Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2009[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:54, 31 March 2009 [1].

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash[edit]

Nominator(s): Socrates2008 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria and may be a topic of interest to Wikipedia readers... Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used for quotations.
  • Current ref 3 is a book, correct? It needs a page number (and doesn't need a last accessed date)
  • What makes the broken arrow book a reliable source? Lulu.com is a self-publishing site
  • Current ref 6 is a book, correct? Needs a page number and doesn't need the last access date.
  • Current ref 14 needs a last access date
  • Current ref 16 is a book? Needs page numbers
  • Current ref 18 is a book? Needs page numbers
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark: Can you expand upon the Finish reaction to the incident? 'Friction' in relations doesn't articulate much information. By it do you mean some Finish politicians voiced their displeasure with the incident and it was forgotten or was there more to it than that? 69.196.151.215 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response All done except Lulu, which is a tough one - the book draws significantly on declassified material which is not available online. If this source does not meet WP:V, then there will be a number of holes in key details in the article, particularly around the crash details.
Presumably you mean Danish not Finnish? Very little info available in English, but I'd see what I can find. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Comment -- Based off of the checker tools [dabs and external links] in the toolbox, and the WP:REFTOOLS script, all three are up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • I'm a little hinky on your verb tenses. In the first two sentences of the lede, you switch from past to past perfect: "... crashed into the ocean ..." and "... had bailed out of the aircraft ..."
Have hopefully addressed all of these - if not, then let me know.
  • The lede itself needs work. As it is right now, it doesn't adequately cover all the information in the article -- the crewman who was killed, the controversy after the cleanup, revelations about contamination -- these all are key portions of the article and should be mentioned in the lede.
Rewritten
  • You really should have a history/context section giving readers an idea about why Thule exists and how it was part of the string of SAC bases in the Far North. A short section giving an overview of why the bombers are there would be immensely helpful -- particularly if you can find some information pointing to lapses in maintenance or procedure at the base that might have contributed to the accident.
Done
  • It's not clear in the article why an aircraft intended for early warning if BMEWS was hit would be carrying nuclear weapons. Perhaps that's something for the pre-crash events/history section?
Clarified
  • The caption of the photo of Thule is a bit misleading ... it makes me think the accident scene literally is in the background, not just where it took place.
  • Can you provide a citation for the assertion that the crash acted like a dirty bomb?
Done
  • The transition from the underwater search to the BBC revelations is rather abrupt. There should be some sort of transition sentence or paragraph explaining what happened between the search and the revelations.
Not sure yet how to tackle this - any advice welcome.
  • What is the legacy of the crash? In civilian aviation, almost every NTSB-investigated crash results in a change in procedure or manufacture. What happened to B-52 flight procedure as a result of the crash?
The biggest outcome concerned the ongoing viability of nuclear airborne alert missions. No publically available info about USAF changes to procedures or design of the aircraft.
  • What ultimately was the cause of the crash? Was that ever determined? If not, what was investigators' best guess? JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fire caused by heater leading eventually to loss of electrical power
Response Fixed, thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1(c). EDIT: Struck, Steve T • C Broken Arrow - The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents is not—unfortunately, given its apparent necessity to the article—a reliable source. It is published through Lulu, a self-publishing company. And the authors, James C. Oskins and Michael H. Maggelet, appear not to be established experts whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Steve T • C 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced 3 of the 5 places where this reference was used, which is no longer central to any crash details. Working on the remaining two now - if I can't find substitutes refs, I'll delete the associated content. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All citations using this ref now removed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I was literally minutes away from asking you if you wanted to withdraw the FAC to give you time to look for more sources at your leisure. I'll be happy to do a more comprehensive review of the article this evening. All the best, Steve T • C 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Minor issues, mainly related to prose and clarity. EDIT: restating "oppose" pending resolution of questions over comprehensiveness. Steve T • C
    • Lead: Suggest linking "Chrome Dome" here, rather than in "Background"; the first instance is usually the best choice, especially given the lack of context given to the term in the necessarily truncated lead description.
    • Background:
      • "...up to a dozen nuclear-armed bombers..." What exactly does the source say? It seems odd to say "up to a dozen... at all times..." when it was important they had the deterrent, yet the wording suggests anything from one to twelve bombers.
      • "From 1961, a B-52 bomber continuously flew..." Odd wording makes it sound as if one particular bomber was in the air at all times.
      • "...with the purpose of maintaining visual surveillance of the strategically important Ballistic Missile Early Warning System located there." Multiple redundancies, consider "...to maintain visual surveillance of its strategically important Ballistic Missile Early Warning System." You may feel "its" introduces too much of an ambiguity (I don't); if so, consider "the base's", "Thule's" or similar.
    • Accident:
      • Missing reference at the end of the first paragraph.
      • "The flight was uneventful, apart from the scheduled mid-air refuelling with a KC-135 Stratotanker, which had to be conducted manually due to an error with the autopilot." Does the source say which plane's autopilot? The sentence also seems a little snake-like; recommend trying a couple of variations for a better fit.
      • "...despite the rheostat being..." The gerund requires this to be rendered as "...despite the rheostat's being..." but if you don't like that (some don't, especially with inanimate objects), consider restructuring the sentence to avoid it.
      • "...the flammable cushions in the vicinity of the duct under the instructor navigator's seat soon started to burn." More redundancies. We already know where the cushions are.
      • "Within five minutes the crew realized the fire, in the aft section of the lower deck, was out of control when the fire extinguishers were depleted, electrical power was lost and smoke filled the cockpit to the point that instruments could no longer be read." I was lost halfway through on the first read, possibly due to the aside telling us where the fire was.
      • "Of the six who ejected safely, one remained lost on the ice for nearly 24 hours." Does the source name the man on the ice, or at least his position in the crew?
    • Project Crested Ice:
      • Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of this section end with uncited sentences.
      • "The operation was conducted in total darkness until February." This makes it sound as if they didn't even use artificial lighting, when I assume you merely mean that winter provided no sunlight until then. Consider revising to include "natural light" somewhere.
      • It might be worth saying where the Pantex plant is.
      • "...declassified documents obtained in 2008 under the US Freedom of Information Act (parts of which remain classified)..." Consider "partly declassified" at the start to remove both the redundancy and the ambiguity that suggests the FoI Act itself is still partly classified.
      • "components...it would be " Check WP:ELLIPSIS for correct use.
This quote is lifted exactly like this from the source, so changing it would invalidate the citation; also, I'm not seeing the incorrect use of ellipsis here (3 periods without spaces). Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Project Crested Ice" or "Operation Crested Ice"? (See last sentence of section and caption)
    • Aftermath:
      • I don't think we need to say "airborne alert system" or similar after each instance of "Chrome Dome".
      • The third paragraph mostly repeats information from the "Project Crested Ice" section; consider moving the relevant detail from there to "Aftermath" or vice-versa.
      • Inconsistent terms ("clean-up" / "clean up", "Crested Ice").
      • "Scientific monitoring of the site has been carried out periodically, starting with expeditions in 1968, 1970 and 1974." It didn't start in each of those years, only the first.
      • What is "the Bylot Sound"?
      • "The main conclusions of that expedition, were;" Lose the comma and replace the semi-colon with a colon. "...that plutonium is not transported from the contaminated sediments into the surface water in this shelf sea." Sounds like a recommendation, i.e. that plutonium should not be transported. I assume it means that plutonium has not moved from the sediments?
      • Penultimate sentence: "The expedition concluded that..." Seems odd to separate this out from the previous "The conclusions of that expedition were...".
      • "...there are at least two different source terms for the Thule accident debris." What does this mean?
    • Throughout:
      • Overlinking; if a term is linked in the section above it, consider removal.
      • The prose is generally OK; it has a nice precision in parts, but could certainly do with another pass to remove multiple redundancies, especially in later sections. Example:

        Starting in 1960, United States Air Force B-52G Stratofortresses from Strategic Air Command conducted "Chrome Dome" airborne alert flights in various parts of the world. The purpose of the missions was to fly a nuclear-armed B-52 to various borders of the Soviet Union, so that Strategic Air Command would still have offensive capability in the event of a Soviet first strike. [1] The programme ensured that up to a dozen nuclear-armed bombers were aloft at all times, thereby providing a significant Cold War nuclear deterrent.[2]

        The sources reference different aspects of the same programme, so can be weaved together to remove the redundancies and make for a more concise statement—without losing any of the intended meaning:

        In 1960 the United States Air Force instigated Operation Chrome Dome, a program to fly nuclear-armed Strategic Air Command B-52G Stratofortresses to the borders of the Soviet Union.[3] The flights were scheduled to ensure that up to twelve bombers were aloft at all times,[2] giving Strategic Air Command offensive capability in the event of a Soviet first strike,[3] and providing a significant Cold War nuclear deterrent.[2]

      • American English uses "program" in this context I believe. Also specialized. Check for others.
      • Inconsistent use of "United States" and "US".
  • Otherwise, it's a good, interesting article that shouldn't have too much trouble reaching featured status with a little more work. All the best, Steve T • C 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for this very comprehensive and useful feedback. I believe I've addressed all your points above, if not please let me know. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the speedy changes. I've struck those that looked done on the first glance; I'll read through again for the others shortly. Steve T • C 10:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck several more. Pretty much just the prose issues now; I'll see if I can find time to help out further on that score Sunday evening (more likely Monday daytime). Steve T • C 01:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Project Crested Ice" I've been bold and merged two of the paragraphs. This is because the section introduces the partial release of classified documents twice; these paragraphs cover the same ground and are therefore better placed together, in my opinion. If you disagree with the change, feel free to revert it. Steve T • C 11:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information in this report seems like it would be useful to the "Aftermath" section beyond the one statement it's used to cite presently. The fact that the Danish government "is adamant there is no hard evidence to suggest a long-term health impact" seems particularly relevant, along with the the opinion of Kaare Ulbak from the Danish National Institute of Radiation Protection, who says, "We have found no link between the crash and the illness of the Thule workers," which seemingly contradicts DICE's report. The report also mentions the 2000 European directive that required the workers' health to be monitored, the claims that this monitoring was not done, and the workers' insistence that the aforementioned lack of proof is because of that. I'm not saying the section should get bogged down in endless claim vs. counterclaim, but a whole point of view is conspicuous by its absence here. Steve T • C 15:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, please feel free to expand, bearing in mind that there are claims and counter claims. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of putting something together now; I'll likely post it after I've been for lunch. Steve T • C 12:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Danish government's point-of-view to the section, along with additional detail from Schwartz about the earlier 1987 legal action and the initial manifesting of the health issues. You may feel it goes into too much detail, but what the section lacked was a coherent narrative; I think it now has this. Do the additions look OK to you? Steve T • C 15:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy, thanks Steve. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super. My list of oppose issues has become a little messy, so when I go back through the article later, I'll post any issues I think are still outstanding below for clarity. Steve T • C 11:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is—
    • (a) well-written: I'm OK with the prose now the redundancies have been eliminated; further tweaks to make, but nothing major
    • (b) comprehensive: maybe, maybe not. See below
    • (c) well-researched: with the Lulu.com book removed, all sources are verifiable and reliable
    • (d) neutral: the addition of material on the post-accident contamination addresses this concern
    • (e) stable: I doubt this article will ever be an edit-war magnet
  2. From what I can tell, it follows the style guidelines. It also provides—
    • (a) a concise lead that appropriately summarises the article body
    • (b) appropriate structure: all sections are relevant to their content
    • (c) consistent citations: not entirely. Template {{cite report}} seems to render the publisher field on a new line. I've taken a look at the code, but can't see why this is occurring. If it can't be fixed, I suggest writing the citation without the use of the template
  3. Images are all PD and appropriately positioned
  4. The length is well within guidelines and stays focused on the main topic
The template issue is minor, so my only real concern now is over the article's comprehensiveness. I'm curious over the lack of Danish and Greenlandish (Greenlish? Greenlandic?) sources. It may well be that the English-language sources cover everything, but did you consult any Danish books or articles on the accident? As for the legacy of the crash, which you indicate above did not result in any design or procedural changes, Sagan, pp. 180–201 seems to go into a lot of detail about potential disasters that could have occurred due to the crash, and says at one point that the design of the B-28 bomb was subsequently altered to reduce the risk of accidental detonations during a crash. Steve T • C 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the template issue too, and couldn't see the problem either. I don't speak Danish, and have checked all the English sources I can find. I said we don't know if there were any changes, as the USAF, unlike civilian aviation organisations, is not obliged to publish this info (even though it would seem reasonable that crews would be instructed in the short term not to put foam cushions next to the heater, or that the cushions would be replaced by something non-combustible and that Boeing would change the heater design in the longer term). Regarding the bomb trigger design, I don't think Sagan is reliable here for the following reasons:

  • His reference looks dodgy (p. 185, ref #82)
  • No other source mentions a change to the triggering mechanism as a direct result of the Thule incident
  • If the Thule accident resulted in a determination that the trigger was unsafe, then why did they take 10 years to change it? (Sagan, p.185)
  • The 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash stands out as the one where they realised that the triggering mechanism was unsafe, as 5/6 of the safety switches were infamously bypassed during this event.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine; I actually misread the page and thought Sagan made a more explicit link between this accident and the change to the design. As for the lack of Danish sources, one would think that a great deal has been written in those sources, due to the accident's occurring on Danish soil (well, sea ice). It may be that the English-language sources do cover everything of note, but this is going to be quite difficult to determine if none of the others have even been checked. Here's one example of a potential omission: The Arctic Promise by Natalia Loukacheva only very briefly touches on the Thule crash, but in her footnotes (p. 208), she cites a Danish-language source (Oreskov, Claus (1995) 'Ultima Thule?' 3. Indigenous Affairs 51) that references the financial compensation sought by the clean-up crews from the state. It talks of a hearing that "did not find sufficient evidence of a connection between the many health problems suffered by the Thule workers and Inughuit hunters and the participation in the clean-up" and says the government nevertheless decided to pay approximately US$9,000 to everyone (including surviving relatives) able to document their presence and involvement in the clean-up. Which hearings are these? When did they take place? Even if you doubt her source's reliability, there must be others that talk of the same hearings. This is just one example, which took only a few minutes to find. If there are other Danish sources that would shed light on this, it may be worth contacting Hemmingsen (talk · contribs) to see if he/she can offer any assistance. Steve T • C 08:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I forget why, but we're not supposed to use the {{citation}} template in the same article that already uses {{cite x}} (journal, news, etc) templates. Steve T • C 11:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has to do with the consistency of citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prime Minister H.C. Hansen's infamous 1957 letter regarding "munition of a special kind" in which he gave the United States permission to store nuclear weapons in Greenland isn't even mentioned. The closest the article gets to mentioning this seems to be "The Danish government officially opposed the presence of nuclear weapons on its soil, but discovered in 1965 that the Americans were storing nuclear weapons at Thule against their wishes." which is a rather misleading statement. The government did officially oppose the presence of nuclear weapons but were aware of and accepted their presence. When the content of the letter was made public in the 1990s, it became a central part of what many consider one of the biggest scandals in post-WW2 Danish politics, so it should be treated at some length in my opinion. I'd also like to see a bit of information on the impact on the 1968 election. The government party, the social democrats, lost quite a few seats and the antimilitarist social liberal party won a huge number. Surely some reliable source can be found that discusses whether there is a connection here? Hemmingsen 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no reliable English sources about the "munition of a special kind", which furthermore appears to pre-date the discovery of weapons on the ground in Greenland in 1965. Details on the political fallout in Denmark are thin in English sources, however the sources I can find on the 1968 Danish election don't mention the incident or cite other reasons for the loss of 7 seats: (1 2, 3, 4, 5) If you have a reliable source for more information or for a different point of view, please could you provide it so that it can be included. Thanks.
I'm striking my oppose since the sources you nevertheless did manage to find allowed for a nice improvement. I still think more could be said on the topic, but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to research it myself and I suppose simply providing a list of Danish language books won't be much help.
I guess my speculation on the 1968 election was useless so I apologize for the noise about that. Hemmingsen 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sagan, p. 180 provides information about the 1968 election; he talks about a "significant domestic political crisis" and the "severe embarrassment" to the government, though doesn't explicitly say that it resulted in the loss of seats. Steve T • C 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:54, 31 March 2009 [2].

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle[edit]

Nominator(s): Haha169 (talk), NuclearWarfare (Talk), Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force

After a few failed nominations and a couple peer reviews, I think that this article has finally reached its potential. The previous reason for not allowing it to pass was it's apparent lack of production details. That has been remedied. In any case, let's start the nitpicking! --haha169 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review -- Dabs and external links (based on the checker tools in the toolbox at the right), and the ref formatting of the article (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script) are all up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The prose is not up-to-par with 1a standards. Some organizational and comprehensiveness issues as well. Examples:
    • The second paragraph is indecipherable for those of us who are not familiar with the television series. "power of the comet" <- Power is ambiguous here; is this some type of magical comet? Or is "power" more literal? i.e. are they using its trajectory to blackmail their enemy? "Zuko challenges his sister Azula, the ruling queen, to a "fire-duel" in order to prevent further wars." Huh? Who is Zuko? Ruling queen means what? How would this prevent further wars? "destroy an airship armada." Not very specific...who owns this armada and why would they want to destroy it? Who are Sokka and Toph? Some adjectives here and there would do wonders and prevent readers from giving up in the second paragraph.
      • There are certainly enough adjectives. Stuffing it even more would cause horrible congestion and make it even more difficult to read. Most articles that are based on fictional things wikilinks to help the reader understand more. Nuclear has gone and added a few adjectives here and there, but things like "fire duel" has simply been wikified because there isn't a better adjective to describe it. (The real phrase would be Agni Kai, but that would make even less sense). --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "There are certainly enough adjectives. Stuffing it even more would cause horrible congestion and make it even more difficult to read." I strongly disagree. Other than the repetition of "other", "The other sub-plot follows Aang's other friends, Sokka and Toph, as they try to destroy a Fire Nation airship armada that threatens the Earth Kingdom" is much clearer than the mysterious "The other sub-plot follows Sokka and Toph's plan to destroy an airship armada." Wikilinks are helpful, but when a reader has to click and read every single one to understand a paragraph on a work of fiction, the writing is the culprit, not the topic. It's not "fire-duel" that needs explanation; I would not expect one here and the wording generates a sufficient image for readers. It's the reason for the duel that is left ambiguous with the current wording. How would this duel prevent further wars? What does "ruling queen" mean? Ruling over what? BuddingJournalist 05:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I understand now. I'm going to actually replace some terms instead of adding more adjectives. I see that a fire-duel wouldn't make much sense, so how does a coup sound? --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This cumulates" Eh? Culminates maybe? Ambiguous "this".
    • "defeating the Fire Lord by removing his bending capabilities"...so...is he dead? The set-up in the previous sentence is not resolved.
      • I think I got the above parts, but I'm not really sure.[3]...but I likely didn't do it to your satisfaction.
        • I think this is a little difficult. The "elemental manipulation" seems a little wordy to me, but is it fine? --haha169 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check your linking. The link of bending isn't particularly helpful. Link of Fire Nation twice in two consecutive sentences. Do people really not know what a protagonist is? One learns about this in middle school, no?
      • I changed bending to "elemental manipulation abilities", which isn't exactly that much better, but was the only thing I could think of at past midnight.
      • I delinked the second one.
      • I've been told at prior FLCs to link protagonist; I figured why not to it for this one as well. I do realize that it causes a bit of a disturbance with two different links right next to each other, but I do not think merits delinking one of them.
        • People forget. They might wonder what protagonist is - I don't think there is a really big harm in wikilinking it, is there? --haha169 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's never an inherent harm in linking a single word, but one must balance aesthetics and reader focus with the utility of the link. Blue links are distracting. The use of them is always a judgment call, but "common" words such as protagonist rarely merit linking. Also, please note that these were examples I noticed...if you re-read the article, I think you'll find yourself questioning the utility of some of the other links. BuddingJournalist 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The premiere " isn't this the finale?
      • We meant premiere to refer to the July 19 showing, but that is a bit ambiguous. I'll change that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll handle the rest of the comments tomorrow. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "throughout the week Sozin's Comet was released " -> +that or "the week of Sozin's Comet's release"
    • First paragraph of Production is a long, rambling monster with no narrative flow. Jumps from topic to topic.
      • Fixed Made a rambling sentence make more sense and cut off the second one. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which would have made "Book 3: Fire", the third season, the same number of episodes as the previous seasons." Awkward, esp. the word choice of "made".
    • Production section is rather thin. Basic production issues I would expect (when did production start? how did the idea for the finale germinate? given its finale status, what issues did they run into in wrapping up plot lines? any special character design or artwork that was created for the finale? etc.) are not covered. Instead, it just reads like a boring summary (Way too many "The episode was _insert verb_ by _insert name_").
      • That information was, unfortunately, not released. Although I personally did not hear the DVD commentary (perhaps Nuclear has?), I couldn't find any online-sources with that information in it. There is a bit about them expanding the length so they could include the excess of their imaginations... --haha169 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did get a chance to hear the DVD commentary recently and I was very disappointed; there was no new information that I could find besides a very sparse amount that another user got for us. Unfortunately, that seems to be all the additional information we can get. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An over reliance on the passive. Makes for weak prose, and boring prose when the same sentence structure is employed repeatedly ("The episodes were written by", "The episodes were directed by", "Sozin's Comet was originally written as", "The special's music was written and composed by").
    • How does the third paragraph fall under Production?
      • The section was initially called "Influences". Where should it go - another "Influences" section would be the creation of a single paragraph section? --haha169 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "critical reviews throughout, " Throughout? Throughout what? Externally (Throughout the industry? Critics?) or internally (Throughout all aspects of the finale)?
    • "with reviewer Ed Liu going as far as" Who?

BuddingJournalist 03:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the above were examples only. Give the entire text an audit. BuddingJournalist 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but I haven't the time today to do anything of the sort. Perhaps later - I was just working on your suggestions for now. --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update by nom - This should be in fairly good shape. I did another look over just now. Though I'm not a great copyeditor by any means, I think it should be good enough to address the conditions above. I'm also to see if I can get another party to help; hopefully, they should be able to help pretty soon. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:07, 29 March 2009 [4].

Operation Deny Flight[edit]

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)

I've been working on this article quite a lot recently, and I think it's finally up to the cut. It's extensively referenced, well-written (or so I hope), and about a topic, that while not too widely known, is quite interesting. I think it's ready, and I welcome your input. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs that have multiple pages like "123-4" need a "pp." before it not a "p."
  • Dabs and external links found up to speed using the dabs/external links checker tool.--₮RUCӨ 14:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted all of the references to the format you suggested. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting is also found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS.--₮RUCӨ 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fixed some spelling and style issues, but this should be subjected to more thorough copyediting. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I've put the article through a fairly thorough copyedit. Hope you find it acceptable now. Cool3 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few geographic inconsistencies (e.g. Pale instead of Pale, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and I've fixed most of them so far. The only remaining one is Otoka. I'm not sure what's the target of this link, but it certainly shouldn't be a Polish village. I've found some violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and inline citations, but I think there aren't any left. Also, watch out for special Slavic letters (čćžšđ) that often appear in toponyms; and there is no need to repeat the year in every date. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed Otoka, by creating the article Otoka, Bosnia and Herzegovina. That article is currently a pathetic placeholder, but it gets the job done for now and I'll improve it later. I've reduced some of the over-use of years in dates, gone through the article for another copyedit, and I think we're now up to speed with WP:MOS. Cool3 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have nothing more to worry about. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE AS GARBAGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on that? Cool3 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The IP was blocked for distruptive editing. Disregard the oppose. -MBK004 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. It's interesting and thorough, for sure. However, the prose really needs a once-over by someone new to the text. A lot of the sentences are long strings of phrases that will exhaust the reader. These are difficult to see when they are your own work. Comma use is all over the map—sometimes you use commas where a natural pause in speech would occur, and sometimes they are nowhere to be found. It's really not far off, but please get a competent copyedit to run through it. Examples:
    • "The United States had already taken unilateral action aimed at ameliorating the conflict by dropping humanitarian supplies into Bosnia under Operation Provide Promise, and some American officials were eager to expand US air operations, out of the hope that an aggressive no-fly zone and/or bombing raids could end the war more quickly." This is pretty much a train wreck—please slice it up into smaller concepts. "And/or" should be avoided.
    • "Furthermore, all sides in the conflict made extensive use of helicopters for a variety of purposes, including non-military ones." The "furthermore" implies you are offering additional information; since you have already outlined a military use of helicopters, it makes more sense to write "Furthermore, all sides in the conflict made extensive use of helicopters for non-military purposes."
    • "Because of the rules of engagement, and difficulties in identification, NATO was unable to stop most unauthorized helicopter flights, and documented a total of 5711 unauthorized helicopter flights in Bosnian airspace over the course of the conflict." Another long, meandering sequence of phrases. Please break up and revise for readability.
    • "In June, partly in response to the pressure from the United States ..." Why not "response to pressure"? These little bits of wordiness are pervasive.
    • "Operation Deny Flight, and other NATO operations during the Bosnian War resulted in significant tension within NATO and the Atlantic relationship." Awkward comma use. You have the comma before "and" but not the logical follow-up after "War". A pervasive problem.
    • "None of the air strikes in Deny Flight were on the scale of those in Deliberate Force, and it did not significantly change the balance of power." What is "it" referring to? It seems to be referring to "None" but then it should be "they".
--Laser brain (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, this had been dormant too long! I've addressed all of the specific points you raised and done my best to generally improve the style of the article with a fairly thorough once-through. I'd be happy to deal with any other specific points you may raise, and if you still think the article is just generally weak stylistically I can try to find an outside copyeditors. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, time to get this thing moving. As I mentioned, some of these issues are exceedingly difficult to recognize when they are your own work. I strongly encourage you to get someone fresh to run through it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've asked a (non-WP) colleague and committed grammar nazi to run through this, whenever he gets back to me, I'll make the edits he recommends. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the help of my colleague, I have once again given the article a thorough look for grammar and style. I think you'll find it's now more readable, and as always I'd be happy to fix any particular areas that you still think are weak. Cool3 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On revisiting just now, I found plenty of stuff to do just in the lead. It's going to need a work-through, not just a skimming. Find a WikiProject copy editor or someone from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers with an expressed interest in military history or general copyediting. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on the lead, which I think was undoubtedly the weakest section prose-wise. However, I'm just not seeing any other serious prose issues in the article, and I hate to bother a copyeditor when I just don't see what's wrong. I essentially write for a living, and I would have no problem considering this as up to my professional standards. Can you be more specific about what you think the issues are? Cool3 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Please review my initial comments—they are examples of what I think are the issues. On many of them, I've noted that it is an example of a problem found throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I think you may be right, and the only way to fix this is to find an outside set of eyes. I'll start looking for someone. Cool3 (talk)
Check with Eurocopter—he is a terrific writer with an interest in military history. I did get your request on my Talk page, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it justice within the time frame of this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:07, 29 March 2009 [5].

