I would call him Fleming's biographer.
I had to search "novelization" to gain an understanding on its meaning. A link would be helpful.
Poor old Fleming seems to have died twice. At the end of the "Dr. No (1958) to Octopussy and The Living Daylights (1966)" section and again in the "Death and legacy" section. Or was this a case of "You Only Live Twice? (boom boom!)
All done. Two points: Peter had books published before and after Ian - I've not altered any test here, so let me know if you want me to clarify the point in the article. Secondly, I've not found any of the sources that note the connection between Fleming's choice of name and the 'Dorset Bonds'. Thanks again for your thoughts - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood both points. Leave Peter's comment then. As for the Dorset Bonds, I think it is too much of a coincidence for it not to have been a namesake of character and story. My money says that it was! Leave that too. -- CassiantoTalk 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realised there was one further point that I didn't cover: the question of the LSD conversion. I don't know how it could be done to translate to a modern figure. Do you have any thoughts? - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be £23.24 (as of year 2000) see here. Add the current rate of inflation to the modern day, and your getting on for £30.00. Don't break your neck over this. If you can't find an exact figure don't worry about adding it. It's not that essential to the article. -- CassiantoTalk 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than listing some very minor coments, I carried out some minor copy edits instead as this section was largely OK. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works
The nominator and I have discussed this section in his sandbox talk page and a reconstruction was made. I was in favour of deleting the table in favour of explaination set in text and the nominator obliged. The nom was also keen to keep a short list of books in a table format. I explained that this would be a little redundant and quite repetitive as it was now all listed in the 1950s and 1960s sections. -- CassiantoTalk 11:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the Works section so that the table now includes all his published works, and removed the unpublished works section, moving the text into the main article. If other reviewers are also not comfortable with the table at the end of the article, I would be happy to try to incorporate the information into the article's body. Thanks again, Cassianto, your efforts are really appreciated! - Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All of my above comments have been addressed and the above table issues have now been resolved. This is an engaging and informative article and one which I am happy to support. Well done SchroCat! -- CassiantoTalk 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: very jumbled. The too-long opening sentence is followed by his background and childhood. Then there is an abrupt statement about the Bond series' commercial success, followed by Fleming's war accomplishments (which happened before he ever wrote a word of Bond, yes?). Then comes the 2008 ranking of best writers, before cutting back 44 years to his personal life and death. To finish off, a summary of Bond's appearances in other media. In short, the lead needs a complete rewrite.
Looking at the other writer FAs, is the infobox required at all? It's useful for album and TV show articles, which have a lot of numerical info, but here?
Article structure: strangely organised. The "Biography" section ends in 1935, before he did anything of note, which is confusing because there is also a "Personal life" section much later on. It is very difficult to figure out whether the article is intended to be chronological or not. My advice: deal with his life completely chronologically in a big Biography/Life section; divide that into sub-sections of the various eras of his life.
Comprehensiveness: I think there needs to be a separate, non-biographical section (similar to, say, Emily Dickinson#Poetry) that deals exclusively with Fleming's writing—his style, the themes of his novels, the concerns of his characters etc. I also think you should separate the Legacy, Influence and Adaptations of his work from his death. Even this needs expansion; I don't see enough about, say, the impact Bond has had in recasting the spy as a suave, sexy character in the eyes of the public.
Prose: try to maintain consistent paragraph size. For eg: "For the first five books..." is huge; "After the publication..." is only a couple of sentences long.
Focus on the subject: the article is about Fleming, not his creation James Bond. So I don't see how an exhaustive list of post-Fleming Bond authors is necessary.
Excessive non-free media: apart from the primary Fleming pic and the Bond sketch, I don't see how the other non-free pics satisfy WP:NFCC and are not merely decorative (eg: the book covers themselves aren't being critiqued).
"Works": the cites are unnecessary, as the information is uncontroversial and self-referential. I also think a simple bulleted list is sufficient (you can add a note for the non-Bond books):
Note that these aren't nitpicks of prose and style; I think there are significant, structural faults with the article, which cannot be resolved within the length of an FAC. I suggest looking at our newer writer FAs (I listed a few above) for ideas to improve.—indopug (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments: I've addressed each in the same order below:
The lead. Quite correct, it was slightly jumbled: it is now more consistent with the article structure and reads much better too.
The infobox. Although three of the writers you cited (Hemingway, Balzac and Shakespeare) all have infoboxes, I've removed Fleming's one.
Oh, my mistake, I thought infoboxes were deprecated in biographies. You can add it back if you prefer it, but I felt focussed too much on tangential matters like the names of his relatives.—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the infobox was repetitive and agree with its deletion. The article looks much better for it. -- CassiantoTalk 11:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue: if the first two reviewers both say to drop it, then it's dropped. If there's a sudden (and very unlikely) groundswell of opinion to re-include it, it can always go in later. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Structure. Now all the relevant biographical information is contained in the Biography section, with non-biographical outside that section.
Excellent, thank you.—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness. I'll get back to you on this point shortly
New "Writing" section now in place, covering all the required aspects. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent paragraph size. A tricky one this, as paragraphs should not be laid out dependent on a regular size, but on the development of one single point or idea. So the "For the first five books..." paragraph is about the criticisms about the book, and the criticisms had a large impact on Fleming and his subsequent works, so it needs looking at to the extent we have and to split it would be to split the point in two, which is an unhelpful step. I've merged the "After the publication..." paragraph with the something that just about classes as the same point.
Yeah, equally sized paragraphs is an aesthetic preference of mine, but I see your point.—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject: Fleming's legacy was Bond and more the literary Bond than the film incarnation, so I think the literary legacy through the authors can be justified in this case.
IMO just saying "Starting with Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun (1968), several authors have been commissioned to write Bond novels" is enough; naming each writer and book is not necessary or interesting.
I've dropped all the other names apart from Amis (as the first) and Faulks, who was commissioned by Ian Fleming publications to write something for Fleming's centenary. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The movies: Maybe also mention in a couple of lines how the film character and stories are different from the Fleming originals?—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that apect, but it seemed a little too far removed from an article about Fleming himself - the film version is the intreptation of the seven actors, six producers and host of directors. If you want I can draft something up for you to see? Let me know. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media: I've trimmed all but one of those you suggested. I've left in Casino Royale as this was the cover designed by Fleming himself (referenced in the text).If you still feel this falls outside NFCC then it can also go.
Thanks again and I'll revert shortly concerning your point on comprehensiveness. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my criticism in the right spirit. I'm not ready to strike my Oppose yet, but I am confident this is on its way. A few replies inlines; I'll do more-thorough section-by-section reviews in a few days.—indopug (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
Our article on Operation Golden Eye says it was developed by Fleming; the lead of this article says he was "involved in the planning stages", which sounds like a much smaller role. Also, Operation Golden Eye doesn't appear again after the lead, at least by that name. Also, I don't get the sense from our article that Operation Golden Eye was a failure, but I do from this: "... Operation Mincemeat and Operation Golden Eye, the former of which was successfully carried out."
"overseeing": oversight (unless "oversight" has a different meaning in this context)
"His experiences of wartime service provided much of the background and detail of the twelve Bond novels, and his career as a journalist added colour and depth to the stories.": Not quite right; you can have experiences in wartime service, but that's a little vague, and careers don't contain colour (unless you're a painter). Try something shorter: "His wartime service and career as a journalist provided" ... something.
"The Bond series ranks among the best-selling series": it's fine to use a word that takes the same plural as singular form ... not so much to use it in both senses in quick succession.
"as a result of her affair with Fleming": after her affair with Fleming. See WP:Checklist#because. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments—I've addressed each in the same order below:
Golden Eye. Firstly it does appear in the main body of the article—and under that name—it's the paragraph before the "30 Assault Unit" sub-section. Secondly, do you mean this article? It's only six lines long and has just one citation (and that contains slightly questionable info as it's more to do with the sale of Fleming's passport than the plan itself). The operation was a contingency plan only (in case the Nazis invaded Spain). They never did and so the plan remained just that. As it remained untested it can't be called either a success or failure.
Oversight: now changed
Experiences and colour: "colour" is a journalistic phrase too, relating to the addition of realism to their stories. However, as this may not be widely known enough, I've tweaked the sentence.
Series etc: Done
"as a result of" is correct—the affair was the cause. "After" just looks like it chronologically followed.
Thanks again for your thoughts
So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Ian Fleming#Education and early life, except that in the next-to-the-last sentence, "illegitimate" and "was the result of a long-term affair" are probably the wrong tone for FAC. (People aren't "results", as if they popped out of a test tube). Hopefully I'll have time to do more later; best of luck. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for those. I've tweaked one of them—the passage relating to the death of Valentine—and altered the reference to the "result of an affair". Are you also saying "illegitimate" is wrong? - SchroCat (^ • @)
"Illegitimate" is a tough word; it was fine in many contexts 30 years ago, and is still fine in some contexts, but I think in Wikipedia or in everyday conversation, yes, it's better to avoid it now when you can ... and I think you can, here. Btw ... sorry, I've got a lot of stuff swimming around in my head, and I did a bad job with a couple of edits and a couple of comments in this one, I'll pay more attention in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, It's not a problem—it's making me look again at sections with a critical eye, so it's no bad thing at all. I've changed Illegitimate, but only grudgingly: FAC may have their views on the English language, but it is an entirely acceptable term (esp in Br Eng) and has a basis in law, rather than general everyday definition. - Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Garner's is the style guide most often consulted by American copyeditors, and it pays a lot of attention to BrEng, too. It says: "... still often used, and although it's undeniably better than bastard, it's also undeniably insensitive. As a far-sighted judge once observed, 'There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.'" - Dank (push to talk) 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing. "He also became involved in editing a magazine": Usage for "involved" these days is, well, involved :) We've had many discussions about it over at Milhist. Was he the editor?
One more: I recommend changing "was Victor Ludorum" to something like "held the Victor Ludorum title"; most readers don't click on most links, and they're going to wonder why he was posing as someone else :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All nicely done, thanks. I know my "so far so good" doesn't look like much, lot, but in practice, it increases the chances that other copyeditors will come along and finish up. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your efforts on this: it really does mean a lot and your edits and suggestions have improved the article greatly. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ref links for Brown 2004 do not work. There are at least two of them.PumpkinSkytalk 00:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black 2004 refs now sorted. Thanks for pointing that out. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & question. An editor who has undertaken a few (19) edits on this page has reverted the removal of the infobox, (which I have again removed and tried to explain the reasons behind it) and started an RfC to have the infobox reverted. I have asked them to raise comments here, which I think would be more suitable, but they declined saying that "this is an issue which requires wider consensus". Please see Talk:Ian Fleming#Infobox. If two decisions come out from the two processes going forward, could I ask who takes precedence in a matter such as this: a consensus at RfC, or the decision at FAC (with which the nominator wholly agrees)? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since many biographies have infoboxes and many don't, you probably don't have to worry about this affecting the FAC one way or the other. Since it's peripheral to the FAC and you want to be spending your time at FAC on the issues that actually affect the FAC, I recommend you not worry about it either way until the FAC is over. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great: thanks for the advice. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The infobox should be added back as it has important information. Many users are searching for a specific information, say genre, then it can be really frustrating without the infobox. So I strongly suggest to add it back. The same for spouse, relatives and signature. The "here,here,here..." spam consists mainly of conductors and composers, which are actually almost ever without infobox. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need more to understand what you're asking for, GOP. Are you saying that you'd like a change to Wikipedia's guidelines to require infoboxes for all biographies? Or are you saying that you want infoboxes only for FACs? Or only some biographies? Have you asked for opinions over at WT:BIOG? - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after a second consideration my only main concern is the missing signature below the lead pic. I now agree that an infobox is not a requirement. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GOP, the problem with the signature is that it is a non-free image (signatures are subject to UK copyright legislation as they can be classed as a work of art - see WikiCommons for further details). It's difficult to justify a non-free image of the signature unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment. Article is not stable; there is ongoing edit warring and an RfC over the inclusion of an infobox and thus the article fails FA criteria 1(e). Stupid Wiki. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment: I'll point out that you are part of that edit warring and you have been asked to self-revert on that basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made exactly one edit to the article not knowing that there was a dispute on the talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BR, I am not going to be drawn into an argument over this, but you saw what had been going on in the edit history. Many of the edit summaries around the infobox refer to the talk page, so it's a little disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Your action, in the light of those summaries and the fact that you chose not to look at the talk page has not been helpful in the circumstances, and you choice of profanities in your talk page comment has again not helped an already over-heated situation. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the top edits; Cassianto's and Rangoon11's. I don't make it a habit of reviewing the whole history of an article before making a reasonable edit. I had not looked at the talk page at all, and only looked here for the "Indopug" comment Cassianto referred to. fyi, I find it fascinating that you're edit warring in there over the removal of an image that you uploaded. (aside; I called the infobox removal rationale "bullshite". I said "Christ", too.) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I did post to the talk when I looked further ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At Milhist, we almost never have the problem of edit-warring to the point of failing FAC criteria, so I'm not sure how to handle this. Br'er, I've noticed all your edits on articles headed to and at FAC; thanks for that. Here's what I want to suggest for how to interpret the FAC (and GAN) "stability" criterion: if someone makes an edit one way or the other on the point that's being considered "unstable", then they're involved, and therefore not in a position to make an objective "support" or "oppose", at least concerning the stability criterion for that one issue. It doesn't really matter whether they "noticed" or not; either way, they're involved. Is that okay with you, Br'er, at least as a general principle? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the comment from Dank. Do you want me to strike my support based on the last? -- CassiantoTalk 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, you did a very thorough review. The delegates know that you are taking a position on that issue, and they are free to discount or not discount your opinion on that one issue since you're involved; that's what they get paid for (or would get paid for ...) - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news. I am involved in the talk page discussion currently, so I didn't want my position as reviewer to become untenable as a user suggested. I will leave it be then. :-) -- CassiantoTalk 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank. Terima kasih. I've tweaked my initial post to 'comment'. The fact remains that there's an ongoing dispute and RfC on that talk page and it's rolled on without me; the article is still unstable. I have now made some other edits to the article such as fixing conflated named refs and the faux-headers in one section. The article seems in pretty good shape ({{sfn}}, for example). A pity, really, that they're scuppering this over such a common feature as an infobox. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Just saw this revert. That's at odds with WP:MOSHEAD and wp:Deviations. Headers should be done with '=' for the most part, not apostrophes, and the br-elements are there only to avoid a blank line. This is not proper form. It is fundamental to being our 'best' that articles hew to best practise, such as using normal wiki formatting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section was put in at the request of indopug, who said "there needs to be a separate, non-biographical section (similar to, say, Emily Dickinson#Poetry)". This copies that style, with the exception of the bullet point. Dank, if you want me to tweak to include the bullet point I will happily do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug? Br'er? - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the section. My fix was to properly implement the headings, which was reverted. Two of the faux-sections are multi-paragraph, which is not really what bulleted list items are for (at least not on wiki web pages;). I assume the ref to the Belle of Amherst to be to Flowers and gardens and such, which are single paragraph and as bulleted items don't warrant headings.
I believe what's happened here is that by my having restored the infobox they hate, I have become persona non grata. Cassianto suggested on the article talk that I be ostracised. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, BR, that's not the case and please try and stick to the matter in hand, rather than veer into smear and innuendo. As per my edit summary, I reverted your edit because it was not necessary and, as per my comment above, because I was following the format of Dickinson. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now tweaked into paragraphs, rather than headings. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've said that headings should be headings. You are using inappropriate markup. Full stop. Your tweak both removes the faux-headings and veers into an inappropriate use of MOS:BOLD. These should be level four headings. And you weren't following the format of Dickinson; that's an unordered list (that would be better implemented as a definition list). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the edits, no-one else, so, again, please try to avoid smear and innuendo. You have not "become persona non grata" at all and to suggest so is disingenuous. I will put the text into sub-sub categories, even though I cannot see exactly where in MOSHEAD it says they need to be so arranged. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Br'erRabbit, I said what I said because of the foul language which was completely uncalled for. I suggested a moment of refelection before continuing. Your input is valued (I'm tending to agree with the section headings) but I will not engage with people who are rude from the word go. -- CassiantoTalk 21:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I called your rationale for removing the infobox "bullshite". I believe I've acknowledged that already on this page. From my perspective you and Schrodinger have been an aggressively rude tag team from the moment I touched your article (hint: With all due respect, it's not about dirty words;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BR, In order that this review can continue along peaceful lines without denigrating into a slanging match, could I please ask you to withdraw that; it's not helpful and it's certainly not true. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can ask, but I'll change my opinion when I see a change in your approach. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you consider my approach to be aggressive, but I am sure you are entitled to your opinion over it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing was inappropriate. A simple "incorrect rational" or words to the effect of would have sufficed. Move back to the talk page. This is not the correct place to be holding this discussion. -- CassiantoTalk 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cuss you out, I derided your rationale for your inappropriate removal of the infobox. Claiming that a comment made on this page is determinative of the inclusion of the infobox is "..." ;) Above, Schrodinger called for Rangoon to discuss here, rather than the talk page. Now you want my comments out of sight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal I am extremely sorry to have to withdraw this article from FAC, but I feel that the current nomination is untenable. I feel that the article itself is of sufficient quality to be an FA and I hope to re-nominate once tempers on the talk page have calmed down sufficiently. Many thanks to all those who have spent considerable time in reviewing this article, which has improved immeasurably because of your help, and I can only apologise if you feel that time has been wasted. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe it is worthy of being a featured article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the layout needs attention. Aside from frequent use of quotations, which I haven't had time to consider, the list of sections just doesn't read like a logical sequence. If you study it, not only do they seem in the wrong order (the two "reaction"s separated) but the militia part seems unbalanced
The article is called "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and therefore "Pakistani Army actions" reads as if there was another side that may or may not have committed rape, but nowhere is this possibility considered or dismissed. The lead says "During the Bangladesh Liberation War, rape was committed by members of the Pakistani military and the militias that supported them.", therefore the "militias" section might be worth a proper section. In terms of coverage on this this article directly suggests that there are valid allegations of "Bengalis rape of Biharis" and that "The Hamdoodur Rahman Commission (2000) established by the Pakistani government, while referring to the attack and rape of pro-Pakistani elements by Bengalis, also cites various instances of rape.". This ought to be considered in the article.
I have coverage concerns for FAC. This is most obvious with the "militias" section. There must be more to say about it; either denials, contrary evidence, or further evidence of rape. Other sections seem quite short, some seem to jump from thing to thing (e.g. "aftermath) without enough information to craft a flow or narrative. (The "flow or narrative" isn't and end, it's just a symptom in this sense.) A lot seems to be put together from works not directly on the topic ("Gender Politics in the Western Balkans: Women, Society and Politics in Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Successor States.", "Wars of Afghanistan.") I would have expected there to be a few sorts of books and other sources: those on the war; those on war rape (see below) as a phenomenon; those possibly (I'm thinking papers) on atrocities in the war, or orchestrated by Pakistanis, something like that.
The lead is short.
The phrase "war rape" is used, but only linked as a see also. Indeed it might be a profitable lead; people who study war rape as a phenomenon might be good sources. Some reports into the events are only briefly referenced (#47 for example) but it might be profitable to further expand upon them. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First thank you for responding, although it was far quicker that anticipated. I have been moving the see also links into the article over my last few edits, the issue you mention regarding the rebels is in the article as are the comments from the The Hamdoodur Rahman Commission, see Pakistani government reaction section. There are fewer sources than one would hope for on this, it was a neglected area in the field for quite some time. For instance, actions carried out by the militias are rarely expanded upon by the sources so it is proving difficult to expand that sub section. Am looking at your comments and shall see what i ca ndo, how long do I have before this gets closed? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead opens During the Bangladesh Liberation War, rape was committed by members of the Pakistani military and the militias that supported them. which doesn't open up the article to alleged rapes by other groups during the war. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it undue to mention the Mukti Bahini in the lede due to the shortage of sources on their actions, I have added them now + found a new source with which I can expand on them. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
File:Muktiyddher.jpg - Doesn't have a FUR for the article, and I think it fails NFCC #8 for this article (should be removed)
File:Blood telegram.png - Looks fine, but archiving would be helpful (use www.webcitation.com)
Oppose I'm not convinced that this article is neutral, and its prose needs work. My comments are:
The article doesn't appear to be particularly stable based on its recent history. Given this, as well as the general issues surrounding this area on Wikipedia, I think that a peer review to discuss the article's neutrality is necessary (I don't know anything about this topic, but given the various issues I'm not going to assume that this article is neutral without first seeing the results of a peer review; I appreciate that this is an unusual position to take in a FAC, but I think in cases such as this it's justified).
The quality of this article's prose is below FA standard - many sentences are rather breathless (for instance, the first sentence)
"The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the East was cut off from the West within an hour of the start of the war, because the military had assigned no units to the defense of the region" - our Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 states (with a supporting reference) that a small Pakistani military force was stationed in East Pakistan during the war. It would have been extremely difficult for Pakistan to have prevented its two halves from being cut off from each other, no matter what forces were stationed where, given the country's geography.
Most of the 'International reaction' section appears to be referring to the international reaction against all of the atrocities, and has no focus on the rapes.
"Estimates of those raped vary from two hundred thousand[43] to four hundred thousand.[44] However according to Dr. Geoffrey Davis who had been requested to go to the region by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood Federation the number was probably much higher." - if Davis' estimates are beyond the generally accepted range, why are his views given particular emphasis? The article should discuss how the differing estimates were calculated.