Anstey Hill Recreation Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Peripitus (Talk)

I am nominating this for featured article as to my eyes it is a comprehensive, well referenced, well illustrated article that meets all the criteria. It had a comprehensive GA review last year and has had the text tweaked to correct remaining errors since then.. Peripitus (Talk) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS. (copy-and-pasted here).

  • Anstey Hill Joint Steering Committee (1983), Appendix A Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead--TRUCO 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, fix the dab links found with the toolbox dab thingy.--TRUCO 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also 2 dead external links, found with the link checker tool in the toolbox.--TRUCO 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • multiref fixed, fixed the one dead link (dept moved the pdf) but cannot find a second though I've opened all links, what is the "toolbox dab thingy" ? - Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Reftools gives me no errors now (except that the article is usually not using citexxx templates which is intentional) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "toolbox dab thingy" - gives you wikilinks in the article that need disambiguation. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaaah - devious people hiding things in plain sight. Fixed the three that there were - Peripitus (Talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC) And fixed the second dead link - Peripitus (Talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for my inaccurate explanation "thingy". Dabs, external links, and ref formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
    • Fixed - 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/australia/SAgermanindex.htm a reliable source?
    • I used this as it was an easily available secondary source. I have access to the primary records but it seemed better to use an available online source so others could verify. As to the reliable question: The website is maintained by Sue Swiggum (noted in some places as a professional historian of immigration history). She notes that the data is sourced from The South Australian Register, Saturday Janaury 24th, 1846 and, given the non-controversial nature of the data, it seemed unnecessary to question her accuracy of reproduction. I have viewed the original she took this from but, lacking a page number in my notes, chose to not poorly reference the offline source. This reference may vanish with the contractions needed to deal with the references below Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Removed and fixed - information referenced is not really pertinent - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have two refs that are "Unpublished manuscript held in the Tea Tree Gully local history collection." I do not believe these meet the threshhold for published reliable sources.
    • Looking at this now. Both of them are, on re-examination today, well referenced and I will either come up with a justification for them as reliable sources or use the sources they used - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 gone - the remaining one should be cleared out to a new reference (or the material removed) tommorrow....just have to find the referenced works on my bookshelf - Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) - Done - Both references no longer used. I've consequently removed some personal information but referenced the rest to published sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting, reasonably well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • I agree with Ealdgyth - I don't think Clair Barker's manuscript, The Koppler Family, is a reliable source; at this point it doesn't even seem to be a self-published source, more like family notes.
    • As noted above the text is well reference but I see your point. Klopper's notes are duplicated on-line by the Tea Tree Gully Historical Assocation but I will work on going to the original source she used and cutting her work out of the listing - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) - Done - using published references now - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization in the Today's park section seemed just a bit off to me. Both the first and second paragraphs contain sentences describing people's use of the park. I think that the little bit in the first paragraph (about no visitor facilities and walking trails) belongs better with the information in the second paragraph.
    • Done - bit moved and 2nd paragraph slightly rewritten to incorporate text - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do'nt know what isohyet means, and when I clicked the link the lead of that article scared me away. Any way to simplify this sentence in the article?
    • Done - changed this to write in plainer english - 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A few sections don't start well. Rather than focus on how that section ties into the rest of the article, they appear more like stand-alone sections. For example, Naming, and Newman's nursery both start off talking about people, with no real intro into why these people are important.
    • Done ( I think) - changed the lead to all three sections (the two above and Klopper's quarry) so that the section subject leads in. Some biographical info removed as unneccesary - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the details of Charles Newman's life are inappropriate for this article. It doesn't matter to the part that his name was changed or when he was born and married. (these are examples - I think a lot of the personal information can/should be trimmed)
    • Done - with the removal of the Unpublished sources this has been trimmed to his original name and arrival date. Note that after some research I have left the arrival date as 1840s - the source used makes it clear that the primary sources do not agree but rather than include this I've left the range they use - Peripitus (Talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why should we care what his original name and arrival date were? That seems trivial. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps a sign that I got a bit overenthusiastic at keeping even peripherally related facts in....early in the research. Gone now - Peripitus (Talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a common problem :) I've probably stripped out about 1/3 of what I originally included in Battle of the Alamo. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward wording - "The nursery attracted many awards and prizes for its produce" - I don't think attracted is the right verb there.
    • Done - reworded but keeping the thrust of the sources intent - Peripitus (Talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by karanacs (talk • contribs)

  • Not thrilled with the state of the writing. It needs a fresh person to go over it finely so we can be proud of the article.
  • "and is seen as a significant reserve of bushland"—If you don't tell us by whom, just make the statement.
  • Can the "foreign" be dropped? Invasive is enough, maybe; unsure. "Uncommon" is not quite the word I'd use. "rare"? Unsure.
  • "but public pressure led to the park being declared in 1989"—erk: noun plus -ing. And it's fuzzy. What about "led to its declaration as a national park in 1989"?
  • "Anstey Hill, standing 371 metres (1,220 ft) high, and the surrounding park are named after a road built by agricultural pioneer George Alexander Anstey." Confusing; is this what we've been talking about the whole time (as "the park"). Punctuation is awkward.
  • "The park is frequently burned by bushfires—mostly deliberately lit—and it is seen as an "arson hotspot" by fire authorities." Surely reverse the order? "Fire authorities regard the park as an "arson hotspot", and it is frequently burned by bushfires—mostly deliberately lit."
  • "The Adelaide-Mannum pipeline crosses the park and the Anstey Hill water filtration plant lies on its southern boundary; together, they supply 20% of Adelaide's water usage." They don't supply usage at all; they supply water. En dash required for the pipeline. See WP:MOSDASH.
  • You know I hate "various". I suppose we don't know how many ... Tony (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done the first pass of addressing your comments, pending a fresh set of eyes. I'll check later today again to make sure my fixes havn't added extra issues. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues you raised (with the lead section) and the various uses of various in the article. The only one not fixed is "Uncommon". I used this instead of the wobbly "significant" or the inaccurate "rare"...Rare species are those listed as rare and within the literature uncommon is, well, commonly used - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fails Wikipedia:Five pillars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. It's interesting, but there are too many problems right now. I found many in "Today's park" before I got too far. Below are some sample issues, but I recommend a thorough copyedit by someone new.
    • "Its boundaries are largely formed by Lower North East, North East, Perseverance and Range Roads, with a small section lying ..." The noun plus -ing construction and "with" connector need to be shown the door; I see Tony pointed one out above, so the whole article should be audited.
    • "The hill is not the highest in the park, a nearby unnamed peak is 50 m (160 ft) taller." Grammar/punctuation.
    • "The park is part of the Greater Mount Lofty Parklands; which are also known as Yurrebilla." Grammar/punctuation.
    • "... there were none planned as of 2006." Prefer the smoother "none were planned"
    • "It has hot dry summers, as does all of Adelaide, with December to February's maximum daily temperatures averaging" Another noun plus -ing.
    • "Most of the park is sloping terrain with a gradient steeper" Awkward.
    • "Serious bushfires occur frequently in the park." The placement of "frequently" is ambiguous—it could be read that they occur, frequently in the park and sometimes out of the park.
    • "Most fires in the park are deliberately lit" Please, no easter egg links. See WP:EGG.
--Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't get to work on this so hoping for a helpful grammar checker. I'm on a business trip until the 6th of April and will have almost no net access - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I don't think the prose is quite up to scratch yet, despite the improvements made in the last couple of weeks. The lead seems especially stilted in places. Maybe it's no more than a good few hours' copyedit away, but with the nominator unfortunately absent for the next week-and-a-half, it may be prudent to withdraw until he/she returns, so the outstanding issues can be tackled at the nominator's leisure. Steve T • C 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:34, 28 March 2009 [6].

Knot theory[edit]

Nominator(s): C S (talk)

Substantial editing of this article over the last couple years by me and some other editors have resulted in what I believe to be a well-written and sourced article on knot theory accessible to the "intelligent layman". I think all the FA criteria are satisfied, but I've never nominated an article for FA before, so please be gentle :-) C S (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

Cool! Knot theory. Something I can relate to, having used shoelaces since childhood.

I hope you've been using the right knot to tie them. Even famous knot theorists have been known to make that mistake.
  • The lead is a bit thin, and one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, especially in the lead.
  • I expanded and revised the lede. How's it now?
  • Better. But see more comments below. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a couple of isolated sentences in the history section.
  • I tried to make it flow more, and at least there are no single sentence paragraphs anymore. How's it now?
  • wikilink iconography
  • Done. Actually I didn't like how that sentence read so I redid it by importing some examples instead from the history article.
  • It's difficult for me to believe that no-one bothered applied mathematical theory to knots until the late 19th century. Not saying the statement is wrong, but just implausible to this bystander.
  • Doesn't seem that implausible to me (topology didn't exist as a subject until then) :-). I made a correction though. Gauss had studied knots earlier in the 1830s, but this was something of an isolated event, and his discoveries were rediscovered later by Maxwell, etc. So I put that in. Good catch -- somehow I had put it in the more fuller history of knot theory article but omitted it here.
  • Does the Mobius strip have anything to do with knot theory?
  • Sure. It's a basic topological object and knot theory is topological.
  • (Sossinsky 2002, p. 71-89) ndashes are required for number ranges.
  • Done. query: Should all the references in the reference section have ndashes too?
  • Knot theory can be used to determine if a molecule is chiral (has a "handedness") or not. Would like to know more about this (or at least a reference). I've used spectroscopic methods to determine chirality (the common method), but have never heard of applying knot theory.
  • The Flapan book ref given a sentence later suffices. But I've added an early journal reference to Jon Simon.
  • "Knot theoretic topology may be crucial in the construction of quantum computers, through the model of topological quantum computation." Source?
  • Source is given in the history of knot theory article (and any source for topological quantum computation would suffice too), but I've added it to this article.
  • "Algorithms exist to solve this problem, with the first given by Wolfgang Haken." When?
  • Ok, added. The papers are spread out over a time period so I just said late 1960s.
  • "Nonetheless, these algorithms can be extremely time-consuming, and a major issue in the theory is to understand how hard this problem really is (Hass 1998)." Why are they time-intensive? Are they solved by hand or computer? The last half of the sentence is also unclear. Is have visions of mathematicians sitting around a table trying to solve a knot problem, half of them arguing ..."you don't understand, it's too hard...". Sounds like it would make a good cartoon.
  • They just are. Asking why is like asking why factoring numbers is hard, Nobody knows why! Some algorithms are partially implemented on computers, but only partially because the algorithms can be complicated. Theoretically it is already clear some algorithms will not work in practice (with the limits on computing resources). In the case of unknotting, some algorithms are fully implemented. In the case of general knot recognition, no full implementation of Haken's algorithm exists. Yes, sitting around the table arguing is a perhaps too accurate picture. It's the same as in any subject where there are many unresolved basic questions.
  • I'm thinking it would be funny to feed a topologist spaghetti with the ends tied together. There's a joke in there somewhere. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what do you mean "spaghetti with the ends"? Isn't spaghetti just a blob? :-) (so the topologist says while drinking his doughnut and trying to bite a coffee mug...)--C S (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think it would be helpful to include any of this, I can. But to take the "factoring numbers" example, this is something that is actually not understood at all with lots of investigative work being done and much unpublished info. I tried to summarize things as best I could.
  • "The special case of recognizing the unknot, called the unknotting problem, is of particular interest." Why?
  • It's just a particularly appealing simple case. Is a loop knotted or not? That's a basic question, and given the complexity of the general question, one can hope to make progress on the easier situation. The Hass ref suffices for this statement, but I added another ref anyway to get a bit of variety (since this statement is more reflective of opinion and sociology).
  • "At each crossing we must indicate..." Should be reworded to take out "we".
  • Ok.
  • "If by following the diagram the knot alternately crosses itself "over" and "under", then the diagram represents a particularly well-studied class of knot, alternating knots." I don't understand, isn't the alternating knot just a consequence of the projection of a regular knot onto a plane? Or is the distinction that the crossing is alternatively "over" and "under" (rather than say, two "unders")?
  • an alternating knot by definition has an alternating diagram, but not every knot has such a diagram, e.g. there are non-alternating knots. In any case, this is something of a digression (originally added by a random passer-by), so I removed it.
  • "A knot invariant is a "quantity" that is the same for equivalent knots." Still don't know what this means; the rest of the short paragraph doesn't help much. Since the whole section is about knot invariants, I think this should be more clearly explained. Having difficulty following the rest of this section.
  • This is a bit of repetition from the lede. Do you prefer the wording from the lede? It talks about the "quantity" being the same for different descriptions of the knot. I added an example to make it clearer. Does that help?

*I'm going to stop here and register an oppose vote. Will check back later to see if its more comprehensible to me. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out the oppose vote (want to stay neutral), and will come back again with another read and more comments after the nom has had time to deal with Jakob.scholbach's comments below. Sasata (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fresh comments, from the beginning. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • wikilink link (in the lead)
  • Fixed.
  • Is "quantity" the actual word in the literature to represent knots? I associate quantity with "amount", and it seems like "state" would be an appropriate term (similar to the sense of State (physics), quantum state, or Chemical state, but with knots instead of atoms).


  • No, but quantity is not referring to knots. It's referring to knot invariants, which are quantities assigned to knots. More below.
  • In the last paragraph it says "Knots can be considered in other three-dimensional spaces." but no indication is given why someone would want to do this. Perhaps another sentence to mention the practical advantage of conceptualizing knots in n-dimensional space (I'm assuming there is one!).
  • Practical advantage? Mathematicians generalize. This is what they do! I guess I can throw in a sentence like "...to gain further insight, mathematicians generalize..."
  • "...enabling the use of geometry in defining new, powerful knot invariants." In what way are these fancy hyperbolic knots "powerful"? ... Actually, I sort of understand now that I read the next two sentences. However, I'm going to remove the extra spaces around the picture of Tait, so that it looks less like two separate short paragraphs.
  • This seems based on the misconception about quantity above. Since knot invariants are used to distinguish knots, "powerful" here just means they are very effective at distinguishing knots.
  • The closely related theory of tangles have been effectively used..." Perhaps it could be inserted parenthetically (in layman's terms) how tangles differ from knots.
  • Ok. Done.
  • "Knot theoretic topology may be crucial..." Would it be equivalent to use the simpler (and previously used) term "Knot theory"?
  • This linguistic contortion is actually being used for a particular reason. Knots themselves do not show up in topological quantum computation, but the mathematical techniques used and developed by knot theorists do. This may be anal-retentive though...I'll just change it to "knot theory".
  • "When mathematical topologists..." Are there other kinds of topologists?
  • good point.
  • "The idea of knot equivalence is to give a precise definition of when two embeddings should be considered the same." Here the new term "embeddings" is used, but it seems to me to be equivalent to the term "quantity" used above, no?
  • No, again, "quantity" was referring to knot invariant. When reading the article again, I'm very puzzled how it is possible to conclude that "knot invariant" is another term for "knot". I'm wondering whether you simply misread some passages, or whether the misunderstanding is due to the writing being horrible. You realize that I've modified the descriptions of knot invariant in the lede and introduction to the section "knot invariant" since the first time you looked? I'm not sure if you've read them. --C S (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the term embedding was used in the lede, but probably it is not really necessary in this section, so I just removed the term and rewrote the sentence. --C S (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basic problem of knot theory, the recognition problem, can thus be stated: given two knots, determine whether they are equivalent or not." This reads to me too much like a math text. How about instead something like: "The basic problem of knot theory, the recognition problem, is determining the equivalence of two knots."
  • Fixed.
  • The two diagrams in this section are awkwardly placed, in that at some fairly typical browser sizes, the upper left corner of the lower picture partially obscurs a word in the lower right hand corner of the text. Suggest placing the pics side by side. See if you like what the following code produces:

{{double image|right|unknots.svg|200|Ochiai unknot.svg|200|(Left) The unknot, and a knot equivalent to it. (Right) It is more difficult to determine whether complex knots such as this are equivalent to the unknot.}}


  • "A small perturbation in the choice of projection..." Suggest changing "perturbation" to "change", and clarify what is meant by "choice of projection".
  • Good points. All that is meant is that changing the direction of the projection slightly will give you a knot diagram. So I just said that instead :-)
  • "...except at isolated times when an "event" or "catastrophe" occurs..."
  • Isolated is referring to the fact that these times are discrete. This paragraph is really a very intuitive description of something considerably more technical. There might be a whole interval of time where events happen, but the point is that you can arrange it so it doesn't happen that way Actually, it suffices to just say "finitely many times"...I hope the new wording is clear.
  • "A close inspection will show that complicated events can be eliminated, leaving only the simplest events which are precisely the Reidemeister moves" Not sure what is meant by the underlined part. Does it mean that events with multiple strands crossing over can be excluded in the analysis, and that two knots are considered equivalent if they are constructed with a related sequence of Reidemeister moves?
  • The Reidemeister moves can be thought of as three types of events: 1) straightening a kink 2) two strands becoming tangent at a point as they pass each other 3) three strands coming together at a point and then moving away. More complicated events would be anything that can happen as you project the knot to a plane but don't have a diagram. So, for example, if more than three strands comes together at a point. Or if three strands become tangent at a point. Etc. I'll try and reword this.
  • Also, to clarify: if two diagrams are connected by Reidemeister moves, then they represent the same knot (because the Reidemeister moves clearly give a movement of the knot that gives the equivalence). It's not as clear that if two diagrams represent the same knot that there are these moves that connect them. That's the point of this analysis.
  • "An invariant may take the same value on two different knots, so by itself may be incapable of distinguishing all knots." Change the sentence structure so it doesn't sound like the knot is trying to perform the action of distinguishing.
  • It doesn't sound like that to me....is this related to the misconception from above that an invariant is a knot?


  • More comments to come tomorrow... need a break from topology :) Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the comments! I hope you get a lot of rest and come back :-) --C S (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs are not up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)
    • They need fixing.
Fixed.
  • External links (based on the checker tool) and ref formatting (based on the WP:REFTOOLS script) is found up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been cleaned up. The few items left, I believe, are appropriate see also items. --C S (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I see there are many references already, but some parts still miss them. Anyway, if you would have used the footnotes, you could display also the concrete pages, which would make it much more transparent :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Is the Collins ref this article from Scientific American? If so, it should be formatted like a journal, not a book.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a pretty nice article, well-written in many places, with good emphasis on explanations of "standard" facts etc. However, I have a number of problems: in many places the parlance is not really encyclopedic, which should be easy to fix. Perhaps find a copyeditor? Also, the organization of the article as a whole could use a clearer structure. I feel it would be good to have a section simply called "Knots [and links]", which introduces a couple of basic notions such as knots, links, ambiant space, isotopy, knot complement etc., and also serves as an introductory section. (Notice also that "Knot diagrams" mostly talks about Reidemeister moves. I suggest putting the diagrams part into the intro section). My main concern is comprehensiveness, an FA criterion. As far as I can see, there are quite a bit of applications of k.th., both in mathematics and outside, which deserve a proper treatment. (History section briefly touches upon, but that's not enough). Also, I have the awkward feeling that modern developments get fairly short shrift. (Actually you acknowledge this yourself.) The article does not achieve a clear picture of what modern knot theory is, what are its leading questions, open problems, main techniques etc.

In addition to the above, a couple of more concrete points ('til hyperbolic invariants):

  • "For thousands of years, knots have interested humans" sounds, to me, a bit like a fairy tale.
  • " 20th century - Max Dehn, J. W. Alexander, and others - studied" -- replace hyphens by dashes, see WP:DASH.
  • "In the late 1970s, William Thurston introduced ..." would perhaps be good to cite the paper(s) of Thurson.
  • I may be wrong on that but I think in "and subsequent contributions from Edward Witten, Maxim Kontsevich, and others, revealed deep" the last comma is not needed.
  • All statements in this paragraph should be sourced.
  • There are several occurrences where multiple references are glued together ( (Adams 2004)(Sossinsky 2002) etc.) I personally think "(Adams 2004, Sossinsky 2002)" would look better. This is possible using the templates.
  • I would spend some time explaining (in this article) ambient isotopies, given the fact that this is quite crucial to understand equivalence of knots.
  • "The basic problem of knot theory" -- perhaps reword to "The fundamental problem"
  • Why is the unknot recognition problem of particular interest?
  • Talking to the reader should be avoided per encyclopedic style ("—think of the knot casting a shadow on the wall")
  • "A small change in the direction" --starting from what?
  • AFAIK, MOS predicts that only the article title is typed boldface.
  • Consider using only one row for the Reidemeister images.
  • "A useful way to visualise" -- useful in what sense? It's a bit unspecific.
  • Are there further ways to depict knots than the 2D projections? There is no clear definition of knot diagrams, but the k. invariants section appears to rely on k. diagrams as a formal notion.
  • If knot polynomial etc. are only the tip of the iceberg, you have to show us the iceberg, at least roughly! (An FA has to be comprehensive).
  • I find it a bit odd that the link notion is placed somewhat oddly into the Knot polyomials section. It feels like this is also a central notion of knot theory, right?
  • looks odd (at my browser). Consider rewriting as L+, L− etc.
  • "Many important knot polynomials can be defined in this way." in what way do you mean? Do you mean that the skein relation is somehow altered? That should be more clear. Also it is not stated (perhaps trivial to knot theorists?) that this procedure describes k.i. for all knots.
  • "The yellow patches indicate where we applied the relation." -- avoid "we" and "one" throughout (MOS).
  • "sneakiness" -- unencylopedic.
  • "These are not equivalent to each other! " -- likewise, remove the "!"
  • "The Jones polynomial " -- highlight both words or none.
  • This may be just me, but I think placing images at the beginning of sections is usually nicer. E.g. in the knot equivalence section the image oddly overlaps with the next section headline etc.
  • I suspect that hyperbolic knots are not knots with some sort of geometric background, but the ones with hyperbolic geometry? If so, reword the first sentence in that section.
  • External links: what is the Kelvin link for? Why is it not a reference? Likewise with the 2nd. External links also need some accessdate.
  • I suggest putting "There are a number of introductions to knot theory. ..." to the References section. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I will not be able to respond to progress before next Monday.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The history section lists several applications of the theory (statistical physics, chirality, DNA) but the body of this article does not tell a word about it. I think it is very missing and am therefore opposing on the basis of comprehensiveness. I would also like to suggest the authors to merge this article with Knot (mathematics). Vb 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.248.217 (talk) [reply]

  • How do I withdraw the nomination? I find myself agreeing quite a bit with Jakob above. Probably I should expand the article a few more paragraphs on the new homological theories and 4-dimensional invariants (and something on enzymes). Unfortunately, that won't get done any time soon. I would be interested in Sasata's comments on the current revision. I hope most of his objections were addressed. Thanks to everyone for participation -- I think the article has improved from the attention, but unfortunately not to FA standard. --C S (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't have to do anything special, just state that you withdraw. SandyGeorgia will then archive the nomination at some point. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. This is better than most FAs as it stands, and many of the objections are unimportant MoScruft. Expanions are always welcome, but 4-dimensional invariants should probably be a subarticle anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, as I said above, only a few paragraphs are needed, which I could whip up in a few days work, but I would have to dig out some sources and get into the zone. Right now, I'm dealing with other matters, so I can't say when I would be able to get around to working on the article.
  • Withdrawing: please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the fac template on the talk page until the bot runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 12:23, 25 March 2009 [7].

Spokane, Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): Anon134 (talk), Killiondude (talk)

We are nominating this for featured article because...we believe it satisfies the FA criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon134 (talk • contribs) 01:44, March 19, 2009

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe The Independent Institute source to be reliable because their papers are peer reviewed. They are a think-tank like The Heritage Foundation, The Brookings Institute, etc:

"The Independent Institute’s research program includes six centers to further the Institute’s scholarly and educational mission, each of which adheres to the highest peer-review standards and excellent publishing and high visibility media/communications practices. ... Each center’s mission is to evaluate, refine, and propose advances that provide sound solutions to major social and economic issues. Each program comprises three broad elements: scholarly research, publications, and dissemination of findings to opinion leaders and the general public through conference and media projects." Anon134 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. While the sourcing has definitely been improved since the first FAC nomination, it is not quite where it ought to be for a featured article.