"Many of the women were ostracized by their families and communities,[46] and others committed suicide" - presumably some of the women who committed suicide did so after, and a result of, being ostracized
"Observers suggested" - who were these 'observers'?
"After the conflict the Pakistani government decided on a policy of silence regarding the rapes.[43] They also set up the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, which was highly critical of the army." - how was setting up a commission consistent with a 'policy of silence'? - it seems the opposite.
The article states that Mukti Bahini forces committed 'thousands' of rapes, yet there's almost no discussion of this in the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Davis is an important figure in the aftermath of the conflict, he was on the ground performing late term abortions and helping with the adoption programmes. the Hamoodur Rahman Commission was buried by the government and only came to public light when it was leaked in 2000. The report was also more on the army failures than the scale of human rights abuses, and it almost a forgotten thing in Pakistan today. Observers would be international observers. Regarding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 read the last section here[6] The west assigned no extra units to the defense of the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead of the article says that the abuses were stopped "only by the intervention of Indian armed forces". However, this is factually disputed. According to Thomas George Weiss, "at no time did India claim a right of humanitarian intervention but rather insisted that it had used military force in self-defense." So even while references were made to human rights, India's primary motive of entering the war was not to stop human rights violations, but for what it perceived as military defense. Further quotes:
In a debate that involved more than half of the UN's member states, few (essentially the Soviet Union and its allies) accepted that the circumstances actually justified India's claimed use of force in self-defense, and not a single country argued that India had a right to intervene militarily to rescue the beleagured Bengalis. Although India had not expressly invoked a right to intervene for humanitarian reasons, the countries participating in the debate were well aware of claims of mass murder, even of genocide, in East Pakistan. Except for the Soviet bloc countries, other states chose to ignore the well-founded claims concerning human rights violations. Many countries emphasised the importance of non-intervention.
New Delhi portrayed itself as a bystander to events, one that used military force reluctantly and in self-defense. Most states were not prepared to accept the argument. That a weakened Pakistan was in India's strategic interest was lost on no one, nor was the fact that India's assistance to the Mukti Bahini over many months had considerably strengthened their fighting capacity against the Pakistani army. Moreover, heavy fighting actually made the refugee situation significantly worse.
— Thomas George Weiss (2005), Military-Civilian Interactions: Humanitarian Crises And The Responsibility To Protect, p. 183
Also note: When civil tensions erupted (prior to the war), India began supporting Mukti Bahini, providing them safe haven on its territory and giving them aid, as well as air cover through the Indian Air Force. Border incidents multiplied as India became more and more involved, each side accusing the other of violations. Pakistan bombed Indian air bases on 3rd December to disable the Indian Air Force. It was after this episode that India became involved. So human rights violations are not the reason for intervention. Mar4d (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is as usual a strawman. The article does not say India intervened because of the humanitarian crisis does it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an inline tag to the disputed sentence. Clearly, Indian intervention was not driven by humanitarian reasons nor was it the primary reason to stop rape. Mar4d (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So who is saying that their primary aim to stop that? The article just says that the rapes by the Pakistani troops stopped when India stepped in. Read the article first. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 12:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this to the article talk page, this is not the place for a content dispute. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time
An article of this size should have a lead of at least two paragraphs
MOS issues - "%" should be spelled out, should consistently use endashes for ranges, etc
Citation formatting is a bit uneven - for example, all-caps in FN61, and where author is an entity should use only "last" parameter
Second Nick's concerns regarding prose and neutrality
"Disputed" tag needs to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is nowhere close to FA, and shouldn't even be a "Good" article.
Poorly focussed: overblown "background" section, reads like a fork of a complete Bangladesh Liberation War article
Mixing up its nominal topic (rape) with the general history of the war and with other forms of abuse of civilians. For instance, in the infobox, it was saying "deaths=1-3 million", implying that 1-3 million died as the result of rape. But the figure is, of course, really just that of all victims of violence against civilians together. (This was creating the absurd implication that the number of dead rape victims was many times higher than the number of those raped in the first place).
Poorly structured lede, suffering from the same confusion between the specific and the more general topic
"...and the Mukti Bahini" is introduced in the lede without any explanation what that is.
Poor use of non-free images, as noted by Crisco above (I've removed those now). The remaining free image File:Dhakauniverityliberation (59).JPG is unmotivated (again, related to the more general topic of the war, but not related to the nominal topic of this article in any discernible way)
Poor orthography (e.g. multiple instances of mixing up plural -s with genitive -'s)
You obviously need a background section on the conflict, it is not a fork at all it is context. STFG would disagree with your assessment that this is not GA quality[7] I believe the images can be retained per NFCI #8. I will expand on the rebels in the lede now. Again the lede also requires some background within it per wp:lede. I have fixed your isseu with the infobox, let me know if it is now suitable. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The explicit topic of the article is not the war and not "civilian victims of the war", but rape and nothing else. The heading "rape" is prominently repeated at the top of the infobox, so that box too is clearly limited to that topic. Therefore, the only figures that make sense in the infobox are those that deal with rape. If you want figures relating to total civilian victims, write an article about "civilian victims". As I said, you are mixing up the topics. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous, on an article about atrocities carried out in a conflict you are of the opinion that the infobox should not mention how many were butchered in said conflict? Point me to the policy which supports this contention please, common sense would dictate the total number of dead by mentioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, only because I think FAC is the wrong place to work on the many disagreements that have come up. You've done some really solid work on this article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - I am reluctantly archiving this nomination. FAC is not the place for heated exchanges on content. Please resolve these issues on the article's talk page before renominating.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): ☠Jaguar☠ 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After two years on working on Bentworth, this fine article - I believe that it is FA quality. I nominated this article three times in 2010 and 2011, but failed. If it was not for Dr. Blofeld then this article would not be here in the condition it is in now! I, and others, will be willing to do anything to make this article a Featured one. ☠Jaguar☠ 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its very disappointing that you didn't even alert myself and any of its other authors before nomming this I have to say. Uwis has messed up the WWII part since I edited it. I don't think its of featured quality. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I should have done it in a day or two. I believe if this article could be cleaned up a little, then it could be worthy of FA. I knew I should have alerted you. I will see what I can do about that World War Two section. ☠Jaguar☠ 20:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uwis's photos are appreciated but he's also rearranged the photos violating MOS guidelines one on left and one on right hemming in the text..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it. I don't know if he has any idea about Wikipedia guidelines... ☠Jaguar☠ 20:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article currently contains a substantial quantity of unreferenced material, as well as many very short (often single sentence) paragraphs. The quality of the article's prose is often below FA standards - it contains many lengthy and confusing sentences (for instance, "The lower ground to the South and East of the Bentworth and to the south of the nearby villages of Lasham and Shalden drains towards the River Wey which rises to the surface on the west side of Alton."). The number of photos in the 'Notable landmarks' section also seems excessive. Based on this, and the above discussion, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the one sentence paragraphs have unfortunately crept in by uwis who is clueless how to write an encyclopedia and oblivious to MOS guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that stability may also be a problem here. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have improved the lead. I'm going to ban Ukiws from editing Bentworth because I have ran out of patience with him ruining the article. I understand that the article needs a lot of polishing, but I believe with a few adjustments that this could make it to FA. I have got rid of the confusing sentences and removed a few photos - if this meets your demands would you consider supporting this FAC? ☠Jaguar☠ 11:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think that the substantial amount of copy-editing the article needs would be best done outside the FAC process. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal so the issues regarding stability and the inter-editor dispute may be resolved and their effects on the article dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it was only one user who was acting in good faith adding knowledge to the article, but didn't do us any favours. Stability is nowhere near a problem? ☠Jaguar☠ 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't withdraw the nomination? I was hoping to work on this a bit more. ☠Jaguar☠ 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC instructions say " A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate...a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because the previous nomination fell through the grill. Solutions were attempted to all the issues raised, but commentators did not respond to those solutions, so I am unaware of any major outstanding issues. I believe it meets the FA criteria and as the second best selling band in the history of popular music the level of interest among readers should be high.SabreBD (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
BBC Home and similar: don't duplicate publisher as author in cases like this
Classic Rock: volume/issue, pages?
Be consistent in whether you provide state for NYC and SF
Fortnam: publisher, location, ISBN?
Grossman: formatting
Check alphabetization of references
Mojo: publisher?
Murray: what kind of source is this?
Reuters and similar: don't italicize agency/publisher
Compare formatting of Rolling Stone refs
Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for online newspaper/magazine articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There's good material here and I enjoyed the article. I think it's close to satisfying the FA criteria and I'm leaning toward support. In addition to Nikkimaria's issues above, here are some specific concerns that can be addressed:
"...accompanied by record-breaking tours, which earned them a reputation for excess...": I think it was their behavior during the tours that earned them the reputation; not the tours themselves.
In the article body, the introduction of Jimmy Page lacks any context. It would help to say something like "In 1966, London-based studio session guitarist Jimmy Page joined...".
"gig" is an WP:IDIOM and so is to be avoided, although it is okay to use in a quotation.
"(he would later take the photograph that appeared on the back of Led Zeppelin's debut album)" disrupts the flow. Can this be worked into the text a little better?
"One account of how the new band's name was chosen..."; "which is said to have taken place"; "..said to be because..."; "...some suggest that these tales..."; "..have been interpreted as..."; "...some of which were said to be...": all appear to be examples of WP:WEASEL. It would be better to clarify their origin.
There are multiple instances of redundant use of "also". In most cases the statement should follow from the flow of text, so the "also" is unnecessary and should be removed. For example, "The band were also strongly influenced by the music...". In "...was an even greater commercial success than their first album...", "even" is redundant. (See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.)
"...before they moved to...": moved implies a change of residence. "travelled" (traveled?) may be more appropriate.
"...fuelling further hostility to the musical press": further hostility? When did the earlier instances occur? Is this hostility by the band or the fans? This could use some clarification.
"...on every studio album except one": which one?
"From the visit to Bron-Yur-Aur in 1970...": Bron-Yur-Aur needs a wikilink.
"...this assertion has been challenged": by whom?
Otherwise, a good job. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a week... RJH (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria. Although the amount of material available on Carter is limited, I think that I have created an article that covers his life in an interesting way. This is an article which I heavily researched (when I came across it, it was a 1-sentence stub which was incorrect!) and found sources for. I am proud that it was judged good enough to be a "good article", and feel that it is also good enough to be a featured article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
The lead is extremely short at only two sentences, which isn't long enough for an FA. Try incorporating some of the more important points from the body of the article and make at least one long paragraph, or preferably two moderate-size paragraphs. That would be more in keeping with FA expectations.
Leads are my weak point - however, I have expanded it - hopefully this will make it more suitable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and Naval career: "until on 1 December 1869, when he was promoted to Assistant Paymaster." Don't think the "on" serves any purpose here.
Leeward Islands, the Gold Coast and the Gambia: Is it "the Gambia" or "The Gambia"? The lead and this section vary in that regard. This should be made consistent throughout the article.
It should be "The" - article has been tweaked to make this consistent PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, there's a lot of "On xxxx", "In xxxx", and "From xxxx to xxxx"-types of sentences, which make up most sentences in this section and a good part of what follows. This isn't the most compelling prose possible, and leads me to think that criterion 1a may not be met yet. Please consider rephrasing some of these sentences for more variety.
I've started rewording these, hopefully you'll like the way I've done it! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another general comment: try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs if possible. I realize there may not be many details available, but it does leave a stubby appearance. Maybe some of the shorter paragraphs can be combined?Giants2008 (Talk) 15:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong in resurrecting and expanding an article on a fairly obscure old buffer, and you are to be commended for your efforts in this regard. However, I have to say that between GA and FA is a rather large gulf. As far as I can see there have been no alterations to the text since it was promoted to GA more than two years ago; can you amplify as to why you think the article meets the featured article criteria?
No specific reason - I just feel that all articles could potentially be FA - if the end result is that this is not one of those, then at the least, the article would have been improved. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox probably creates some sort of record in extending all the way down the article to Further reading. But a lot of the content looks like infoboxing for infoboxing's sake. Why is it relevant to know who preceded or succeeded Carter in a string of pretty obscure and long-vanished colonial appointments? I would strongly advocate shortening the infobox by restricting it to information of genuine significance (e.g. it may be significant that he held these posts, but it's completely irrelevant who held them before or after him).
Removed the appointments from the infobox (it's all in the main text anyway). If I have the chance, I'll do stub articles for the previous/consequent appointees if they do not have them - I just need to look up some sourcing! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the comments provided by Giants, above, that the lead needs extending and the general prose could do with some attention. At present the article does not look like a potential FA. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To both Giants and Brian, thanks for you comments - I will work on the remaining comments hopefully tonight, or tomorrow, and respond on this page. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all the improvements suggested above (plus added a couple of minor facts to the article) - any further comments would be most welcome! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN5: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Most of the sources are eminently high-quality and reliable; I'm guessing you are referring to the egbayewa.org one - which I will try to find an alternative, more suitable source for! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All citations have a location with the exception of the London Times and the London Gazette - the templates do not include a location, and the implication is London, England because of their titles! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are you ordering Further reading, and why did you decide not to cite these sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are now in alphabetical order by author surname; I have not cited them as I have not yet been able to obtain a copy to find usable citations. I came across them while I was doing my research, but only as a snippet for each, so I can't really use them! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have now addressed all the issued raised here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - File:Sir_Gilbert_Thomas_Gilbert-Carter_by_Alexander_Bassano_1893_NPG_x6206_detail.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something which I need to deal with? The image issue is outside of the article's issues. Any suggestions? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does need to be fixed, as image licensing falls under the image use policy referenced in FA criterion 3. In this case, I would suggest either {{PD-US}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, whichever you feel is more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, copyright/PD law is not my area of expertise, and I'd be loath to go for either of those. What I have done is to revert the image to the previous one which, though not as good an image, does not appear to have the legal/copyright/PD problems! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked extensively on the article from its conception and I think I've finished it now. Farrtj (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, as referencing is very messy. You should use a consistent style as much as possible, and provide complete citation information for each source. I'd be willing to revisit once considerable cleanup is made on this point (I haven't read the article itself yet). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on the references. I believe they are substantially improved since you last saw them. Farrtj (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but unfortunately significant work is still needed here. Many references are missing publisher information (ex. FNs 1 and 4). Some of the cited sources (ex. FN 4) are of questionable reliability. Some references are missing page numbers (ex. FNs 14 and 47). There are also a number of formatting problems - all-caps, hyphens instead of endashes, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by hyphens instead of endashes? Farrtj (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ranges, for example, should use endashes (–), but are currently using hyphens (-). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that a little while ago. Farrtj (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sorry, the article looks unready; the prose needs some significant attention. For example, the brief Early life section is a series of generally very short sentences and thus reads very jerkily, well short of the professional standards of prose writing required for FAC. There are other obvious faults, e.g. use of pronouns to introduce the subject in new sections: "In 1785 he was appointed curate of Tideswell..." etc. A few more points, mainly from the lead, are examples of further work required:- done
The lead is not of adequate length or detail to stand as a summary of the article's content, and needs to be expanded. done
Academic degrees should not be shown as postnominals after the subject's name, and in any event graduates of Cambridge University are not described as "AM" done
The postnominal "FRS" should be shown as FRS not FRSdone
The assertion that the Senior Wrangler is "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain" is absurd. Who is making this claim, and who has designated the Smith's Prize as "the most significant academic prize of the era"? done
Minor point: use dashes, not hyphens in date ranges (correct in lead, wrong in Early life) done
Think I got them all. Farrtj (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting subject, and worth doing the extra work, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find him fascinating. I don't know whether he was lazy, or suffered from ill health, or used his time ineffectively, or was simply unlucky, but he certainly did not live up to his early promise. He must have been one of the most favoured students at Cambridge ever in his early years. His rise from humble beginnings is pretty impressive. Farrtj (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no time to do a full reivew, but I noticed this article was at FAC, and remembered doing a peer review on this here. Some of the issues pointed out there are still evident. I'm reviewing this version.
Reference 30 is still just a bare URL. There are also three later URLs (59, 60 and 61) described simply as '"Library and Archive catalogue". The Royal Society.' plus an access date. I'm not sure this is really sufficient, and I've known those URLs to break in the past when they change their website architecture. You really need to provide more details so the information and links can be recovered in future if needed. Rule of thumb: consider the person reading a printed version of the article and what you need to provide in the written reference so they can go about verifying the information.done
In the peer review, I noted that the mother's name was given as 'Helen' (see this version), with no source provided. This now appears to have been changed to 'Hannah', with this as the source. How is http://www.jamesfamilytree.org.uk a reliable source? done
"Helen" was a transcribing mistake made by myself. I can actually vouch those dates and her name myself as I live near Ravensworth, and there is a dedication to the family in the parish church. Hence I know the information given at that website to be factually correct in relation to the Hannah Lax dates. Farrtj (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, this is one of those cases where a photo of the dedication would be more 'reliable' than that website, crazy though it sounds. Is the dedication a carved wall plaque or memorial slab or something? This might be better discussed at the article talk page than here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned at the peer review that you could link to his two Philosophical Transaction papers online. You link to the JSTOR copy of 'On A Method of Examining the Divisions of Astronomical Instruments', but you provide no link for the 'A Method of finding the Latitude of a place, by Means of two Altitudes of the Sun and the Time elapsed betwixt the Observations' paper. That is here. done
I also note that my suggestion at the peer review to provide an online link to one of the references ("The Reverend William Lax and a Supposed Observatory of Newtons") was not followed up. The link is here, and the title used in the ADS database has missed out the apostrophe in "Newtons" which should be restored in our reference. You should also make clear that (although impeccably referenced) this is a 'letter to the editor' (not a peer-reviewed journal article).done
The article is much improved and expanded since the peer review, though the lead image isn't the best (if you are going to use an image like that, it should really be a better quality scan). I will try and look again in a few days if I have time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive advice and your detailed research. I shall endeavour to affect your improvements over the coming days. Farrtj (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes above. This edit is perfect (I'll remember that next time I use one of those Royal Society archive references) except you need to include an access date. The same should be done for the other three Royal Society archive references. Also, there is another bot-generated reference, the one titled 'Appointment Evidence Record, ID 111849' (currently reference number 9), which is only a titled URL at the moment. I also noted a large number of 'ref name=autogenerated' references - I presume most of those are tidied up, but it might be worth checking. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)done[reply]
Cleaned up that reference no. 9. Those auto-generated things are just hangovers. Farrtj (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a comprehensive and well written look at one of the more prominent ethnic groups in Indonesia, as well as an important group from the Chinese diaspora. Since the failed FAC last year, I have worked with the images to ensure that they are all free (a major issue with the past FAC) and brought this through GA and another peer review. The main contributor, Arsonal, has given blessings for this nomination through email but will be unable to participate due to real-life concerns. A big thanks to everyone who reviewed previously, including Mark Arsten at peer review and Aircorn at GA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please rewrite the too-complicated first sentence. It has 4x"Indonesia", 3x "Chinese", a pair of en-dashes and a semi-colon. I also wonder if using the hyphenated "Chinese-American" "Chinese-Indonesian" throughout would significantly cut down any ambiguity.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi colon replace by period. I don't think the repetition of Indonesia(n) / Chinese is unintelligible here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant "Chinese-Indonesian" of course. The reason I asked to cut down on repeating those two words is that "Chinese Indonesians or Indonesian Chinese are Indonesians of Chinese..." looks singularly strange. Contrast with the simple lead-sentences of Mexican American or Indian American.—indopug (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, the literature has used both Chinese Indonesians and Indonesian Chinese to refer to the group. I'll reword a little, but both need to be in the lead sentence to properly identify the subject. Regarding the hyphenated usage, that would be fine when Chinese-Indonesian (the adjective form) is used. Writing Chinese-Indonesians would go against the MOS for using common names. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No seriously, way back when I very first started editing, perhaps the first place I started to hang out was WP:ETHNIC. At that time, these x-nationality y-ans were the subject of humongous pixel-murdering edit wars and voluminous talk-page rants. If we don't have any stability concerns, do we have validity concerns? Is x-nationality y-ans a label that we really want to propagate by putting our full faith and credit behind them? Just wondering aloud. – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will not comment on the title aside from pointing out WP:COMMON, regarding the ethnic group itself I think it is well worth an article. Chinese Indonesians are one of the most prominent ethnic groups in Indonesia, and easily the most prominent non-native group. They have faced much the discrimination, both legally and culturally, and play a major role in Indonesia's development and economy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please define Chinese. Chinese == Han? Chinese == PRC citizenship? – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese = Zhonghua minzu. I believe this is clear from the lead, where it makes a point to classify the Han separately ("predominantly Han"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For various reasons, casually lumping people into macro-groups makes my butt cheeks clench. My knee-jerk reaction is Oppose for this reason, but will consider this in days to come. – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what? It is not a casual grouping, but one used in the literature, as visible in the sources cited. As noted in the article itself, many scholars of the Chinese diaspora "lump" the Chinese into one group. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether or not the term exists in the literature; the question is whether or not you can reliably pin down who they are...– Ling.Nut (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will model the opening sentence on the African American article, to be clearer in the definition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wiki-text: "When Baperki was branded a communist organization in 1965 the ethnic Chinese were implicated by association. As many as 500,000 people died in the anti-communist massacres of 1965–1966, the single most bloody event of violence in Indonesia's history" Please reconcile this with Robert Cribb & Charles A. Coppel (2009). A genocide that never was: explaining the myth of anti-Chinese massacres in Indonesia, 1965–66. Journal of Genocide Research Volume 11, Issue 4: "Many publications refer incorrectly to extensive massacres of Chinese in Indonesia in 1965–66. Approximately half a million people were killed in this period, but the victims were overwhelmingly members and associates of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Chinese Indonesians experienced serious harassment but relatively few were killed. The persistence of this myth is attributed to a trope dating back to the seventeenth century which equates the social position of Chinese in Indonesia with that of Jews in Europe and which thus predicts periodic pogroms and attempts at genocide. The myth has survived partly because it inspires a sense of urgency in combating discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, but it encourages a misunderstanding of the causes of intense violence in Indonesia and raises serious moral issues concerning genocide denial by substitution." – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that the number includes both Chinese and native Indonesians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still too vague. Whenever blood is involved, precision or at least meaningful perspective is called for by NPOV. More research, please.
Regarding the number of fatalities? Purdey says that, since the Chinese made up 2 percent of the population of the time, it can be assumed that they were similarly represented in the number of victims. Regarding the location of the killings? Same source has that it was mostly in rural areas. What are you looking for? Per SUMMARY, we should not give this too much prominence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses are unsettling. Did you actually think at any length or depth about this text before you put it up for FAC? Did you think about the fact that you were strongly implying that 500k Chinese Indonesians were killed? When the problem was pointed out to you, did you respect your readers enough to diligently look into the matter, or did swiftly add a wholly inadequate hedging phrase, then paper over the flaw with "WP:SUMMARY says nothing to see here, move along"? Did you give any real thought to the identity issues: Did you look into what Hoon and almost certainly many others have to say, and did you think while you were reading, "How can I present this to the reader in a thoughtful manner that reflects the analyses of domain experts"? Most of all, what other issues that require you to engage your brain while reading high quality references did not rec'v that depth of analysis? I have no confidence in the level of analysis, nor the thoughtfulness of the replies. I am not saying you cannot do better; I am in fact extremely sure you can do better, if you try. Spreading ref tags liberally across a text does not make it high-quality, even if the ref tags are drawn from high-quality texts. High-quality writing comes from high-quality thinking about what you are writing. High-quality thinking would never let 500,000 casualties become "oh, by the way, one guy says it was maybe 2% of 500,000; sorry about that". I'm sure you put a lot of effort into this, but the effort was not the right kind of effort. It isn't checking boxes. Sorry. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned below that I will ask the writer about Hoon. If Arsonal looked into it but decided it was redundant to the sources already in the article, you would have your answer. Regarding "High-quality writing comes from high-quality thinking about what you are writing", I find it ironic that you would make this comment and then refer to Purdey as a "guy" within the next sentence. I firmly believe that going into a one-paragraph diatribe about the communist purges would be UNDUE, and have agreed with you that not explicitly stating that the 500,000 figure had unfortunate implications as written; you have not made any suggestions about what you think is missing in that couple of sentences, so I have asked politely only to receive a borderline personal attack. None of the sources I've seen have a hard number for the Chinese casualties during the purges. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: I'm criticizing the method, not the person. The casualties slip from "500k" to "2% of 500k" in one little edit with an oops, two or three links to W:SUMMARY, WP:UNDUE, and an air of self-confident assertion. None of those responses constitute research. They are fig leaves. You have not made any real effort to engage the issue. What troubles me here, as I said earlier, is this: how many other issues have you neglected to engage? ... Having said that, I'll let this thread breathe a few days and see what shakes out with other issues and with other reviewers.... – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The casualty figures have always been overall; the original wording was ambiguous due to the collocation of the sentence, which you rightfully pointed out, and it has been made clearer. I will add a further footnote regarding Purdey's estimates, and plan to take a look for the Hoon source while my connection is working well (it took about ten minutes to open the journal article linked below yesterday) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE casualty figures: looking at the before and after, it does seem to me that the first version was poorly phrased. I don't see it as a gross distortion of facts though. (The current version looks Ok to me.) RE "how many other issues have you neglected to engage": I would think a reasonably thorough spot check of the article/literature search should be capable of answering that question, right? Perhaps someone should ping Laser Brain for a review, I think he's a neutral party and pretty thorough about checking such things. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why no reference to Hoon (2008) Chinese Identity in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Culture, Politics and Media? – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto: Panggabean, S. R. (2011). Explaining Anti-Chinese Riots in Late 20th Century Indonesia. World Development Volume 39, Issue 2,Pages 231–242– Ling.Nut (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been released after the majority of this was written. I'll track that down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mostly about the May 1998 riots, which makes it redundant to the sources already in the article under discussion. It would be worth use in the article on the riots themselves, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, File:Chinese Indonesian population pyramid 2000.png appears to be an exact copy of figure 3.3.1 on page 82 of the source cited on the image (Ethnicity and Religion in a Changing Political Landscape). Are exact copies kosher? I had thought not...– Ling.Nut (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, but it is not an exact copy (b&w vs colour, for one). There's also shading differences and differences on the labelling of the x and y axes. The general shape is the same, yes, but that's because it's using the same data. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like cosmetic changes to me. Who is the image guru these days? Fifelfoo? – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria below does them sometimes. I think Laserbrain does those too; I know s/he does source spotchecks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I queried at WT:FAC. If you wanna ask someone individually, go for it. :-) – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a question at WT:FAC is the most neutral way — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If FAC reviewers there buy your argument, then at the very least, the citation should be changed to reflect the page number and figure it is copied from: p. 82, Figure 3.3.3. – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The data is on page 83 (table 3.3.3). That is the source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that is the source of the figure that you copied. Correct. :-) Anyhow, whatever. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please clear up a point for me? You have sources which place Chinese immigrants in indonesia in the 15th century. with "major settlements" (quoting, not scare-quoting) before the arrival of the Dutch. On the other hand, I see sources which delay their arrival considerably: "The Chinese first arrived in Indonesia in the seventeenth century, settling in the Dutch-founded city of Batavia (now Jakarta) in order to take advantage of the many economic prospects available." This is from Turner 2003 (available online here, who cites N. Tarling, Southeast Asia: A modern history (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2001). Is Turner wrong? Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Turner is, simply put, wrong. Zheng He arrived on the north coast of Java (modern-day Semarang) in the 1400s and several crewmen stayed behind; that is evidenced by artefacts at Sam Poo Kong, and has been written about heavily in several sources. There were also Chinese there which may have been absorbed into the pribumi community. The Zheng He communities are sourced to Mely G. Tan and Rosey Wang Ma; the history by Benny G. Setiono also discusses this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please clear up another point? Your text says, "The second abolished the ban on the study of Mandarin Chinese and reaffirmed a 1996 instruction that abolished the use of the SBKRI to identify citizens of Chinese descent." Was there a ban? When? Did I miss that in the article? If you didn't mention that (and perhaps you did; I am struggling to catch up), then what other things weren't mentioned? Were other things banned as well? DId i miss that part? Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SBKRI is in identity. You are right about the ban on Mandarin Chinese; I will clarify. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do clarify what was and wasn't banned. i find the explanation sketchy, like a checklist... Tks! – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider unclear? Mandarin-language press was (essentially) banned (check), Mandarin schools closed (check), cultural events like barongsai were banned from public (check). The Chinese were forced to urbanise (check) and pressured to change their names (check). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, here we go: "Expressions of Chinese culture through language, religion, and traditional festivals were banned and the ethnic Chinese were encouraged to adopt Indonesian-sounding names". Were people encouraged to use Indonesian names, or were Chinese names banned?– Ling.Nut (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tan has "name changing was not compulsory, [but] a great deal of moral pressure was applied to Chinese to change their names." Changing encouraged to pressured, as it is a better descriptor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw another source that used the word "banned"; perhaps the source was wrong, or perhaps it applied to specific time or place... will investigate... – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have here all have variations of "pressured" and "strongly encouraged". Note that people like Kwik Kian Gie did not use an Indonesian name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the 1740 Batavia massacre".. I know you have a wikilink there, but you do need at least a single phrase describing who massacred whom, and to what extent... don't you? Apparently kemasang 1985 is a good source etc. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added "in which the Dutch conflicted with rebelling Chinese". Figures and statistics (10k dead) aren't necessary for an understanding of this article. Agree that a bit of context would help the uninitiated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"conflicted with" is a bit of an understatement.– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to active, focused on "rebelled" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: "over 100 women were sexually assaulted".. is that the same 150 women who (according to one source) later disappeared? Did they really disappear? Is disappearance that a myth, or... mass-murder, or... what? What do your sources say about this? – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to that other source? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding mentions in several places that the whole story is disputed. See Dawi's Introduction, forex.– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whole story = rapes, riots and kidnappings, one of the above, or a mix? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The gang-rapes. Apparently, though several prominent groups support the veracity of the accusations, no victims were later produced for the authorities or public or whomever to examine, leading many Indonesians to reject the story as propaganda or something similar...– Ling.Nut (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream sources agree that rapes happened, and Tempo published several interviews in 2003 (when my computer died in January I lost the PDF, sadly). Kompas published a victim's account in June 1998 under the title "Luka Kerusuhan, Luka Perempuan" (I still have this one). I agree that it may be worth mentioning, but more as a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Citizenship was conferred upon the ethnic Chinese through a 1946 citizenship act after Indonesia became independent, and it was further reaffirmed in 1949 and 1958." That's a little unclear. In 1949 they were given the option to choose their citizenship; many chose Chinese citizenship. – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source? The one which required a choice was in 1958. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
related point – The 1949 citizenship issue seems to be the source of this:"Other terms used for identifying sectors of the community include peranakan and totok." Those who chose I. cit. were peranakan and those who chose C. cit. were totok.– Ling.Nut (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Peranakan and totok are already defined in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the current definition as sketchy and inadequate. See the Intro to dawi; see Meaghan Morris, Brett De Bary p. 29, etc.– Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have expanded further from Dawis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extremely illuminating and cogent discussion of the forces set in motion by the divisive policies of the Dutch and the later ambivalent response/reaction of the Chinese to Indonesian nationalism on pages 31–37 of Ang, Ien (2001). Trappend in ambivalence: Chinese ambivalence, victimhood and the debris of history, in Meaghan Morris, Brett De Bary (Eds.), Traces 2: Race Panic and the Memory of Migration Hong Kong University press, pp. 21–48.... it's all readable online via Google Books... would you please read that, and comment/compare/contrast to our article? I see many things that there might be beneficial to our article. in fact, I see many things in our article that I suspect should be deleted, or at least, I wonder why they were included... this discussion could take a very long time... – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to full Oppose per 1b: I'm sorry, the more relevant sources I read, the more I see how inadequate this treatement of the subject is. Really, I am sorry if i came across as abrasive. [That is a topic for my talk page, etc.] But this article simply does not cover the topic well enough to satify WP:WIAFA... It will take weeks to find and rectify all holes, requiring a major rewrite of at least some sections. The problem with FAC is that it is based on "Actionable Opposes", but this article is MOS-compliant and has reputable references, so it has few if any identifiable surface flaws... But just from one source (quotes offered below):
Tax farming played a hugely important role in the dynamics of Chinese identity, as well as the dynamics of indigenous enmity; this article offers one sentence: "Some became "revenue farmers", middlemen within the corporate structure of the VOC, tasked with collecting export–import duties, managing land sales, and managing the harvest of natural resources."
And, in an overview of the whole group, do you think tax farming warrants more than couple sentences? Worth saying that it was heavily profitable and may have increased native enmity against them, but not anywhere near as much as Reid gives the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that it is the article writer's responsibility to (first) place events in perspective and (second) present the consequences of facts. If the consequences were not large, the facts are inconsequential, and are very good candidates for removal... You say "some were tax farmers, some farmed opium". Other sources say "the tax farmers were a key element of the society and a de facto arm of the government, aroused enmity, and amassed great wealth; opium was perhaps the greatest single source of income". And so on. Those are consequential. You expend precious pixellated real estate on other topics... that I wonder... if they should simply be left out. Again, only time and research will tell. But I am now persuaded that every section of the article needs to be re-examined.– Ling.Nut (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already noted that the tax farming was a large, lucrative, business, and raised enmity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnic groups were separated by extensive, intrusive legislation.. this article offers one sentence: "The Dutch, however, introduced a racial classification system that separated residents of Chinese ancestry from those of other ancestry"
And an article on this legislation is sorely needed. To go into the intricacies of this in an article about another topic would go against WP:SUMMARY. We don't need two paragraphs discussing how the Japanese were given the legal status of Europeans in the late 1800s-early 1900s because of a treaty when we are talking about Chinese Indonesians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of how Dutch pograms actually moved the Chinese closer to Europeans
I question the need for something that is a single person's idea, which is fairly incredible in my opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sketchy description of the Dutch-Chinese economic and political symbiosis
Points drawn from Reid, Anthony (1997). Entrepreneurial Minorities, Nationalism, and the State. In Daniel Chirot & Anthony Reid (Eds.), Essential Outsiders: Chinese and Jews in the Modern Transformation of Southeast Asia and Central Europe University of washington Press, pp. 33–73.
pp. 44–45, (Tax farming, Chinese as de facto gov't agents, importance of Chinese-run opium farms): "In Southeast Asia, the system of farming the collection of state revenues to prominent Chinese... [began] soon after the Dutch East India Company began to govern its enclave in batavia in 1619...In the eighteenth century, the monopoly over opium imports became the main source of Dutch Company revenue [particulalrly in Singapore]...The Netherlands Indies [i.e., modern Indonesia] made [relatively] greater use of land taxes and import duties (Singapore being a free port), but Chinese-run tax farms there represented more than a quarter of all revenue in the 1840s and over 20 percent in the 1880s. The opium farm... provided the lions' share. In 1870 there were more Chinese engaged in tax-farming operations – about 7,000 or 6% of all adult male Chinese – than there were Dutchment in the government service in the Indies. The Chinese tax farmer and his agents were the economic arms of the government in rural areas."
p. 46 (Chinese drawn closer to Europeans, ironically, but forces pushed them to preserve identity separate from other Asians) After these traumatic mid-eighteenth centrury events [i.e., 1740 Batavia massacre] the Chinese population... was reduced to initially smaller but more stable creole communities, secured against more pogroms at European hands by their essential loyoalty to and symbiosis with the European order... The Chinese peranakan of Java... saw no attraction in assimilating into a subordinate indigenous community... therefore remained stable, retaining a form of Chinese religion... but speaking a malay-based creole."
p. 47 (Chinese kept a tight control over tax farms and opium farms; identity distinctions further enforced)... "All three Sino-Southeast Asian communities were kept legally distinct by the colonial order in terms of residence, landowning, educatiion and dress. Although they had lost much of their Chineseness, they were less likely to assimilate or integrate than they had been in the seventeenth century.... The Chinese as a group aroused resentment because of the influence they had over rulers and because of their direct authority as tax farmers"
Moreover, regarding the text that is there, I am just not sure that it works to create a coherent narrative (a narrative need not be POV, but it does need to cover main points, be coherent, etc). Forex, the few sentences after "Following the 1740 Batavia massacre and ensuing war...". What purpose do they serve? Is this a major point, or a minor one...? and several other pasaages strike me the same way....
Cause and effect. Simple enough, and those interested can follow through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, I'm satisfied with the changes and explanations given here and at the previous peer review, and I'm now ready to support, pending source checks etc. This is a subject I'm fairly unfamiliar with (only knowing about Chinese Indonesians from reviewing so many of Crisco's articles), but the prose, organization, MOS, etc. looks great to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
In the infobox you mention 6 languages. Indonesian isn't a form of Chinese, but in "Four major Chinese speech groups are represented in Indonesia: Hokkien, Mandarin, Hakka, and Cantonese.", you only mention 4. Why is the fifth not listed?
Because Hokkien and Teochew are dialects, not unique languages. Do you think this should be clarified in-text below, or is use in the infobox sufficient?
Xinghua is left out, that's what I don't get.
Alright, removed. Unable to be verified with a source.
"1930 Dutch East Indies census", "Chinese Problem", and "failed coup d'état" are red links, as are some other ones. IMHO they shouldn't be in a FA but I think there's no rule against it
Fixed the one link, removed another (may be notable, but I can imagine myself writing about a census). I could conceivably write about the "Chinese Problem" and Tiong Hoa Hwe Koan, but haven't yet.
"25. ISSN 0116-3930." looks like a stray
Pardon? The full ref is Tenorio, Alfred S. (8 January 1999). "Correcting the Myth About the Dominance of Ethnic Chinese in Indonesian Business". BusinessWorld: 25. ISSN 0116-3930.
Got it.
FN 85 doesn't display the PDF icon but a ref does. Pls make consistent.
Think I got that.
Aside comment...Lumping people into groups is quite common in the real world and on wiki. It is done for quite legitimate reasons, such as academic (one can major in women's studies) and medical reasons (diseases specific to certain groups such as sickle cell), and cultural. You already mentioned WP:COMMON. On wiki we have Women in Vietnam (that's half the country lumped into one large group), the FA Taiwanese aborigines, the FA Tamil people, Thai Chinese--a lengthy article on Thai citizens of Chinese background--note in America we'd call them Chinese Thai but in Thailand they say "Thai Chinese", Thai American, African American, etc. I know about about Asia and Indonesia to comfortably say this is a distinct cultural group worthy of academic study and wiki articles, hence in my view an oppose based solely on that point would not be valid. PumpkinSkytalk 00:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) PumpkinSkytalk 10:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to PumpkinSky: Check the FAC nominators of Taiwanese aborigines, and find its defender at FARC. ;-) My "leaning Oppose" is not based solely or even principally on the lumping of people; it's a reaction to an over-hasty approach of quickly modifying huge facts and acting as if it were a minor modification. That concerns me... and what was that going on up there about languages & dialects...? Anyhow, you have misinterpreted my stance. – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I went through this article some days ago refining the referencing mechanisms and find it to be a good and fitting article. I am quite stunned to see the comments above by Ling.Nut3, especially the 00:34 /attacks/ which are well over the line. I've spent five years living in Indonesia and count some Chinese Indonesians as good friends. This is no mere nationality–ethnicity pairing. It is a major issue in Indonesia today, and has been for ages; much the same as in Indochina and areas as diverse as Madagascar and Polynesia (the extremes of the areas peopled from migration out of China; The Americas, too, really). See the related articles 1740 Batavia massacre,Discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, May 1998 riots of Indonesia. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems people are skimming/scanning & buying into the "personal attack" narrative established by Crisco. I am not attacking anyone. I am certainly not bad-mouthing Chinese Indonesians. I am voicing concerns about the depth to which issues are analyzed. That is all. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually re-read most of the article and this whole discussion over the last day and a half before commenting here. Your 00:34 isn't an attack? Did /you/ actually think at any length or depth about that post? — engage your brain at all? I'd take your oppose a little more seriously if I saw much high-quality thinking on your part. FWIW, I don't see anything you've said as an attack on the subjects of the article.Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find time to look in depth at related issues; will post whenever i can (above). If you read the thread carefully, I opened with questions about the identity issue. My Oppose, however, resulted from the huge change and "nothing to see here, move along". It was the attitude. How can you change hundreds of thousands of casualties for 2% of that figure in one little (very vague!) edit, then say "nothing to see here, move along"? That is vrey, very sloppy. It raises huge concerns. I am concerned about the scholarship. That is all. More concerns above.. soon.. – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A second editor above has expressed the opinion that the original text was poorly written but not necessarily misrepresentative. It was clarified, not changed by 98 percent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you use inline citations or footnotes in Notes
Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review I saw the comment on WT:FAC and checked the images. They are all free, mostly because of age or the Tropenmuseum's donation, some are more recent but freely licensed, or are free images based on data.
Please note I ma not an expert in either Japanese or Indonesian copyright law and so am going by the templates and sources in those images. I do think that File:Jakarta riot 14 May 1998.jpg , which is from a book, needs a page number.