  • The history section sourcing is not quite up to par. Among the sources used for this section are the city of Spokane (a self-published source) and Encarta (a tertiary source, which we should be avoided if possible). I see that you have consulted several books (yea!), but please make sure they have been used for more than just replacing previous citations. Part of the point of using a book is that they tend to be more comprehensive than a short essay that deals with a very, very small piece of the history and may have relevant details that should be included.
  • There are a large number of self-published websites that are being used to cite various things outside the history section, and a noticeable lack of newspaper/magazine articles. There are two issues with this approach:
    • This gives the appearance of original research. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover what independent, reliable sources think are important in the topic area. Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate.
    • Self-published sources should not be used to cite some of the claims that are being made - it is blatant POV. For example, a Washington state economic development agency that accelerates the development and growth of innovative technology companies and The quality of healthcare in Spokane attracts patients from beyond the region. are both sourced to self-published websites of the agency and a hospital, respectively. Also The biggest sports event hosted in Spokane history was the 2007 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. is sourced to the USFS website - of course they would think it was the biggest event; what do independent sources think? There are other examples of this scattered through the article.
  • There is some unnecessary detail in the article. Do we really need to know who funded the project to renovate the Davenport Hotel (or that there is a safari-themed tower added on to it)?
  • Why does the Notable residents section contain only a link? This either needs to be renamed to See also, or, more appropriately, a prose paragraph needs to be added to provide a summary of the list.
  • Books that are included in the sources should not be in further reading. What you can do is have a "Notes" section that includes the short notes (Schmeltzer, p....) and a "References" section that has the full details on the book.
  • Please do a check to make sure that there is no plagiarism. I found the following examples and fear that there are others:
    • The source says yellow pine flat in the "V" where the Little Spokane meets the Spokane,, which is duplicated in the article without quotation marks.
    • The article says In 1810, Thompson dispatched Jacques Raphael "Jaco" Finlay and Finan McDonald to the Spokane River to build a trade house that would exchange with the Spokane and Colville Indians in present day Eastern Washington.[10] The source is almost identical - In 1810, Thompson dispatched Jacques Raphael "Jaco" Finlay (1768-1828) to the Spokane River to build a trade house that would serve the Spokane and Colville Indians in present day Eastern Washington.
  • Be careful that sources match what the text says. The text claims that Together they built the first commercial building in Spokane Falls, a small sawmill on a claim near the south bank of the Spokane Falls. The source doesn't say that it was the first commercial building in Spokane Falls.[8]

Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill try to work on the specific issues you addresssed. I would appreciate it if you could sweep the article for all the references that you see problematic, Karanacs. Otherwise we have no clue what to addressed - you said theres other stuff 'scattered throughout the article', I want to know exactly what you are referring to so we can fix them. Anon134 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling when you said, "There are a large number of self-published websites that are being used to cite various things outside the history section, and a noticeable lack of newspaper/magazine articles", you are referring mainly about the info in the Culture section...but without any elaboration- I am dead in the water and cant improve the article. Please give specifics to be of more help.
Also, is it POV to simply confirm the existence of something with a self-published website? I dont see how would advances any viewpoint. Anon134 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im currently gathering Spokesman-Review websites to re-reference Japan Week info, and The Spokane Intl. Film Festival, etc.
I've provided examples of the problems as well as an explanation of why certain sourcing methods are problematic. Unfortunately a) I don't have time to provide an exhaustive list of every problem with the article, and b) this is not peer review, where articles can be rebuilt. FAC is to determine whether an article meets the FAC criteria or not, not to provide line-by-line analysis of the article. I recommend that you find other editors who are familiar with FAC sourcing standards and can help you identify the more specific problems. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been hard to find peer reviewers for this article, there apparently isnt enough interest in the Wikipedia community. This article went through a peer review and an ACR before coming here. If editors wont take the time to thoroughly review the article in a FAC, then I dont know where this article can get one. I am going to ask you to peer review this article when this FAC ends. Maybe, you could at least give us examples of what you are talking about when you said this, "...Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate". It would be helpful if you could at least include a few, or maybe just say which sections need the most work. The work can and will be done if we know what needs to be worked on. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for Anon. It has definitely been hard to find people to review this article. At least 10 experienced editors were left messages asking if they could review it for A-Class, and only one editor stopped by to thoroughly examine the article. Killiondude (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Dr. Cash I would like to add that this article has gone through a lot of work since the last FAC nomination, and recently passed an A-Class Review for WikiProject Cities. One of the things that I brought up during that review was missing content from the history section, and overall I was satisfied that what was added would be sufficient for that level. If other editors think more should be added here for FAC, then I will defer to their judgment. The article also meets all guidelines and specifications by WikiProject Cities, and as far as I can tell, is in compliance with the WP:MOS for geography-related articles. Other than that, I think this article is in great shape and I wholeheartedly support it's Featured Article Candidacy! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs and external links are up to speed (checked with the respective toolbox checker tools)
  • Ref formatting is not up to speed
  • The following ref is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, use a ref name instead
  • Schmeltzer (1988), pp. 44 --Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Truco. Anon134 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Also, there is actually one dab that needs to be fixed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please remove your strike throughs of Karanacs and I's comments? At FAC, it's usual to let the commentator strike when they feel the comments have been resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. Anon134 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Just finished. Though you added one twice it appears. Killiondude (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
gj Killion. Anon134 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose — copyvio/plagiarism
    • I started verifying the claims in the article against the sources from the History section. Curiously, the book source given and the page numbers did not match any of claims in the first paragraph of the History section. Suspicious, I Googled some of the phrases, and found an exact match at http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1570.html, which, according to archive.org, predates the use of these phrases in this Wikipedia article. I see that these phrases were also there in article during the previous FAC. It looks as if the nominator just switched out the previous citations to low-quality sources for a citation to a scholarly work; thus, on the surface, it would look as if the claims were being backed up by a high-quality source. Reviewers are not that easily fooled though. This is not impressive behavior. Research involves reading the sources one uses and summarizing the material, not skimming through a book, seeing that it touches on a similar topic, and using it to "cite" claims that are not backed up by the book. Comparing the state of the article during the previous FAC with the current one, it looks as if at other spots, too, higher quality sources were simply substituted in the citations without any changes to the content/wording of the text. I hope that these claims in the article are backed up by these new sources.
    • "Firefighters began dynamiting buildings in an attempt to deprive the fire of fuel, but the flames jumped the spaces, and soon created their own firestorm." from http://historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=7696.
    • This should be withdrawn; the nominators should go through the entire text to weed out copyvios and focus on using sources correctly. BuddingJournalist 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you had taken the time to review this when I asked you before Budding, we could have identified some of the problems earlier; I asked much of the FA-team to review the references of the article and all turned it down. By the sound of it, you think im intentionally trying to 'fool' reviewers- which is an assumption of bad faith. That is a hurtful accusation, I am trying to help make Wikipedia better too. You were new once too, and Im still pretty new. When I wrote those, I was brand new to Wikipedia and have have learned much since then. I simply replaced the source with another source that verified the same info; I didnt mind touching the prose because it seemed fine to me and kept it. I now know thats a problem and that and other problems that still linger in this article need to be fixed; I started the FAC to identify them. Since nobody would review the article, this seemed to be the only way to get it reviewed. I want to leave it here another day so others can review it then Ill pull it. Anon134 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I seemed unduly harsh, but please don't try to put the responsibility of copyvio/sourcing issues on the fact that others did not have the time to review the article before the FAC. I just don't understand how fixing such a glaring error such as the one this article contained necessitates outside reviewers. Surely, you noticed the disconnect between the sources and the text? "I simply replaced the source with another source that verified the same info" But the other source didn't verify the same info. Did you read the source you used? How thoroughly did you go through the new sources since the last FAC? Your approach to the article—basing the sources on the article's text rather than the other way around—is backwards and suggests that you're not undertaking thorough research. Also, please note that FAC is not a peer review; when you submit an article to FAC, you should be confident that it meets the criteria. If not, then it shouldn't be here, and it's unfair to other nominators to use it just to get more reviews. Finally, if you think my response is harsh, consider what would happen in the real world. If you turned this in as an assignment, you could be kicked out of school; handed this in to your editor, and you might be fired. Here, there are no consequences other than perhaps a failed FAC. I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of the problem here. BuddingJournalist 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response at User talk:Anon134. BuddingJournalist 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISO dates are used incorrectly throughout the citations (if anyone ever tries to run a bot on those, it probably won't work.) See WP:MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got all the ISO dates, including the incorrect ones, and reformatted them into MDY. The only exception to this is a result of the GR templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblehead (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 March 2009
good job, Bobblehead. Anon134 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: - Anon134 has left Wikipedia (it seems) based off of this edit. He was actually the primary contributor to the article, and I co-nominated with him because he asked me to (not that he twisted my arm or anything though). I mostly helped with moral support and technical parts--not content building... So. I don't exactly know where to go with this FAC. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Killiondude, if you think that you can fix the article sourcing and copyvio issues very quickly, then it's okay to leave the nomination open. Otherwise, I encourage you to withdraw the nomination, work on the problems, and renominate it at a later date. I'll be happy to do a peer review later, but I need plenty of time - I often have lots of requests at once and can't get to them all promptly. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This can't become an FA if it contains copyvios, as apparently it does. That's really not negotiable, regardless of intentions or blame. Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I peer-reviewed the article on 5 March 2009, and among other things, I said to the editors, "I think you are getting close to FA with this, and I encourage you to keep plugging away. It is very good." In view of the discussion above, I agree that the article should be withdrawn, re-worked, and renominated when the sourcing and copyvio issues have been addressed. I'd be happy to do another peer review, Killiondude, but I don't see how I can sort out the copyvio questions. Your best course would be to read at least the books in the References section that are directly related to Spokane and to make your own judgments about what stays in and what gets thrown out. Then bring the article back to PR and later to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination: I've decided to withdraw this nomination in light of the copyvio issues as well as Anon134's departure from Wikipedia. Thank you all for your time spent reviewing this page, and your suggestions for making it better. FlyingToaster and I will be fixing the issues with this page in the coming weeks and hope to resubmit to FAC in the near future. Again, thank you all for your time. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How do I close this? This is my first time with FAC, and withdrawing a nom isn't mentioned (as far as I've read). Should I just take down the {{FAC}} template on the article's talk page? Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hold off on removing the template. I don't know what the process is. Perhaps someone who knows will see this and point to the exit strategy. Finetooth (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the FA director, User:Raul654—or one of his delegates, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Karanacs, will archive the discussion and that a bot will do the rest. If I hung out here more, I'd probably know for certain. Finetooth (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the withdrawal process. Please leave the FAC tag on the article talk page - this will be removed by a bot over the weekend. Thanks, and good luck! Karanacs (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:32, 25 March 2009 [9].

1941 Florida hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

A bit short, perhaps, but I feel this is the most comprehensive account of the storm currently available. I've used a mixture of online sources, newspapers, and publications, so hopefully you'll agree. The storm was rather unique, and as such I quite enjoyed writing it. Thanks in advance for any comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Comment -- Dabs and external links (found using the checker tools in the toolbox), and ref formatting (found using WP:REFTOOLS) are up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I took the liberty of doing a few quick ref tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the fixes; this is the first article in which I've used printed sources, so I'm still getting used to the format. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, it's not far off, but some work is needed:
    • I'm used to hurricane articles starting with a more thorough description of the storm's formation, like a tropical wave moving off the coast of Africa (I knew nothing about tropical storms before joining WP; look what you guys have taught me.). It this information simply not known about this storm?
      • The problem is that the specific origins are unknown, so its observation to the north of the Virgin Islands are the first official records of the storm. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first para of "Meteorological history" is all passive voice - do we know who observed the storm, or located the circulation center, etc? I'd be happy if we could change at least one to active voice and identify a subject (government, organization, etc.)
    • I changed your "towards" to "toward" because I believe it's more common in American English. I won't cry if you want me to change it back.
    • Passive voice is your bugbear. It doesn't need to be completely absent, especially when the subject of the sentence is unknown or unimportant, but when the subject is present, why twist the sentence to make it passive? For example, I changed "Salt water was blown several miles inland by intense winds" to "The intense winds blew salt water several miles inland".
      • I've tried to reword the passive voice in some areas, but because the information is so scarce, it's often impossible to determine who did what. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the infobox be fixed so that (1-minute sustained) does not break after 1-
  • "At the time, the storm was determined to be a small, yet well-developed, hurricane" Last comma not necessary.
  • "Along the southern shore of Lake Okeechobee, winds gusted to 60 miles per hour (97 km/h), while a pressure of 995 mb, winds exceeding 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) and a storm tide of over 4 feet (1.2 m) was reported at Everglades City." Awkward construction, ended by passive voice.
  • "...it was lasted noted during the night of October 11–12," last noted?
  • "The warnings were attributed to prompting extensive preparations that resulted in a low loss of life and property associated with the hurricane." Sentence construction sounds awkward.
  • There is one instance where the atmospheric pressure is given in two different units (under Impact, United States), but this appears to be the only instance. Should this not be consistent throughout? Also for (29.00 inHg), shouldn't there be a space in there?
  • "Of the storm, the Tallahassee Democrat reported..." The initial clause seems to be isolated and awkwardly placed. (Meh, on second glance it's perhaps just a stylistic difference. Don't change if you don't want to.)
  • "...the Tallahassee Democrat published 6,000 copies of a special storm edition, written on typewriters and stapled together" Is written the correct verb to use here? And weren't all newspapers typed? Or do you mean people typed 6000 copies??
  • What the heck were Tallahasseeans doing picking pecans in the middle of a storm? They must have been nuts.
  • The lead mentions 8 deaths, the infobox says 9; perhaps the poor Georgian fellow should be accounted for as well.

Image review: no issues with the two images. Jappalang (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose in current form, pending some clarification.
    • Still oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
      • I still fundamentally oppose based on lack of information, as well as lack of sources more recent than 67 years old. However, it appears no one else seems to care. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does The next day, a circulation center was determined mean?
      • I'm not sure what's wrong with this, but I've changed it, nonetheless. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My problem is that the Infobox says it formed on October 3rd, and the wording "was determined" is very vague. Try re-writing so it doesn't use passive voice. Professional writing discourages the use of passive voice. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See previous comment here regarding passive voice; I believe the issue has been sufficiently addressed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The awkward language (was determined) is still there. My question is simply a matter of what happened, and when? Who observed it on the 13th? What happened on the 14th to change its status? If simple questions like that can't be answered, I'm surprised you're putting it up for FAC. For what it's worth, the "was determined" can easily be re-written to avoid the passive voice. Something like "Surface observations confirmed the existence of a circulation" is much clearer than "a circulation center was determined". See if any other instances of passive voice can be re-written. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • To assume that the circulation center was found via surface observations would be original research. As I said previously, "because the information is so scarce, it's often impossible to determine who did what". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's hardly original research. The MWR says "morning observations", and given a tropical cyclone a surface phenomena, it's hardly objectionable. Hell, if you don't like "surface", then say exactly what the public domain MWR says, with "morning observations". I don't know why you're trying to keep the current wording so much. If you can avoid passive voice, you should, and you can in this instance. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Alright then. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks. I didn't want to make a big case about it. There are some other instances of passive voice that can be removed, but I won't be too anal about it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did it reach its peak? The lede implies it was after it made landfall
    • Unit linking? Also, shouldn't units be shortened (mph, mi) after their first usage?
      • Common units like mph and inches don't need links. I'm not sure about the abbreviation, but AFAIK, there's nothing against it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly "964 mb" should have a link to bar (unit), as outside of the Infobox there's no link to that article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • that same day - in MH, I have no idea what day that is, since no date was mentioned for a while.
    • Why is this in MH? Because Fort Myers was on the northern edge of the storm, little damage was reported there
    • There is a descrepancy between the Infobox and the MH. The MH says "it was lasted noted during the night of October 11–12, when it passed south of Bermuda", but the lede says it dissipated on the 13th.
      • Corrected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that wasn't corrected. The official hurricane database has the storm lasting until October 14th, after becoming extratropical on the 13th. That should certainly be mentioned. I am surprised an article on FAC is missing the complete known history of the storm. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, it's been sort of fixed. I'd personally like to see a mention of where it was last observed, as its demise seems to be just an afterthought in the article. A brief end of the MH should be added to the end of the first lede paragraph. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More later. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help but feel the article is on the short side. No aftermath? That is a staple (or should be) in all TC FA's. Was there any aid to affected people? Any reconstruction? Also, aside from the book sources and HURDAT, are there really no sources that have information more recent than 67 years old? Are there really no other MWR documents on the storm? More later. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google has, quite literally, nothing on the storm. The hurricane archive has good impact information, but I've been unable to find any aftermath information, and I must disagree that such information is required of a tropical cyclone FA. "Florida's Hurricane History" is generally pretty comprehensive, and it has no aftermath info at all. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're expecting too much from a search engine, by expecting info to appear from both Nassau and Florida. I did a narrower search, and quickly found this NOAA site, which estimates a normalized damage total of $5 billion, or 6th highest according to one study. That's something fairly important that should be in the article, and I'm sure there is other info like that which is out there. If there isn't any info on aftermath, then I guess it's fine, but if it does exist then it needs to be in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already saw that link, but decided not to include it; essentially, it's a matter of what might happen if the same storm struck during some random year, which is WP:IINFO, in my opinion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think the writing isn't quite up to FA standards, but not enough to oppose solely on that. Examples:
      • "damaging property and crops and killing" (two ands)
      • "damage to countless vehicles" (little dramatic?)
      • "One person was killed in Georgia." (no way to expand that stubby sentence?)
      • Somewhere in the article should have a link to landfall.
      • "passed through the Everglades and passed"
      • "pressure fell to 995 mb there, winds exceeded 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) and storm tide exceeded 4 feet (1.2 m) at Everglades City (unclear what met. stat is at which station)
      • "The storm... The storm" (consecutive sentences w/ the same word)
      • "re-emerged" (little quibble, but it only emerged once into the GoM)
      • "While over water, the storm re-intensified." (stubby sentence - how strong did it get?)
      • "and barometric pressure fell to 982 mb" (perhaps mention where that was recorded)
      • "to resort to" (saying just "to use" would be easier)
    • That's it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Were there any comparisons to the big 1938 storm that hit the Keys? That one was only three years prior and might have caused a quick look back. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Those old storms are easy to mix up. I did a bit of searching on Google, but I couldn't find any legitimate comparisons from reliable sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:32, 25 March 2009 [10].

New York State Route 319[edit]

Nominator(s): Mitch32(Go Syracuse)

I am nominating this for featured article because unlike the last article to come by of this type from me, New York State Route 382, this one is written better. I feel it meets all criteria, and I also got it recently copyedited for this FAC. Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs and ref formatting is up to speed using the dabs checker tool and WP:REFTOOLS, respectively.
  • Fix the dead external link, found using the checker tool in the toolbox.--₮RUCӨ 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links are also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I didn't read far before getting lost. This really needs attention from an effective copyeditor, as the prose is far from FA quality. The second paragraph of the lead is incomprehensible, honestly; the reader shouldn't be forced to move on just to get a basic understanding of the lead's content. It looks like you got some good advice in peer review but it's unclear how much of it you acted on. In some cases, the changes you seem to have made in response to PR comments were not improvements. Sample issues just from the lead and first section:
    • "This one case"?
    • "The route was commissioned by 1931" - We've just been told that the route was there before 1931. Confusing.
    • "The route remained for 53 years being decommissioned in July 1984 in a trade between the state and Chenango County." Aside from the grammatical oddities, it also makes little sense.
    • "the state turned over Route 319" So it's upside-down now?
    • "crossed into Norwich town limits"
--Laser brain (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting copyeditor, just solved your comments ;) - Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Related to the recent notability discussions at WT:USRD... this article *appears* notable since it was a former turnpike. I hope to do a review soon. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm unclear why you invited me back to look at the article since your copyeditor introduced several questions and requests for further revision in their inline comments. Did you review the changes? At any rate, I would recommend this be withdrawn for now to address those issues and the ones I listed below. It's quite a ways off, currently, and I don't recommend trying to push this through FAC at this time.
    • "The turnpike, along with local opposition" This doesn't provide any context for understanding, and the corresponding section of text isn't much help - there is only one sentence there about any opposition. It's also slightly misleading, as it suggests the opposition was to the road itself. It seems from reading on that the opposition was really about the privatization.
    • "Route 319 proceeded eastward into the city of Norwich and the designated terminated at an intersection ..." I don't understand the use of "designated" here. Is it supposed to be "designation"?
    • "The area was mountainous" It is no longer?
    • "... providing the village energy to light the streets in Norwich." I don't understand this phrase. Are you speaking of Preston or Norwich? Following your organization, it seems you are referring to Norwich.. but it's a city, not a village. If you substitute the object, you get "providing Norwich energy to light the streets in Norwich"?
    • "The turnpikes were intended to create companies which would build, maintain, and Toll the roads." Typically in American English, "companies that would build".
    • "farmers, merchants, and landowners often failed to maintain their part of the funds." Unclear. How were they maintaining funds?
    • "As a result, some of the turnpikes proposed were not constructed" As a result of what? This statement can't seem to be the result of what you've just stated.
--Laser brain (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed his comments. And its staying, I hate withdrawing because it lowers my spirits. And it shows how people hate my guts. I don't care if you block me for the comments, but its basically true. I finished those you just mentioned.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what? I'm assuming you put your article up here for constructive criticism—I don't know anything about people hating your guts or blocking you. However, you have my feedback and it is certainly your choice to leave the nomination here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may give some context here. There are some frank discussions going on at WP:USRD about toughening the project standards. These have resulted in some of Mitch's GA nominations getting quickfailed, and some that previously passed being placed up for GAR for failing project notability guidelines, etc. Mitch, please don't take it personally. The intent is to improve the quality of the articles being produced by the project as a whole. IMO the bigger aim is to erase the stereotype that many wiki editors have the road articles are boring and dry. You're the poster child, yes, but that's because you are a GAC and FAC nominating machine. It's a project wide problem and I include myself at the criticisms I've lanced. Believe me, I want to gut U.S. Route 491 and start over, and just might. Although it passed FA, I now feel it's a terrible article given what it could be. You need to remember that for an article to truly be good, it needs to be perceived as good by both an expert on roads and someone who could otherwise care less about roads. The toughening of standards is a good thing, and if it means we all loose some brownie points, so be it.Dave (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its that I am a bull writer - and I already rewrote this once. I don't want to rewrite it again.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the above comment is I would be wasting my time to help with this article, as any suggestions will be dismissed. Frankly, it's hard for me to sympathize that you feel bad for being asked to re-write again where you've made a whopping 38 edits in the year the article has existed. My current nomination in this queue, I'm at 250 edits over a span of 3 years, including 3 major re-writes and dozens of section re-writes. I've got 47 article/talk edits on an article where I was only the GAC reviewer. I'm not bragging, I'm sure there are several in this forum that can top those stats several times over. (lets ask Sandygeorgia or Ealdgyth about their edit counts on articles they've worked on) Bottom line, complain all you want, but it will fall on deaf ears. Frankly, your not even close to putting in the time and effort into this article that most others in this queue have on their nomination. My apologies for sounding harsh, but I feel some tough love is in order at this point.Dave (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:32, 25 March 2009 [11].

Buckton Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfils the FA criteria. It is perhaps a little short compared to other FAs, but this article represents the limit of what is known about a small castle on a high hill in the north west of England. In the words of Greater Manchester's county archaeologist "Greater Manchester is not well known for its castles, but Buckton Castle will put the area well and truly on the castle map as it is clearly the best preserved ... in the county area". Nev1 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Using WP:REFTOOLS, and the dabs/external links checker tools, the ref formatting, dabs, and external links are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peripitus (talk · contribs)

  • The cited text in the lead should be moved to the main article text. Citations in the lead usually show that the lead has unique information rather than being a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. I think that the lead should be longer, incorporating more of a summary of the history section. - appears ok now - Peripitus (Talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references have been moved into the main body of the article, and where the information did not appear later, that was moved too. The lead has been expanded slightly. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any recommendations how to expand the lead further? I believe it covers the main points, ie: the layout and location, SAM status, current condition, history and who built it, and later uses. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - missed this one. I've printed the article out and will read later today and respond then - Peripitus (Talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Notes-references-notes-bibliography sectioning looks odd especially with only one note. I think it would be better if the single note was done as a inline reference to incorporate it with the other (reference type) notes, the hanging "References" heading removed, and the remaining two sections all changed to level 2 headings (leaving just Notes with the footnotes and References with the referenced works) looks much better now - Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes section has been removed, but the references section is still divided into notes and bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3-metre (9.8 ft) - if the source says only 3 m then 9.8 feet is too precise - use 3-metre (10-foot). 1.2-metre (3.9 ft) - I would be sure that the English source said 4 feet so perhaps this should be rounded as well. I suggest checking the precision of the {{convert}} template use in all places. looks good - Peripitus (Talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of decimal places for starting and finishing value now matches in all cases. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some text work needed to make this flow better eg:
    • In the "location" section—Buckton Castle liesis situated about 335 metres—Remove redundancy and note that "about" and a precise figure (for a castle) of 335 m don't seem to work together well. Consider combining some of the sentences in this paragraph particularly the penultimate and preceding one. In the last sentence it implies that the castle itself guards, which is improbable. - Done - Peripitus (Talk) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the history section, paragraph 3, the word "site" is used repeatedly and this harms the paragraphs readability. A different wording is needed to make this flow better - fixed now - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, alternatives have been found and the word "site" is now only used once in the paragraph. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography has some information issues eg: The first reference does not have the volume number (3), the second appears to have the incorrect publisher (Current Publishing is at Lamb House...I don't think that the house is the publisher) and the third needs to be unabbreviated (unless this is the standard way to do this one ?). Consistent now. I've changed the first three to cite-journal to get the volume # in the same place and replaced two hyphens with endashes (per somewhere in WP:MOS I think) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments from Peripitus (talk · contribs) - all of my previous concerns have been addressed.