I do not have time to review the article itself, but the images seem to be OK to me. Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K, I've gotten everything but that last one. The local library has an Indonesian copy of the book, so I'll have to check it later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments - There has not been much activity on this page of late and I think a decision is overdue. I am finding it difficult to see how the oppose based on criterion 1b is actionable as "only time and research will tell". Spotchecks on sources are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is, I am very sad to say, a huge, fundamental problem both with this article, and at the same time, with the FAC reviews as well (this article reveals it). The article is MOS-compliant and kinda sorta appears to hit on some major areas of the topic, and it sorta looks OK and so on, but it is.. very thinly researched. A few areas have been singled out, and those have rec'd some research, but the topic itself was not researched in anything remotely resembling a proactive way. Ihis article is simply (and grossly, I'm very sorry to say) inadequate in its coverage, and does not deserve an FA. Please bear in mind, this is not my topic, this is not my.... I am not researching this topic. I have no familiarity with this topic. I am not the person who should be doing the research (none is being done, actually). I found at least two unspeakably huge holes in the coverage in only a couple hours of time (opium etc.) ....and a huge error.. and in every case, the nom tacked on a brief comment and a ref and called that "research". Do you want me to spend weeks looking at the sources? That is not my role; it is the nominator's role. This article simply has not been researched. The problem with FAC that I alluded to (although it is an innocent problem) is that reviewers accept a nom at face value. Accept that the research has been done, and check to see if it is MOS-compliant and more or less coherent. This is a forgivable error. No one is paid to do this, and researching an article this large takes time. So let me sum up. No one has invested any real time in research. i can't and won't. I don't blame the reviewers as individuals either, nor the system (since it is a volunteer system). But let's not put articles with college sophomore-level research effort up on the Internet and tell the world they're Wikipedia's best. I mean, you can if you want to. But iit isn't excellent. it's just passable. Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to make it excellent, and the nominator either can't or won't. ... The delegate says "only time and research will tell".. but if this article gets the bronze star, time will be mute, because research will cease forever. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it, I was quoting you :-) Is the nominator ready to respond? Graham Colm (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already included such references as are available to me, while others were included by the original author, Arsonal. I have also pinged Noleander to see if s/he can do the source spotcheck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am being ignored. You can't see my face as I type this, so your first assumption will be that I am thin-skinned. But no, I simply think that I am not appropriate as an individual for reviewing FAC articles. We are mismatched. I care about excellence and depth of coverage; FAC is not sytemically capable of addressing those concerns. WP:WIAFA 1b should be stricken.. Anyhow, FAC and I part ways now. I am striking my Oppose. I am not sulking, I am not doing it to try to save face, I am not saying "I will take my ball and go home." I am divorcing myself from FAC. We are a mismatch. I give up on the Wikipedia community. Not bitterly -- it just... is a place for teenagers. It is an online community. It emphatically is not an academic community.Enjoy your little baubles; they do not actually reflect article quality. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source check I've gone through these again, and they are high quality and consistently formatted. I only find one thing that needs fixed: under tertiary sources, the Walrond ref has the 'r' in "Retrieved" in lower case whereas in all other web refs it's upper case. Once this is made upper case, I'm comfortable with the sources.PumpkinSkytalk 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Graham was referring to a source spotcheck for paraphrasing and to double check that it supports the sources. Arsonal never had one. Fixed the R. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority are offline. There are some online ones and I'll defer to someone else for that.PumpkinSkytalk 01:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of the ones that aren't linked to a URL may be on Gbooks. I have ready access to The Chinese of Indonesia and Their Search for Identity: The Relationship Between Collective Memory and the Media (I have an Indonesian translation, actually), Anti-Chinese Violence in Indonesia, 1996–1999, Tionghoa dalam Pusaran Politik, Dilema Minoritas Tionghoa, and Etnis Tionghoa di Indonesia: Kumpulan Tulisan (this includes "Chinese Dietary Culture in Indonesian Urban Society") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment Some can be checked using Google Books. Here's one randomly chosen:
Article: "Among ethnic Chinese families, whether they are strongly Chinese oriented or already acculturated, pork is often the preferred meat"
Source (ref 161): "If we look at the food at home in an ethnic Chinese family, be they still strongly Chinese oriented or already acculturated to the local situation, pork is still the preferred meat" (David Y. H. Wu; Sidney C. H. Cheung (2002). The Globalization of Chinese Food. University of Hawaii Press. p. 157. ISBN978-0-8248-2582-9. Retrieved 12 July 2012.)
This was the first one I checked and there is a problem with close paraphrasing! Graham Colm (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one. It may be coincidental — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to count as a paraphrasing check, I guess, but here are a few (this revision) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN10
Article: Citizenship was conferred upon the ethnic Chinese through a 1946 citizenship act after Indonesia became independent, and it was further reaffirmed in 1949 and 1958. However, they often encountered obstacles regarding the legality of their citizenship. Chinese Indonesians were required to produce an Indonesian Citizenship Certificate (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia, SBKRI) when conducting business with government officials.
Source: The Citizenship Act of 1946 conferred citizenship status on Ethnic Chinese, which was confirmed by subsequent Acts in 1949 and 1958. ... Proof of citizenship, which the necessary citizenship papers-Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Indonesia (SBKRI), or Proof of Indonesian Citizenship Document-have to be produced when dealing with functionaries at the level of a ministry or department down to the village (Kelurahan) levels
Doesn't look too close to me.
FN13
Article: Other terms used for identifying sectors of the community include peranakan and totok. The former, traditionally used to describe those born locally, is derived from the root Indonesian word anak ("child") and thus means "child of the land". The latter is derived from Javanese, meaning "new" or "pure", and is used to describe the foreign born and new immigrants.
Source: Still another term is Peranakan (the root of the word is anak, Indonesian for child, thus "Child of the land") or local born, while the foreign-born or new immigrants are referred to as Totok (from the Javanese; meaning "new, pure")
I don't think it's too close, although others may disagree.
Delegate's comment - Spotchecks by an independent reviewer are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck The following text is supported by reference 9 (a): "Ethnic Chinese in the 1930 Dutch East Indies census were categorized as foreign orientals, and registered separately from the indigenous population."
The text in the original reference is "In the 1930 census, the ethnic Chinese, regardless of their "nationalities", were classified as "foreign oriental", and they were registered separately from the "indigenous population."
Reviewer opinion: too close.
The following text is supported by reference 19 (a): "These traders settled along the northern coast of Java, but there is no documentation of their settlements beyond the 16th century. The Chinese Muslims were likely to have been absorbed into the majority Muslim population."
The text in the original reference is: "There are documents showing that Chinese Muslim communities already existed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries along the north coast of Java ... Interestingly, there is no further documentation about these Muslim communities. Most probably, the Chinese Muslims became completely absorbed into the majority Moslem population ... They were mostly traders and merchants."
Reviewer opinion: no problem.
The following text is supported by reference 29: "Some became "revenue farmers", middlemen within the corporate structure of the VOC, tasked with collecting export–import duties, managing land sales, and managing the harvest of natural resources;"
The text in the original reference is:"Two factors in particular which were characteristic of the VOC administration were undoubtedly important for the development of the economic position of the Chinese.[paragraph] In the first place, we should note the system of leasing and selling of land developed by the company. This involved the granting of specific rights to prospective applicants. The landlord and leaseholder acquired a position that virtually amounted to a legal public authority. The landlords were petty sovereigns after a fashion, whose rights encroached deeply on the lives of those dwelling on their lands. The landlords had the right to impose taxes on people and force them to do compulsory public labour services.[paragraph] In the second place, we refer to the system of revenue farming that the Chinese acquired under the Company's administration. Some of these farms dated back to the beginning of the VOC and they included farms of tollgates, syahbandar or the collection of import-export duties, cattle slaughtering, fishing and meat bazaars, and the felling of timber. This revenue farm system ..." I don't see any indication that revenue farmers governed land sales. There seems to be a conflation of the two factors mentioned by the authors.
Reviewer opinion: source not accurately used.
Two "hits" in three tries, plus the one mentioned earlier by another reviewer, causes me concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, withdraw this. It's been sitting too long and I don't have access to all the sources to provide a full cleansing. I'll contact the original writer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I reviewed are on google books. Assuming Crisco's in the US, it should be available on preview.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are issues with the online sources, there are liable to be issues with the offline sources. I wouldn't feel comfortable with something like that attached to my name (as noted in the nom, I was bringing another editor's work to FAC). I'd much rather leave this and bring ? (film) to FAC, one I've been guiding from start to finish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- well, I should've hit the sack long ago but when I saw some activity here I decided to see how it panned out -- will action the withdrawal request, thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fits the FA criteria. For background, the article is a Gold-certified album by Christian rock band Third Day. It is one of their more successful efforts and featured collaborations from Lacey Mosley and Chris Daughtry as well as being produced by mainstream producer Howard Benson. I think the article is of featured-article quality and it would be a nice addition to our featured article collection, as well as WikiProject Christian Music's third FA success.
To specify on why I think this passes each criteria, I'll note why I think it passes each individually:
1(a) Well-written - The article passed GA and was peer-reviewed; any issues that slipped through either can easily be fixed.
1(b) Comprehensive - The article covers all aspects of the album; background, recording, composition, reception, sales, and singles.
1(c) Well-researched - The article is cited at all relevant and important sections, and features citations from reliable publications like Billboard and CCM Magazine.
1(d) Neutral - The article is represented fairly, noting some negative points critics made in reviews even though the reviews were very positive.
1(e) Stable - The article has not encountered an edit war and does not change on a day-to-day basis.
2(a) A lead - The lead is three paragraphs long and represents the most crucial aspects: recording, commercial success, and critical success.
2(b) Appropriate structure - Sections are divided into section headings when required.
2(c) Consistent citations - All citations are made using citation templates and have a uniform date structure.
3 Media - Three images are in the article, two of which being free-use images and the non-free image, the album cover, being covered by fair-use guidelines on album covers.
4 Length - The article is 2,616 words long, reasonable for an article on such an album.
If you have any concerns or issues to point out I will be happy to address or correct the problem. Thank you for your time. ToaNidhiki05 00:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Royalbroil: support with the following comments:
I like how the Billboard and R&R charts are cited since 2008/2009 is the time when R&R was fading from prevalence being replaced by Billboard (who bought it out).
Please cite this sentence - They also chose to work with mainstream producer Howard Benson, who had worked on projects with other bands that Third Day had enjoyed; Benson had wanted to work with Third Day because he liked the quality of Mac Powell's vocals.
Good job of selecting the right sources for professional reviews.
The first two sentences in the "Release and sales" section should have inline citations.
Comprehensiveness is the right length and all of the sources are reliable. Royalbroil 03:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To address the concerns:
Thanks, it is really interesting just how quick R&R went from a great source of charts to being out of print.
Comment by The Devil's Advocate: As I said in the GA review I think expanding on the Awards section would be important before this could be considered FA status. I also noted then that there should be more paraphrasing because the article is a little too heavy on direct quotations. The packaging section could also do with a little expansion, though not much, and rewriting, especially with the repetitive use of the word "location" in that section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not much I can expand on awards, but I could merge it with critical reception perhaps and make 'Critical reception and awards'. I'll see what I can do on the rest. ToaNidhiki05 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly rewrote and beefed up the packaging section, adding their bassist's input on the art as well as his opinion on similarities between it and Radiohead's "Hail to the Thief" cover. As for direct quotes, I removed some but I'm not sure there's much more I can remove. The important parts in background that are direct quotes would be rather difficult to paraphrase, while the reviews are also mostly direct quotes. I'll check again but I'm not sure if there is much more to be removed. 19:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Toa Nidhiki05. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lead needs a complete rewrite. It is far too focused on dull, quantitative, factual information like detailed chart positions, sales figures and awards. It mentions nothing about the making of the record, the music and lyrics in it, and what critics considered to be good about it. See In Utero (album) for a good album-article lead.—indopug (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with this objection. Seems the lead could use some improvement to move away from sales data.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, analysis on background, lyrics and music is lacking and it focuses a lot on technical aspects. There is enough content in the article for a three-paragraph lede, so I'll try and make the first one analysis on background, the second on lyrics/music, and the third on sales/singles. Would you be willing to change to a 'Support' !vote if I were to do that? ToaNidhiki05 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a further note regarding the lede, the information about Benson's religious beliefs should be cited directly in the lede since it is contentious BLP material. See WP:LEADCITE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for noting such a critical issue. ToaNidhiki05 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of the album as a physical CD, but where would I find the number?
It would depend on the album - some have it on the spine, or in the booklet, or on the back. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it on the spine, added. ToaNidhiki05 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any specific areas I can fix? I'm using citation templates so it shouldn't be too hard to fix.
For example, compare FNs 9 and 13, or 16, or 20. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...I see what you mean. I've fixed them all, I believe. ToaNidhiki05 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the first source, keep in mind that context is required - while the opinion of a source such as The Christian Manifesto might not be the best source for, say, a Lady GaGa album, it is perfectly fine for a Christian album such as this one. To get to a bigger point, per WP:RS the TCM review is an 'opinion piece' - the reviewer, C. E'Jon Moore (and also main editor of the site), has had his work published in magazines not related to the TCM site. While it may technically qualify as a 'self-published' source according to WP:RS, since TCM calls itself a blog, as the author of the review (C. E'Jon Moore) has published work in the relevant field of Christianity published in third-party magazines, it can be used per that policy. I'm absolutely shocked you question JFH as a RS; if you were to ask anyone in the Christian Music WikiProject they would tell you it is one of the most reliable sources in the field of Christian music. It is more reliable than TCM and I'll point out that among other things, JFH is not a blog or self-published source as it has editorial control and oversight among all reviews, has had dozens of interviews with notable Christian and mainstream artists. It also has a bit more credibility due to its length of activity - 15 years is quite a while for a Christian review website, as the CCM movement didn't even start until the late-70s or early 80s. ToaNidhiki05 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm not in the Christian Music WikiProject, so you'll have to be a bit patient. Can you source Moore's work in other magazines? And JFH's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found much on Moore aside from contributor status at Northstar Magazine, the official magazine of Rochester College. The citation isn't essential to the article so it could be removed. As for JFH, this is from their 'About us' page:
The JFH Staff writers adhere to strict journalistic standards. Our editorial staff is independent of any artist/record label/management firm. All artist interviews are arranged through the artist's management/publicist/label and are recorded and transcribed for true accuracy.
I have found some additional sources that will help you in expanding the article further.
These two focus on the album in general but touch on subjects regarding the album that do not yet appear to be addressed: [14][15].
This one is a press release from their label's parent company that goes into some detail on the Dove Awards they won so you can expand on that material: [16].
Lastly, the first source used in the article seems to redirect now to some other page. Here is a version of the article from Reuters: [17].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great sources - I've implemented the awards one and expanded the awards bit. I'll find a place to implement the two ones regarding Third Day in the mainstream.
Thanks for noting the last source issue, I've fixed it to note the article must be found manually on that page. The Reuters version works fine but there are some things the citation covers that the Reuters port doesn't. ToaNidhiki05 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes and lede
I have said before that I think there should be more paraphrasing, but to note some specific issues the Reception section overall could use more paraphrasing, but the quotes from the Allmusic and Jesus Freak Hideout reviews are especially in need of paraphrasing. I am not suggesting you not provide direct quotes from the reviews, but you should try to use your own words as much as possible. Another part that should mostly be paraphrased is the description of Mosley's recording session.
Agreed, I'll see what I can do. UPDATE: I've added more paraphrasing on both, removing much of the direct quotes. There is still some but there isn't as much of it. ToaNidhiki05 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there is enough material to expand the lede a bit. I would like to see a larger lede for a prospective featured article. I have some other concerns, but I am going to try to address those by editing the article directly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a larger lede myself. I could expand on the singles a bit without going into too much detail. ToaNidhiki05 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- open for 7 weeks and apparently no activity for about a month, I can't see any prospect of consensus to promote... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe, before, the quality was great. With some minor and major improvements in certain sections, information is now more fluid. It is very informative and its format is one of a kind. It is ready. European-football-master (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on sourcing alone. There are plenty of dead external links and refs which need addressing. Two dabs need fixing. No consistent date format, certain refs are not correctly formatted. Under 'Ambassador', why does "Pelé, widely regarded among football historians, former players and fans to be one of the best and most accomplished footballers in the game's history" require so many references? Lemonade51 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the links. As far as Pele, there will always be arguments as to why or why not he is considered the best. To make sure it is thoroughly sourced (to eliminate any appearances of bias, I sourced numerous citations. European-football-master (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but there's way too much unencyclopedic writing for this to be considered among our best work. Some examples of problems are listed below, but the whole article will need a deep cleaning and I'm not sure this can be accomplished during an FAC.
"It proved to be historic justice for many (even today) due to Penarol's great contributions to the creation of the tournament, but the Copa Libertadores did not receive international attention until its third edition, which was swept through the sublime football of a Santos team led by Pele, considered by some the best club team of all times." Note that I highlighted this as an issue at the article's last FAC, and it is still here. That in itself tells me that there hasn't been enough improvement since that point.
"Os Santasticos, also known as O Bale Branco (or white ballet), which dazzled the world during that time".
"Argentine football finally inscribed their name on the winner's list in 1964...".
"With two titles already in its showcase, Independiente created a winning mystique which was prolongated by Francisco Sa, Jose Omar Pastoriza, Ricardo Bochini and Daniel Bertoni; pillars of the titles of 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975."
"after defeating title holders Gremio which included an incredible 1–0 win in the first away leg...".
"astonished South America as they eliminated title holders Independiente in La Doble Visera 2–1 during the last decisive match of the second round".
"Goalkeeper Rene Higuita cemented his legendary status with an outstanding performance as he stopped four of the nine Paraguayan kicks and scored one himself."
"sparking an unforgettable party in the country that celebrated the conquest in the streets as well as ending Olimpia's second golden era."
"Masterfully directed by Carlos Bianchi". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Giants, above. Note also:-
"The first edition of the Copa Libertadores took place during in 1960."
"Led by coach Osvaldo Zubeldía and a team built around figures such as Carlos Bilardo, Oscar Malbernat and Juan Ramón Verón, went on to become the first ever tricampeon of the competition."
"...an Estudiantes squad depleted of key players that helped lift it to its recent glory."
"Universitario became the first team from the Pacific coast to reach the finals after eliminating Uruguayan giants Peñarol and defending champion Nacional at the semifinal stage". They beat two opponents at the semifinal stage?
"finally ended" is tautologous. It's like saying "initially began"
Apart from the above examples of bad grammar or poor sentence construction (and there are many, many more), the general tone of the prose is far removed from that of an encyclopedia, much more akin to that of a sports magazine. In an encyclopedia we don't talk about a team "thumping" its opponents. This is reasonably entertaining as a football article, but it comes nowhere near meeting the FA criterion on prose. Fundamental rewriting necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is impressively detailed, but apart from minor details - El Grafico needs italics - I have one major gripe: why this and History of the Copa Libertadores cut off at 2009? I liked seeing the final as much as anyone who hates the losing team, but there have been three more editions since, add something on the 2010s! (European Cup and UEFA Champions League history has it, just for starters) igordebraga≠ 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I'll list some of the details in the article right now I would want to see sourced:
"Although Peñarol was the first club to win three titles, Estudiantes had done this feat consecutively."
"The first leg in Lima ended on a 0-0 tie, while the second leg in Avellaneda finished 2-1 favoring the home team. Independiente successfully defended the title a year later against Colo-Colo after winning the playoff match 2-1. Los Diablos Rojos kept the trophy again in 1974 after defeating São Paulo 1-0 in a hard-fought playoff. In 1975, Unión Española also failed to dethroned the champion in the finals after losing the playoff 2-0."
"Just like in 1963, Boca Juniors had to watch as the visiting team lifted the Copa Libertadores in their home ground and Olimpia became the first (and so far only) team from Paraguay to do so."
"it proved to be their last hurrah in the international scene as Uruguayan football, in general, suffered a great decline at the end of the 1980s.[41] The Manyas fierce rivals, Nacional, also won one last cup in 1988 before falling from the continental limelight."
"The 1989 edition also had another significant first: it was the first ever time that no club from Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil managed to reach the final. That trend would continue on until 1992."
"Vélez Sársfield's consegration in the Copa Libertadores was considered an institutional victory and it was Carlos Bianchi, a former Vélez player, that built a squad capable of playing on an equal footing on any terrain against any team."
Poor grammar in numerous places, namely ending sentences with prepositions, spelling, and general encyclopedic language.
The article has a lot of information, but it suffers drastically in these two areas in particular. They would need to be looked at thoroughly. —Ed!(talk) 20:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am putting this article up for FA because previously it was attempted but came short because it was just way to soon. They attempted for it seven days after getting GA, which was way to early. I believe it is the right time now. ObtundTalk 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this article falls well short of the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns raised in the previous FAC went well beyond the timing of the nomination (which isn't really an issue: it's quite normal for articles to be nominated for FA status shortly after passing a GA nomination, and this is unremarkable if the quality is OK), and these don't appear to have been addressed: The first paragraph is largely technical jargon and the history section remains lacking, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working - I will copyedit fix that jargon. ObtundTalk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains some North American centric wording (for instance, "Fall 2012" is Spring here in the Southern Hemisphere) Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well how do we fix that, just write (in northern hemisphere)? ObtundTalk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Changed it from "Fall 2012" → "3rd Quarter 2012." There were two instances of this. ObtundTalk 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't flow very well - for instance, the 'Hardware' section starts with a description of the system's physical buttons. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix that, I didn't notice it. ObtundTalk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an example of a much broader problem Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really I don't see an issue. ObtundTalk 02:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article also isn't up to date: for instance, Apple lost the court case in Australia and was fined $2 million, but this isn't mentioned. The 'Commercial reception' section is focused mainly on the initial reception to this system, and not its overall commercial performance. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an example of a much broader problem. The text you've added continues the article's North American-centric bias by the way: the Australia court system obviously doesn't operate in $US. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed - My error changed from USD → AUD. ObtundTalk 23:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the news story used to reference this labeled a 'press release'? Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Changed it from press release to news. ObtundTalk 02:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It was announced on June 11, 2012, at WWDC 2012, that with the update of iOS, iOS 6.0, Siri will now be available on the New iPad in Fall 2012." - what 'WWDC 2012' and 'Siri' are aren't explained. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded - Doesn't need it because Siri is linked here, and WWDC 2012 doesn't need to be explained. ObtundTalk 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid. I don't have a clue what 'WWDC 2012' is. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added a link. ObtundTalk 23:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only material on battery life is that "Apple claims that the battery can provide up to 10 hours of video, 140 hours of audio playback, or one month on standby" - manufacturers' claims about battery life are notoriously unreliable/unrealistic, so an independent assessment is needed. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We will have someone to do that.ObtundTalk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be added found link - [[20]] - the guy says it was eight hours. ObtundTalk 02:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added Link --ObtundTalk 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance of the InMobi survey? Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know I didn't want it but people wanted to put it in I guess. ObtundTalk 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it shows the commercial reception in the public. ObtundTalk 23:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It's what appears to be a low-quality survey (sample size of only 689) which produced highly questionable results (I really doubt that 29% of all people with mobile phones in whatever the population the survey claims to cover are really going to buy an iPad). This isn't a replacement for actual sales figures. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted the formatting you placed around my comments: as you can see from the list of nominations at WP:FAC, this is not how editors' comments are handled. Please also remove the symbols from your posts above. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the symbols. ObtundTalk 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you just re-added the ticks, and placed them at the start of my points? This implies that I think that these comments have been addressed, which is certainly not the case. Please remove them, and take the time to review some of the many FACs open at the moment to see how reviewers comments are handled. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was for my reference, my error. ObtundTalk 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Well, it has been a while since I've been in the FA corner of the wiki, but I think some of my recent articles are at the modern FA standards. Here's is an old FA (2005 vintage, delisted in 2008) that has been significantly reworked over the past year or so. The subject is one of the oldest constitutions in world's history. Let me know what you think :) PS. Oh, I almost forgot: I am taking part in that WikiCup thingy, if that matters for anything. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
AmerEng or BritEng? I saw kilometres.. and.. another.. something like "prioritised"?
"Court of first instance existed in each voivodeship..." Courts of first? – Ling.Nut (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object I feel this article reads too much like a narrative. " a beacon in the struggle to restore Polish sovereignty" That is very emotional language. Secondly, the introduction paragraph lacks citations. 209.119.226.66 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive toned down the beacon statement, and will watch for other similar claims. Citations are not needed for the lead, provided they are backed up in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments - still reading through and getting to grips. The article looks good in terms of scope and comprehensiveness, but the prose needs work in places; working through. Not looked at sources or done spot checks yet. Following are first cmts, though Ive answered my own questions in a few, putting here in case the nominator disagrees (which he is entitled to do):
At five paragraphs, the lead seem(ed) a bit disjointed. Ive made an attempt at merging into three paras, though you might have a more informed stab.
In the lead, I'd say what the constitution sought and its effect before the "the first constitution of its type in Europe" claims, which are really secondary.
Still though, Im going to move it to the third para; its a bit loud and brash putting it up there before its content and explaining its signifance, "in context". Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does "other scholars also refer to it as the world's second oldest constitution", in the lead, require five citations and a note
Because it proved controversial, leading to edit wars and several talk discussion. The current version seem to be a table compromise, and the refs seem to help by showing that it is not a fringe or uncited opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Constitution capatilised throughout.
I think it should be capitalized only when referring to itself, not the generic Constitution. IIRC it was suggested to do so by the GA reviewer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...its actual influence was limited and it remaining in force for only a year - be more specific here
What, exact number of days? Many sources say "about a year". It was officially annulled on 23 November 1793, but in practice is was mostly taken down in the aftermath of the lost War in the Defense of the Constitution, which ended in July 1792. I changed it to "little over a year", and I'd prefer to keep it ambiguous like that unless a better source is found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...mobilizing the country's citizens to strive for the political well-being of their country - this is vague and open to misinterpretation.
It is vague per source; I am not sure how to tweak it; the point is it was influential not for how its laws were applied in practice, but for what they meant in theory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the google books links are broken, at least for me [22][23][24]. Not a big deal. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it. I think that's intended; what I mean is that some books are not available on google books for previews, in which case I just linked the book front page. Or google might have yanked a previously available book, and the page link no longer works, that does happen :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"King Stanisław August himself had been elected in 1764 with the support of his ex-mistress, Russian Tsarina Catherine the Great. Bribes were involved and the Russian army was deployed only a few miles from the election sejm, which met at Wola near Warsaw." - source?
I tried to fix those, but the numbering changed in the meantime - let me know if I missed anything. PSB is not in Google Books, and I can't find the ISBN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in how you refer to the US-based Oxford University Press - you have a couple of different permutations
I think it is a collected volume of conference or journal papers, but as I wasn't sure and couldn't access it anyway, I removed it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Format used in Further reading should be consistent and should match that used for like references.
I am nominating this article for featured article, as I believe that it meets the criteria. It is currently a good article, is stable, and is written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW and WP:SCOTUS criteria, especially in regards to the Bluebook reference style (which is slightly different from other reference styles). The case is a landmark case in Native American (Indian) law as regards treaty rights. It was previously nominated and I was in the process of tweaking it to remove objections when I had to unexpectedly leave Wikipedia for a while. It has just been peer reviewed. GregJackPBoomer! 18:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: haven't read the article, but the lead looks a bit small at a glance. Should probably double check that it summarizes the whole article. Also, the comma usage in the lead is inconsistent: "In 1961 Congress terminated" vs. "In 1963, three members of the tribe" Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added material to lead, corrected comma usage. GregJackPBoomer! 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Be consistent in whether you include a space between location and publisher
Now moot - removed location from refs. GregJackPBoomer! 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN43: what kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on these. FN43 is a Law Review. GregJackPBoomer! 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment External link farm, with a bumper crop. Are we OK with these things these days? My dim recollection is that we aren't. But hey, I'm just here for the free beer. – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If my quick check was accurate, most of the external links are from U.S. Statutes citation templates, with the remainder being in actual references. Do I need to remove these? GregJackPBoomer! 03:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rush to rmv them yet. I have long been in the habit of rmving external links on sight, and usually that is the correct thing to do, but it is quite possible that your links to U.S. Statutes represent a special case. Let's wait and see what someone else (presumably more knowledgeable than me) says. – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that the article is terribly well written. For one thing, there's far too much stuffing of prose into footnotes, which I feel is a poor substitute for working the information into the body text. If it's important enough to be noted in a footnote, it's important enoguht to be put in the body text. Additionally, some sentences (such as "In the meantime, the tribe had been...") don't feel professional, and should be reworked. Finally, the last line of the lead ("This case is a landmark case in Native American case law.") is not clearly supported in the body text, and therefore must either be backed by sourced prose or removed as POV. This is alsoSven Manguard 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to disagree on the footnotes. Per FN, subsection WP:REFGROUP, this article uses two different groups of footnotes. The notes section is used to show explanatory notes, to clarify items in the text, whereas the reference section is used for citations. I did not find anything in the featured article criteria that prohibits or discourages the use of explanatory notes. If there is, please let me know and I'll correct that. GregJackPBoomer! 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to leave the oppose then. I'm trying to be diplomatic, but your quality of writing is, while decent, below what I'd consider FA quality. Just because a specific practice is not expressly discouraged by the FAC does not mean that it's not grounds for an oppose. If I think that the prose isn't FA standard, which I do, I have every write to oppose. You've got a lot of sections that could use flushing out, but the regulars will point that out later, I suppose. As for the explanatory footnotes, that's a major part of the reason why I think that the prose isn't up to snuff. That many footnotes is a red flag. Sven ManguardWha? 05:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I certainly did not want to give the impression that you did not have the right to register your opposition. I do appreciate your input on this, even if we do disagree on the explanatory notes. GregJackPBoomer! 15:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, in particular, is not good about the explanatory notes? Is it how they are used here or the concept in general? Such notes are used in scholarly work, though they are not the majority usage, and our reference formatting is uniquely well-suited to accommodate them. Yes, this is somewhat of a hobby-horse of mine. Works are generally improved, in my view, by including explanatory notes. No opinion on whether the article as a whole is FA-quality, as I don't normally frequent these parts. --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 07:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on the sentence you mentioned, and if there are any others, please let me know and I'll fix them also. GregJackPBoomer! 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "case is a landmark case in Native American case law" is in fact clearly supported in the body text (in section Subsequent Developments) and is supported by two citations, to a) National Indian Law Library; American Association of Law Libraries (2002). Landmark Indian law cases. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. pp. 177–184. ISBN978-0-8377-0157-8; and b) Johansen, Bruce Elliott (1998). The encyclopedia of Native American legal tradition. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 189–190. ISBN978-0-313-30167-4. I can provide additional citations that list the case as a landmark case, but I felt that the two refs provided were sufficient. GregJackPBoomer! 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess so. I think that section is awfully weak, neither being cited a 200 times, being used internationally, or being taught to law school students is especially special for surpreme court cases, but I'm not going to argue the point further.
I'll work on improving that section. I will note that there are hundreds, if not thousands of SCOTUS cases that are not routinely taught at law school. Again, thanks. GregJackPBoomer! 15:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chime in with a complete layman's view. The article appears to be thoroughly researched and very well put-together. That said, I struggled to understand the first few sentences upon first reading, and had to re-read the lead before I fully understood what this case was all about and why it was important. I would thus suggest making the lead more accessible, if that is possible without compromising its factual accuracy. Here are a few ideas for possible consideration:
It seems to me that you could make the first part of the first sentence shorter without losing any meaning, viz: "a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that tribal hunting and fishing rights retained by treaty".
Second, I think "granted by treaty" may be a better phrase than "retained by treaty", since "retained" is somewhat ambiguous; I assume the intended meaning is something like "that the tribe continued to possess," but there is no antecedent here. Does not "retain" imply an earlier challenge to the tribe's possession? Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Now moving to the next part of the sentence, "were not abrogated after federal recognition was abolished ". Could we use a more accessible word than "abrogated" here? How about "relinquished"? I could also see a potential rephrasing so you have the tribe "did not give up" its rights to hunt and fish. I also note that it isn't entirely clear what the abolition of federal recognition refers to. Is it abolition of recognition of the tribe's rights, or of the tribe itself? We only learn later on which it is.
The final part of the sentence, I think, has some similar ambiguities: "by the Menominee Termination Act without a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect by Congress." But a statement to what effect? We later learn that this would be a statement to the effect that tribal fishing and hunting rights would be abrogated upon de-recognition of a tribe, or at least I believe that's the case. The "to that effect" phrase, however, could refer to something else in the sentence, such as rights being retained by treaty. And I do not at all mean to be snarky here, but does Congress issue statements? I thought Congress passed laws.
If I were writing this article, I would begin it as simply as possible and establish the significance of the ruling quite quickly to give readers an idea of why it's noteworthy. I would likely say something like, "Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled the Menominee could keep their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law." And then I would go on from there to describe what, exactly, happened. This is just a suggestion, however, and keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, so I may not quite get it.--Batard0 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ 1. - Good point, I'm on my phone right now, but I'll change it when I can get on my computer.
@ 2. - I have to disagree. "Granted" infers that the federal government gave the hunting and fishing rights to the tribe, while "retained" means that the tribe kept the rights that the tribe had exercised on their land for hundreds of years, even though they were ceding the land to the United States. It is similar to a property owner retaining mineral rights when they sell land.
@ 3. - I'll clear that part up.
@ 4. - "Statement" was the language the court used, referring to the wording of the statute passed by Congress. The court meant that any termination of hunting and fishing rights must be explicitly stated. Also, the loss of federal recognition did not affect treaty rights, the Menominee were still a tribe but were just not recognised for purposes of federal aid. I'll clear it up.
@ 5. - Good point, if you don't mind, I'll use that language. GregJackPBoomer! 02:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has undergone two (very) unsuccessful featured article candidate reviews before, with a number of issues regarding length, prose, detailing and layout being pointed out which continuously forced the promotions to a halt. In lieu of this, I opened up another peer review but it got closed with little difference. I then took the step of personally contacting two regular featured article reviewers to give their own informal reviews of the article. As per these, a number of other issues have been rectified. With this, I hope that the third FAC goes well.
I am open to all suggestions and questions, but please be specific. If you find a problem, please list it out (maybe in a collapsible format) so that I can go directly to the problem and fix it. Comments such as "This article needs a copy-edit" are unhelpful since I don't know where the copy-editing is needed exactly. I hope you understand, since prior reviews have had this problem and slowed down the improvement process. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article seems to have improved since I last looked at it, I can tell you've put a lot of work into this. A couple suggestions after a quick look:
I think you want to have a comma after the year when writing "January 1, 2011, ..."
Umm, are you giving January 1, 2011 as an example? because I searched the article (using Ctrl+F) and found no instance where January 1, 2011 appears in the article. Thanks for your comments, and looking forward to a more detailed review :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lol, yes, that was just a random example :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might want to rephrase some of the WP:PLUSING constructions. They're not a big deal, but you don't want to go overboard on them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some re-phrasing. Could you check them and give your thoughts? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images were checked pre-FAC and are mostly fine - only remaining issue is that the first source link on File:India-locator-map-blank.svg still returns a 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comments Version [27]. This is NOT a comprehensive list. Only some violations of policies. Ankit, please go through the whole article again, instead of just fixing the instances listed here.
Issues pending from last FAC:
Possible sequel: no concrete evidence that there will be a sequel
Chopra had been rumoured to play the role of a transvestite; however, the producers refuted the rumours.
Removed
Initial speculation of Hans Zimmer composing the film's score
Removed
Lady Gaga had been rumoured to attend the film's London premiere, but the idea failed to materialise due to a lack of time.
This was more than just gossip; she had been contacted for the premiere, but couldn't come due to insufficient time. I've re-phrased the bit. Its much the same as Jackie Chan having been sent the script, and later declining. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the title section needed to be so long?
Shortened into one paragraph and merged with Development. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On October 14, 2011, a gaming tournament featuring high-profile games like Call of Duty
"Upon release, the soundtrack met with an overwhelmingly positive critical reception and subsequently gained widespread international popularity" The ref [28] does not anything "critical reception". The ref talks only about 1 country Germany, not "widespread international popularity"
"The look of the film's titular antagonist, which had been kept under strict secrecy, was revealed in the final theatrical trailer" [29] supports no part of this sentence. The look of Rampal as Ra.One is discussed, NOT of "the film's titular antagonist" Ra.One, which are many looks.
Done adding references and slight re-wording. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[30] does not support "Prominent multiplexes in Mumbai reported organised attempts at spreading negative publicity and causing dissent among movie-goers"
Whoops, it was the next reference. Removed that erroneous bit. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Children unanimously accepted the film, but adults severely criticised it, feeling that the film was an "amalgamation of several foreign films." " [31] does not talk about children. "the traditional movie goers have felt the need of an original script which appears to be the amalgamation of several foreign films." the traditional movie goers need not be interpreted as all adults.
Re-worded.
Organization: why is sub-section "Post-release" in "Economics"?
Made it separate. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am busy in real life. It will take me to time to respond here. --RedtigerxyzTalk 09:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Having a look at this now. GRAPPLEX 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I'm a bit put off by the referencing style but I'll admit this is mostly unfamiliarity. How common is this formatting in other articles?
To be frank, I have never seen this formatting style before. I used it only so as to make the process of checking for repeated references easier, and to also make the readability of the references section better. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need US$ to link to United States dollar on every instance, just the first; I'd also consider adding a link to Indian rupee if possible on the first instance of the currency symbol.
In Indian cinema articles, we use the INRConvert template, which has the wikilink embedded in it. Hence, at every time it is used, the link appears. I don't know if I can do anything about this, so I hope you can help me out here. The same applies for the Indian rupee linking. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical reactions to the film were lukewarm in India, with unanimous acclaim for technical aspects but criticism against the script and direction". -> I'd condense "technical aspects" down to "production" or possibly "production values"; also I believe criticism is directed towards rather than against.
Done
"The release in China is unconfirmed as of 2011" -> Is it still unconfirmed? Needs updating, even just to state that it's still unknown now rather than as of last year.
"Khan, Kapoor and Rampal (l-r) at Ra.One's premiere in London" -> the "(l-r)" note should use an en-dash (–) as it's a range, and should be italicised.
Done
"Kapoor could not attend the film's Toronto premiere due to a conflict with her scheduled appearance at Madame Tussauds" -> Which one? There's a fair few Madame Tussauds locations; the assumption is that London is the one meant but since you're talking about Canada here it would be better to specify.
Done
"Censor ratings" -> Probably better to just title this "Classification" or "Classifications"
Done
"The computers which did have the facility were closely monitored for the content that passed through them, with a separate log being maintained." -> separate from what? One log for each internet-enabled computer, or a log of all actions on the internet computers and another for the non-internet ones?
Removed "separate", since the source doesn't really elaborate. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A few days before release, a scriptwriter Yash Patnaik" -> drop the "a" here. Also I believe screenwriter would be the better term to use.
Done
I'm seeing quite a few actionable concerns here. I'll give this another look through if these are addressed, as the scope and depth here are impressive and it's really just the fiddly things that seem to be weighing it down. GRAPPLEX 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, and it's in good shape. However, I think that it may be too exhaustive and the prose needs a bit more polishing. My comments are:
Given that this was such an expensive film, did the producers of the film have any trouble getting the money together to make it?
Added to pre-release section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sinha was struck with the idea of the film when he saw a television commercial. " - a little bit more information is needed
Was there really "universal optimism regarding its commercial success"? (which implies that no-one at all in the world expected that the film wouldn't perform well)
Re-worded to "significant". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"criticism against the script and direction" - 'criticism against' is awkward; try 'criticism of' or equivalent
Changed to "towards" as per Grapple X. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"When the game is finally launched, it receives a standing ovation " - this is unclear
I've done something, but you should check it out. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The plot section provides few details on where the film is set
I didn't understand. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've addressed this. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kapoor being chosen due to her insistence for the part" - this wording is a bit awkward and unclear
"Rampal accepted the primary negative role" - why not just "Rampal accepted the role of Ra.One"?
The character of Ra.One was portrayed by three actors (as stated in the Cast section) so saying that he alone played Ra.One would be incorrect. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is the confusing 'the primary negative role' construction. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Bachchan agreed to be a part of the film after being requested by a reportedly keen Khan and Sinha" - this is unclear - did he agree to the role on Khan and Sinha's request, or did he do so after hearing a "report" of this?
Removed "a reportedly keen".
"However, the cast and casting process did face difficulties during production. Khan faced difficulties" - no need to repeated 'faced difficulties' like this
Re-worded
"Rampal's casting choice was met with skepticism due to reportedly "questionable acting abilities," a statement Sinha refuted" - who made the statement?
In the source interview, the question was simply "The abilities have been questioned". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not a quote then? Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and Goswami faced difficulty with her dress for a song sequence" - is this significant enough to mention? I presume that fixing the dress was a trivial task
Added bit about difficulty with the dance as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source (an interview with the actress) says that she learned the dance in 15 minutes and the repairs to her dress were minor. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He was attracted to the concept and immediately wrote a script based on it." - this suggests that he dropped everything and devoted all his time to writing the script, which seems unlikely given the amount of work involved
"The title of the film was debated upon" - 'debated upon' is awkward, and the material which follows doesn't indicate that there was any 'debate'
Re-worded.
"post-production faced significant delays owing to the digital inter-mediation" - needs to be translated out of film-speak!
In a technical section like post-production, making stuff plain is rather difficult. Hence I added the wikilink for readers to check up on. Should I do something more? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please; translate it into something people can understand. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The composers complied with international copyright laws" - is this really worth noting?
"The music of the film was dedicated to Yash Johar and Bobby Chawla" - what's the relevance of this?
Moved to daughter article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why different countries have been colour-coded in different colours; this seems unnecessary given that the numbers of screenings are also prominently displayed
Its just to make the map appealing in its look. A reader will be much more interested in a colorful map than in a bland grey map. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's confusing and unnecessary, especially as it then requires a bulky table below the map. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also prefer if the map used increasing gradations of only one colour. That way you know which is greater. Here we have to read index to know yellow is greater than green. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ra.One surpassed several records among Indian films for the volume of theatrical release." - this is a bit awkward
"was released in 550 selected screens" - why 'selected'? This seems a pretty big number
"Selected" is in reference to the total number of prints (which was 5,000). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Selected' implies that this was some kind of hand-picked arrangement, which doesn't appear to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kapoor could not attend the film's Toronto premiere due to a conflict with her scheduled appearance at Madame Tussauds London" - relevance?
It received a lot of attention because a prominent cast member was not attending an important premiere. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference, which is a very lightweight gossip article, devotes little more than a paragraph to this. I doubt many of the article's readers will be at all interested. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In March 2012, Ra.One faced allegations of receiving a favoured censor rating from the Board" - did anything come of these allegations?
Nothing has been reported as of now. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the producers were also charged with violating the rule of producers not meeting the Board officials during the censor screening" - this wording is awkward, and was this 'charge' a criminal proceeding?
Re-worded to "accused of". Its not a criminal proceeding as far as I know, but its a Board rule. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What was the end result of the proceedings launched by Yash Patnaik?
The entire matter seems to have gone off in hibernation. I believe that the deposit in the court was the final bit. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material in the 'India' sub-section of the 'Critical reception' section lacks specific citations. This sub-section is much too long, and could be reduced by at least a paragraph.
The citations had been moved to the table to get rid of a QUOTEFARM problem that repeatedly gets pointed out. I'll see if I can shorten further, though I had shortened this by one paragraph earlier as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the film began to show a lack of sustenance" - this is a bit awkward
"In overseas markets, the film debuted to the highest three-day and five-day opening weekends of 2011" - this seems an overstatement
Overstatement? Its cited. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't; that reference clearly refers to the overseas openings of Hindi films. Those figures are a tiny fraction of the actual highest figures (our List of highest-grossing openings for films article says that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was the highest-grossing opening for the year, and earned $483 million; this film made about $6 million) Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded. Btw, its around $26 million worldwide, not &6 million ;) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite a universally mixed reception" - things can't be 'universally mixed'
The article is LONG. I'm not sure what the norms are for FAs on films, but I found this to be heavy going. For instance, the number of people and companies who were involved in the production of this film who are name-checked feels excessive, and nothing about its production seems to have been left out.