  • Given the article is short (appropriate length though I think for the subject) consideration needs to be given to explaining what a ringwork is - this will not make it overly long as it might in other articles.
  • An explanation has been added at the start of the layout section as that's the first occasion apart from the lead and infobox where the term is used. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of "Location" tells the reader that it was in a medieval manor. The text needs clarity as to whether the castle or the Valley (or both) were so placed - one word here could help. Also what is the significance of the manor it is in, as the manor is not then mentioned elsewhere ?
  • Boith were in the Tame valley. A little has been added on what a manor is and why it's not mentioned later, ie: the lordship it was a part of was much more important. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "history", paragraph 2, 1st sentence: "in 1360 stating"....who stated this ?
  • It should now be clear that it was the estate survey that recorded this information. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article notes that "It is the oldest surviving building...". Surely it's not a "surviving building" but rather a site where a building once existed ? Should this be "It is the earliest known built structure...." or something similar.
  • In this case, "surviving building" did not mean that it's an upright structure or visible above ground, but that traces of it do survive. I've changed it to "oldest ruined building..." which is hopefully clearer. Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that I am happy with the comprehensiveness (I will be interested to see the results of the 2009 archaeological work), referencing, images and general layout. As for the writing style; it reads as well written to me - Peripitus (Talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 report will hopefully make interesting reading and may clear up a few questions (was it really abandoned before it was finished? Why? It would have been a lot of effort and expense to go to and then not complete the work). When I can get my hands on a copy, I'll update the article. Cheers for the review, Nev1 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All my concerns addressed now - like the article - Peripitus (Talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article is quite good as it stands and reads, but to mention the elephant in the room, at 1132 words can we be assured that it meets 1.b. Not challenging, just asking. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's as comprehensive as it can be, all the sources have been drained dry, and in all honesty there's not a whole lot to say about the castle (partly because it may never have been finished and therefore possibly never used). Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After Sandy's note I looked again. I can't find anything, that is covered by a source I can find, that is missing from the article. It seems to me to be an adequate size article given the subject and I concur with Nev1 on this point. More material will be available I expect after the 2009 archaeological work but there seems nothing more to add now - Peripitus (Talk) 01:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inclined to support to be honest, it fells - reads- as slight. It meets all the FAC requirments, but at such a lenght seems not to meet the spirit. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems—I tend to agree with Ceoil on the coverage (you finish and think "is that all?"); the prose has issues, too. Here are a few examples.

  • Ideal example of how to avoid a triple-bunger. Here, there's inconsistency: "The castle is oval, with a 3-metre (10 ft) wide stone curtain wall, surrounded by a ditch 10 metres (33 ft) wide and 6 metres (20 ft) deep." What we need is "a stone curtain wall 3 metres (10 ft) wide,...". Tony the Tiger, please note.
  • "It is recorded as ..."—we start to want an immediate reference if you put it that way. Just make the statement and talk about recording where you reference it in the body of the text.
  • "above ground ruins"—hyphen.
  • "reveal" rather than "find". Or better, "foster research into its ..."?
  • "both castle and valley"—you can remove "the" when it's A and B; it's elegant.
  • "Buckton Castle was probably built by William de Neville, lord of Longdendale, in the late 12th century;[5] which would make it contemporary with other castles in Greater Manchester such as Dunham, Manchester, Stockport, and Ullerwood." No. This is the opposite of a comma splice; after a semicolon, there must be a stand-alone grammatical sentence, whereas after a comma, there must not be one. Either make it a comma or change which to this. (And upper-case "Lord"?)
  • Use ellipsis to remove one little word: "The castle has been the subject of antiquarian studies since the 18th century, and it was originally thought to have been the location of an Iron Age hill fort."
  • See here, by the way. Tony (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed your specific examples with this edit (at least some were "advanced" mistakes rather than elementary errors!) and will take another look at the prose to see if there's anything else I can do. As for "is that all", I'm afraid it is. Reviewers will have to decide for themselves whether it's enough. I understand it's short, and I knew it wouldn't get an easy ride, but there isn't any more to say at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:05, 23 March 2009 [12].

Antoine Thompson[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a fairly complete and well-sourced account of a modestly notable biographical subject. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical review
  • External links (using checker tool in toolbox) and ref formatting (using WP:REFTOOLS script) are found up to speed.
  • Dabs (using the checker tool in the toolbox) need to be fixed.--₮RUCӨ 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...are now up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - needs persondata. Hekerui (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Gimmetrow 00:28, 22 March 2009 [13].

Butte, Montana[edit]

: seattlehawk94 (talk)

I am nominating this article because it's about a city that's had alot to do with American history. For a city of now 33,000 it's had more to do with the industrial age, western expansion, and modern history than any other city of it's size in the USA.--seattlehawk94 (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Clearly not enough references. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lead does not summarize the article per WP:LEAD, agree that this needs many more references, the 18 inline citations do not all have enough information per WP:CITE (at least one is just the URL), much of the article is bullet lists, clearly not anywhere near ready for FA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I cannot support this article in its present state. Other than agreeing with the previous two reviewers' comments, I can also see that the article does not comply with the manual of style, nor does it comply with the specifications and guidelines for city articles per WikiProject Cities. An examination of the guideline for US city articles would help editors out tremendously here. On a more positive note, I think the article has surpassed the 'start' class, and can probably be reassessed at the C-class level. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech.Review
  • Dabs are not up to speed (checked with the checker tool in the toolbox)
  • They need to be fixed.
Yes the disambiguation links need to be fixed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links are not up to speed (checked with the checker tool in the toolbox)
  • They need to be fixed.
  • Ref formatting is not up to speed (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script)
  • The following ref need to be properly titled not with a Bot title
  • <ref>[http://www.knieveldays.com/ Evel Knievel Days :: Butte, Montana :: July 24th, 25th, 26th 2008<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
  • The following ref needs to be properly formatted
  • <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-07-05-2937395846_x.htm</ref>--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 21 March 2009 [14].

Guitar Hero: Aerosmith[edit]

Nominator(s): N.G.G.

I am nominating this for featured article because...it is in excellent shape and meets the criteria in every way. This article has been being shaped for a long time and just about passed the GAN with flying colors. I was going to nominate it for A first but figured might as well shoot for the top. There are many editors who were constantly working with the article and will easily be able to adress any problem that comes up in this review. And so, I give you Guitar Hero: Aerosmith. N.G.G. 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review

Dabs (checker tool)
  • Fix the dab Done
External links (checker tool)
  • Fix the dead external link
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
Comment Two of the link that are marked as dead is not dead. The last two link are marked as such but are not. Check them before opposing.N.G.G. 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing anything, and keep your cool dawg. There is one dead external link, the other two yes I know they are fine, which is why I said dead external link not external links.--₮RUCӨ 03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came off as heated, I was just trying to keep people up to date. Thanks for your help. :) N.G.G. 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok. Links are up to speed now.--₮RUCӨ 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ready. Prose needs significant overhaul. Examples only:
    • It's tiring to see four of the first five sentences begin with "The game is/was"
    • "Aerosmith has re-recorded..." Is the game not yet released? Why are we using the present perfect here?
    • "by playing significant songs " Interesting personification here.
    • "The player starts as Joe Perry" Commence the roller coaster ride of tenses: present -> future -> present -> past -> present perfect.
    • No wikilinks whatsoever in Gameplay?
    • "Billboard announced that the band Aerosmith was" No context. Please at least provide when. Why are they "announcing"? Aren't they a trade publication that would report such news?
    • "It is currently unclear whether this announcement was in reference to Guitar Hero: World Tour, or the announced spin-off of Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, Guitar Hero: Aerosmith." WP:OR?
    • "On February 15, 2008, Activision announced that one of the two new Guitar Hero installments will be Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, to be released in June 2008.[5][9] Guitar Hero: Aerosmith will be developed by Neversoft for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions, and the Wii version of the game will be developed by Vicarious Visions and the PlayStation 2 version will be developed by Budcat Creations." Future tense because?
    • "The developers attempted to recreate as many of historical venues within the game." Hmm.
    • "the developers used old photographs and YouTube videos of the club during the 1970s, to a highly accurate degree, as claimed by those that had attended the club during that period" Eh? Wordy, awkward, and confusing.
    • "Within these venues, set decorations are inspired from Aerosmith album covers. Five that were confirmed are" More tense issues. Use of passive makes for weak prose here. BuddingJournalist 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destructoid is the equivalent of IGN and is one of the mots visited video game sites but just about only a little less known. Other links I will check and see what makes them reliable.N.G.G. 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second link, it is a trusted Kansas based website. More research is being done.N.G.G. 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Pre-empting Ealdgyth's inevitable reply) To determine the reliability of the sites, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. BuddingJournalist 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone stole my boilerplate! (laughs). BJ got it right on the nose. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually to correct NGG, Max's Kansas City is one of the nightclubs that Aerosmith became popular in, and one of the venues created in the game; in this specific case, the club itself commenting on the recreation of the venue in the game would be an appropriate source here. The other two sources should be replaceable. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 21 March 2009 [15].

Tender Mercies[edit]

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've put a good amount of work into it and I think it's as thorough and comprehensive as it can be. Looking forward to any suggestions or comments! Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical Review
  • Dabs and external links (using the checker tool in the toolbox) are found up to speed.
  • Ref formatting (using WP:REFTOOLS script) found an issue: The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section as such, a ref name should be used instead for the following duplicated refs..
  • ...is also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Make sure all your web sources have last access dates.
    • Added to the web sources, but I didn't add them to the ones I got off Lexus Nexus, where I had pages and sections and whatnot, even if I also had a website for them. Check to make sure that's acceptable for you. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://countrymusic.about.com/od/interviews/a/lbrodyint_4.htm a reliable source?
    • I was under the impression that About.com was reliable; it's been around a long time, is one of the most visited sites on the web and is big enough to warrant its own article here. But, if it isn't, I'll check Lexus Nexus to see if I can find another source of that info to replace it with. I'll be able to do that tomorrow... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replaced that source with new sources. Couldn't find anything on Buckley demanding more moolah for the soundtrack, but the rest of it was covered by other sources. Got no URLS for those, but if you want the exact wording, I can email you copies of the articles I've copy and pasted from my Lexis search. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On About.com see ... Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoS cleanup needed throughout. There are WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues, and problems with consistency in page numbers in the citations. Samples:
  • "winning but extremely low-key film." Maltin also said Foote's screenplay is "not so much a story as a series of vignettes."
    • I think I got them all, but if I missed any please feel free to fix them or point them out to me. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maltin, Leonard (October 2003). Anderson, Cathleen; Sader, Luke (eds.). Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide (2004 ed.). New York City: Plume. pp. pg. 1388. ISBN 0451209400. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  • English is default, delete. Understand the difference between p. pp. and pg, don't mix them, use a consistent style throughout. It should be p. 1388 or pp. on page ranges. The placement of punctuation on both quotes is wrong per Wp:PUNC.
  • Dropped the english. I seems someone else fixed the pages thing in this case. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slawson p. 158-159
These items should be easy to fix, but standard fare for repeat FAC nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-

I would suggest greatly expanding the cast section. Every other section is overflowing with information on each respective topic; try adding some more info to the cast section. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell me specifically how you would suggest expanding this section? I was under the impression in Film-related articles, only major cast members should be listed so that it's not simply a list of every single minor part, which would run the risk of creating a IMDb-lookalike. I mean, I guess I could add more actors/characters to the list, but since all the pertinent information is in the "Casting" section under Production, I'm not sure it would serve the article very well... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've addressed this by dropping the Cast section altogether; please see my comments directly low about why this was done. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Blurred and distorted images detract from rather than enhance the article, and I'm not sure the rationales provided when they were uploaded meet Wikipedia requirements.
  • The only image that appears blurred and distorted (at least on my screen) is the Awards one, although I think you are correct regarding that one. I've dropped it, and it will eventually get deleted as a result. The others, however, I think are much clearer, and their rationales are in line with many others of their type on Wikipedia. Can you tell me anything specifically that ought to be changed regarding them? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer to the extensive comments made by Bignole below. I agree with what he has to say re: the use of images sans critical commentary to support them. The photographs you have added act as decoration more than anything else. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of Betty Buckley, which really doesn't belong in the article, is extremely distorted on my screen. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looked OK on mine for some reason, but in any event, it's been dropped along with the other images (see below) so I think that should resolve the issue. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have replaced an image of Duvall in a screenshot from the film with one that is even less appropriate for this article. The new image of Duvall was taken years after Tender Mercies was released and doesn't show him engaged in any activity related to the film. Just because an image is available in Wikipedia Commons doesn't mean it should be used at random. The one you selected would be acceptable in the article about Duvall himself, but not in articles about films in which he appeared. Please allow me to reiterate that you appear to want to add photographs as decoration more than anything else. I understand the desire to break up acres of text with a colorful image - I'm guilty of adding too many myself in the past - but they need to have a connection to text within the article, and this one has none at all. LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right about my desire to add photographs as a way of decorating the article; obviously, I'm not a pro when it comes to the Wikipedia image policy yet. However, I do feel it's important to have a photo of Robert Duvall in this article, since this was a very personal project to him, he played a very important role (not just acting-wise) in the film and it's the only movie for which he's won an Oscar. As per that line of thinking, I've decided to try readding the one picture of Duvall that I had dropped earlier; I feel it makes sense and is in line with what you are saying, because I think it has a connection with the article, has a connection to the specific text it aligns with and serves as a strong visual example of what the article talks about. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo you reverted relates to the film, and therefore is more appropriate, and the caption is an improvement over the previous one. However, the image still is distorted. I wanted to check the original but unfortunately you failed to make note of the source when you uploaded the image, which is a requirement. If you click on "Upload file" and then click on "screenshot," you're given a template to complete. This automatically appends itself to the image's page after the upload is complete. Obviously you didn't go this route when you uploaded this particular image. What was the source for it, i.e., on which website did you find it? (BTW, I agree with you about all the rules and regulations re: images - they frustrate me, too!) LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this image [16] which is much clearer. If you think it's better, you can upload and use it instead of the present image or, if you prefer, I'll be happy to do it for you. If you do it yourself, be sure you use the method I mentioned above.
In completing the summary, you may want to use the following as a guide. It was recommended to me by a more seasoned editor, and not one of the pictures I've uploaded using this summary has been deleted.
Description = Robert Duvall in a scene from the film
Source = [17]
Article = Tender Mercies
Portion = All
Low_resolution = The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy. The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. The image is of much lower resolution than the original, and would not be mistaken for the original. Any copies made from this image would be of inferior quality.
Purpose = The image is significant in identifying the star of the film, who was involved in every aspect of its production and won an Academy Award for his performance. It is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification for informational and educational purposes. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality for uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original product.
Replaceability = As the film is copyrighted, no free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the film's star in relation to his role.
other_information = Use of this image in the above article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.
I hope this helps! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, grammatical and spelling errors abound throughout the article. "Beresford also clashed on set with Wilford Brimley, a friend of Duvall who was cast in a supporting role at the Duvall's instance" is just one example.
  • I've fixed that one, but can you tell me of others? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will be simpler for me to correct them myself, which I'll do first chance I get. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to clean this up but I still find problems in it. You repeatedly refer to "filmmakers" but fail to identify who you mean. I removed some of what I considered trivia, but I still think there's some here, particularly everything in the "Cultural references" section, which I feel adds nothing to the article and therefore is unnecessary. I also removed at least two claims that Duvall and Foote worked on "many" films prior to Tender Mercies, as it appears their only previous link was To Kill a Mockingbird. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed any reference to filmmakers that I could; in all the remaining ones, the source isn't any more specific. Thanks for fixing my TKAM mistake. As for the cultural references section, I felt it showed that the film had lasting power well after the time it was released. I've seen these kind of sections on film articles before and it seems appropriate to me. I frankly think it's a shame to see so many of these things disappearing from the article, but if it's really going to hold up the FA for the article, then I'll delete cultural references. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel you should delete this section, especially in light of Bignole's compelling discussion about it below. LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a lot of what's included here borders on trivia. The fact Betty Buckley was playing the role of Grizabella in the Broadway musical Cats when the film was released is irrelevant (had she left the production to make the movie, that might be worthy of comment), and, in reference to Tender Mercies, it is hardly significant "the role includes the song Memory, one of the most famous numbers from the play." LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about Buckley and the Cats stuff. I dropped it. Can you identify anything else for me (I dropped some other trivia from the comments below). — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The names of cast members are listed an excessive number of times in this article - in the infobox, in the opening, in the plot synopsis, in the cast list, and in the casting section. Seems like overkill to me. At least remove them from the opening and plot synopsis.
  • I think you're right about this, and I think the solution was to drop the Cast list section altogether. Since moving the casting info into it's own section, the "Cast" section really became unnecessary and redundant. I consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Cast_and_crew_information and they suggest dropping the Casting section and simply linking the actor names in the Plot synopsis in such cases, and they cite Tenebrae (film) as precedent. I think this addresses the issue here. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are so many names linked multiple times? Isn't once enough?
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't appear to be "fixed" - the cast names are linked in the first paragraph and then again in the plot section. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. And that's as per WP:Wikilinks. It says: "These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions." In fact, the way they were before was probably acceptable according to this guideline, but I scaled them back anyway. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's a lot of trivia in this article. Two examples: 1) "Some time after filming on Tender Mercies was finished, Duvall would surprise Allan Hubbard by attending his tenth birthday party, where he gave Hubbard his first guitar as a gift." 2) The entire section that begins with "After the film was released, Universal Studios offered to host a party for the cast and crew at the famous Studio 54 in New York City. But Duvall felt the atmosphere was not right for the film and instead suggested a hoedown at one of the city's country and western clubs; when the studio refused, however, Duvall simply cancelled the bash altogether and hosted a party at his own apartment." I don't see how these details are relevant to the film at all or why they belong in an encyclopedia article about it. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on the Hubbard surprise party bit, I dropped that. As for the second item, I think it's worth making brief note of because it sort of illustrates the difference in philosophy shared by the studio and filmmakers over the movie and the lifestyle portrayed in the movie. However, I think I probably included way more info on it that was appropriate, so I scaled it back significantly. What do you think, fair compromise? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I think your feeling that the comment about the party "sort of" illustrates the difference in philosophy shared by the studio and filmmakers over the movie and the lifestyle portrayed in the movie is your POV more then fact. I still think the comment doesn't belong here. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still "sort of" disagree, but if it really means that much to you, it's gone. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose one image has no FU rationale, two have invalid ones, and another is poor at best Fasach Nua (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be too much trouble to ask you for help in what's wrong with the FU rationale, or what can to be done to improve them? Images aren't my strong suit... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issues with the images comes primarily from the lack of critical commentary. To start with the first (the film poster), it needs a copyright tag. I assume that it would be copyrighted to whomever owned the movie in 1983 (as it's their poster). Now, about the other images and "critical commentary" (CC). CC is something you are not going to find in a plot section; not unless the plot section is written like this. WP:MOSFILMS#Other article components discusses non-free images used in film articles. It basically boils down to, unless you have reliably sourced text describing the image specifically then you cannot use it. To provide an example, the plot image says "the relationship between these three characters, which is a crucial element of this movie" on the image page. The question you have to ask whenever dealing with non-free images is, "do I need a visual aid to understand what this person is talking about" (e.g., I need a visual image when Tom Savini describes the look he was attempting to achieve in creating Jason Voorhees's physical appearance in Friday the 13th). "Is this specific image/scene even discussed"? Another example, how does this image create a better understanding of country music? That's what the fair use rationale says, but the image is captioned with information about Duval's travelling. If you just want an image of Duvall, then there are a bunch of free ones that can serve the same purpose. The other is of Betty singing. It's unlikely that an image of Betty singing is going to greatly enhance a sentence that said Betty sang. The average reader will know what someone looks like singing. Scanning the article I don't see a lot of sections that would require an image per say, so free ones might be your better bet. I'd check into some free images maybe some on-location areas for the "Filming" section. Quote boxes are good as well to break up the prose and give the eyes a breather. There is also a general standard for the structure of the lead paragraphs, mainly that the basic synopsis of the film should come after you've introduced the people who made the film. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a similar sized article, featured, that could provide a good example.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...I hate the images policy on Wikipedia. lol. But you're obviously right, and way better versed in this stuff that I. I had hoped at least the first two (Duvall and the flag, and the three of them) would survive, since I do think they serve those purposes pretty well (showing the country music flavor, showing the relationship between the three), but I've dropped them all and added generic free pics instead. As far as the poster, I'm still not entirely clear on what needs to be added (this pic was here before I started working on the article). Unless I'm missing something (and I probably am) it seems in line with movie poster images from other FA movie articles (here, here, here and here). — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I remember when they cracked down in non-free images and I had to watch as dozens of images that I had uploaded to Smallville went bye-bye. But, I've grown to understand the policy better because of it. As for the poster, the further I look at the more I see issues with it (nothing that would result in it being removed of course). But, I've gone and made the corrections. To explain what I did, in case you work some other film articles or just come across this issue (some of those FA posters have this problem, and I think it's sometimes ignored during FACs because it's "the poster" for the infobox which is a standard image). First, we have to know who owns the image, and in this case I wasn't entirely positive which company "owned" the marketing rights for the film, so I put the three majors. Second, the source originally just had a basic website, but the image must have the webpage that it was taken from. Lastly, there are 10 criteria for fair-use, and (again, I don't know why or how this goes ignored on other posters) the image must explain how it meets all 10 criteria. Sometimes this seems trivial (e.g., Do I need to really say that there are no non-free movie posters available?...maybe, maybe not. Always best to "err on the side of caution" ;D). There was also a bit--"Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless."--which is kind of confusing, and I'm not sure the person who put this in really knew what they were saying. So I removed that completely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks much for taking care of this, and for educating me on this area of Wikipedia where I'm still a bit fuzzy. Also, I've decided to try to add one of the photos that I cut back into the article, but I believe it's in line with the image policy and not simply for decoration purposes. Please see my rationale above, and let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - What's the source for all the various award nominations and wins?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, right. Added those. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another - In the cultural references section it says: "The film is also referenced several times in a tenth season episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 spoofing the 1985 film Boggy Creek II: And The Legend Continues. The Boggy Creek film, set in rural Arkansas, featured a county music-style score, and the MST3K characters repeatedly sang "Wings of a Dove" to the film's music." Now, if this was an original song created for the film, I'd be more inclined to accept a primary source verifying the reference, but from what I can see "Wings of a Dove" was around before the film. This poses the question of "how do we know they were referencing Tender Mercies and not just the song itself?" Also, it says "several times" in the episode. "Several" is a weasel term (i.e. it's non-descriptive, as "several" could mean anything). If there are a lot of references, the words "multiple" or "various" are good substitutes, because they are (and I steal this from one of my professors) "specifically vague" enough to be acceptable when describing a lot of things without a specific number count. That being said, it also begs the question "what are the other references". There is only the one, the song, listed. If there are others, they should be listed, and a better source would probably need to be found, unless the show was clear in their reference (e.g., calling a drunk character Mac Sledge...that's pretty straight forward).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The section is dropped, as per the above concern, so it's a moot point now. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 21 March 2009 [18].