You should have seen the version put up in the second FAC if you find this one long. I've done my best to summarize the article without losing comprehensiveness; its now at a balance where a deletion may result in loss of comprehensiveness. Is the length still so problematic? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; the article is still very 'flabby' and could be stripped back quite considerably. Many of the quotes could be removed, for instance, as they typically add little of value - many are obviously taken from interviews where the people involved in producing the film were promoting it (for instance, "With each scene, we were discovering the beauty and horror of the superpowers they [G.One and Ra.One] were equipped with. In a way, the script defined the characters and the extent of their larger-than-life appeal." is basically meaningless public relations speak). The names of the various individuals and firms involved in obscure tasks related to the film could also be stripped out; if people want to know who did this kind of thing they'll consult IMDB. Various bits of trivia could also be removed (Lady Gaga not attending the premiere as an obvious example). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this now ... ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the article's prose is written as if this was a news story or magazine article - for instance, there's lots of material on people 'announcing' aspects of the film; you can just say that this is what occurred. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see through it once. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a further question, have the sources for this article been spot-checked as part of the reviews? Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment Ref 34 is a deadlink. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Don't bracket ellipses unless there is an ellipsis in the source
"The major characters of Ra.One were essayed by" - clearer phrasing?
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the FA criteria. It is succinct and verified. I would like to have it at FA status before the film is out on DVD. Gak Blimby (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN1: page(s)?
Be consistent in when you provide publisher locations
Ranges should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know how hard it can be to get willing reviewers on pop culture articles. I'll take a look through.
"The film was one of the highest selling videos in the United States," That month? That year? Ever? This is sort of meaningless without context.
"Fifi Le Fume is obsessed with film actor Johnny Pew and manages to track him down at the hotel at which he is staying. Fifi meets Johnny and he offers for her to spend time with him by carrying his luggage." An obvious example of the choppier prose.
It's a disgrace, really. Done. Gak Blimby (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"TV Guide called" Again, avoid this sort of personification
"film was "superior to most TV fare", he called the film a" Semi-colon?
"Reviews ranged from positive to mixed." I'd say that some of them were worse than mixed...
"The VHS release of How I Spent My Vacation was one of the highest selling videos in the United states" See above; I'm not sure what this means.
Source 28 lacks a retrieval date. Source 21 looks incomplete.
Overall, while this makes an excellent good article, I do not feel that it is quite FA-ready yet. The prose feels very jumpy and choppy in places- the very last paragraph is a good example of this. Also, with this coming out on DVD soon, more material may become available- a review or two, perhaps some extra features on the DVD. I'd recommend waiting until then, updating the article as appropriate, and then finding someone willing to lend their eyes to the prose before renominating. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and your points are well-made. I'll make whatever fixes I can in the mean time. Gak Blimby (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Greetings. I believe this article on Microsoft Security Essentials has reached a level of quality that is expected of a Featured Article and may represent one of the best works of Wikipedia. Although I am not the main contributor of this article, I see the article has received a peer review and I do not see any of the issues mentioned in the peer review, thus I am assuming that they are resolved. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
Welcome to FAC, Lisa. Even though FleetCommand says they're retired, they edited the article 10 days ago, and they've got the most edits. Per FAC instructions, it would probably be best to leave a message on their talk page, even though they're claiming they're not reading it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dank. I took care of the message. I hope it is for the best. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to need some work on the prose; could someone check it for obvious typos? For instance, just in the first paragraph: "computer virus, spyware, rootkits and trojan horses" (viruses), and "but not on Windows 8 that comes with built-in antivirus component of its own". - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Prose isn't close to FAC standards, per comments here and below. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I contacted Dank on this talk page to revise his decision, now that his main concerns (i.e. "comments below") are addressed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping my oppose, since the problems I pointed out and the problems mentioned below seem to be fixed. I don't know enough about Wikipedia's software articles to be able to support. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jasper Deng
Well, this is what I see:
Well written: Contains some vague/non-professional language, but probably not enough to be a blocker.
Comprehensive: Very concise and detailed.
Well-researched: While the Softpedia references could be dropped, I don't see it as a blocker.
Neutral: Right on the mark
Stable: Since when have we had an edit war on this article?
Lead: No problems
Structure: No problems
Consistent citations:Some things are not sourced like the change in the MS stock, but this might not be a blocker.
Media: All images have NFCC rationales, and are not bigger than needed.
Length: Short enough, with the right amount of detail.
Thanks for the feedback. I see that you said "the change in the MS stock" is not sourced. However, if you mean "subsequently Microsoft shares grew by 2.1 percent", it is sourced. You see, the source is at the end of the paragraph, footnote [5]. It is an article by Jim Finkle.
Link Check - no DAB-links, no broken external links, however link 4 "Microsoft Software License Terms" does not link to the
license terms anymore, but to a customer-friendly summary information. The formal full license text can still be found at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products/security-essentials/eula.
Please check the external links with the link checker tool for other redirected links - most will be ok, but some may lead to a wrong new location. GermanJoe (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments, Oppose (for now) - i will try a complete check later. but the prose appears clunky at times, a lot of short facts without much context and flow between some of them. Some quick comments for now.
Linked internal sections in the lead, for example "elicited mixed response" links to the review section in the same article. The content list is directly below the lead, for all jumping needs :). The article content should be presented in a structured and logical order, so in-article jumps wouldn't be needed normally. Suggestion: remove the lead links to the same article and add necessary brief context information - the lead itself without any additional information must work as standalone-summary (see WP:LEAD).
The date calculation for release dates is probably a matter of taste, but the difference for initial release is too vague (2 years for more than 2,5).
"Features" - Sourcing the hardware requirements directly from Microsoft is problematic. Traditionally those requirements are measured too low or with completely unrealistic usage scenarions. Either specify "According to Microsoft ..." or even better, try to find a requirement statement from one of the independent reviewers and testers. In general try to source only the most basic, uncontroversial facts from Microsoft, everything else needs a reliable, independent source.
"Development" - statements "In 2005, Microsoft acquired security software firm Sybari of Hauppauge, New York, " and "and shortly thereafter released the Microsoft Forefront line of server security products.". The connection of both statements needs to made clearer, why was Sybari acquired? What role did the Sybari employees and knowledge play in developing MSE, if any?
"Morro" <-> "MSE", Morro is introduced in "Development", but its relation to MSE is explained only much later in "Industry response". All new terms need to be clarified at first occurence.
"Licensing" - "Hacking" - use the formal terms from the license agreement itself. Interpretation and paraphrasing don't work well with a contract. Only what is explicitly stated in the text counts as agreed.
"Licensing" - denial of enterprise usage, i couldn't find that clause in the text. Again only explicitly stated terms are parts of the license agreement (logically implied consequences may arise, but are not technically part of the license).
"Review" - "On 30 September 2011, a faulty definition update caused Microsoft Security Essentials to incorrectly tag Google Chrome as malware. The issue was resolved within three hours." has 4 sources. Even for controversial statements 2 (reliable) sources should suffice, pick the 2 best (check for similar instances with multiple sources).
As stated already, try to reread the prose once more or ask someone with two fresh eyes to check it. It's a good interesting article, but i feel, it's not quite at FA level yet. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GermanJoe. Thanks for the comments. I have address the problems you mentioned as follows:
Links to internal sections, as testified by article history, has been effective measures of maintaining article stability. In the past, zealous people have undeservedly put {{citation needed}} or {{advert}} in the lead without bothering to check with the body. (I trust you do know that lead section does not require inline citations.) I am open to suggestion of alternatives but this solution has proved itself.
Date calculation error stems from a problem in template {{start date and age}} and is noted in its template talk page. I have no power of fixing it. But I trust it will be eventually fixed. Nevertheless, is it really such a blocker?
Hardware requirements are only available from Microsoft. Others only copy and paste from Microsoft without crediting Microsoft.
Sybari problem is fixed. You are right: It was a fragment and is deleted.
Morro/MSE problem is fixed. I added a source to that effect.
Licensing problem (1) is fixed.
Licensing problem (2) is fixed.
As for the last issue, perhaps you do know the policy: Facts that are subject to more controversy or sentimentalism need more sources. This is one such fact. Article history and talk page testifies.
I will get someone else to see the article, but given what you said, I do not think the article issue are so grave that warrant a rejection. They can be fixed on the spur of the moment.
Some quick notes, only for the remaining points. Thanks for addressing the issues.
Links to internal sections - ok, i see your reasoning. I am not sure, what the majority position is, but it seems to be no dealbreaker in my opinion.
Date calculation - suggest 'Initial release' without template for now, but a minor style issue.
Hardware requirements - You should attribute "According to Microsoft ..." or similar directly in the article then. As party with a self-interest, Microsoft's informations have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Sourcing - see WP:RS and WP:V for more information. "Exceptional" statements need multiple sources, but the google chrome-statement simply tells us, what happened (unless i miss some controversial background). I don't see it as that exceptional. GermanJoe (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, this is Codename Lisa. All is done. I have fallen back to {{start date}}, which is another commonly used tag, added "according to Microsoft" and deleted two sources. And a sixth person accepted to look at the article. The result should come in here soon.
"It uses the same antivirus engine as that of the other Microsoft antivirus products"—I think you can remove "that of".
"It is supported on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 but not on Windows 8 that comes with built-in antivirus component of its own." I'd say comma after "7", and "8, which comes".
Not sure about "given ground": "Its popularity has given ground to the appearance of various rogue antivirus programs that imitate its name."—perhaps "has prompted"? Remove "of various". What do you mean by "imitate" here? Tony(talk) 09:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tony1
I think the new edits should satisfy you. Actually, "prompt" was not really the case since the popularity of an antivirus does not force anyone to create an impersonating rouge antivirus. Therefore, I changed the sentence structure altogether.
Comment (GermanJoe), i appreciate the effort put into this article, but after checking the first half of the article the prose is clearly not FA-level yet. I believe, there was too little time preparing the article for FA before nomination. The PR appears to have covered some problems, but the overall article would benefit from a complete, thorough check and rewrite of a few parts. Another problem is the current lead, which doesn't work well as complete article summary and a few differences between the article and it's supporting sources (haven't checked images or general source quality). Following a incomplete list of questions and open points:
lead
Is "MSE" the official or just a common inofficial abbrevation? If it is used often, it should be mentioned briefly.
"The announcement of Microsoft Security Essentials elicited mixed response from the antivirus industry, with some predicting its failure, some condemning it and some appreciating its potential for expanding users' choice of antivirus." ==> The second half of this sentence carries almost no specific information, it's all kept very general. Suggestion: rewrite that part with more (brief) detail and a little background:
"predicting its failure" and "condemning" could be condensed to "critizise" or "negative review" with some specific information, why the reactions were negative (f.e. critics suggested a weak antivirus search engine, just a "copy" of the former technique),
also the positive side could be more clear: how would MSE expand users choice exactly? (f.e. it would aim for users not currently having any antivirus software and low budget users).
"Despite this, Microsoft Security Essentials has received generally positive reviews." - Again too vague - briefly name 2-3 of the most praised features (details later in main text).
"On March 2012, it was the most popular antivirus software product in North America and the second most popular in the world." - the rating system or publisher for this should be mentioned. Also as exception: when using "most", "biggest", ...-phrases in lead, a immediate source is usually appropriate (same with quotes or statistic information). Other lead information can be sourced later in main article.
"Due its popularity, several rogue antivirus programs that try to impersonate it have appeared." - missing word, "Due to ...". Also while this is a logical assumption, you still need a source for it, otherwise it's WP:OR.
Features
"Microsoft Security Essentials is an antivirus product[s]." - typo
"It fights malware, malicious software that [are] harmful to a computer environment and its user, ..." - "and its users"? Of course indirectly by damaging their computer environment, but (directly) "harmful to users" sounds odd in that context. Also "malware" and "software" are usually singular form (unless you specifically refer to separate, distinct pieces of malware or software).
" ... including Forefront Endpoint Protection, System Center Endpoint Protection, Windows Intune Endpoint Protection, Windows Live OneCare and Windows Defender." - offtopic for the MSE article, no need to list the whole product family, especially as most readers won't know, what the article is talking about here.
"Microsoft Security Essentials disables Windows Defender, since Microsoft Security Essentials also provides protection against spyware and adware." - not covered by source, the source only says "MSE replaces Windows Defender ..." (as a software product).
"By default, the contents of archived files are scanned. File downloads and e-mail attachments are also scanned." - If the second sentence is also "by default", the 2 phrases could be combined in one, try to avoid too short sentences.
"Its Dynamic Signature Service attempts to better identify malicious files by checking for updates if an application exhibits suspicious behavior." - "Its" should be "MSE's", as the subject changed meanwhile. Also "Dynamic Signature Service" is an unclear technical term. Every time an application is suspicous, the DSS looks for updates? I assume, it's only every time, when a suspicous application without matching virus signature is found. Otherwise the checking would be awfully slow.
" ... of the antivirus." - missing word, antivirus software.
"Also depending ..." - Avoid "also" as much as possible, in most cases it can be removed without problems.
"...a day to Microsoft Update." - new technical term, brief qualifier for "Microsoft Update" needed (for the 2-3 people, who don't own a MS operating system).
" ... Microsoft Security Portal" - again new term, brief descriptor needed.
Check other Microsoft-related terms throughout the article and make sure, they are briefly introduced and linked if available at first mention.
Development
Was the first release called "Version 1.0"? Just checking, if yes, maybe worth mentioning.
"Morro would be free for all genuine installations of Windows not intended for business use (with an exception for small home based businesses) and offers protection against all types of malware.[15]" - source 15 (BBC) does not match this information, needs a thorough recheck and a different source.
"Version 2 can also integrate with Internet Explorer to protect users against web-based threats.[20][21][22][23][24]" Several points:
Does it work with all versions of Internet Explorer or is a minimum IE version required?
"integrate with" is a bit awkward, it's not a part of IE - maybe "can support Internet Explorer to ...".
What types of web-based threats (phishing, cookies, scripts, ...)?
why 5 sources? none of the statements sounds controversial or extraordinary. If they source different parts of the paragraph, try to move them to the related sentences.
"A version 3.0 was never released." - More detail, or let's remove that part (it's obvious from the version list). It is too short and abrupt to work as introduction sentence for a paragraph.
"According to Softpedia, Windows 8 Setup [demands] Microsoft Security Essentials to be uninstalled before upgrading Windows 7." - "demand" is too strong here. Either "asks" or "prompts the user to uninstall ..." would work better.
Licensing
"...or to disclose the results of benchmark tests of this software product to third parties without prior written approval from Microsoft Corporation." - not covered in source, the license agreement (i couldn't find it atleast).
"...[may] cease to operate after a period of time." - The image caption says "...[will] cease to operate ...". Should be consistant. If it's "may cease" it would be interesting to know, in which cases the software does continue even without genuine OS (?).
I'm sorry, if those points sound negative. They are purely meant as positive criticism to help with improving the article. GermanJoe (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe asking for withdrawal is very fair, considering that this does not take more than like 15 minutes to fix.--Jasper Deng(talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, German Joe
I just arrived and took a look at your review and frankly I must say some of your suggestions are grammatically and factually wrong. I only mention three because I believe time and effort should be dedicated to the article, not your review.
You said: " ... of the antivirus." - missing word, antivirus software. Wrong! "The antivirus" refers to Microsoft Security Essential. "The antivirus software" would refer to all antivirus computer programs collectively.
You said: not covered by source, the source only says "MSE replaces Windows Defender ..." (as a software product). Wrong! The source says: "MSE replaces Windows Defender, by the way, since it provides a superset of Defender's capabilities."
You said: "demand" is too strong here. Either "asks" or "prompts the user to uninstall ..." would work better. "Ask" and "prompt" are contextually wrong and too weak for our purpose. It demands and strongly so. It is either Windows Setup's way or highway.
I am getting to work. Help just arrived. In the mean time however, please convert your bulleted list into s numbered list, so we know what we are talking about.
Fixed but there is no source on how widespread its use is
Fixed
Fixed
Partly fixed. For the sake of style consistency, as long as there are inline links, no inline citation will be provided.
Fixed. Has source.
Features:
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed by enforcing consistent use of the word "antivirus" as a modifier or subject complement
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed - at least I think so
Acknowledged
Development:
Reporting affirmative. And sorry, I don't think so.
Fixed
No source available
This word comes from sources. Changing it would be risky because they do not elaborate on the nature of the integration.
No source available to answer.
Improved but all sources remained. Yes, I think all five are necessary and more is needed, because has it been only one or two, I would have been the first to dispute the sources and say "yes, they are generally reliable sources but this time they have dropped the ball." Just see how the sources are unable to address your three questions above. Even with all these sources, the whole story look like sensational journalism. Alas, Wikipedia is about verifiability not logic.
Partially fixed. If I remove that, I have spend the rest of my life answering "what happened to v3?" because there seems to be general consensus around Wikipedia that if there is a version hop, it must be mentioned. Due to lack of source, it cannot be expanded. The only source I found is this: http://confidentialfiles.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/microsoft-security-essentials-why-jump-from-2-to-4/ But do you warrant putting it into the article as a source?
I know, a review can be frustrating, but the mentioned issues are not meant to put down the article as a whole (i would be glad to support after a prose overhaul and some additional preparations before FA). Anyway a quick response to your points (in the same order):
"antivirus" is a modifier (see World English or Oxford Dictionary). I am aware that advertising texts and reviews sometimes use it shorthand as full noun, but formally it's "antivirus software", no matter if a single software or the whole type of software is referred to.
"Disable" and "replace" mean two different things. And the source text talks about replacement.
OK. I updated this point in the list. GermanJoe (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Codename Lisa here. Apart from the fact that "antivirus" as a modifier can act as subject complement, using "antivirus software" in this context is misleading. Apart from that, dictionaries quickly grow old and are therefore the most unreliable source of writing style. There are a lot of words that we use that do not appear in dictionary. While three most reputable OSes now use the term "app", it is nowhere in dictionaries. Regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am not frustrated; in fact I am glad that article is receiving the well-deserved feedback it did not receive during PR. On the whole I think this article is destined to become featured, either now or later. Regards. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a positive note the remaining article after licensing has a better flow, less singular facts are just "listed". Please keep us posted, when the prose check throughout the whole article is done. A few more minor points:
Industry response "Tom Powledge of Symantec claimed OneCare offered "substandard protection" and an "inferior user experience", implying Microsoft Security Essentials would be the same." - the implication is obvious, but Wikipedia can't state it without a 3rd party source. Suggest to remove the ".. implying part", the reader will draw his own conclusions anyway.
reviews "AV-TEST.org tested and certified Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 [as?] on March 2011." - name of the certificate would be good here
"... on March 2011. Despite having received the certificate, this [product] ..." - "this product version" would be a bit clearer, the same product gets better with updates, as described later.
Regarding withdrawal or not, i still believe the article was nominated a bit early and the prose needs more work, but the delegates decide finally on their own discretion. Thank you for adressing the mentioned issues and for implementing some of the suggestions. Especially the lead reads better now and contains more information. GermanJoe (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I have added topic sentence to nearly all paragraphs I copy-edited and will keep doing so. Topic sentences summarize the paragraph and therefore do not have an immediate footnote of their own. Yet, their verifiability is my top priority.
Now, as for you #2 comment above, the certificate name is AV-TEST.org certificate. Are you sure it is needed? But I will explain what it certify.
I was thinking of some impressive sounding certificate titles as for Windows developers or SAP certificates, but if it's simply "AV-TEST certificate" (i like that actually, no marketing fluff), there's no need to elaborate that further. GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, GermanJoe
Okay, this time it took longer but it is done. What do you think now? Still you think the prose is not FA material?
More Comments - the article has been improved considerably, however there are still some more points:
Lead "OPSWAT" - first mention, a brief qualifier would be good. "data provider"?
"Windows 8" throughout the article - the sub-article uses future tense for all Windows 8 features, which seems more appropriate. From the average customers' point of view Windows 8 is not yet released.
Try to avoid similar "listy" sentence structures close to each other, f.e. "It ... . It .... . It ...." (1st para of lead and section "features") - a minor point, but some variety in phrasings will help to improve general prose flow. When possible, try to replace MSE or "it" with a fitting synonym (f.e. last para of "Features" uses only MSE as subject 6 times without any variety).
Features "...the web-based [service] software update service." - first service is redundant.
Development "... focused on the 50 to 60 percent [of PC users] who don't have, or won't pay for, antivirus protection, antimalware protection" - The quote's abrupt stop reads odd. The whole quote is taken verbatim from the source, but maybe add " [...]" to indicate, that the sentence is not finished here.
"...Microsoft quietly released the second version" - Is "quietly" without advertisement or without any official press information or without any information at all? Better to use a more specific description.
Reception "The antivirus industry [also] ..." - say no to "also" :), almost always superfluous.
"after announcing an upcoming [a] beta version ... " - grammar.
"AV-TEST.org tested Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 on March 2011 [] certified" - missing word "and".
"Report detail shows ..." - "Report details show ..." assuming it was a set of data, not one single fact.
"Since March 2011, Microsoft Security Essentials [is] tested and certified ..." - "was" or "has been" tested, as the text refers to the separate test runs in the past.
"... new/unknown ..." - MOS advices against "/"-constructions, better to spell it out
"... low false-positives (six) ..." - "(only six occurrences)" would read slightly better. Per MOS: try to limit brackets to the absolutely necessary.
"Microsoft Security Essentials v2.0 was released shortly thereafter." - Redundant information, see section with versions. I assume this info is added to explain, why 1.0 was still used for testing in December. To clarify the context maybe: "Microsoft Security Essentials v2.0 was released shortly thereafter, thus it could not be included in the December 2010-tests." or similar.
"On 8 June 2011, PC Advisor listed Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 in its article Five of the Best Free Security Suites, which included Avast! 6 Free Edition, Comodo Antivirus 5.4, AVG Antivirus 2011 and BitDefender Total Security 2012 Beta." - Are test results available? Why was MSE chosen among the top 5? Brief summary would be enough.
After that round of nitpicking a few general remarks:
"technical" checks like source check and image check are still needed (best by some yet uninvolved reviewer).
The internal lead-linking within the article is ok by me, but would be good to double-check MOS-compliance by another reviewer with more MOS-experience.
The FA-criteria 1a calls for "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", which is probably one of the hardest hurdles to overcome. In my opinion another reviewer -ideally with experience in IT-articles or a GOCE member- is needed to do a thorough, full copy-edit. It's great, that the article is improving on several aspects, but the overall prose is still only "OK or good" and is very hard to raise to "engaging or excellent" with a point by point review. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Here is what I did:
Fixed.
Um, I don't quite understand you.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed. But Odd? Unfinished?
It means both. But I am out of ideas for a better phrase. Any suggestion?
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed. No, you are right. It was not redundant in the past but it is now.
Actually, I meant to ask you about this. You see, the editors seem to have liked all that the article explains. It does not offer any quantified reason for listing Microsoft Security Essentials on top. The only thing that has prevented me from deleting this is the fact that it is an independent observation.
Look, I am not feeling well now. Must go the hospital. If I didn't come back after ... I don't know, some reasonable time ... please do me a favor and perform the withdrawal and closure procedures. Oh, and please check if I have missed any fix. (Maybe I intended but due headache, actually forgot committing the fix.)
I hope, you feel better soon - health is certainly more important than some Wiki-article. Some clarification for the remaining points:
point 2: Windows 8 is not yet a finalized, released product - in that sense you can (and probably should) use future tense to describe its features. Of course the final product will have the same features as a pre-release, but technically we can't be 100% sure of that.
point 6: Refs. 21 and 22 don't say anything specific about the release method, if you want to stay close to the sources, they describe another (after 1.0) limited beta phase (for the same countries again).
point 15: The source has several reasons for the top 5 rating, it is probably just difficult to summarize them. In general for all 5 it's "being free" and "working well", the latter is specified for MSE with "protection against a wide range of malware", "realtime protection" and "regular virus definition updates". GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
For the time being, I have a laptop and I can be in communication but for a while, no more spending long hours reading and re-reading the article and sources. For now:
P2: Ooooh, I am afraid that is going have serious issues with WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. From a neutral point of view, Windows 8 is now available to general public via the Internet and has an antivirus component. What is written about Microsoft Security Essentials in Windows 8 is what is verified on the available releases of Windows 8 (through sources, of course). As for the future, we cannot tell until it becomes present. We can quote a Microsoft statement about a future promise, but only when such a statement is important beyond its weight as a promise. But if you are not satisfied, let's have a third opinion on this. Jasper Deng? Dank?
P6: Is it my headache or do we have a paradigm shift here? I think point 6 was about the word "quietly" which you thought must be clarified. This word is mentioned in [23] and [24]. During my study of the article sources and Binging, I often thought "Wow! MSE 2 must have been released very quietly. No ad, no PR, no nothing..." Then, I realized that two of the sources have thought what I thought. So, I put it there. Perhaps, we should move the word "quietly" out of the topic sentence, where it can be directly attributed to [23] and [24].
P15: I guess you are right there. I'll have a go with that in the future. I hope I could ask someone to take care of it.
P2 and P6, background of both points understood, thanks for your clarification. Windows 8 will not use MSE, i think that's uncontroversial as a fact and will not change. With that in mind, the current handling should be ok. It would be nice to have more details for "quietly", but of course the article can only use existing info, no problem with that. GermanJoe (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GermanJoe
After some consideration, I finally decided to go ahead and address P15 by deleting the paragraph. You after reading the PC Advisor article one last time, I realized that the article has one problem too many and is not worthy mention in a Featured Article. For one thing, the article refers to "best security suites", whereas none of the participants except the last are security suites. (They are antivirus products.) For another, they have also chosen Comodo Antivirus, which is an awful antivirus product that has times and again failed VB.100 tests. I think any average computer-literate user knows that Avira Antivir is a much better choice for that position. Overall, I think that article is produced in a hurry.
Nevertheless, I am open to a third opinion.
Are there any more issues left? (I am a little muddle-headed now, I am prone to forget.)
The specific points mentioned seem to be all addressed, thank you. However i would like to wait for other uninvolved copy-editors and/or reviewers to check the prose and offer their opinion (see my "general remarks" of June 8). I have this site on watchlist and will check back in, if needed. (i completely agree with your assessment of the top 5-source article, best to focus on the more specific MSE reviews.) GermanJoe (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) I'll do some minor copy-edits to keep me busy. Please check and revert/tweak, when you think something got worse. Often prose problems occur with short stubby sentences, repetitive phrasing or convoluted structures with too many sub-clauses. However i am not that experienced in copy-editing, a GOCE-member would be much more qualified. GermanJoe (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I have been tracking it now. Most of them are good but I am afraid the last three are very tacky.
1: "Microsoft announced a number of over 30 million users for its product" – it's not English really; it's odd. Definitely not professional or engaging.
2: Okay, I don't remember what was the last time I saw a colon being used for inline attribution in English. In a couple of other languages, yes, but English? I don't remember.
Pt. 1 and 2 - go ahead and tweak them please, that's why i put up a disclaimer of my editing skills :). Thanks for catching and improving those points. I struggled to get the "Microsoft announced"-part neatly into the first structure, with Microsoft and Microsoft Software Essentials close to each other. Point 2: i have seen colons for inline attribution several times in articles (it's a nice change to "According to ...", when it's not overused). Point 3 is a case of "two independent sentences with a close connection to each other" - a matter of style, but certainly worth a semicolon. GermanJoe (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I'll be discharged on Monday; until then, I won't be able to edit Wikipedia anytime I want. But thanks.
On behalf of the contributors to Metz article, I am submitting the article for featuring for the first time. Indeed, we believe that the article is of interest to the readership of wikipedia and meets the criteria required for such nomination.
Strong oppose per criteria 1c. There are many unsourced comments. To show a couple:
A group of crusaders entered Metz and forced the important Jewish community of the city to convert to catholicism, killing 22 people who refused baptism.
As a historic Garrison town, Metz has also been largely influenced by military architecture throughout its history. The city is famous for its yellow limestone architecture, due to the extensive use of the Jaumont stone, and gained recognition for its pioneering, innovative urban ecology policy.
Also, there are sections with only single sources. Looking at the talk page, the article is only C-class. I suggest you put in the article as a Good article nominee before attempting the FA. A peer review may be beneficial. Regards. JZCL 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reviewing. However, the given examples are referenced either in the sentence right before (about the massacres during the first crusade and about the architecture) or in the extending text below about the subject (see section city scape-urban planning and city scape-military architecture). All sources are given avoiding excessive repetitions in the reference section, but the text is seen as an integrated whole. Finally, the talk page doesn't mention the recent, large improvements of the article. I guess your comment is the early end point of the featuring process (with a strong oppose), but in my opinion, the reviewing should be based on the full, careful reading of the article on its own. Nonetheless, good comment about the per review. Sincerely yours. Alcide Bava57 21:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Several of the book refs have no page numbers and the ones that seem to be in French don't have the |language=French parameter.PumpkinSkytalk 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not doing a full review, but some general comments for possible improvements:
Lead second para - The listing of historical periods should provide more factual information and context - even if it doubles the size then. Maybe skip 1-2 less interesting periods and provide more background for the remaining ones. Avoid pure lists, whenever possible.
Tone - "Tremendous", "boasts", "world-class". Try to avoid too colorful language, state facts as neutral as possible.
Lead 4th and 5th para - not strictly the same topic, but would look better combined in 1 para.
section headers - avoid using the article title in section headers (there is a MOS-rule against it, but i am too lazy to look it up ;) ).
Etymology - all terms could use a timeline. If an exact time is not available, maybe a source offers atleast an approximate period, when the terms were commonly used.
"In ancient times, the town was known as "city of Mediomatrici" being inhabited by the tribe." ==> missing word, "... of the same name." or something similar.
"During the 5th century AD, the name is abbreviated in "Mettis", ..." ==> "abbreviated" seems to be the wrong term here, this process has a special etymological term. Please check a RS.
History - "making the town [as] its principal oppidum." ==> grammar
"The Celtic Mediomatrici tribe inhabited the land surrounding the town from 450 BC until the Roman conquest, ..." ==> What happened with the tribe - did it migrate elsewhere or was it assimilated? In general: try to combine separate facts with some context to get a more narrative prose.
"One of the last Roman strongholds to surrender to the Germanic tribes, the city was nonetheless captured by the Huns of Attila in 451.[23]..." ==> Metz surrendered to Alemanni and Franks, but the Huns captured it? A summary history can't have every detail, but this sentence is confusing without a little more information (a specific date for the first surrender would probably clarify the situation).
"The reign of Queen Brunhilda imbued [specially] the town with great splendor." ==> grammar, also "great splendor" is far too enthusiastic (replace with factual info, what the Queen really added to Metz). Check for similar tone problems throughout.
Politics "As every commune[s] ..." ==> typo
City administrative divisions - a map of those divisions would be "nice to have". Also the listing could be improved with more background information (1-2 typical features of each division). The addition of tourist destinations per division feels unencyclopedic.
Transportations - Waterways ==> Does Metz have a river port or just a marina for smaller ships? Is the marina/port really part of the city's "transportation" system?
Main Sights - each section would read a lot better in prose instead of listings. I also suggest to reduce the number of objects to 3-5 per section, but provide more background facts for each building (briefly). You could also drop the sub-section headers, when you have 1 para per type of building.
Notable people linked to Metz ==> empty section? When you want to keep the list-link, consider creating a "see also"-section with some interesting links to additional Metz information.
International relations "Metz is a [fellow] member of the QuattroPole(FR)(DE)" ==> "fellow" doesn't fit here, also "QuattroPole" could use a red link (as a possible new article).
"[The] Metz is also twin town with:" ==> grammar, "also" can be dropped - check for "also", "however" and similar filler phrases. Most times they can be removed without loosing meaning.
I have only briefly skimmed the text, so will abstain from a formal vote. But the article seems to have some basic issues (mainly organisation, tone and listy prose), which need more work. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this great reviewing. I made some corrections in that direction (integrating the previous comments too) in order to improve the article. However, I don't think I can technically do all of them. Again, many thanks.
Hello Bava Alcide57, please remember to finish your comments with 4 tildes to add your userID. Glad i could help with some points, but i believe, that JZCL's suggestion to get more input with a peer review and good article nomination first is the best way to continue. Not to discourage you and the other contributors, but the article has still some way to go before FA-level - most structuring and polishing should already be done before nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but the lack of sources in some places, as mentioned before, is a deal-breaker for me. I also am unsure about the level of the writing, if this is any indication: "The Metz Handball is a Team Handball club is the current French women's champion and displaying 17 wins in French Woman First League championship, 7 wins in French Women League Cup, and 4 wins in French Women F.A. Cup." Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, suggest peer review to gain further suggestions for improvement. Some comments:
Referencing format is quite inconsistent. Book sources should include page numbers, web sources should include publishers
Captions need editing for grammar. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Article text needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "an ambitious policy of the tourism development"
As France does not have freedom of panorama, all images that depict three-dimensional works (including buildings) need to account for the copyright of both the photo and the work itself
Images tagged with life+70 also need a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments. This candidate is poorly prepared and, having read the article I fully agree with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
22 cites from one magazine article (authoritative though it may be), nary a hardcover book cite in sight, though google books assures me they exist. Please reassure me that disdaining all those hardcover books is an acceptable approach– for example,do your sources cover the topic as fully/broadly as is necessary... forex, Spinardi, Graham (1994) From Polaris to Trident: The Development of Us Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology published by CUP, a premier publisher, has a chapter on STRAT-X. The first few sentences mention Lloyd Wilson, WS-120A...not mentioned in this article.. I'm sure there are many more books, and many more details... your thoughts? – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You know, I'm sorry, I didn't express myself well. I wasn't specifically asking for that info to be added (although I appreciate it if you did; will look in a moment). . I was wondering if you had brought enough quality sources to bear on the issue.– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have Nick's concerns at this article's A-class review been addressed? The other reviewers dealt with mainly technical concerns, such as prose and spotchecks. I'm not a cold war historian, but the little that I've read gives me some of the same concerns that Nick had. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose I wasn't going to review this article as I'm going to be out of town for a week, but in light of Dan and Phil's comments, I'll do so:
The claim that the ABM system around Moscow mitigated "the threat posed by American ICBMs" is an over-statement, especially given that only a single warhead needed to reach the city to devastate it. It certainly doesn't justify the very strong sentence which follows this ("This undermined the concept of nuclear deterrence by negating the United States' ability to effectively retaliate in the event of a Soviet preemptive strike, thus making such an event a more viable option for Soviet defense planners.") which doesn't seem credible. Even if the Soviets had somehow managed to protect Moscow (which is unlikely given that the US - and British, and French - could have easily overwhelmed the defences, even if they'd worked), the US would have still crippled the Soviet Union within minutes in a nuclear war, so the deterrence was not really affected. France and Britain placed a strong emphasis on being able to destroy Moscow, but this was because they needed to be able to deter the Soviet Union with small numbers of nuclear missiles.
"According to Graham Spinardi in his book From Polaris to Trident (1994), STRAT-X was a response by the U.S. Department of Defense's Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Lloyd Wilson, to the U.S. Air Force, which was demanding a large ICBM called the WS-120A" - this sentence is difficult to follow
"while only 50 out of the original 100 Peacekeeper missiles were fielded before Peacekeeper was retired." - this reads awkwardly
"Ohio-class submarines and Trident missiles were still in service as of 2011" - needs to be updated
As I noted in the ACR, I'm pretty sure that the deployment of the systems proposed in this study attracted criticism. I can't recommend any references on this, but I'd suggest that you visit a major university library and look through its section on nuclear weapons and defence policy of the 1980s - the deployment of new nuclear weapons in the 1980s caused a significant amount of public debate.
I still don't buy the claim that this was "one of the most influential analyses ever conducted" for the U.S. Department of Defense, but I guess that's what the source says. It would be worth digging through academic journals for critical views of the plan and/or its individual components, however.
The last sentence of the article attributes the deployment of air-launched cruise missiles to this plan, yet this isn't mentioned previously in the article. Given that these weapons actually entered service (in huge numbers) and were (I think) controversial this should be covered in the article in detail.
Given the timeframe, I suspect that there was some relationship to this planning effort to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons which formed part of an integrated strategy and the implementation of the Single Integrated Operational Plan a few years previously. Do any of the sources comment on this? Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing
Simplified.
Clarified.
Updated. The claim is not controversial, so no references are provided.
Doing.
Searching for sources.
Not a lot of references were directed towards the air-launched cruiser missile. As a result, I wouldn't go into detail about it or somebody would accuse me of adding undue weight to a comparitively minor aspect.
Seems to be a problem with image formatting in the infobox atm?
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Gallery has one image in second row, creating a lot of whitespace on my screen
File:Robert_McNamara_at_a_cabinet_meeting,_22_Nov_1967.jpg: according to our article on the subject, the WHPO is not part of the Executive Office - can you review licensing here? I have no idea whether our article is accurate or not. Also, the source link wouldn't open for me
File:Maxwell_D_Taylor_official_portrait.jpg: the source link provided includes the image, but AFAICS does not identify its creator or copyright status
File:Trident_II_missile_image.jpg: first source link is dead, second redirects to home page
File:USS_Henry_M._Jackson_(SSBN-730)2.jpg: source link is dead
File:MMIII_C5_airdrop(Oct_1974).jpg: does this have an archive catalogue or ID number? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to use one image.
Done.
That depends on the width of your screen.
Image removed.
See below.
I have no idea what to do. Would you like me to remove it?
The third link contains the image. Image replaced.
Comment is it possible to lengthen the article to cover more of the details of the review? There's only a one sentence mention of the 'Red Force' 'Soviet' arguments, for example, and nothing on the impartiality or otherwise of the review panel (executives of rocket engine companies? the mind boggles!). Also, it would be good to get more detail on each option, SIOP needs to be tied in, and the references to ALCMs definitely need to be expanded; they caused huge political debate in Europe in the 1980s ('Send Reagan on a Cruise') - see RAF Greenham Common and other articles. Buckshot06(talk) 04:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mary_I_Signature.svg: where was this image taken from?
File:Coat_of_Arms_of_England_(1554-1558).svg: on what source was this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested further details from the uploaders. I can say:
The first word of the signature matches copies of her signature at the Bridgeman Art Library [37][38].
The shield, supporters and garter of the coat of arms matches, in the essential points, an eighteenth-century depiction in Trinity College, Oxford. For the shield and garter in a contemporary artwork see [39][40] (and for a damaged version [41]). For a version of the shield only see [42]. DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some textual sources to collaborate the images above: Charles Boutell, A manual of heraldry, historical and popular (1863), p.235: "Mary's shield when impaled is supported by an Eagle and a Lion". And, J.P. Brooke-Little, Royal Heraldry, Beasts and Badges of Britain (1977), p.9: "King Henry VIII, like his father, did not just use two supporters. He rang the changes but generally favored the crowned golden lion as his dexter and the red dragon as his sinister supporters, which is probably why King Edward VI, Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I, [...], all used these supporters; except that Mary, when bearing her arms conjoined to those of King Philip gave her husband his black eagle...". Will try and add some more later. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support (tentatively) on prose and comprehensiveness grounds, nothing is jumping out at me as a gap in knowledge or deal-breaker prose - reading through now - queries below....Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For flow, I'd put her date and place of birth in the Birth and family bit - sorta just launches into a bunch of miscarriages otherwise.
Circumstances between Mary and her father worsened - odd choice of word, I'd have said, "Relations between Mary and her father worsened" or "The relationship between Mary and her father worsened"....
Her expenses included fine clothes and gambling, which was one of her favourite pastimes - no mention of what type of gambling....?
Cool - I wonder what type of card game, but don't worry if not in the source. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I'm afraid I can't find anything on the specific game or games played. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with Johnbod's concern about brevity below - I was in two minds whether to mention something myself, only I couldn't identify anything specific which was missing. Good luck on adding stuff (I think it'll be straightforward) and I'll keep an eye on this FAC. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starting comments (& not sure when I'll be able to finish them). On first look, seems over-brief for an FA bio of an English monarch from this well-documented period. I think I know more than this from a decades-old History A-Level & a couple of tv programmes over the years, which ought not to be the case. But I have an unread Loades "The Reign of Mary Tudor" on the politics - little sign here of how he manages to find 400 pages of material. Looking at an older version, I see references, eg to Loades' biography (a different book), have been added, but the text appears very little altered.
Don't make the reader do arithmetic: "Mary I (18 February 1516 – 17 November 1558) was the Queen of England and Ireland from July 1553 until her death." Which was .... how long exactly?
It says "her five year reign". DrKiernan (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two paras later. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: "... her cousin Charles V suggested she marry his only son, Prince Philip of Spain." who was .... a lot younger than her at 37, a rather key point. You'd have to go to his article for his dates I think, & I don't believe her age at accession or marriage etc is given. He is given very little introduction. I see, btw, that his bio seems the opposite of this - very long on politics, but very short on personal life.
In the words of Simon Renard, Philip "was of middle age", and therefore suitable to be her husband. DrKiernan (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was a diplomat; Philip was 27 at his marriage. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were both mature adults between youth and dotage. I'm simply not seeing any great coverage of the age difference in the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Titian portrait sent ahead by Philip was this one, now in the Prado, which at least the note should say. In fact I see that 13 months ago the location was in the text, & referenced (perhaps by me).
Oppose I just don't think this is comprehensive enough. I am about to go away & probably won't revist, but a significant expansion would be needed to reach FA standard imo, which I think is unlikely to occur while this FA is open. In particular, the lead is too short, & the single sentence in the "Ancestry" section should be worked in somewhere else if it is thought important. The sections before she reaches the throne are probably ok, but even for a short reign the coverage is too short, beginning with the battle for the accession. The article gives the impression that Lady Jane Grey was let off the hook, which she wasn't. There's too little about her council - which had much more continuity with the previous reign than one might expect. Not much impression is given of her personality, indeed a difficult topic. A faint whiff of Protestant POV - "Many rich Protestants, including John Foxe, chose exile, and around 800 left the country" - but how many Catholics came back, or left under Elizabeth? And "At age 37, Mary turned her attention to finding a husband and producing an heir, thus preventing the Protestant Elizabeth (still her successor under the terms of Henry VIII's will and the Act of Succession of 1544) from succeeding to the throne." Did she really see it just in those terms? The reign was evidently a PR disaster, but there is more to it than "Mary persevered with the policy, which continued until her death and exacerbated anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish feeling among the English people." Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
On the "male heir" thing, your rewording is fine, DrKiernan.
"In contradiction of the Succession Act": Maybe "Ignoring", "Flouting", or "In contravention of"
"Edward VI and his advisers devised that he be succeeded": "advisers devised" kind of jangles. Also, some know and some don't that "devise" is a legal term analogous to "bequeath", so this sentence will mean something different to some readers.
"but his view of the affair was entirely political": I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit. Changes on the three points above. I've removed "his view of the affair was entirely political", as it is repeated in the next sentence: "He had no amorous feelings toward Mary and sought the marriage for its political and strategic gains". DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article explains an important modern cultural phenomenon. The use of social media technology like Twitter for marketing has major commercial and marketing implications, and has recently been the subject of academic inquiry in a number of disciplines. The Wikipedia has a shortage of high quality articles on commercial subjects. We believe that this article meets the featured article criteria. It is fully and amply sourced from a variety of reliable sources, including academic and mainstream news articles. It has passed a careful and painstaking Good Article nomination, and has appeared on the the front page as a Did You Know?