Interstate 68[edit]

Nominator(s): Algorerhythms (talk)

This article has been interesting to write, and I think it's ready for a shot at FA status. Go ahead and review the article; it won't bite. It won't even tip over a gas tanker. Algorerhythms (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
    I've changed it so that for newspapers the work field is used. Does the same apply for TV stations, or are they considered publishers?
TV stations are fine un-italicised. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes
    I changed the ones I've found. If I missed any, let me know. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. review from Truco (talk · contribs)

Dabs and external links (toolbox)
  • Are found up to speed.
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • The following ref names are used for more than 1 different ref.
  • ...are now up to speed as well--₮RUCӨ 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is well done for a two-digit interstate :) - I believe that this meets all FA criteria. :) - Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does the junction list have state columns? That's not WP:ELG compliant. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it doesn't anymore. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my only concern in the entire article, and it is now addressed. I would support the article to FA. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

More roadgeek feedback. The lead states this freeway was built along the National Road corridor, however the History section does not cover this aspect of the highway's history. I'd suggest adding a paragraph to the history section to briefly discuss National Road, and its significance as one of the first bills signed into law by the US Congress and seen as one of the tests of the strengths of the Union goverment versed the former articles of confederation, etc. This would establish the notability and hopefully give the article more appeal to history buffs and not just roadgeeks. =-).Dave (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I will support it for FA:
  1. For the mileage reference, is there a more official source for the West Virginia mileage?
  2. In the lead, you abbreviate too much, such as "Interstate 79 (I-79)". Is it nessecary to include all these abbreviations (with the exception of the I-68 abbreviation)?
  3. In the lead, you use "I-68" in almost every sentence. Is there any variety in wording that can be used?
  4. It may be helpful to indicate when US 48 was designated in lead
  5. "U.S. Route 48" should be bolded as this article serves as the redirect target for the Maryland-West Virginia instance of US 48. Also the wikilink goes to an unrelated US 48
  6. In Cumberland Thruway section, try to find an alternate to the word "bad"
  7. The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Cumberland Thruway section(" After the construction of I-68, this route through Cumberland became U.S. Route 40 Alternate (US 40 ALT).") may fit more approriately after the sentence "This portion connected Lee Street in west Cumberland to Maryland Avenue in east Cumberland, providing a quicker path for motorists traveling through Cumberland on US 40 and US 220." Also, in the former, "this route" should be clarifed to say "the original route"
  8. The sentence "Problems quickly emerged with the highway, especially near an area called "Moose Curve," where the road curves sharply at the bottom of Haystack Mountain, a portion of the road where traffic accidents are common" sounds a little wordy
  9. "the Appalachians" sounds colliqual
  10. Change "to have endpoints at" to "to run from"
  11. When citing two references for one sentence,they should be in numerical order. For example, instead of "[11][6]", it should be "[6][11]"
  12. Again unlink US 48 as it links to an unrelated highway, It may help to use "U.S. Route 48" here instead as you are introducing it to the reader for the first time in this section
  13. When indicating dollar amounts, you indicate "US $" for the first instance but only "$" for the rest. Do you assume that at that point the reader can assume you are referring to U.S. dollars?
  14. In "Designation as I-68" section, it may help to indicate the other designations the US 50 freeway had (US 301, MD 2).
  15. When mentioning new US 48, a wikilink to U.S. Route 48 would help
  16. In last sentence of "Designation as I-68", it may help to mention that today's I-68 was the second instance of US 48 that existed
  17. The West Virginia section of the route description seems a little short. Is there any more information that can be added?
  18. Do not overuse "then" in route description, it is redundant and we know you are describing the progression of the route
  19. Why are the traffic counts for the entire Maryland section mashed randomly in the middle? It may make more sense to move them to the end of the section.
  20. The sentence "This is the most congested section of the highway in Maryland." sounds short and unnessecary. Isn't this information already mentioned in the traffic counts?
  21. Is it nessecary to repeat information from the history in the route description?
  22. The paragraph describing the removal of WV 28 ALT signs sounds like material that would be more appropriate for the history section.
  23. Parts of the route description seem to be missing some detail, such as some of the interchanges along the route.
  24. As I have described before, the Mon-Fayette Expressway seems to drift a little from the focus of the article as it describes a different road
  25. Avoid overlinking to certain articles, such as Cumberland, Maryland and Maryland State Highway Administration. Wikilinks should only occur for the first instance in both history and route description.
  26. I see that you split up the exit list again. Is there more consensus that supports there being a separate exit list for each state or the two exit lists merged together with a state column?
  27. In exit 40 row, add missing parentheses at end
  28. Citations for current U.S. dollars should be a footnote, not a reference
  29. For reference 37, the questionability of many roadgeek sites, such as AARoads, have been called into question. However, it is probably okay to cite a picture from the site
  30. If there are any more relevant external links, it may help to add them to the external links section Dough4872 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Is there any mention in your sources of the interstate as an alternate route for hazardous materials trucks traveling through the area? I-70, which is not far to the north in Pennsylvania, has numerous tunnels which prohibit hazardous cargo if I recall correctly. I've had to use 68 as an alternate route several times, and btw that cut in sideling hill is ginormous. I only gave the article a cursory glance and with the exception of other reviews unresolved comments everything looks alright so far. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose due to apparent incomplete research. There's no mention of the original WV 73, which provided the general alignment for I-68 between Morgantown and Bruceton Mills. This suggests that there may be more missing, and you should do some more research on the history. --NE2 02:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 21 March 2009 [19].

Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Musashi1600 (talk)

Article currently has GA status, and the only feedback received in a request for peer review was that it needed copyediting, which has since been done. (Thanks to User:Scartol and User:Anne Teedham for their help.) If it makes to FA, great; if not, then the feedback will only improve it. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The necessary information for those references has been added, and the dead link removed. Musashi1600 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref format comments -- Ref formatting found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS.TRUCO 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Interesting article, overall well-written. A few things need to be tweaked, and then I'll be ready to support.

  • Need conversions between standard and metric distances (I see a foot measurement in the lead at least)
  • File:Mayorneilsblaisdell.jpg has an invalid license
  • I think there are a few too many sections. I'd combine the two sections on the 2008 election into one, and remove the subheadings in the studies section
  • The section (paragraph) on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement needs to have its first sentence reworded to put hte focus back on the project. Instead, this wording jars a bit, introducing a completely new concept without explaining right away why it is relevant to this article.
  • I think the studies information might need to go above the elections info - some of it is referenced in elections, and it appears to be first in chronological order

Karanacs (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per comments. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The controversy over the rail line was the dominant issue for local politics leading into the 2008 elections". Could be neater. These were city elections, yes? "... issue in the 2008 city elections." (or "local elections"). Prefer to know exactly which local government areas—presumably both HCC and Oahu? Vague. Then I see that it was a state issue, the tax increase. Doesn't sound local to me.
  • "also includes"; remove " also". Remove "then".
  • "Rolling stock for use on the line will be similar to that of light rail systems in the United States"—Has Hawaii left the federation? "other"?
  • "and will carry about"
  • "300", but "forty". Where's your boundary for spelling out? See MOSNUM?
  • "State Senator Kim cited a letter from U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye (where he stated his concerns about jeopardizing federal funding) as the reason for the move". Avoid parentheses if easy to: "As the reason for the move, State Senator Kim cited a letter from U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye that outilned the Senator's his concerns about jeopardizing federal funding."
  • "The City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services released a formal report on November 1, 2006, titled the Alternatives Analysis Report, which compared the cost and benefits of a rail system (or "fixed guideway system" as it was called) with three alternatives." Long snake. Try this: "The City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services released a formal report on November 1, 2006, the Alternatives Analysis Report; this compared the cost and benefits of a rail system ("fixed guideway system") with three alternatives." You could almost drop the eccentric bureaucratese in parentheses altogether. Who needs to know, and it's easy to work out if you consult the doc.
  • Flips to present tense? Will look odd in a few years' time: "studies various natural and social impacts from ...". Shoot down "various"; is "of" better than "from"?

These are just idle observations from the top part. Don't they suggest that a copy-editor is required? Perhaps 45 minutes by a good one. I am convinced you could attract a word-nerd from RL who cares about this topic. Good for WP? Tony (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For all practical purposes, the City and County of Honolulu is the same as Oahu; the county covers the entire island, although it also includes the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.
  • The rail project is under the city's jurisdiction, but is primarily funded via a state-imposed tax. Isn't the section on the general excise tax already clear about that?
  • Article otherwise revised per comments.
  • The article was previously copyedited by Scartol, who's supposed to be one of the better ones out there. Musashi1600 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder: Not to speak ill of any previous copy-editor, my comments suggest that someone with distance from the text needs to go through it. I have looked only at the top part. Concerning the city and the county: it's unclear in the lead, and leaving the reader hanging on this point until further down is unnecessary—indeed undesirable. Isn't it easy to clarify on the spot? (Or just as good, to avoid the issue until there's space below to explaining it in a little detail?) On the tax: OK. Do you know where to find a copy-editor? Tony (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a note from the nominator about a possible copy edit. I will gladly make a run-through... I will have a good amount of time to sit down with the article later today... -Pax85 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch comments

Well, mostly just a single question that this article doesn't address: why was the section "West Loch – Pearl Highlands" (& the two next sections on the west side of Pearl Harbor) selected to be the first section brought online? While I know nothing about Honolulu or its traffic/population patterns, after glancing at a map of the city I would expect the first section brought online would be in the core of the city, which appears to be east of Pearl Harbor. An FA on this rapid transit project would have an answer to this question. -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city chose to build that phase first since that part of the line includes the baseyard for rolling stock, and they made a planning decision to start where it'd be easy to construct the line. That info is now in the article. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As a road geek, the first thing that caught my eye, is that the infobox showing the proposed train stops lists several highways. Why does the infobox use the route shields for highways, but not link to the highway articles? Most of of these have articles, Kamehameha Highway etc. For the ones that don't, per WP:USRD standards, the title will be Hawaii Route 93, etc. For the record, the proper name is Interstate H-1, H1-Freeway is colloquialism. Dave (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, consider merging the background and history sections, the background section is short, and is pure history (no background on locomotives, etc. ). Dave (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added links for roadways that currently have Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, Hawaii Routes 76, 93, and 95 (Fort Weaver Road, Farrington Highway, and Kalaeloa Boulevard respectively) don't have their own articles at this time, according to this list.
  • The split between the "Background" and "History" sections is deliberate, as the former describes the history of previous mass transit projects in Honolulu not directly related to the HHCTC, and the latter deals with the HHCTC itself. Musashi1600 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, maybe a better title for that section would be "Previous attempts", "Related projects" or something like that. It's not that big of deal anyways, my concerns are resolved. Dave (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: I'd just like to say that if there are any further comments/recommendations after now, I may not be able to respond to them until next Thursday or Friday (March 26 or 27). I'll try to keep an eye on this while I'm gone, but otherwise don't expect me to be back until then. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. With all due respect to everyone's work so far, I don't think this is up to standard. It's hard to get through for such a short article. As with many other articles I see here, the lead seems like almost an afterthought—it's banged together from facts in the article but it makes me want to stop reading. As Tony suggested, it probably needs some TLC from someone who cares about the topic but isn't familiar.
    • That banner is bad. We should never have featured content with a giant banner reading that the content will drastically change. If it will change that dramatically, then it doesn't really meet 1e, does it?
    • "The project, as planned, will construct ..." The project will construct it, or people will construct it?
    • "around the country" wikilinked to United States of America? No, please. Avoid easter-egg links.
    • "For more than 40 years, Honolulu politicians have attempted to construct a rail transit line." As above, I'm quite certain the politicians are not going to construct it.
    • "As early as 1966, the then-mayor, Neal S. Blaisdell ..." Would not "As early as 1966, then-mayor Neal S. Blaisdell" server the same purpose?
--Laser brain (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Feel free to throw a good counterargument this way—statistically, I'm more likely to strike an oppose vote than maintain it—but this seems like a project that by its nature will render the article unstable from now until the HHCTC is completed. Using an example from the field with which I'm most familiar at Wikipedia, a film article nominated before its subject was even released would meet immediate opposition on the same grounds—as well as on the comprehensiveness requirement. Of course, assuming a very very strict reading of WP:FACR, almost any article would be disallowed from FA; few subjects have no new information written about them, but in this case there is a strong likelihood of further commentary between now when the project is completed. Steve T • C 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e states: "(The article) does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." That is true of this article, barring any new political action or construction. Based on Laser brain's interpretation, this article won't qualify for FA for another decade, if ever. To use examples from other mass transit projects, TriMet in Portland, OR is working on a new line for the MAX, LACMTA is working on extending the Gold Line and building the brand-new Expo Line, the MTA in New York has the 7 Subway Extension and Second Avenue Subway, BART is working on the Warm Springs extension, and so on. Articles related to any of those wouldn't qualify for FA either.
  • All signs say this project will be built; the whole point of the charter amendment was to allow the voters to decide, not City Council or the mayor.
  • Regarding 1a, I don't know what more can be done for the article; it's already been copyedited twice (once prior to FAC nom, again recently).
  • Minor changes made per comments (delinked "around the country", fixed sentence introducing Blaisdell). Musashi1600 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 01:43, 19 March 2009 [20].

The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology[edit]

Nominator(s): NancyHeise talk

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have worked on this for several months, it received a thorough peer review from a very senior FAC veteran editor as well as reviews from other admins and wikipedia editors whose comments were put forth on the talk page instead of the peer review page. I think it is in the best form possible reflecting consensus of experienced editors and their collaborative efforts. I hope you think so too! NancyHeise talk 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I spent a long time with this article during its peer review and in subsequent talk-page discussions (is the "very senior, veteran editor" me? I'm just a kid!). I raised lots of issues during the review, all of which were properly considered and, in all significant cases, acted upon. I looked at the article not from the perspective of what I believe, or on whether the bible is true, or similar issues; in accordance with the title, the article is required to present how the Roman Catholic Church interprets the commandments, and I believe it does this, in an informed but non-partisan way. I personally found some of this information disturbing, even distressing, but that isn't the point. I think this is an important article, and I hope to see it listed among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (based on this version reviewed), and suggest withdrawal and a complete peer review and copyedit to thoroughly prepare for FAC; the extensive amount of typographical, punctuation and MoS errors suggest the article has not yet been thoroughly copyedited and prepared for FAC. While the large number of these errors is to be expected for nominators new to FAC, it is surprising to find so many errors, particularly from a repeat nominator, and indicates that the nomination may be premature (FAC instructions state that nominators should "ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria"-- the issues in this article have come up on other FACs by the same nominator, so the nominator should know these standards and other editors should not have to correct these errors). There is missing punctuation at the end of sentences throughout the article-- so much of it that detailing examples should not be necessary-- in addition to faulty use of WP:ITALICS, sentence fragments, inconsistent spacing on bullet points, incorrect ref punctuation per WP:FN, faulty logical punctuation per WP:PUNC, incorrect ellipses spacing per WP:MOS#Ellipses, and WP:DASH errors throughout. There is also inconsistency in the use of "the" per WP:MSH. The article title uses "The" for the Ten Commandments, the individual commandments don't use "The", and yet we find a strange use of "The" in front of a few section headings only. Corrections to tone are needed throughout: see Wikipedia:MOS#Grammar. While these types of errors are not normally enough to sink a FAC, there are enough of these kinds of errors throughout the article to raise doubt about this article's preparedness for FAC. There are so many of these errors that I don't even consider it necessary to list examples; anyone can see them, and they indicate the need for a thorough and independent copyedit. There are also WP:LAYOUT issues (See also to be worked into the text or already in the text, and it's not See Also, it's See also). Also, please review WP:CREDENTIAL regarding the use of academic titles.

Now, on to much more serious matters: I spotted at least one serious attribution problem, indicating that the text should be thoroughly reviewed for similar.

  • Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse and marries another commits adultery"[65] and that divorce was an accommodation that had slipped into the Jewish law.[66]

Source 65 is Schreck and source 66 is Kreeft, yet the text attributes the statement to Jesus Christ (surely the editors of this article understand that not all Christian faiths hold this belief, and that the catechism is only one interpretation of Jesus's words). The text should be thoroughly vetted to make sure statements are attributed correctly: a given church's or theology's interpretation of what Jesus said is one issue (and certainly not all agree), and there will be those who may argue that we can't be certain the scriptures are Jesus's words anyway.

There are also many instances in the text that appear to be someone's interpretation of the catechism rather than the actual catechism; I'm unclear on attribution on those statements.

This sentence is indecipherable:

  • 3)Civil divorce is not recognized as valid, is not considered a moral offense and is accepted by the Church if it is deemed to be the only way of ensuring legal rights, care of children, or protection of inheritance.[66]

In terms of comprehensiveness, I have a question:

  • However, lying under oath ... are considered sins of blasphemy.[23]

Some Christian faiths are very clear that continuing to participate in communion while harboring sin is a cause for damnation. Where does the catechism stand on Catholics who confess and receive communion each week, while repeating the same sins during the week? Is that part of the catechism and should it be addressed here?

There are also uncited conclusions which appear as OR, sample:

  • Church teaching on the tenth commandment is directed toward this same attitude toward worldly goods.

Please do not break up my Oppose with responses; per WP:FAC instructions, responses should be added below my sig. However, I do not think it should be FAC reviewers' responsibility to point out the significant copyedit needs to basics like punctuation throughout this article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Dabs need to be fixed (found with the links checker tool)
  • External links are up to speed (found with the links checker tool)
  • Ref formatting is not up to speed (found with the WP:REFTOOLS script)
  • Kreeft, p. 209
  • Schreck, p. 305
  • Kreeft, p. 219
  • {{cite web | last =Paragraph number 2258-2330 | title =Catechism of the Catholic Church | publisher = Libreria Editrice Vaticana| year = 1994| url = http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm| dateformat=dmy |accessdate=27 December 2008}}
  • Kreeft, p. 247-248
  • Schreck, p. 315
  • Kreeft, p. 252
  • The following ref names are used to name more than 1 ref, when they should only name 1 ref
  • Kreeft201
  • Schreck310
  • Kreeft247--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks to you both for pointing these important issues out to me. Unfortuneatly these were not as obvious to me as they are to you, I apologize for not being a better FAC writer than I am. I have some specific responses to the above comments below:
  • Jesus' statement about divorce comes straight from the Gospel that is being quoted by Schreck and Kreeft in each of their books. I will add a ref to the Gospel and begin the sentence According to the Gospel of" if that will help.
  • Also the Catechism does not discuss Catholics who confess and go to communion and then commit the same sins. There is a list of minimum requirements for Catholics to go to Mass and confession addressed but there is not a maximum, that is up to the individual. I did not find any of this discussed in the scholarly sources under the Ten Commandments section of the Catechism so I did not include anything on this article.
  • After soliciting suggestions for the article while it was still on my usersubpage, I placed it at "The Ten Commandments..." as the title instead of just "Ten Commandments in RCC theology" because Ten Commandments can mean more than "The Ten Commandments" ie: Ten Commandments of good behaviour, Ten commandments of business marketing, Ten commandments in parish management. The term Ten commandments is used in so many other venues besides the one specific to the article that I felt it necessary to distinguish the subject matter with "The" which is and allowable exception per the guidelines.
  • Regarding this statement: "There are also many instances in the text that appear to be someone's interpretation of the catechism rather than the actual catechism; I'm unclear on attribution on those statements." Just before nomination I answered a reviewers question on the discussion page to eliminate those references to the Catechism. I will now re add them per your comment here. Please understand that it is sometimes difficult for article creators to make two different reviewers happy at the same time! :) Also, Sandy, the sources referencing each sentence or section are to Nihil obstat Imprimatur sources that have officially been declared by the Church to be free of doctrinal error. I have not done anything with these sources except present them onto the page. Kreeft's book is on Googlebooks and anyone can look up my citations to him as well as to the Catechism. I did not know that I had to do more than reference these sentences to the source. I am not sure how to address your statement other than to provide the references that are already there. Thank you again for your comments which will certainly be taken to heart and used to improve the page. I would like to withdraw this nomination until I have addressed your issues above. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:54, 18 March 2009 [21].

The Lion King[edit]

previous FAC (01:39, 16 August 2008)

I have performed two prior peer reviews and a previous FA nomination for this article in the past. I have contributed to it heavily as well along with my fellow editors. It also went through a copy-edit. This is a self-nomination after many edits since the previous FAC, I believe its is very close, if not ready. Please feel free to give me constructive input. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick heads-up before I sleep: this cite is a deadlink. Will attempt to review towards the weekend. Steve T • C 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I'd suggest withdrawing for now. Copyvio among other issues (I wonder why folks think that copyvios will slip by at FAC...). Not well-researched. Unreliable sources. No analysis section (the film has numerous academic studies in which its origins, themes, characters, etc. are analyzed). Prose could use improvement. Examples at random:
    • http://www.jamescumminsbookseller.com/detail.php?itemnr=229445 a) How does this meet WP:RS? b) How does this in any way back up the claim that "Since his treatment was written as work-for-hire, Disch received no credit or royalties."?
    • What is http://www.lionking.org/text/FilmNotes.html? Seems like a copyrighted work by Disney that was transcribed (legally? illegally?) by some random person. Will need more information on this if this is to meet WP:RS.
    • Speaking of that site: "Jim Fowler, renowned wildlife expert, visited the studio on several occasions with an assortment of lions and other jungle inhabitants to discuss behavior and help the animators give their drawings an authentic feel. He taught them how lions greet one another by gently butting heads, and show affection by placing one's head under the other's chin. Fowler also talked about how they protect themselves by lying on their backs and using their claws to ward off attackers, and how they fight rivals by rising on their hind legs." Compare that to that site's wording: "Jim Fowler, renowned wildlife expert, adventurer and veteran of television's long-running "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom," visited the studio on several occasions with an assortment of lions and other jungle inhabitants to discuss behavior and give the animators an authentic feel for their subjects. He taught them how lions greet one another by gently butting heads and show affection by placing one's head under the other's chin. He talked about how they protect themselves by lying on their backs and using their claws to ward off attackers and how they fight rivals by raising on their hind legs like a clash of the titans."
    • "Screenwriter Irene Mecchi joined the team that summer to help further develop the characters and define their personalities. Several months later, she was joined by Jonathan Roberts in the rewriting process. Working together in the animation department and in conjunction with the directors and story team, they tackled the unresolved emotional issues in the script and also added many comic situations, with Pumbaa and Timon and with the hyenas." vs. "By that summer, screenwriter Irene Mecchi was brought on board to help further develop the characters and define their personalities. Several months later, she was joined by Jonathan Roberts in the rewriting process. Working together as the "Nick and Nora Charles" of the animation department and in conjunction with the directors and story team, they tackled the difficult unresolved emotional issues in the script and also added lots of new comic situations with foils, Pumbaa and Timon, as well as the hyenas."
    • http://www.eeggs.com/items/46803.html, http://www.eeggs.com/items/1306.html There is not a single possible interpretation of WP:RS that would allow these.
    • "The Lion King is regarded as a landmark in animation," If this is covered adequately in the Reception section, then there is little need for a citation. However, since you do provide one here, then this opens the article up to more questions on whether it is using sources correctly. The claim is cited to http://web.archive.org/web/20071231043027/http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/in_the_round/lionking/1.html, where it appears in a question of the interviewer. It is an off-hand remark that is an assumption on the part of the interviewer, and in no way reliably backs up the claim that "The Lion King is regarded as a landmark in animation" (even though it probably is).
    • Speaking of that clause... "The Lion King still holds the record as the highest grossing traditionally animated film in history[4] and belongs to an era known as the Disney Renaissance.[5] The Lion King is regarded as a landmark in animation,[6] and received positive reviews from critics, who praised the film for its music and story. During its release in 1994, the film grossed more than $783 million worldwide, becoming the most successful film released that year, and it is currently the twenty-fourth highest-grossing feature film." All three of these sentences suffer from an awkward mashing of ideas with "and". They can be recast for tighter prose: "Released at the height of the Disney Renaissance, the Lion King still holds the record as the highest grossing traditionally animated film.[5]" "During its release in 1994, the film grossed more than $783 million worldwide, becoming the most successful film released that year and the twenty-fourth highest-grossing feature film." or similar.
    • The plot section is written for an inappropriate audience. It adopts an informal tone and goes to great pains to achieve simplistic prose.
    • "Christopher Vogler, in his book The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, described Disney's request that he suggest how to improve the plot of The Lion King by incorporating ideas from Hamlet.[62] It has also been noted that the plot bears some resemblance to the West African Epic of Sundiata.[63]" Don't understand what the first sentence is trying to say. Are these controversies though? They are not explained at all and do little except confuse readers.
    • "a game where you use a peashooter to hit enemy creatures in the jungle" Are we seriously resorting to second person in an encyclopedia article?
    • "He also appears again as a summon character" And that is?
    • Development section jumps from the written script to animators inexplicably. How did Disch's script get picked up? BuddingJournalist 05:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Gimmetrow 00:57, 18 March 2009 [22].

System Shock 2[edit]

Nomintor(s): Noj r
previous FAC (03:54, 24 September 2008)

Hey everybody. System Shock 2 is an FA candidate for the third time. Hopefully third time really is the charm. I'm the sole contributor and been slaving on this article off and on. I just cant move on until it has a shiny star. The last FAC suffered prose issues and reliability issues. Eventually, the whole thing stalled. I believe those issues have been resolved and the article now meets all FA criteria. First, let me address some points that may be contentious:

  • Techspot is referenced once in the legacy section. The website runs all kinds of articles on hardware and gaming. The website is regularly read by computer specialists and according to them, "recieves over 3 million hits a month". They have received coverage in reliable publications like PC World, here. I believe it is a reliable source.
  • Rob "Xemu" Fermier is referenced once in the reception section. He was a lead programmer for System Shock 2, and the website is his blog.
  • Acronyms. This really is unbelievable. Two acronyms in System Shock 2 are never explained: OSA and O/S. I tried adding footnotes, but someone said it seemed like OR. So, I removed them. If anybody has any suggestions about this, please do, but please don't ask me to try and explain them.