As the editor who passed the GAN for this, I have to say that I don't see it becoming FA status. ⇒TAP 21:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You maybe be correct, but please heed the reviewing instructions at the top of WP:FAC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More simply; I shall recuse myself from this. ⇒TAP 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your GA review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk)
Having been alerted to this in an email (conversationally, not seeking any action on my part), I don't think the prose is FA standard. Also, the section markers seem more or less arbitrary, I am not sure they are a guide to the reader in seeking to find content. Urge the nominators to consider withdrawal and a PR. Not opposing merely because I don't want my oppose to hit the noms with a fifteen-day penalty.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated a few minutes ago. Your email obviously works a lot better than mine. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the article, but please, let's all follow Wehwalt's example and try to keep this discussion centered around whether the article meet the WP:WIAFA criteria--not what we personally like or don't like to read about on Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question If the goal is discussing Twitter as social marketing, why isn't an article on "Twitter as a means of social marketing" at FAC instead of one of the multitude of "Pop icon on twitter" articles? Such an article would be far more informative, useful, and likely to meet FA criteria.PumpkinSkytalk 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because nobody wrote it. :) However case studies are a common tool in marketing. I think this this article will be greatly appreciated by marketers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref issue
Contains two definitions of the named ref "biebstwits32" and four "/" invocations:
<ref name=biebstwits32>{{cite news|url=http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/dangerous-creature-justin-bieber-bungyjumps-in-new-zealand-20100428-tr4g.html |title=Justin Bieber Bungy-Jumps In New Zealand: Pictures, Photos |newspaper=[[The Age]] |date=28 April 2010 |accessdate=24 April 2012 |location=Melbourne}}</ref>
<ref name=biebstwits32>{{cite news|url=http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/justin-bieber-hits-back-at-costars-claim-hes-a-brat-20110510-1egb8.html |title=Justin Bieber denies he's a brat |newspaper=[[The Age]] |date=10 May 2011 |accessdate=24 April 2012 |location=Melbourne}}</ref>
<ref name=biebstwits32/>
The second definition is simply omitted from the rendered article; they are all collated together using the first definition; see here. The first ref is presumably correct. The second could be fixed by simply renaming it. It is not clear which the "/" invocations should really be linking to without a review of both the article content and the sources.
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup; fix here. Since I posted the above, two further instances of duplicate named refs and fully duplicated references definitions were added (didn't look to see where); I was able fix them. This is a very common problem that can be identified by proper use of the WP:REFTOOLBAR, which is on everyone's toolbar (some configuration recommended). Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed another issue. The TV Guide cite "Justin Bieber Accounts for 3 Percent of All Twitter Traffic" was defined twice as two different named refs; see here and here. The duplicates were even used consecutively (here). I'm gonna work on the MacArthur articles, now ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for the following reasons:
The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. It also needs to be rewritten to flow a lot better.
Reading the sections from paragraph to paragraph, it is very hard to follow, as it seems that random facts are strewn all over the place with no sign of cohesiveness.
Bieber is a self-declared Twitter addict, The closest I can find according to the reference is ...and apparently can't quit with the Twitter. I'm not seeing where it says, or even implies, that Bieber is a self-declared Twitter addict.
Changed to "called a twitter addict" Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An extensive copyedit is needed, as there are grammar errors all over the place. Some examples include the following:
Ashton Kutcher first learned of Bieber through Twitter and Charlie Sheen accidentally shared his phone number with the world while trying to direct message to Bieber. - Kutcher first learned of Bieber through Twitter and Charlie Sheen?
...which resulted in James A. Roppo, attached to Bieber's record company, being arrested because he failed to post an update... - Again, change to something like "the arrest of James A. Roppo" instead of "James A. Roppo being arrested".
Bieber is a self-declared Twitter addict, joining on 28 March 2009, a month after his mother. - You're trying to jam two completely unrelated and separate statements into one sentence (i.e. his being a Twitter addict and when he joined). Move the "self-declared Twitter addict" part somewhere else in the section.
His decisions regarding which followers to retweet is, in his words, "kind of, like, it's random". - The subject of the sentence is decisions, which is plural. That means the verb has to be are and not is.
MOS:LQ is not consistently followed; compare "kind of, like, it's random". with "all roads lead to Justin Bieber."
Compared, but it's correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One example of this is a tweet from October 2009, when he tweeted "If you could give to any charity, what would it be?" - I believe there should be a colon after "tweeted". There are also many others like this.
Paragraphing is all over the place. Compare the paragraph structure in the "Introduction" section (which is fine) with all the other sections. There shouldn't be paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long. The "Technology, marketing and the media" is poorly written in this regard.
There are some glaring verifiability issues, with some stuff either not in the citations given or other stuff that I could not verify after looking at the next available reference.
Numerous citation issues:
Refs #78 and #79 (and these are just a couple of examples) use a {{cite web}} template for a paper magazine. You need to use {{cite journal}}, put all the pertinent information (including page numbers) and then a URL if applicable. The same applies to many others, including books that are all linked to Google Books. Everything is needed so that, if that Google Books entry disappears, we still have the full citation in which to locate said book or magazine.
Ref #1 (and others): Is there a reason your citation is pointing to infoweb.newsbank.com instead of directly to the Mashable article itself?
I have already had to add 3 {{citation needed}} tags on the article where I could not locate certain facts from the nearest reference.
They were there originally. Put them back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I find other issues, I will report them. However, long story short, this article is a mess. --MuZemike 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did this acquire GA status, one wonders. Thanks MuZemike. Drmies (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you will work hard to get this article promoted. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I won't. Many of the fixes made recently are of a kind that shouldn't have to be done in a GA article, certainly if that article is nominated for FA. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, though open to revisiting. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead of 3-4 paragraphs
Can we clarify this? Since the article has only 16,000 bytes of prose, my understanding was that it only required two or three paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The number of paragraphs is not important. There is no paragraph "requirement", it's a suggestion in a guideline. What's important is how well the lead summarizes the contents of the article. Since the article is basically just a list of barely organized facts (no offense), I'm not sure there is any sensible way to summarize it. My suggestion would be to first re-organize the article in some coherent fashion. How about: History, Communication with fans, Analysis and commentary, and Controversy. Everything else should be removed as cruft. Kaldari (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You remark that he writes about some topics "less controversially", but provide no clear indication why the first topics mentioned were or might have been controversial
Some formatting issues and inconsistencies in citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
There are a bunch of quotes of individual tweets, many of which are just stating that Bieber said something, but without indicating why there is any importance to what he tweeted. Why choose those particular tweets to mention specifically, and not others? The reason should be made clear in the text.
The Charlie Sheen incident seems to be very tangentially related to this article topic. That is related to Charlie Sheen on Twitter, not so much JBoT.
If you say "Bieber related topics", Bieber-related needs a hyphen. There are at least a couple instances of this sort of problem that need fixing.
Specifically (for me) the Introduction section is inappropriate. The last two paragraphs are simple repetition of what he posted on Twitter, (i.e. in the second last paragraph when he hit 6 million fans he thanked them on Twitter, when he reached 11 million fans, he thanked them). The last paragraph is the same (the reference to Drew on X-factor). The sentence "Bieber comments on a broad range of subjects on Twitter, including the Arab Spring's Egyptian uprising that led the country's leaders to shut down the Internet" doesn't seem appropriate, did Bieber's tweeting directly result in the government shutting down the Internet, or was he simply commenting on something that thousands of other people were commenting about at the same time. Same with the Kony 2012 reference, and the "less controversial" tweets, what makes his trip to New Zealand so special that it should be mentioned in this article?--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean the lead, meant the section titled "introduction". --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the reference to Instagram in the lead seems rather unrelated to the article (or Twitter in general, just by skimming the Instagram article.) The only relation is that he mentioned it on Twitter, and the article shouldn't be about everything he tweets about. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been a case like this, in which an article is simultaneously up for AfD and FAC? And is that allowed? Interchangeable 23:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been another case like this. Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner was simiultaneously up for FAC and AfD back in May 2006. It was kept at AfD and not promoted at FAC, only to be promoted at a second FAC a month later. It survived a second AfD in 2009 in a rare case of a featured article being nominated for AfD, but was demoted during an FAR in 2010. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I copied this and some others into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, I fixed quite a number of errors in citations along the way, including missing page numbers, incorrect authors, missing information, and wrong citation templates used. Checking what's here against what's there would be a productive exercise, not least because you won't have to duplicate my effort and spend the several hours on fixing a whole load of citation problems that I did. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This article is bloated, hard to read, does not pass 3,4 of WP:WIAFA according to me. – Plarem(Usertalk) 16:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, why do you feel that it fails #3 of WIAFA? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image review found no problems with the copyright status of the images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – For reviewing purposes, it's important to separate emotional feelings from an article's merits. This topic has clearly generated a lot of heat, which is reflected by the AfD nom in the middle of an FAC. I rely on the quality of an article in deciding where I stand in reviews, and unfortunately I don't think this is up to FA standards. There are too many issues at the moment, and a sampling are below.
The second paragraph of Introduction is what previous reviewers say it is: a mixture of a bunch of individual facts that don't form a cohesive whole. I agree with their complaints, and would like to see the section focus on the main aspects of Bieber's tweeting, rather than on a bunch of loosely connected things (I'm sure he wasn't the only person who tweeted about the Arab Spring or Whitney Houston's death).
Many people tweeted about the Arab Spring, but he was the largest node. There is a lot of research being at the moment on nodes and dissemination. The other month's Communications of the ACM was especially interesting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While here, I also have concerns about the jargon that is used at times here. We seem to be assuming that readers will automatically know what return following, following itself, and retweeting are, which I think isn't a safe assumption. If my parents were reading this. they'd be totally lost.
This is a good point. I have linked some jargon already. I will see what else can be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how encyclopedic the phrasing is in "Bieber gave a shout out to his followers". That could be made more formal.
I don't see much of value in this section's last two paragraphs. Pretty much the only thing I think is helpful is the follower milestones, and these are covered later.
Going back a little bit, I see "For a brief time in April 2011, Bieber quit Twitter." Now this is something that is interesting, yet it's totally glossed over. What made him quit, if anything? Why and when did he come back? Why aren't these aspects covered when many less worthy ones are?
Later the same day! My recollection is that it was because of the paparazzi incident described lower down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that sounds like he just had a little snit, and then got over it. To turn the question around, what makes this worthy of even mentioning? It either needs to be dropped, or its significance discussed. Otherwise it's a meaningless factoid. LadyofShalott 02:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made is that he was unable to stay away from Twitter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technology, marketing and the media: "He was regularly trending in April 2010." It's already mentioned that he trended a lot that year, so why is the month separately mentioned? If it has to do with Twitter's algorithm change, that should be made clearer, perhaps by saying when Twitter did this.
Followers and fans: The first paragraph is basically a list of followers statistics in prose form. Can't say that this is engaging writing, honestly. And why are his Facebook numbers relevant here? This is an article on his Twitter presence, not his Facebook presence.
"In March 2012, Bieber's fans wanted to unseat Lady Gaga as the most popular celebrity on Twitter." This has to be "wanted him to unseat"; otherwise it sounds like the fans themselves wanted to unseat Gaga, which isn't the intention.
I thought it was fine, but changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Bieber nor Lady Gaga discussed their mutual fanbase's campaigns on Twitter." "fanbase's" → "fanbases'"?
What makes Twitaholic.com (ref 8) a reliable source?
It pulls the data straight from Twitter's API. We could get it ourselves. It was needed only because the GA reviewer wanted the exact date. I was happy with the reliable sources that just said the month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 25, 92, and 138 have the second figure missing from their apparent page ranges.
Thanks for your review. Constructive criticism is always welcome. I know it takes time and effort to review an article, and it is very much appreciated.Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw article is at AFD, doesn't meet good article criteria 3a & 3b and violates numerous policies.--Otterathome (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw but not because it is at AfD, more because the prose in particular is dreadful; honestly this does not even meet GA standards let alone FA. --John (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate: I think the Justin Bieber on Twitter article could stand some expansion to incorporate the new material you have unearthed. If it's okay with you, I would like to ask the delegate to withdraw the FAC nomination at this time. Thanks to everyone who make constructive comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because, I believe that the article is comprehensively well written. After fixing all the requirements by the peer reviewers, we have voluntarily done a month long session to cover the entire aspects and brought the article up to the standards of WP:FA, I believe that it is FA quality and deserves to be considered as a Featured Article. Regards :) Omer123hussain (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the prose is bad and riddled with errors. Here are a few examples:
Since 2007, The retail industry in Hyderabad is on the rise
This style built massive walls using granite and lime mortar as the chief ingredients.
In 2000, cable internet access were launched in Hyderabad.
The growth in motor vehicles is 11.5% per annum during 1996–2001.
In Hyderabad, the main mean of transport are public transport
Since 1990s, the city changed from a primarily service sector to a more diversified spectrum
contributing to it being declared
Among business and management schools, The Indian School of Business (ISB) ranked 1st in India by The Week in 2011,
I suggest withdrawing this nomination and soliciting a full copyedit from top to bottom. Graham Colm (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix those errors now. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are only examples of many problems. Graham Colm (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those listed above, to reduce the article size, recently we had made many changes, that might have cause some prose errors, which we will fix today. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately there are some mistakes in the prose. Even though we tried to rectify many mistakes during the preparation for FAC, oddities still persist. Thanks Graham Colm for pointing out some specific examples. Will work on the entire article.
Besides the specific errors, do you also think that prose quality overall is of poor standard? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not FA standard. Many of the more simple errors could have been found by a quick spellchecker. For example, a "piple-line", "employes", "musics" and what on earth is a "crackable map"? Forgive my bluntness, but the article needs copy editing by a native English speaker. There is also overlinking, and a quick spotcheck of the sources reveals problems. Graham Colm (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me apologize for the irritation such blatant errors might have caused. We definitely should have taken much more care to ensure that such blatant errors are not present in the article. And thanks a lot for the link WP:PLUSING that you provided in an edit summary. I am in touch with the main contributor of the article, and would be soon arriving at a decision regarding withdrawal of this nomination. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen FA reviews going on for months together before, if the problems are quickly solved. I see no reason as to why this cannot undergo the same treatment. Secret of success(talk) 15:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: First of all, it's good to see people working on a large topic like this. I just read Transport, the first paragraph of Culture, and Literature to get a feel for the article's prose. I listed a few issues below, there are more than I would expect to encounter in an FA nomination. For the most part, it was in Ok shape but I don't think it meets the WP:WIAFA 1a standard. Meeting the FA prose requirements is sometimes quite difficult, even for experienced contributors. It is possible to even out a lot of prose issues at FAC, but it's really best to take care of it beforehand, that's why we have WP:GOCE and WP:PR. There's really no harm in withdrawing and coming back in a couple weeks.
The first part of this sentence needs clarification: "As of 2010, the airport was judged among the world's top airports in the category of serving 5–15 million passengers, and world's fifth best airport for service quality, by Airports Council International." Can you be more specific than "among the world's top airports"?
"Hyderabadis, as residents of the city are known," Why is this italicized? I have the same question about the list of holidays later in the paragraph.
"Burqa and Hijab are commonly practised by the Muslim women in public." Can you practise a garment?
"A typical Hyderabadi could be either a Telugu or a Urdu speaking person." This sounds to me like it's uncertain whether Telugu and Urdu are the two most common.
"Hyderabad received the royal patronage for arts" From whom, when? Also, should this be "the royal patronage" or just "royal patronage"?
"The Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA) (IATA: HYD, ICAO: VOHS) was inaugurated in 2008, replacing the previous Begumpet Airport, as a new airport to serve the city." The portion after the comma is redundant, and makes the meaning ambiguous.
"Organisations engaged in research and development of literary works include are Sahitya Akademi," Looks like a typo here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The article is wide in terms of coverage. However, it has a few concerns with prose and am pretty sure that many issues would be raised as the review progresses. The article needs a thorough copyediting for better clarity and flow. The prose is not engaging in most of the places. A few comments after I had a quick glance through the article:
The Etymology section is too small. Try expanding it or merge with an appropriate section.
I see many terms being linked on more than one occasion (with in a section) throughout the article.
It's good to have a separate table for religion graph like other similar FAs.
Don't use ".com" in work parameters (for cite web).
The 2011 figures for the city are just provisional and not the final results. A footnote can be added to clarify it.
There are a lot of contradicting figures in population/density.
The Infobox mentions the density to be 10,000 persons/sq.km, while in the demographics section it is given as 18,480 /km2
The demographics section seem to represent figures which are a mix of the 2001 census and 2011 provisional results. The figures must be mentioned with "As of" fact or a FN affixed at the end to provide clarity.
Why are "Doordarshan", "Chowmahalla Palace" and "Tollywood" italicized?
"As of 2011, Hyderabad Elevated Expressway is the longest expressway in India". The source was published in 2008 and with in this four-year gap there have been many such expressways constructed/expanded across the country. I'm pretty sure that cities like Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai have expressways spanning more than 12 km as of 2012.
'T' capitalised in "Tennis player" while 'c' is not in "cricketers", 'b' in "badminton players" and so on.
"badminton players S. M. Arif, Pullela Gopichand, Saina Nehwal, Jwala Gutta, Chetan Anand, hockey players Syed Mohammad Hadi, Mukesh Kumar and bodybuilder Mir Mohtesham Ali Khan" is unsourced.
Ref #203 fails to mention most of the names. Each and every ref needs to be checked.
Oppose – IMO, the article is still a long way from FA standards. I'd advise the nominator to go for one more peer review and get a thorough copyedit. —Vensatry(Ping me) 18:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, with your comments above it is found that the only major issue in the article is prose part and we are working on it as mentioned above, any way minor errors of "T" and "c" will also be fixed mean while. The sport persons names are wikilinked, thus with consensus we removed those sources due to burden of references in the article, some words are wikilinked based on the situation in more than one place to make understand the readers, as it is commonly used in other FA's also. As we borrowed some time we will complete the prose and update. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
corrected all the errors pointed by Vensatry, except demographics, as it already have a tabel of population. Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would like to withdraw the nomination, so that we can make all the necessare corrections, mean while I would appriciate if some one may take the initiative to guide us to correct the prose of the article. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly any authorized editor archeive this withdrawal. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): ⇒TAP 21:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I have addressed all issues in the peer review and would like this to become a FA. It's a quite new article; created on 4 June, lead DYK hook on 9 June and GA on 14 June. ⇒TAP 21:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It looks like the prose needs a little work, here are some examples.
"As was customary then,{{when}} the brides wore black and men wore codpieces."
"People could not swing their arms or legs or laugh too loud, as that would be considered rude to many." Do you mean that many people would consider these actions rude? Or that these actions were considered a type of rudeness that affected many people? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few more examples, I suggest you find someone to copyedit this. User:Ceoil has written many featured articles about paintings, he might be helpful.
Asked on talk page. ⇒TAP 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Walter S. Gibson, an art historian also views the paintings" need a comma to close the appositive here.
Done, easy enough. ⇒TAP 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Voyeurism is shown throughout the entire work amongst many of the people." Could you go into more detail here? You mention voyeurism once but don't say much about it.
"The father represents a figure from court dances, which Bruegel painted around." This sentence is unclear to me.
Removed, no need to include. ⇒TAP 16:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Wedding Dance is a painting using the tempera technique on an oak plank, also known as oil-on-panel." We know it's a painting, no need to tell us that again.
"In all three of the paintings, there are pipers playing the pijpzak (bagpipes), they also exude pride and vanity, for example in The Peasant Dance, the man seated next to the pijpzak player is wearing a peacock feather in his hat." I think this is a comma splice. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment - the PR is still open, it would need to be closed before an FAC can proceed. Also, I see that one of the commenters at the PR noted "Its way off being FA standard! I honestly can't see it becoming a featured article", and only two days ago you yourself said "My initial aim was FA, but I guess that won't happen". Given that, can you explain why you chose to nominate it now? (To be blunt, looking at the article, I can't say I disagree that it's short of FA quality right now). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed issues in the peer review and that user said off-wiki that I could nominate the article if Iike. ⇒TAP 06:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review archived. Can this please continue? Thanks! ⇒TAP 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary (so far): All issues addressed. ⇒TAP 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article doesn't stand beside Wikipedia's featured articles on artworks. It feels like a pastiche of web sources and Google Book previews. There are no citations to journal articles, such as "Bruegel's Festive Peasants" in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art (JSTOR). There is no discussion of Bruegel's unique perspective, which can be found in (this is admittedly obscure, but an online lit search would reveal it) Theory of Narrative, Altman, Rick, Columbia University Press, 2008. The writing has numerous problems; "described these trilogy of works", "[two other paintings] are also by Bruegel which share the same wedding theme", run-on sentences, not to mention a number of grammatical sentences that lack nuance, flow and context ("Voyeurism (spying on people engaged in intimate behaviours) is shown throughout the entire work amongst almost all of the people" [end of paragraph]). In short, comprehensiveness and prose. I find it unlikely that the article can be improved during its stay at FAC. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested User:Ceoil to copyedit this article. ⇒TAP 06:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The prose needs more work - this Voyeurism is depicted throughout the entire art work; - seems grossly inaccurate; especially given the modern day sexual connotation of voyeurism. IMO the article needs a lot of work...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Discrimination against Chinese Indonesians, May 1998 riots of Indonesia. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
_Hamood-ur-Rehman_with_Prime_minister_of_Pakistan_Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto..jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