Anyway, if this article doesn't pass this time, I might jump off a cliff. :P -- Noj r (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs (checker tool)
  • Need to be fixed.
done -- Noj r (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • Is found up to speed.
External links (checker tool)
  • Are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vantine84 (talk · contribs)

Prose/Layout/Style

Lead
  • "It is now recognized by critics to be one of the greatest games ever made." - While there are several inline citations provided for this statement, I still think it's pretty heavy, especially for a lead. Try rewording to something like "The game was received well by the gaming community and won numerous awards."
  • "In January 2006, Computer and Video Games reported System Shock 3 may be under development;[14] as of January 2009, nothing conclusive has surfaced regarding the purported project's status." - Consider dropping the semicolon and adding a comma with a "but" or "however" to make the sentence flow better.
  • "The game takes place aboard an adrift starship in a cyberpunk vision of 2114." - Consider replacing "adrift" with "drifting" or "damaged". Also, "a cyberpunk vision of 2114" makes it sound like someone's dream. It might be better to reword the whole sentence to say "The game, set aboard a damaged starship in 2114, features a cyberpunk theme like its predecessor."
Gameplay
  • "Each branch of service enhances certain skills: the Marines augment marksmanship and weapon proficiency; the Navy improves expertise in repairing and hacking; and a paranormal branch of military, called the OSA, hones psionic powers." - The first semicolon is appropriate, but the second and third should probably be replaced with commas.
  • "When a hack is attempted, a minigame commences where a grid of green nodes appear; the player must connect three in a straight row to succeed." - Consider changing to "When a hack is attempted, a minigame begins in the form of a grid of green nodes; the player must connect three nodes in a straight line to succeed." (I think "begins" works better than "commences" in this context, but that's up to you)
The sentence is better, but still a little unclear.
What is unclear about this? Its seems straightforward to me, but I wrote it.-- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...a minigame begins where a grid of green nodes form..." - It's just a little ungainly, but you're probably right.
  • "Different ammunition types exist which gives an advantage over susceptible enemies." - Consider changing to "Different types of ammunition can be found, each of which bestows an advantage against certain enemies." "Bestows" can be replaced with something similar if you think it's too flowery.
If you choose to use "bestow" in this case, it must be "bestows". Also, "against" is preferable to "over".
  • "Because ammunition is scarce, the player must remain vigilant to unload weapons and carefully search rooms for supplies." - I haven't played the game so I'm unsure what "remain vigilant to unload weapons" means. Try "Because ammunition is scarce, the player must be careful when unloading weapons and remain vigilant when searching rooms for supplies." Or "Because ammunition is scarce, the player is forced to use it sparingly, and carefully search rooms for supplies."
Plot
  • "After joining the United National Nominate, the unnamed protagonist—Soldier G65434-2— is assigned to the Rickenbacker, a military spacecraft." - Strictly speaking, Soldier G65434-2 is a name. To retain a sense of ambiguity, consider rewording to "...the protagonist, known only as Soldier G65434-2, is assigned..." That also serves to get rid of those dashes, which are probably unnecessary.
Like I said before, the protagonist is not technically unnamed.
True, but a serial number is hardly a name itself. -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eggs infect the rescue team and integrate them into an alien communion who call themselves the Many." - It reads "call themselves", which is plural, despite the subject (an alien communion) being singular. Should read "...that calls itself the Many." Also, considering putting quotation marks around Many or the Many.
Better, but now it says "...who calls itself the Many", "that calls itself the Many" is better I think, because an alien communion probably can't be referred to as "who".
  • "The soldier awakens in a cryo-tube..." - For the rest of the plot section, consider changing all instances of "The soldier" to something more definitive, like Soldier G65434-2 or G65434-2, since we already established that he does in fact have a name. Also, the entire word "cryo-tube" should be wikilinked, not just the first half.
  • "He is immediately contacted by a survivor, Dr. Janice Polito..." - Consider changing "a survivor" to "another survivor" because Soldier G65434-2 is a survivor himself.
  • "The Many also telepathically communicate with him, persuading the soldier to join their collective." - Consider changing "persuading" to "attempting to pursuade", because it appears that the persuasion was ultimately unsuccessful.
Let's rearrange this sentence with the previous one so it looks like this: "Along the way, the soldier battles the infected crew members, while the Many communicates with him periodically via telepathy in an attempt to persuade him to join their collective."
Er, I was trying to avoid combining the sentence and making it too long. I reverted it to my former version. If you look up "persuade" in the dictionary, it can mean to urge or plead. This is the desired meaning. -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is then confronted by SHODAN, a malevolent artificial intelligence who devastated Citadel Station..." - I'm not sure about this one, but I think in English grammar an artificial intelligence is considered a thing and not a person, so it should be "that" instead of "who". Per a discuss in previous FA nomination for this though, I feel that it's otherwise acceptable to refer to SHODAN as "her" and not "it".
  • I don't think "godhood" has a hyphen.
Development
  • "Early story ideas were similar to the novella, Heart of Darkness." - Probably don't need a comma here.
  • "This design was materialized in the fictional military branches." - Unclear, consider changing to "In System Shock 2, this design was incorporated into the fictional military branches."
Better, but "was materialized" doesn't make perfect sense.
  • "...tension existed regarding job assignments." - Consider replacing "existed" with "emerged".
  • "Not all setbacks were localized, a demonstration build at E3..." - Consider replacing that comma with a semicolon or a dash.
Reception
  • “...'diverse enough to demand instant replayability." - Make sure you close the quote with quotation marks.
  • "Critics described the game as quite frightening." - You don't need "quite" here.
Legacy
  • Does Legacy need to be its own section, or can it be part of Reception?
  • "...many of which have demanded a sequel." - Consider replacing "which" with "whom".
  • "The two titles also share similar plots..." - Plots is kind of an ungainly word, try replacing with "The two games share certain plot similarities..."
Now it reads "The two titles also share plots similarities and employ audio logs and encounters with ghostly apparitions to reveal backstory." Better, but try "The two titles also share plot similarities, and both employ the use of audio logs and encounters with ghostly apparitions to reveal backstory."
It seems fine the way it is. Why make it wordier when it conveys the intended meaning? -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

Sources

  • Does the article need so many inline citations in the lead? There's nothing contentious in the lead that isn't repeated later, so I'd recommend removing them and inserting them somewhere else.
  • I noticed that when you used the cite video game template, you put the quote first. There's no established guideline on this, but I feel that the reference reads better when the quote goes last, that way the reader sees the game's title, developer etc. before the dialogue. Many video game and film FAs go back and forth on this, so I'm just curious as to your thoughts.
  • I noticed at least two instances in the article (#13 in Legacy and #42 in Development) where an inline citation was placed in the middle of a sentence, not after a punctuation mark. Per the MOS, "inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space."
There's still at least one instance of this (#54 in Legacy).

Support All in all, the prose is good, and I'm happy with the reliability of all the sources, except for "Techspot", which I'm not familiar with. Has its reliability been established? Also, I'm satisfied with the fair use rationale for the images, with the caveat that the second one (SS2 Concept) uses a {{Non-free 2D art}} license tag, which is fine except that there is a more detailed concept art tag available, {{Non-free character}}. Either one is fine honestly. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I have addressed your comments, with the exception of one. I left the hyphens because I think there is enough commas in the sentence already. I also believe having a bunch of "Soldier G65434-2" or "G65434-2" in the plot would make it a chore to read. A couple of answers: See my rationale above for Techspot, SHODAN is consistently referred to as a female, and the concept art has the 2D rationale because the text commentates on the inclusion of horror in the game and not the main character. Cheers, -- Noj r (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that SHODAN should be referred to as female, but I believe "artificial intelligence" should be referred to as "that" in this case, not "who". Good point on the image. I left some more comments above regarding prose. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except some where I left comments above. -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm convinced. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed your comments. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • pending... --20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Bignole
  • "(commonly abbreviated SS2 or Shock 2)" - I don't see a source for those anywhere in the article, and it's a bold claim to make for anyone who doesn't know the game (like myself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. I havent seen other FAs do this; i.e. Half-Life 2 (commonly abbreviated HL2), Ocarina of Time (commonly abbreviated OoT), etc. -- Noj r (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. In searching LexisNexis I found a significant number of sources that could be used, especially as there is a lack of in depth critical reception. (I've also found some refs that show it was a top-ten bestseller in Irish and US markets as well, which might mean that the assertion that sales expectations were not met should be detailed further. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the critical reception not in depth? Do you mean sales data? I do not have access to LexisNexis and have done everything I can to find and include sales information. If you would like to provide prints or links of those articles, please do and I will incorporate them into the article. Otherwise, I believe everything that can be found has been included in the article. -- Noj r (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c requires the topic be "well-researched", and "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". This article completely neglects print sources such as newspaper reviews from the time period. There's also some original research, such as citing MetaCritic for "Reviews were very positive and lauded the title for its hybrid gameplay, moody sound design, and engaging story". "I found all the sources I could online" doesn't mean that an article meets criteria. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are few print sources, the article is not well researched? That is a joke. You are opposing because you assume there are relevant print sources with information to be found. You do not know that such articles exist. Since when did websites become second-class resources? They are a type of literature too, but because the text is pixels on a screen instead of ink on a page means it is somehow less informative/reliable/whatever you choose. Give me a break. Now, how is citing metacritic equate to original resource? Did you click the link? This is why websites are better; instant fact checking. That reference is completely cited; a 92% approval rating is an unabashed positive aggregate and if you read the review summaries, critics cite gameplay, plot, etc as reasons for their enthusiasm. -- Noj r (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with David Fuchs here; a game published in 1999 really needs some print sources (though this doesn't discount web versions of originally printed material). You have a few, like PC World, CVG, and GamePro, but I'd expect more newspaper and non-gaming magazine sources given the lack of web-like materials in 1999 (even sites we consider RS today may not really have been RS back then). There's a bunch that I can see through google news (Year 1999 hits only), so adding some more mainstream considerations would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a game released in 1999 necessitate more print sources? Tell me what is wrong with the sources I have already used. Is it because they are websites? That is not a valid objection. Websites are just as viable as a print sources. If you can prove to me the article suffers currently because of a lack of print sources, I will work on it. As it stands, the article lacks nothing that hasn't already been found. Also, I am at work now and will not be able to replay until after 5. -- Noj r (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even today, print sources are often more in-depth than their web counterparts, and even ten years ago much less content was on the web. I'm not opposing because you use web sites, after all they are easy to verify and find, assuming they don't get moved around or deleted, but because there is a demonstrable amount of content not covered by the web sources here, and without it this fails 1c. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm at my lunch break so I can reply on my iPhone. Since you said the article needed more print sources and the article is already well sources with web pages, I assumed you believed web pages were less superior to print sources (and you still might). I assume the only comprehensive issue you have is with the public response to the game and it's sales; these are the only parts I had trouble locating. Masem's google querry brought up nothing helpful, so we have your LexisNexis search which you believe holds critical information. Provide links or copies of the mentioned articles and I will integrate them.. Will that satisfy 1.c for you then? -- Noj r (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:24, 17 March 2009 [23].

History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)[edit]

Nominator(s): Resolute, Maxim(talk)

Well, here we go, the fourth article in the NHL history series, bringing us to the present day. After nearly a year of work on the series, I am hopeful that this installment will be viewed as reaching the same standard as the first three. Thanks go out to the editors that helped Maxim and I write these articles, and to the three editors who were kind enough to review this article against the FA criteria in advance. We look forward to all comments. Thanks, Resolute 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two dead links and a disamb problem with 'Power play.'-- Myosotis Scorpioides 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, let me tell you how much I hate the NHL for clearing their archives... anyway, dab fixed, and the dead links replaced. Resolute 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Like Myosotis Scorpioides stated, fix the dabs and external links found using the checker tools in the toolbox.
  • Using WP:REFTOOLS, a couple issues were found.
  • There are refs (copy-and-pasted below) that are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, they should have a ref name instead.
  • {{harvnb|Pincus|2006|p=178}}
  • {{harvnb|Pincus|2006|p=180}}
  • More than on ref has the following ref name, a ref name should only belong to one specific ref
  • Took me a bit to figure out what you meant, but I have now cleared up the duplicated text. Resolute 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs, external links, and ref formatting found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Good to see the final article up for promotion. While I didn't do much, I've supported the initiative. Anyways:
  • In the lead, Sweden and Czech Republic are linked, but not Japan or England for some reason. I would also consider using United Kingdom over England, but that's a more personal thing and not a major issue.
  • oops. Fixed
  • Says where the two Winter Classics were held in the lead, but not where the Heritage Classic. Mentioning Edmonton being the host would be a good idea.
  • Fixed
  • In the 1991-92 and 1992-93 seasons the NHL had each team play 2 neutral site games. That should be mentioned, as I believe it ahd to do with promoting the game and expansion and the like.
  • Man, I've been trying to forget those games after the gruesome injury Al MacInnis suffered in one of those bad ice locations (shudder). I have, however, added a mention in the paragraph discussing the resolution of the 1992 strike, since that is what brought it about.
  • The Chelios threat from 1995: "Some crazed fans, or even a player [...] might take matters into their own hands and figure they get Bettman out of the way." The word some shouldn't be capitalised there.
  • fixed
  • Perhaps a mention of the NHL program from the mid-1990s that was designed to keep the Canadian teams around. I don't remember the details or even the name of it, but I think it came about after Quebec and Winnipeg left, and helped keep the remaining Canadian teams in Canada by giving them revenue from wealthier teams, or tax breaks, or something.
  • The Canadian Assistance plan. I was concerned about taking a canada-centric pov by getting into such minutae, but it might work as a statement of historical context as part of the 2004-05 lockout section. I will add it in.
  • when mentioning the addition of the Wild and Blue Jackets, it says the NHL returned to Minnesota and moved to Ohio. I may be getting a little to detailed here, but the NHL had tried Ohio before, with the Cleveland Barons. So a possible change of wording, though not really important.
  • Heh, I already reworded that once on one of my final passes. Guess I'll try again.  :)
  • Is there a date when the NHL decided they would allow the players go to the Olympics?
  • As in a specific date where the decision was made? I'm not sure Is it important to note though? Or just that they went beginning in 1998?
  • Reference to Crosby and Ovechkin being expected to be faces of new NHL is needed.
  • Added two.
  • In the Post-lockout section, Stanley Cup Final should be all capitalised in regards to the Oilers and Hurricanes meeting.
  • Fixed
  • While the NHL has said they don't want to go to the 2014 Olympics, the NHLPA has said they do. Probably should include that, as it is a major topic right now.
  • Agreed, added.
  • That's all for now. I'll go through it again next time I get a chance and see if anything else needs changing. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should all be fixed, thanks! Resolute 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the Olympics: It isn't that big of an issue, I just think having some type of date as when the NHL decided they would join the Olympics would be helpful. In a way, it could be seen as significant, given that the league just got out of a lockout and all. But I'm not going to hold it against the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! I knew you were going to ask about that link. :D I would argue the reliability of the link based on two factors: First, the author, Jamie Fitzpatrick is a commentator with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and CBC Radio. Second, the cited statement in the article surrounds the multitude of opinions as to why offence declined in the NHL during the 1990s. As such, I believe an opinion piece written by a journalist with a highly reliable media outlet would qualify as reliable. Resolute 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little radar that pops up when About.com is used (snickers). I'd feel better if there was another opinion piece or two with this one, or if it was made more apparant that it's an opinion of a hockey commentator. I guess I'm saying it can be used as one of a couple of sources saying critics were bemoaning the decline of offense, but as a single source claming that it's a bit suspect. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been fixed. Maxim(talk) 16:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Before I go into more detail - THANKS for all your hard work on this topic. If my criticism seems passionate, it's because I'm passionate about hockey and I want this to be the best article it can be. So don't pull my sweater over my head and start punching. I made some minor prose changes but I outline some prose, sourcing, and neutrality issues below I didn't sort out.
    • Please get rid of the ugly red link in "Background". Can you get someone in the WikiProject to create a stub?
  • Writing an article on the 1992 strike is already very high on my priority list. It will be a blue link fairly quickly.
    • "However, it has also been argued that scoring has gone down due to there being too much talent." Odd present tense sentence in the middle of past tense explanation.
  • reworded
    • "... followed by the Atlanta Thrashers the following year" Too many follows.
  • Oops, fixed.
    • "For marketing reasons, the NHL decided to have its players play ..." Too many plays. Maybe "players compete"?
  • Fixed
    • "The tournament was won by the Czech Republic, which was led by goaltender Dominik Hasek, who finished the tournament ..." Ungainly string of clauses.. I can't think of a way to rephrase it at the moment.
  • Broke into two sentences and reorganized. It should be better/
    • "It began a career that has led to debate on whether he was the best player in NHL history." Ick.
    • "... while Mike Gartner said that if he had remained healthy, Lemieux would have scored 1,000 goals." This doesn't mean much out of context, since we have no idea how many goals he actually scored.
  • I must have been drunk when I wrote that. Reworded and put that at the end of the section. This also takes care of the context issue.
    • "On December 31, 1988, Lemieux put on what has been considered the greatest individual offensive performance in NHL history ..." This section is troublesome for a couple reasons. First, it is barely paraphrased from the source, making it borderline plagiarism. Second, the source states "most people think was the greatest individual scoring performance in NHL history" which is the sort of fantastic language I've gotten used to from the HHoF but isn't necessarily backed up by any research. How does a HHoF web site copy writer know what most people think? When you translate that into "Lemieux put on what has been considered the greatest individual offensive performance in NHL history", I assume you mean considered by notable hockey journalists in general. The source doesn't support this.
  • Simply removed the first half of that statement. It is enough, I think, to state that this was something never done before or duplicated.
    • Now that I think about it, I have a problem with there being an entire section about Lemieux. Sure, he was unquestionably one of the most dominant players of the 90s, but did he really stand out enough from other prominent players to warrant his own section? I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that equate his influence with other players like Jagr, Messier, Bure, Yzerman, and so on.
  • Throughout the series, this has been a concern of mine. When focusing on individuals, I limited myself to players who, at the time, were considered to be the best player in the game's history... Morenz, Richard, Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux. Given the very real debate over whether Lemieux was greater than Gretzky, I felt he belonged. He was also the first player-owner in NHL history.
    • "As a result, on September 15, 2004 Gary Bettman announced that the players were again locked out to start the 2004–05 season." Misleading. Bettman didn't lockout the players because the league lost money, it was because the collective bargaining agreement expired.
  • True enough, reworded.
  • Reworded
    • "and Crosby's presence saw Pittsburgh's attendance increase by 33%, over 4,000 fans per game." Needs revision for clarity. Are you saying Crosby's presence caused the increase in attendance? Does the source support this?
  • The source does: "[Crosby] had instantly stamped himself a franchise player off the ice as well as on, adding 4,000 fans per home game for a last-place team whose 33 percent attendance jump would be the league's biggest."
    • The "Post-lockout" section is a sea of blue due to all the team wikilinks. Can we settle on linking the first mention of team names and then not again?
  • Fixed, and I will go through the article to ensure teams are not overlinked
    • "... as the league attempted to open the game up after the lockout." I think "open the game up" is too colloquial.
  • good point, reworded.
--Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully I have addressed all of your points. Thanks! Resolute 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " spread its footprint" faddish figurative language. The writing looks opposable on 1a grounds, but I won't be the one doing it. No time to discuss. I saw one particularly twisty sentence last night; I'll scan and see if i can find it. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nearly missed your concern about the "spread its footprint" statement. I have reworded this simply to "expanded across the US..." Resolute 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Looks like I'm needed here, since this is off to a rough start.

  • Reference 50 (Goodenow's resignation, from TSN) is dead.
  • while NHL players first competed in the Olympic Games in 1998." Watch for "easter-egg links" such as the year, which looks like a meaningless link until you mouse over it.
  • "the NHL has played regular season games in Europe and Asia, including Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Czech Republic." I feel the sentence structure can somehow be improved, but I'm having trouble figuring out why. While you look at this, please get rid of these country links, which are of limited value.
  • Consider a comma after Winter Classic.
  • "had been diluted by 1990's expansion plan." A year came up with a plan, or a league? :-)
  • Background: Non-breaking space for the dollar amount.

Have to go now, but will be back later with more. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • et tu, TSN? Replaced that link, and corrected your remaining issues. Resolute 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of access issues to report. The bottom of the Roy photo is forcing the edit tab in the next section to the left, a situation that is not ideal; perhaps consider moving it up a paragraph. Photos shouldn't be placed on the left side directly below second-level section headers, such as the Lemieux photo.
  • Fixed the Lemieux picture, but not much can be done with the Roy picture short of resizing it smaller.
  • Expansion: Not crazy about starting a sentence with 1993.
  • Reworded
  • Is "powerplay" all right as one word?
  • Either way works, I think, however I expanded it to two words as that is how its assoicated article is spelled.
  • 1994: As a Rangers fan, I naturally looked at this closely, and found two things that I'm putting up for discussion. One, we need to watch the use of "famous". It kills me to say that about Messier's guarantee, but if I don't say anything then someone else will. Second, the publisher of reference 14 isn't showing up.
  • Neither Maxim nor I wrote that section. Revising to fit the tone of the rest of the article.
  • 1994-95 lockout: Sentence ends with a number (48).
  • Fixed.
  • "with defenceman Chris Chelios famously issuing...". Noun plus -ing and another "famous".
  • Fixed the noun-plusing, though in this case, Chelios's threat easily qualifies as famous
  • Why is dollar in Canadian Dollar capitalized? Same for American Dollar. Also two Canadian dollar links.
  • Most likely because I am crazy. Fixed.
  • Dead puck era: I'd like to see hyphens for "NHL sanctioned" and "three game".
  • Well, since you asked nicely...  ;)
  • "One year later, the Red Wings ended a 42-year drought". This is the first mention of the team, so their name should be given in full, with a link.
  • I thought they were mentioned before. That might have been edited out at some point. Fixed.
  • Another sentence ends with a number (30).
  • Fixed
  • I was about to tell you to put one of those symbol letters in Dominik Hasek's name, but then saw that his section is messed up. Take a look at it and you'll see what I mean.
  • Fixed the gramattical error, however per our convention and WP:ENGVAR we don't use diacritics on North American specific articles.
  • Two Brett Hull links in the section. Also a pair for the Devils.
  • Oops, fixed.
  • Comma after Heritage Classic?
  • Fixed
I'm setting all-time records for FAC pickiness here, but I feel that's necessary if others are saying that things are questionable. Couple of other points before I go: I don't see Martin Brodeur's name anywhere. He has been such a great player over the years that I would love to see him mentioned somewhere. Also, I feel like the Devils and Red Wings are getting short shrift here, considering what they've done. New Jersey gets one sentence, in which they are blamed for reducing offense in the NHL. Detroit could also receive a little more space, with their four titles in the period. Previous articles in the series had sections on great teams, and I feel that's missing here. Also, does Mario Lemieux deserve as much space as the lockout that almost destroyed the league? Half of his section details events from before the time period in question. Anyway, I'll work on it a bit when I get a chance to lighten the load here. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brodeur certainly does deserve mention. I will add him in. The Lemieux section includes a paragraph that predates the scope of this article for completeness and context. And yes, the lockout was a momentous event, but it was also only a one year event, where Lemieux's career spanned 20+ years and involved a historical comeback, and being the first player-owner in league history. However, in answer to some of Ling Nut's concerns, I expect the lockout section will expand. As far as being picky goes, go nuts. Obviously this article was farther away than I expected, so all feedback is very much welcome. Resolute 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tumultuous" according to whom? I'm not looking for a cite. I'm actually looking for a bit less colorful adjective... The lede contains a series of sentences that start with "It.. it..". "It" is a poor way to start a sentence in the first place; compounding its use is not an form of parallelism...again, opposable on 1a. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tumultuous is probably being generous in this case. They missed an entire season due to a labor dispute, among other things. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked the various statements in the lead that begin with "it", and will go through the rest of the article to check for this as time permits. As with Laser brain's comment, I do believe the use of timultuous is justified, however am open to suggestions on a better word to use when describing a fairly brief period of time that involved three major labour conflicts, four franchise relocations and the addition of eight expansion teams. Not to mention one franchise going bankrupt, which is mentioned, and the owners of two others going bankrupt, which wasn't. Resolute 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, it occurs to me that I probably should add a paragraph to describe the Penguins recent relocaton fears, the Predators issue and Balsilie, and how the economic crisis might impact the league. Resolute 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider simply killing "tumultuous" (which is imprecise, and leans to POV) and writing some version of "the season included included three major labour conflicts, four franchise relocations caused by lack of revenue, the addition of eight expansion teams, one franchise going bankrupt, and the owners of two others going bankrupt..." That syntax needs improving.. but it is clear, precise and no-nonsense. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly am open to such a rephrasing, however given how the NHL went from a quarter century of absolute calm in in the Original six days to the big rush to 21 teams by 1980, then nearly complete calm until 1992 only to have the game explode, I do feel that the present statement has merit. Perhaps opening with something along the lines of "The National Hockey League has experienced considerable growth and change since 1992...." then listing off the chagnes as you suggest? Resolute 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong (and everything right) with somehow saying that many of the changes have come under adverse circumstances. I... just want the overall tone of the article to be matter-of-fact. The word "tumultuous" is, as others have noted, not completely unacceptable. It is, however, a step or two away from "matter of fact" and a step or two toward POV (in the name of making the article interesting, that is.. I am not saying that you or any other editors are trying to put a POV forward. I am just saying that I'm not sure Wikipedia should have a voice that adds adjectives that carry too much flavor one way or the other).
  • Meanwhile, after the modest jawing over revising WIAFA, you may wanna look at other sources just a bit. It seems you have only two books, and one of them is by "Readers Digest".. is it a coffee table book? But anyhow, I'm not saying this solely to be grumpy. You can find tons of good info. Forex, The Business of Sports By Scott Rosner, Kenneth L. Shropshire has a very interesting table of all major sports bankruptcies since 1969 on page 100. Five of the eight listed teams are from hockey, and four are within your date range. This adds perspective, especially the bit about the predominance of hockey teams in this list... Is it significant that in hockey only the home team gets all gate proceeds (as that book discusses)? And on and on... Hockey was the first sport with a salary arbitration system (in the 1970s, so maybe not relevant to this article, but maybe yes for other articles..)... I.... I don't know if I will continue to edit Wikipedia. I am weary of it all, weary of arguing over things that should not even need to be discussed, and the demands of real life are calling. But if I could just soapbox for one moment, I hope that the FAC process will instill in its nominators a desire to dig deeper for more information. Dig. Deeper. Don't skim the surface for facts and factoids, then process that (often shallow) info into a prefabricated, MOS-compliant whole that will fly under FAC radar. The goal is to make an excellent article, not an FA article (the two things are often not the same). Take pride in the research, not in the bronze star. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used only two book sources for this article as I needed only two as for this time period, online links were very easy to find. This is, however, only one article of four that make up the entire history, and taken as a whole, we have used 17 different book sources. Not to mention the easy availability of the New York Times and Sports Illustrated archives for this time period. And don't let the fact that Readers Digest was the publisher of the one book fool you, that book is remarkably in depth for a publication that attempts to look at 90 years of NHL history. While I agree with your point in general, I find it off base in my case.
  • As to the original point I will concede the point on the use of the word timultuous, and will look to revise the opening. Resolute 16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, have looked enough now to Oppose. You guys didn't do enough research to explain things in a coherent context, causing problems with both the existing wording of 1b and the proposed wording of 1c. I can give a couple examples, but then a dire process will ensue: you'll add a sentence or so about a couple of those few examples (intended to be merely representative), take issue with the importance of a couple others, and then claim that you are done. That shouldn't be the way it works. If you bring 1b-deficient articles in here, I have to spend waste from two to four hours familiarizing myself with a topic that I know absolutely nothing about, and finding enough dribs and trickles of info to draw the outlines of what's missing..or at least, of some things that are missing. So, where's the discussion of attendance? Of television revenues? Of overall revenues? team-by-team revenues? What were the financial shape and attendance figures of the teams that relocated before relocating? How has expansion (perhaps) diluted the average attendance per team, while (perhaps) raising total attendance? Since this article purports to cover the time priod to the "present" (NOTE: WHen will you need to page-move this? I dislike the whole concept of claiming that the article goes to the "present").. where is the discussion or at least mention of the current recession's impact on revenues? Why is the following comment parachuted into the middle of the text, and left completely unexplained: "...the NHL's attempt to regain a U.S. network television presence". When and why did they lose the TV contracts? I found some articles that mentioned that violence is increasing.... yes, no, maybe, and if no, why did those articles say it was? They linked the increase to the boredom of low scoring & a desire to attract viewers etc. Trends in ticket prices? Use of the Internet as an alternative to TV?... this Wikipedia article is a perfectly good example of what I have been flailing and railing about for a while now: you follow a flawed process and rush to FAC. Here's the process: You glom together a number of facts (many of them important, I agree), and then take them as a ball of wax and pound it into MOS-compliance... thinking (probably correctly) that "several important facts plus complete MOS-compliance = Bling! the bronze star", but you never sit back and think about what you're writing. This cost-benefit analysis leads you to skimp on research and thus to shortchange the public of any depth or context. I'm hoping the revised 1c will improve this, but... unless reviewers push for compliance, there will be no incentives to comply. The bronze star is the goal, not excellence—but that's bass-ackwards. So: Is Wikipedia a world-class encyclopedia, or is it the Encyclopedia Game? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (See above) I copy-pasted two examples to this page's Talk; many more examples can be found... Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ramble, your ramble, etc. and if the crux of your message the article's crap (as well as harping on about some non-existent criterion). If you think reviewing this is a waste of time, get lost. For the issue of missing financial troubles--surely you can't pretend there's no mention of it. For example: "By 2004, the owners were claiming that player salaries had grown much faster than revenues, and that the league as a whole lost over US$300 million in 2002–03.[47]". If you want us to expand over the financial troubles part, that's certainly possible (McCown, Bob (2007), McCown's Law: The 100 Greatest Hockey Arguments, has some sections on this). You are assuming Res and I are playing a game for some reason--quite strange for gamers to ask another experienced editor, with an interest and knowledge in hockey, to do a review on the talkpage--in other words, we asked someone who can actually look at the exact content of the article to see if there's anything missing that should be there, and not just put a comma there and cut a comma here. To summarize (and make my point clear, an ability which you clearly lack), I am willing to look, think, and do if simply give, for example, a request that there should be more on the NHL's financial issues; if you ramble, moan, and to be honest--insult me and Resolute--then get lost, as from an aspect from the process, your concerns--if there any valid ones--are buried in a heap of dung making me unable to address them or outright notice them, while from an interpersonal standpoint, you're just a plain unpleasant character (as evidenced by this FAC and the exchange on my talkpage), who should really give a deep thought about what he is trying to accomplish and whether a collaborative project like this is the best place to devote his free time to. Maxim(talk) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I might actually attempt to address some of that rambling this weekend, I do tend to echo Maxim's feelings somewhat. If you want to give a fair review, that is awesome. If you want to sit on your pedestal and proselytize in such a condescending fashion, do it somewhere else, as this is not the forum for you to whine about your opinions of the FAC process or the people who submit articles. Your entire rant reeks of bad faith assumptions (I could fire back with a couple of my own if I so chose), and it thus becomes incredibly difficult to treat your complaints seriously. I would tend to simply ignore you, except - and I am certain you will fail to see the irony here - for the fact that it is my full intention to write a complete article. Resolute 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take it easy, everyone. Given some recent events at FAC, I would hate to see the situation deteriorate any further. To keep this on topic, I see a great opportunity to make a new section on business matters, mixing some points above with the proposed paragraph on recent financial developments. The only problem is that it would break the mostly linear structure of the article, but I'm sure it can be done effectively. Oh, and I left picky stuff up there. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 23:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Ling Nut's suggestions are little more than throwing darts at the wall and hoping one stick. What he wants would completely break summary style and won't be added. There is some opportunity to add some minutae throughout the article though. I will look into it. The recent economic issue will be tricky, as I don't want to get too far into recentism, especially over situations that may not have any lasting memory for the league. Resolute 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) So you see how it is. I point out critical, huge, glaring omissions, then am accused of rambling, ranting, throwing darts, etc. etc. No one cares about presenting an article that actually explains the situation, they only want a few minor MOS omissions pointed out, then a nice smooth ride to the bronze star. Reviewers who offer anything more challenging than this are obviously just ranting troublemakers.... What can I say? Between you and me there is a huge gulf affixed. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. I'll let you decide who's who, and of course I know what your decision will be. :-) ... So... Good luck in all things!  :-) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut.Public (talk • contribs)

Good god... do you actually believe the self-important garbage you type, Ling Nut? If all you did was point out your concerns and got that reaction, then you would have a point. Instead, you have been wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous bad faith assumptions about "playing games" and wanting "smooth ride". Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that you were simply pointing out omissions, not when your ranting is still plainly visible. Based on your singularly-focused contribution history (both this account and your main), and the fact that you came here directly from Maxim's talk page where you are already in disagreement, I would argue your entire presence here is to push a WP:POINT. Doubly so when you, if you chose to read anything other than your own writing, would see that we're already discussing things that could be added. Things that would also address your concerns. I think Maxim has you dead to rights - you have no idea how to work in a collaborative environment. If you want to be treated with respect, learn to treat others the same way. Resolute 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. I'm okay with the prose now, per our rounds above. However, I have spent time over the last couple days reviewing the meat of Ling.Nut's points about sourcing. I am concerned that we haven't researched and represented the business side of hockey very well, nor given it its due weight. There is good on-ice coverage, and good coverage of the lock out, but what about all the information about about failing teams, lost revenues, TV contracts, lost fans, and so on? I (unfortunately) subscribed to The Hockey News during the lockout season. In addition to mind-numbing stories about semi-pro and international hockey, and even an issue dedicated to hockey wives (they were really scraping the bottom of the barrel), there were many stories about the business of the NHL.
    • How did the lockout affect the business side of the NHL?
    • How did the new rules affect old school players that retired en masse once the league came back?
    • There is one sentence mentioning television.. what about all the research about how people don't hockey on TV in the US and the league has trouble maintaining TV contracts? They've been on more networks than I can even name since I was a kid.
    • What about the teams that are in financial trouble today and borrowing from future revenues? And can't pay their arena leases?
These are just what I thought of off the top of my head. I realize that we must maintain summary style, but I think there is a terrific over-emphasis on players and game/tournament results to the detriment of providing comprehensive coverage. It seems like the biggest story in hockey in the last few years is that it is failing as a business, and we've completely glossed over it. I think this needs to be withdrawn and a serious look taken at research and organization, beginning with a fresh article outline and bibliography. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly some good points to consider. I'll admit that I hadn't put too great a consideration into the business side, as up until the NHLPA began to assert itself in 1992, it really wasn't a big issue for the NHL. It does seem fair to state that the dominance of business issues do need to be looked at. I've already begun to consider where to interlace some business points throughout the argument per Giants2008's comments, however it looks like it is back to the drawing board. Even so, all further feedback is most certainly welcomed. Resolute 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this response. As I said beginning my first round of feedback, I'm really interested in seeing this be the best it can be. Let me know if I can be of help digging up sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldnt be too hard to find - certainly not for the Canadian team relocations, an hour at the library would solve that, but all ideas help. I have briefly touched on business issues throughout the article, but obviously did not find them to be as important as others. It will mostly be a matter of going back to the right sources and adding them in. I might take a brief step back from the article before digging back in though... always helps to go in with a fresher perspective.  ;) Ling Nut did offer some good suggestions on the FAC talk page, and while I don't think comparisons to the NFL are relevant, one of the other links definitely looks interesting. Anything you can add would also be a benefit. Resolute 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:44, 15 March 2009 [24].

Zagreb[edit]

Nominator(s): NIR-Warrior

No more of those needed citations, I've provided all the citations in the article, corrected all grammar errors and wrong sentences, fixed links and organized all the aricle with a new design and a great look who meets all with the FA status's criteria. NIR-Warrior (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unreferenced sections, 11 deadlinks in the links, websites without publishers or last access dates, bare numbered links in the refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that there is model of links too in other FA articles, I've checked them myself; I think definitely thats this article have to be a FA one, as I works on it day and night. NIR-Warrior (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Needs a thorough copy-edit; the quality of information is not high and the sourcing is subpar. Sorry, but this isn't near the standards right now.

  • Why is there a link to 1094?
  • "Most important branches of industry are: production of electric machines and devices, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, food and drink processing. Zagreb is international trade and business center, and the transport crossroad of Central and East Europe." These two sentences are confusing. First, there are basic grammar errors (missing "the" and "a"), and second, confusing language. What is a "transport crossroad"? The list is ambiguous "production of electric machines and devices, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, food and drink processing"—are foods produced or processed?
  • The economy section is barebones at best; there are many stubby paragraphs.
  • The sourcing quality is not good at all; [25] is a travel site; [26] is a Wikipedia mirror (!)
  • There is an image gallery, please move images to commons.
  • The Tourism section is completely unreference; "Domestic products which deserve to be tasted" says who?
  • "The old Medvedgrad, a recently restored medieval burg built in the 13th century, represents a special attraction of Medvednica hill." Why is it a "represent[ation]"?
  • "RFF is a new film festival, which will have it's 3rd edition this January. The RFF is organized and run by a group of young enthusiasts, who struggle to find some way of expressing themselves in "this cruel world"." Not cited, and another simple grammar error, "it's"-->its.

Please withdraw and resubmit after major work is done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on my talk page, have you left asked at the relevant WikiProject talk pages? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia comes to mind. See WP:PRV for a list of volunteers for copy-editing. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree nearly with all your wrong points.

  • The Gallery is not a problem as Belgrade is a featured article that have a gallery - point done
  • About Medvedgrad, Im not sure what you mean.
  • The Tourism section, you said unreferenced, precise what is so.
  • "RFF is a new film festival, which will have it's 3rd edition this January..." this sentence is removed
  • "The economy section is barebones at best; there are many stubby paragraphs." Precise what.NIR-Warrior (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Belgrade was promoted a while ago, standards have risen a lot then. The "but this Featured article has it" argument doesn't fly with me that much.
    • The gallery should be removed per WP:IG. Few, if any of those images are vital to readers' understanding.
    • ""The old Medvedgrad, a recently restored medieval burg built in the 13th century, represents a special attraction of Medvednica hill."" Basically, what do you mean by "representation"?
    • When I say stubby, I am referring to the one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Combine paragraphs or add information. I would lean toward the latter. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the gallery is in Belgrade, i do not see the problem right now.
  • About ""The old Medvedgrad, a recently restored medieval burg built in the 13th century, represents a special attraction of Medvednica hill."" The Old Medvedgrad is the main attraction of the Medvednica hill.

Whats the problem again ? NIR-Warrior (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade article has a gallery for right reasons, in short, taking from the image use policy they "may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.". Basically they are not just thrown into there by chance, there is a reason why each and every one of those photos is in that gallery. That means that just like any major revamp in a FA you'd have to talk with other users over changing those images.

Anyway the image is gallery is not the major problem here nor are the other FA articles, you need to concentrate yourself on sourcing and in-line citations. I have just noticed that in history section there are only six references. You must fix that. Not every single sentence needs a reference but when it comes to history section, it's the more the merrier. Economy and demographics are well covered but then we have cityscape section with not too many refs. Highways section has many references but roads, bridges, public transportation, tram have almost none.

So please work on the following:

  • History (very important!)
  • Roads
  • Bridges
  • Public transportation
  • Tram network
  • Other museums and galleries
  • Other cultural sites and events
  • Religious organizations (not a single reference, why?)
  • Surroundings
  • Tourism

And make sure you have zero Template:fact in the article (like you have in the section Twin Towns - Sister Cities).--Avala (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's clear that a lot of work has been put into this, but it does not meet the Featured article criteria at this time. There are issues with prose ("Some croats legends says", pervasive verb tense problems, proseline); style ("approx." used in the lead, inconsistent capitalization); images (many places where text is sandwiched between images, non-compliant gallery); and verifiability and reliable sources (lots of uncited statements, inferior sourcing, incomplete citations). Significant work is needed to bring this up to FA quality. Maralia (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. As Maralia said, a lot of great work has been done here. However, at the bare minimum, this needs a thorough copyedit by someone with a strong command of English, and a thorough audit and fixing of citations and sources. --Laser brain (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'll reiterate once again that lots of hard work has clearly gone into this article, but it is not of FA quality at the present time. Entire sections are unreferenced, the formatting of the refs is all over the place, and in many places the English is very poor. I suggest as a minimum it needs a thorough copy-editing by someone whose first language is English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review

  • Dabs are not up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)
  • ..they need to be fixed.
  • External links are not up to speed (based on the checker tool in the toolbox)
  • ...they need to be fixed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:44, 15 March 2009 [27].

Conservapedia[edit]

Nominator(s): Idag (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a Good Article that, despite its somewhat controversial nature, appears to meet the Featured Article criteria. Idag (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Idag, you have 15 edits to this article and my concern is your ability to address sources used. I read it quickly and ha, the sourcing issues struck me immediately. Some FA participants are currently discussing making a stricter criteria for sourcing, and this may be an interesting case. Particularly, the passage: Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[11] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.[37] Something about this passage is off. I'm not sure what it is. I am almost intellectually (and a bit gynecologically) offended that such a claim between abortion and breast cancer has been made, but why is a magazine named Splat! reporting this? This discussion gets into the esoteric so far that I'm arguing myself into utter confusion.

However, I would like to know if you are prepared to address sourcing concerns for this article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Conservapedia is that its a fringe website that doesn't get a lot of secondary coverage, so sometimes we had to stretch to get secondary sources. I've tried sourcing some of the claims that were being made on the talk page with limited success, but I'll try my best with the concerns expressed here. Idag (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would a reference to Conservapedia proper (in addition to the Splat! one) be desirable in this case? We've avoided it because it's a primary source, though arguably an acceptable one, as it's only for descriptive claims. - Nunh-huh 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Are there no more stats available for Conservapedia? Number of editors, hits, that kind of thing?
      • Generally speaking, there's a lack of secondary coverage and no reliable independent secondary sources that have these stats. The only independent source that has some stats is a wiki called RationalWiki, but, unfortunately, because it is a Wiki it is unreliable. RationalWiki's stats come from original research and synthesis, so we can't really use them. Idag (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schlafy is described as a "lawyer and history teacher" in the lead, but as a "social studies and economics teacher" in the first paragraph of History and overview.
    • I think there's quite a bit too much linking. Is it really necessary to wikilink Wikipedia, for instance, or encyclopedia?
    • Some of the writing is a little awkward, for instance: "Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled, high-school-level students in New Jersey by Schlafly ...".
      • Fixed that specific example. Idag (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that the Royal Society has dismissed Conservapedia is supported by a citation to a free newspaper. That's at best a pretty third-hand source, probably reporting something said in another newspaper.
      • Just did a quick search, that's pretty much the only source for that proposition. I don't think the source being a free newspaper is particularly problematic, but we could cut that sentence if its a problem. Idag (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of statistics on RationalWiki; just look for the user "LArron". RevooH motnahP (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a comment on the article for Conservapedia? I do not understand this link. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RationalWiki (the wiki that was linked to by the preceding comment) is a wiki whose editors like to discuss Conservapedia. It is not a reliable source because it is a wiki. Unfortunately, it is also the only independent secondary source that keeps any kind of statistics about Conservapedia. Because of this lack of reliable secondary sources, we haven't been able to put the pertinent statistics into the article. Idag (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • There is a dab, which is a self-redirect to this article. (Found using the dabs checker tool in the toolbox.)
Fixed. Idag (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting (found using WP:REFTOOLS.)
  • The following refs have a capital F in the ref tag.
  • <ref name="La La Land">{{cite web|last=Wehrwein|first=Zach|title=My Trip Through La La Land|url=http://gknot.uchicago.edu/issue5/my-trip-through-la-la-land/|work=Gordian Knot|publisher=University of Chicago|date=Autumn 2007|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</reF>
  • <ref name="GodTube">{{cite news|title=GodTube Provides Christian Web-Video Alternative|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307446,00.html|work=Fox News|publisher=AP|date=2007-11-02|accessdate=2008-08-02}}</reF>
Both have been fixed. Idag (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following ref name is used more than once for different refs.
  • Maloney
Fixed. Idag (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links are up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs and ref formatting also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Hmpxrii (talk · contribs)

removing my previous rant ...

I'm not an active contributor at Wikipedia, but on both RationalWiki and Conservapedia.

My opinion is that Conservapedia is too silly. Let's fix up the navel lint article to FA status instead. Hmpxrii (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia is a fringe website, but it is notable and the fact that its fringe should not keep it from becoming a featured article. Idag (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Featuring Conservapedia is not an endorsement of Conservapedia itself. After all, Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches was featured a couple of years ago, and Wikipedia doesn't endorse witchcraft... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are evaluated against the criteria, not on what people think of the topic the article covers. BuddingJournalist 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on the lead
  • Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a Biblical literalist, Americentric, right-wing[2] and Conservative Christian point of view. - Seems a bit POV in itself to mention the right-wing etc. bit right off the bat. If not, maybe it's the tone in which the sentence is written that concerns me. Either way, it just seems weird.
    • Most of the sources describe Conservapedia as either "right-wing" or some variation thereof, so WP:Undue pretty much requires that we mention it in the lede. However, I have tweaked the sentence to address the awkward tone and minimize the perception that its POV. Idag (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was started in 2006[3] by lawyer and social studies teacher[4] Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. - The footnotes in the middle of the sentence break up the prose flow.
  • He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the open web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias. - Link to Wikipedia?
  • Additionally, articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as of its alleged liberal ideology. - "Additionally" is redundant.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia wikilink. That was previously linked but was removed after it being suggested by User:Malleus Fatuorum above: "I think there's quite a bit too much linking. Is it really necessary to wikilink Wikipedia, for instance, or encyclopedia?" Dreaded Walrus t c 08:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems problematic to insist on adequate and appropriate sourcing and then object that footnotes "break up prose flow". - Nunh-huh 11:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, adequate sourcing is a requirement. My concern is that the footnotes could easily be placed at the end of the sentence, but instead they're scattered amongst the text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But footnotes belong with the fact they support. There's no "one sentence"/"one footnote" correspondence. Lumping them all at the end is deceptive, implying they support the whole sentence, and the reader is left to guess which note supports which fact (or forced to consult them all, rather than just one, to actually find out). Why not lump all footnotes at the end of each paragraph? each article? To do so may make people who hate footnotes happy, but is a degradation of actual information - we shouldn't be valuing form over function, and valuing form over function should be a reason to rescind FAC, not grant it. - Nunh-huh 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who mentioned anything about "one sentence/one footnote"? All I'm saying is that footnotes after every few words make the prose difficult to read, thus failing criteria 1a of WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you contend that appropriate footnoting makes an article not "well-written"? We'll just have to disagree then. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" If I can't even read the article clearly, how could I possibly consider it engaging? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One person's inability to cope with footnotes doesn't make the article intrinsically unengaging. - Nunh-huh 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a sourcing conundrum this article presents... I've been thinking about this since I saw this article arrive at FAC. The best source would be to link to a Conservapedia edit, but that does not indicate how long the (mis)information has been in the article. This is an ethics nightmare, this article... --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would oppose, but I feel bad doing that all the time. Instead, I will point out that many of the referencing concerns bother me. I don't really feel that the page is really "encyclopedic" enough to be an FA. There is a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS (such as "Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[11] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.[37]"). Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment - I agre with Ottava Rima, the article, while pretty good seems somehow insufficient. Perhaps that's the issue with it's marginal notability, and lack of outside sources that discuss more than individual incidents? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a regular contributor to the article but not to the FAC, so take this as you will. The problem with the article, as Idag admits above, has always been what Rocksanddirt describes as "marginal notability and lack of outside sources." Finding sources on CP is hard, that's all there is to it. This makes it difficult to describe encyclopedically, and my contributions there have largely consisted of fighting edits that may be true, certainly, but are not sourced. Fishal (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful citing many Wiki pages as it may cross the grounds to become original research. All Wiki cites need format=Wiki so they are identified as being from a Wiki. A Google search brings up many ScienceBlogs mocking the site, maybe this could be mentioned, but may be too trivial. As some users have said above, some references are missing publishers, and some are missing author names where they are available. The ref formats used are not very consistent either, while not major problem FA's should really be of highest standard of possible. For example, some refs have published dates with wikilinked dates, while others haven't. Alexa ranks in the infobox are usually frowned upon. Also where does the money come from the fund the project?--Otterathome (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:44, 15 March 2009 [28].

Stella Power Station[edit]

Nominator(s): Fintan264 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent a number of months working on it, and I feel it now meets the criteria, and so I am making it my first nomination. Fintan264 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia - In general, this looks well done. Some quick notes, mostly on the citations:

  • Htm[l] is the presumed format for external links, and should not be indicated in format= parameters for references.
  • Publishers that are websites should not be listed in italics, nor should they be externally linked. Additionally, it makes little sense to list the website and publisher and link both, as you have done (for example) in the first two references. The name/location of the website is less important than the name of the publisher, and should be readily apparent from the actual url link anyway.
  • The accessdates for all references seem to be in ISO date format - please make them dmy format like the rest of the dates in the article.
  • There is one title in the references that is in all caps; please reduce to sentence case.
  • The footnotes section should be located before the notes section, as it is more closely related to the text than are the citations.
  • I see some hyphens in date ranges (for example, in the infobox); these should be endashes instead.
  • There is one link that needs disambiguation (Toadflax).

I'll try to get back to read the article in full—just wanted to give some quick feedback so you'd have time to work on these minor issues. Maralia (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right fixed all of these now, I think, apart from the title in all caps, which I can't find. Fintan264 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, I fixed it, and I have more to say on a related matter below. Morenoodles (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a number of sample edits on MoS fixes needed. Image layout needs to be review for WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted out the authors sections in the references, and attempted to correct the images, but I'm not entirely sure if I have done what I should have there. Fintan264 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to like.

  1. No, there's rather too much to like. Here's a typical example, within the account of the phased demolition: Next was its bunker bay building, which was supposed to be demolished at 2 pm on 15 June 1997, but was delayed until 2 pm on 22 June because of technical difficulties. Sorry, but I don't see how saying more than Next was its bunker bay building, demolished in June 1997 is more than mere demolitioncruft. Yes, the exact date(s) may conceivably have particular significance, but none is shown. struck out Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Descriptions of the new "developments" in places look suspiciously close to developerspeak. Are the descriptions from independent sources? struck out Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Much of the rest is sourced to what smell like precise pages within websites, but have general (site-level) URLs. Are these the closest URLs? (I didn't look.) struck out Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Small point, but capitalization of titles of sources is all over the place. Let's not get into details here, but they should all be "up" style (The Selfish Gene) or "down" style (The selfish gene); as it is, I fear they adopt whatever the source happened to use. struck out Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to wax negative; I do find a description of power stations refreshing and very much hope that I'll soon !vote "promote". Morenoodles (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing there to be a lot to like, and thank you in general for the long hard trimming you just gave it.
  1. Yes, I know what you mean about the demolition section, there were so many sources for different bits that it just gives a sentence overview of each of the sources on each of the stages. I'm uncertain on what I should do. Do you think I should just cut it down to the date and what was done (whilst maintaining prose of course)? You seem to suggest this is done elsewhere in the article. If you point out where I will try my best to rectify the problem. Difficulty is I've spent so long writing it that I can't pick out the bits that are wrong anymore.
  2. Come to mention it, a large bulk of the section on the redevelopment of the south site is taken from the Barrat Developments website. I'm not a great writer however, so I'm not sure how best to get rid of these whiffs of developerspeak.
  3. I'm sure I always used the URL of the page with the information on. I've used the "work" section of the referencing template a lot, so this link is listed alongside the link to the actual page of reference... if that is what you mean, I'm unsure.
  4. Sounds easy enough, I'll run through it in a bit and shift them to "down" style.

Fintan264 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that warm response to my rather chilly comments. I'm about to do some work on the article, but it's unlikely that I'll finish this in one go. Morenoodles (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the first part of a second run-through. I'll try to continue by the end of this week. Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I sleepily misunderstood the citation templates earlier, or anyway I don't know why I was moaning about imprecise URLs. Please disregard that. Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. Fintan264 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the stuff about development looks like developerspeak, but maybe this is OK (see my comment on the article's talk page). And all the other objections are gone. Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads They were able to carry 500 tonnes (492.1 LT; 551.2 ST). I'd be very surprised if "500 tonnes" were precise to the nearest tonne; more likely to the nearest ten or hundred. Thus "492.1 LT" imparts bogus precision. That matter aside, I also find it hard to imagine readers who don't understand "tonne" yet do understand "LT" and/or "ST". Wouldn't "500 tonnes" be enough? And for that matter is there a non-trivial demographic that wants to read detailed histories of demolished power stations (which never stood in the US or any other nation that clings to ancient metrology) yet is confused by lengths in metres, capacities in litres, etc? Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the ash boats. Do you think it should read To the nearest hundred, they were able to carry 500 tonnes... and do you think that all tonne conversions should be removed? How do you feel about the other conversions then? I think length conversions at least should be kept because imperial measurements are widely used still in the UK. Fintan264 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that assorted Britons will jump up and down with rage (and pipe up to fail this FAC) if you have the temerity to do a mass removal of their ancient units; but really, I think only palaeoconservatives and those over 100 or so will fail to understand either "tonne" or the fact that "500 tonnes" means "very roughly five hundred tons" (and not "492 tons" or "551 tons"). So I'd remove talk of tons, ST and LT. But perhaps that's just me. Morenoodles (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I agree that the tonne conversions can go. There isn't enough difference between a tonne and a ton and a ton. I'll get it done in a few hours. Fintan264 (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're gone. I do feel the distance, length and smaller weight conversions should be kept. Fintan264 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now pipelinked these files under my name to my user page.
  • I remember last time I was called up on this he was out the country, forgot about it and here we are again. The fella's once again out the country, until a week on thursday I think. So that'll be on hold till then, but of course I'll definately follow it up this time.
  • If it doesn't meet the citeria and shouldn't be there, I have no objection to you getting rid of it.
Fintan264 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have released the first two images under CC-BY-SA-3.0 itself, and GFDL + CC-BY-SA-3.0. Which license (standalone CC, or under GFDL and CC) are they supposed to be released under?
  • For the screenshot, it can either be removed from the article, thus letting it be deleted by non-use in 7 days, or it can be nominated for deletion via {{dfu}} or WP:IFD.
Jappalang (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now both only CC-BY-SA-3.0.
  • I'll remove it from the article then.
Fintan264 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail has been sent for the Aidan Doyle photographs, does it take a couple of days to process? Fintan264 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS has been verified. No more image concerns here. Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Printed reference publishers, including those from the many newspaper citations used here, need italics.
  • Photo captions that are full sentences require periods.
  • Images shouldn't be directly below second-level section headers, like the one under Ash removal. That is one of the problems that Sandy was referring to.
  • From a quick scan of the first couple of sections, it seems fairly well-written. The one piece of advice I will give is to watch for overlinking. Things like riot, offices, brick, and pipes really don't need to be linked, because they are common terms. It's better to save links for when they provide the most use to readers; this is especially important considering there are a lot of valuable links throughout. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been through, I think all of the printed reference publishers now have italics.
  • Only a couple are full sentences, given them fulls stops. Also made a couple that weren't full sentences into full sentences to read better.
  • I've now put the ash removal images on the right, I don't know if there were any others needing shifting but I don't think there are. If so please point them out.
  • Just been through and removed loads of pointless links.
Fintan264 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a.
  • Glad the links went before I got to it. Thanks.
  • "They stood on two sites, one on each side of a bend of the River Tyne. Stella South Power Station, the larger, stood on the south of the river, near Blaydon in Gateshead, while the smaller Stella North Power Station stood on the north, near Lemington in Newcastle." Try this:
  • "They stood on either side of a bend of the River Tyne: Stella South Power Station, the larger, on the south side, near Blaydon in Gateshead, and Stella North Power Station on the north side, near Lemington in Newcastle.
  • by ... by
  • "a couple of" is informal-speak for ... "two"?
  • "The pair were sister stations of similar design, and were built, opened, and closed together." Laboured. All parts of the sentence seem to be hammering the same point. "These sister stations were of similar design and were ..." is closer to it.
  • "The electricity generated was used to power local homes ...". Are you sifting through for redundant wording? "They powered local homes ...". Try these exercises.
  • Illogical: "Their operation required river traffic by flat iron barges to dump ash in the North Sea, and coal trains on both sides of the river to supply the stations with fuel." The fuel comes first, then the ash down the line, yes? And "their" is enough—remove "the stations with" and replace with "the".
  • Why a comma after "demolished"? Then ... "despite their heritage value as two of the ..."? Clumsy grammar and hard work for the readers to piece together the meaning.
  • "Their sites"—no, just "The sites". We know by now.

It needs a good copy-edit by someone who is unfamiliar thus far with the text. It's just not up to the required "professional standards". Could be a really good article. Not yet. Tony (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been through now and carried out those suggested copyedits in the lead. You're right on in saying someone unfamiliar with the text needs to give it a run through to bring it up to standard. Fintan264 (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; can you buzz me after that is done? Tony (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, will do, but where can I go to get it done? Fintan264 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRV for a list of potential copy-editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed out a lot of copyedit/PR related things which I've put on the talkpage. JMiall₰ 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review -- Based on the checker tools for dabs and external links, both are up to speed, while the ref formatting is also found up to speed based on WP:REFTOOLS.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009 [29].

The Lucy poems[edit]

Nominator(s): Kafka Liz (talk), Ceoil and Ottava Rima

I am conominating this for featured article with and Ceoil and Ottava Rima. We have worked long and hard on it, and I think it now meets Featured Article criteria. There is a peer review here. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Re: "This includes Hunter Davies, who determined that the poems impact rely more on their popularity...". If I am reading the intent of this sentence correctly, and perhaps I am not, place an apostrophe after "poems" because the poems collectively possess "impact", and change "rely" to "relies" because "impact" is singular. Also, I am not sure it's absolutely correct to say he "determined" something "when he claims" it, as there does not appear to be clear cause and effect. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "impact" would suggest a cause and effect relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I reworded the sentence, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the copy edit, Michael. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • External links (toolbox) and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.
  • Dabs need to be fixed (toolbox).--₮RUCӨ 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but fear not; dab now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...are now up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! Thanks. Although you review was generated by a script - no offence Truco - no support or opposed vote was offered, so thats ok. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my reasons on your talk page, and in addition, the dabs are in the toolbox, the only script I use is REFTOOLS.--₮RUCӨ 15:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have sufficient descriptions and verifiable licenses. Sorry I didn't get a chance to review this article earlier. I'm finally doing so now. (It is funny to see my professors' names in the bibliography! Such a small world we live in.) Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets pretend such people aren't connected to us, shall we. Otherwise, there are a lot of references that should probably be struck from many of these pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I'm teasing.) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20
31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Prose is clunky (too many Latinisms?), also repetitious. In light of user:Ottava Rima's continued defense (on the article's talk page) of the illogical Sentence 6, I am now changing a firm oppose; for, I don't see any improvements taking place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sentence 1: "five verses" Most people think of a verse as a line or stanza; true, it can mean a poem, but the sentence remains ambiguous: it can be read as five poems or a series of poems each with five verses.
Its because the article title contains the word "poems". Didn't want to say The Lucy Poems are a series of five poems... But I see what you mean. reworded back to 5 poems for now. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: "seminal?" Is it needed, when Wordsworth and Coleridge are mentioned? "Co-authored?" Although "coauthor" can be used as a verb, "jointly authored" is better, or even "jointly written." "represents both Wordsworth’s first major publication and the beginning of the English Romantic movement?" It didn't represent W's first major publication, it was W's fmp; similarly, it marked the beginning of the ERM ("represent" is too general).
Reads jointly written now. And represented is now was; (if you know what i mean) . Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seminal gone, as the beginning of the English Romantic movement is enough. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 3: "The "Lucy" series chronicles the poet’s unrequited love for the deceased eponymous heroine." Sounds like a funeral director's note. To "chronicle" is to record; it could apply to a poem if something is already known about it, but it sounds off in an introductory sentence. Same with "unrequited," "deceased," "eponymous." Please find simple substitutes.
chronicles at least is reworded. I'm not sure "unrequited," "deceased," "eponymous" are misplaced. Liz might be a better judge than me. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the "chronicles" point but don't see a problem with "unrequited," "deceased," or "eponymous". Kafka Liz (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 4: "Although she remains physically distant and subtly incorporeal in all five poems, to Wordsworth she represents "the joy of my desire" and is longingly referred to as 'cherished'." What does it really mean? "Physically distant" and "subtly incorporeal?" Is it someone always seen from afar, and then always shrouded in mystery? And why "although?" In other words, why can't a figure shrouded in mystery be the joy of my desire, especially in poetry? More importantly, it is too much abstract information too soon. We need to know something more concrete about these poems. (Especially for people like me who are vaguely thinking of "Lucy Gray" from junior high-school!)
Point taken that a mysterious figure can indeed be cherished. I think it's important to bring across the fact that Lucy is very much not a physical presence, though, and exists more as an ideal than as a flesh-and-blood woman. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: "The foreseen reality of her death weighs heavily on the poet throughout, imbuing the verse with a melancholy, elegiac tone." The expression "foreseen reality" assumes we know something about the death already, but we don't. The last part, on the other hand, seems like an overkill. "Melancholy, elegiac tone?" What else can it be?
Agree re The foreseen reality, but to my mind melancholy, elegiac tone is apt. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the "forseen reality", but I think "melancholy, elegaic tone" works here. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: "Although today the "Lucy" poems are considered among Wordsworth's finest work, Wordsworth did (not) conceive of them as a group nor were they published as a series during his lifetime." The subordinate clause should offer a counterpoint; as it stands, it is ambiguous: it seems to be stressing "finest," not related pieces.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: "Between the 1798 and 1802 editions of Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth made many revisions to the poems and their sequencing." Why is this important? And why 1798? The poems were written only in 1800 (we were told upstairs).
Its an important aspect and developed in the article body, though this should probably be brought across better. The poems were published, not written (completed), in 1800. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone like me, who knows a few poems of W. by heart (or thinks he still does), should be reeled in swiftly by the lead. The first seven sentences, however, have snuffed whatever little excitement I brought here. I'm afraid the article will need to be majorly copy-edited (if the rest is anything like these sentences). Will swing by again in a week or thereabouts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot, for the life of me, see one proper objection in the above. Instead, I see absurd comments. For example - "deceased" needs a "simple substitute". You can't get more simple than "deceased". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continues on F&f's examples for FAC. (Moved per Ottavo Rima's request.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's comments for Ceoil and Kafka Liz

Reads much better already. (In the meantime I read the Lucy poems and it turns out that I had memorized the third as a part of a "patriotic" group that had included Walter Scott and Robert Browning.) Anyway, here are some more thoughts.

  • (New Sentence 3): "The "Lucy" series centres on the narrator's unrequited love for the deceased heroine." Do we know that it was unrequited? Wouldn't " ... the narrator's enduring longing for a deceased object of love," be more accurate?
  • It think its fairly vital to bring accross the fact that the love was unrequited. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (New Sentence 4): "The figure of Lucy, described as 'the joy of my desire' and longingly referred to as 'cherished,' remains physically distant and subtly incorporeal in all five poems."
  • Reworded and clear now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think from the perspective of a reader, your own words above ("flesh and blood" and "presence") would work better than "subtly incorporeal;" in other words, something along the lines of, "Lucy, who never appears in flesh and blood, permeates the poems as an powerful evocative presence" is at once clearer and more accurate.
    • Also, I don't know what the two descriptions, "the joy of my desire" and "cherished," do for the reader. I wonder if at this point an actual stanza wouldn't work better. (such as: "She died, and left to me| This heath, this calm and quiet scene;|| This memory of what has been,| And never more shall be.||")
    • Yeah, might swap these, just need to mull it over. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, the rest of the lead. (Mattisse below has alluded to these points as well.)

  • Sentence N: "Although he did not change the theory of his poetry and only claimed to be refining his development from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation, noticeable thematic shifts are evident from the surviving drafts."
    • "only claimed" --> "claimed only"
    • "from a mimetic form of representation to an expressive one" is better (that is, if this is intended).
    • This entire sentence, though, goes over the reader's head, especially since (in the link) the many meanings "mimetic" include "expressive." Why, for example, is "refining his development from a mimetic form ... to an expressive ...," not a thematic shift? In other words, you should state (simply) what the thematic shifts are or bag the sentence.
  • Sentence (N+1): "Only after Wordsworth's death in 1850 did Victorian publishers and critics establish a final organization of the poems as a fixed group, leading subsequent anthologies to present the verses as such."
    • Do we need "1850?" (I mean you are saying Victorian, so the reader has an idea.)
    • Do we need "final?"
    • "as such" is vague.
    • "subsequent anthologies" implies that "Victorian publishers and critics" were anthologies.
    • "establish a final organization of the poems" Such structure can't be established; it's merely agreed upon.
    • I feel it is better to be explicit, such as in: "Only after W.'s death did Victorian publishers and critics agree upon an order for presenting the poems as a group, one which anthologists since have preserved." (At least two of mine—Q in the 1927 Oxford Book, and Helen Gardner in the 1980 New Oxford Book— have the same order.)
  • (Sentence (N+2): Whether the character Lucy was based on a real woman or was a figment of the poet's imagination has long been a matter of debate among literary scholars.
    • "Whether Lucy was a real woman or one imagined by the poet has long been debated by scholars." We don't need "literary;" what else could they be?
  • (Sentence (N+3)): "Generally reticent to comment on the poems, Wordsworth did not fully address the subject or reveal details of her identity."
    • "Reticent" means "disinclined to speak freely." So, you want to say, "Generally reticent about the poems ..."
    • What does "... W did not fully address the subject" mean, especially when he was inclined to be reticent? There's repetition here.
  • Sentence (N+4): "Some critics speculate that the character represents Wordsworth's sister Dorothy, while others contend that she is an idealisation.
    • This seems like Sentence (N+2) all over again. Best to delete (N+4) and include info upstairs. Something like, ""Whether Lucy was a real woman—possibly the poet's sister Dorothy—or one imaginatively idealized by the poet has long been debated by scholars."
  • Final lead sentence: "Both schools agree that Lucy is a device through which the poet develops his thoughts and meditations on loss, nature and beauty."
    • A "device" is used or employed. So, "Scholars, however, agree that Lucy is a literary device employed by the poet to meditate on loss, nature, and beauty." might be better. (or "beauty, nature, and loss" if you worry about the cadences of the language). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Ottava Rima
  • "Do we need "1850?" (I mean you are saying Victorian, so the reader has an idea.)" - Yes, we do. The Victorian period started in 1836 and ended a long time after his death. The date is necessary.
  • "only claimed" --> "claimed only" There was only one claim, thus, "only claimed" is the only logical phrase.
  • "We don't need "literary;" what else could they be?" Philologist, historians, psychologists etc. All of these fields would look at the poems in a non-literary way.
  • ""Victorian publishers and critics" were anthologies." yes. Any collecting of the poems as "Lucy" poems would be, by definition, an anthology because they were not originally collected as a set.
  • "Such structure can't be established; it's merely agreed upon." Not true. Once a structure is published, it is established.
  • "Reticent" means "disinclined to speak freely." It also means reluctant.
  • "There's repetition here." One sentence deals with the poems. Another sentence deals with Lucy's identity. Two different subjects.
  • "A "device" is used or employed." - Hence the phrase "through which". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request by F&f (to Ceoil and Kafka Liz)

I would like to request that Ottava Rima be kept firmly under wraps, especially when I leave comments for the two of you.

Consider, for example, his response to "'only claimed' --> 'claimed only'":

  • "There was only one claim, thus, 'only claimed' is the only logical phrase."
    • No. "only claimed" can imply that he didn't do anything more than claim, and "claim only" does not mean that there was more than one claim, but rather that in the context he "claimed no more than." I mean even the high-schooler in our household understands this.

Consider again, "reticent":

  • He says, "reticent also means 'reluctant'"
    • True, "reluctant" is a secondary meaning (although not in Webster's or the OED), but this use is wrong when "reticent" (as disinclined to speak freely) alone suffices.

And, yet again:

  • "'We don't need "literary;" what else could they be?' Philologist, historians, psychologists etc. All of these fields would look at the poems in a non-literary way."
    • Would philogists, historians and psychologists be creating a convention of ordering the poems?!

Each new responses above is more ludicrous than the previous one. What is going on here?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Ottava Rima
  • You have made many claims but offer no evidence to support them. When pointed out that you are wrong, you claim otherwise but offer no support. Then you put forth things that are obviously wrong: "Would philogists, historians and psychologists be creating a convention of ordering the poems" Yes! A psychologist would need the progression of the poems because of psychoanalysis and behaviorist approaches to Wordsworth's life. They are read biographically. A historian would need the poem structures to identify how they reflect on Wordsworth's life and if they connect to any individual. A philologist would need to know the order to see how Wordsworth progressed and how the rewritings and reworkings were affected by the other poems. There is at least once source provided on -each- of these three. This is standard knowledge that could be found in any introductory literary criticism course. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request again to Ceoil and Kafka Liz

So preoccupied is is Ottava Rima with arguing with me that he is not even aware that I mistook the sentence, "Whether the character Lucy was based on a real woman or was a figment of the poet's imagination has long been a matter of debate among literary scholars" for the previous one about ordering the poems! So, my original response should have been, "Why only literary?"

I would prefer that someone with proficiency at least at the level of an ordinary native speaker's reply to my posts, so that endless time is not wasted in arguing about the easy nuances of the language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now - Agree with Fowler&Fowler that this needs a thorough copy edit. I was not able to get beyond the third paragraph of the lead:
  • "Whether Lucy was based on a specific historical figure or was a purely fictional creation has been a matter of prolonged debate among literary scholars." - "specific historical figure" - why not "a person in his life" or something else less stilted. Why have the extra "a matter of"? Whether Lucy was based on a person in Wordsworth's life has been debated. Is it necessary in the lead to note that it was "prolonged"?
  • "Some have speculated that the character represents Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy, while others hold that she is an idealised figure." Very stilted and clunky. Some have speculated that Lucy is based on Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy, while others see her as an idealised figure. "holds" #1 (why all clunky "holds"?).
  • "Both schools agree, however, that the character is a device for the poet to develop his thoughts and meditations on loss, nature and beauty." Can you lose the "however"? "Both schools"? Why not start the paragraph by saying that Lucy is a means for Wordsworth to meditate on beauty, nature and loss. (Should not start out with "loss" in this triad:"loss, nature and beauty" is not a satisfying order.) Then you can get into whether she is modeled on a person in his life.
  • "No precise historical identity for Lucy has been established, and modern scholarship holds it unlikely that Wordsworth modeled her on any specific individual. - Clunky "holds" #2
  • "Generally reticent about the poems, he himself never addressed the subject." - Tony1 101 "he himself"?

Should not the lead invite the reader in, instead of making the poems sound like dead relics of scholarship? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking the word choice is not an objection. Furthermore, points like why "a specific historical figure" is necessary - it doesn't have to be a person he knew or part of his life. It means a person who was alive at one time. Regardless, you seek substitutions of phrases but not one of the criterias. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't really poor prose, not "brilliant prose", not "professional prose", an objection? You are saying the quality of the prose is not a consideration in FAC? What has Tony1 been doing with his tutorials then? You are violating his most basic examples. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mattisse, "brilliant" means technically without a problem. It does not mean aesthetically as the way you please. Your objections are more over taste than substance. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard that definition before. Perhaps "technically without a problem" should be "written" into the FAC criteria to clarify. "He himself" can be seen as a technical problem. So can what Fowler&Fowler is trying to illustration to you, as it is straight out of one of Tony1's tutorials. So Tony1's values no longer hold? Perhaps that is why he hardly ever reviews articles. Anyway, I will not bother to followup, as it is clearly hopeless. The article will probably be promoted no matter what anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He himself is one entry. You can change it if you want. I doubt one phrase is enough to justify an oppose over prose quality. Tony1 is quite comfortable making fixes when he sees them if he wants to, and he is also capable of stating what he things needs to be done also. If you have syntax problems, please mention them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave several specific examples from the lead only So did Fowler&Fowlder. Between us we covered the lead. Those were examples only. Neither of us went beyond the lead. The lead, being an important part of the article, should be well written. This one is not, thus indicating that the article needs copy editing. It is not my article and if you want to leave "he himself" (one of Tony1's pet copy editing peeves) or anything of the other specific complaints listed in the lead, you are free to do so. It does seem that it is pointless for anyone to bother going through the rest article to list problems if you are going to disregard them. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Hi Mattisse - I agree with some but not all of the points you and Fowler&Fowler have raised. I'll try to address these over the coming days. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and I'll try to work on the points you've brought up. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Mattisse, we can work through on the general points raised and let you know when we would like you to revisit. Its easy to get too close to an article and miss out on some phrasings others would see as needing obvious work. There are some good pointers here, thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are the only literary influences of the Lucy poems that they have been parodied? This article says yes: Some authors haven't mocked them. If this is so, do we really need an article about them? Vb (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of Lyrical Ballads, the Lucy poems have been widely influential, as LB was probably the most influential collection of Romantic poems published. (And, yes, we need an article about them. Without a doubt. This is Poetry 101 and British Lit 101 kind of stuff.) Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so, please find a source that discuss this brilliant influence and summarize it instead of citing only two influences: parodies and Mary Shelley who seems to be the only one who was not a mockery. Vb (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vb, I think you are confusing things. They were influential with the Lyrical Ballads as part of them, but not on their own. It would be against WP:WEIGHT to go to length discussing the influence of Lyrical Ballads. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Eventually! The individual poem pages need to be filled out first. Attempting it head on would be murder. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vb, look at the very last paragraph. They also influenced Mary Shelley's The Last Man. Beyond that, there are little notable direct influences in literature (or, at least, ones that can be traced directly back to the Lucy poems as a series). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes! I read this but the way it is written is quite strange, isn't it? So Mary Shelley is the only literary influence that didn't mock? Please rewrite this paragraph. If not this article shall remain a parody. :-) Vb (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is "strange" about it? And Mary Shelley was the only one to produce works of notable quality that can be directly traced to the series as a whole and is not a parody. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I don't know anything about these poems. I just looked at the reason why they are famous, i.e. what are their literary influences. I read from this article that their major influences are parodies. The authors cannot find any other influences which is not a mockery but Mary Shelley. I think this paragraph is much too negative. Please cite first positive influence and then parodies or make a section exclusively about parodies. Vb 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.249.9 (talk) [reply]
  • Fame is rarely derived from influences on other literature. Fame is mostly derived from critical reception and interpretation. Their fame is from the critics that have used it to examine aspects of Wordsworth's life, mental state, and his poetic development. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I am no Wordsworth expert, but I do know something about this period of literature and I have successfully copyedited FACs in the past. I would like to help out here, but this bloodbath is scaring me. What would everyone say to taking a few days off from the article and returning on the weekend? We have several excellent editors here and it would be better if we could all work together rather than attack each other. These poems are beautiful and important - they deserve our best efforts. Awadewit (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. We need to step back a little, and relax a bit. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this has been mentioned on the FAC talk page, but just to be clear, we mean only parking the above discussion for a while to let it cool down. We'll still be working away, and looking forward to repsonding to Fowler by the weekend or so. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too many words. I'm afraid I have to agree with Fowler and Fowler about the stiff prose of the lede that fails to "reel in" the reader and waken his/her interest. That still fails to waken it, in the present revised state of the opening paragraphs. There are too many words. Some examples of infelicities, in the lede alone, that struck me:
  1. "A significant milestone"-->"A milestone" (the significance is what makes it a milestone).
  2. "the deceased heroine"; I suggest "the dead Lucy"—with some hesitation—but "deceased", seriously... please, give us anything but that bathos.
  3. "only claimed to be refining" is frankly a misstatement. Try "claimed to be only refining".
  4. noticeable thematic shifts are evident. Yes, they would be.. that's a tautology. Please pick either noticeable or evident.
  5. "Only after Wordsworth's death in 1850 did Victorian publishers and critics establish a final organization of the poems as a fixed group, leading subsequent anthologies to present the verses as such." Words, words, words... How about "Only after Wordsworth's death in 1850 did publishers and critics start to treat the poems as a fixed series, and since then anthologies have presented them as a group"?
  6. "Generally reticent to comment on the poems"— not correct English. How about "Generally reticent about the poems"?

These comments are only examples from the lede (after it's been revised on FAC, yet). I'm afraid the entire article needs a thorough copyedit, especially for conciseness, and at this point I must oppose. I'm sorry if I've repeated a lot of stuff from higher up, but after glancing through the thread, I just can't stand reading the whole of it, especially not Ottava Rima's Monty Python routine (I didn't come here for an argument/Yes, you did). Bishonen | talk 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thats fine -understandable- but thanks for commenting anyway. The is another major copy edit going, we are combing the article from similar problems outlined above. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dead Lucy? That really sounds better? :) By the way, Bishonen, many of those lines have been changed four or five times today, so I don't even know what version you are seeing anymore. From my last count, there were 6 different people editing the lead as of late, and, of course, everyone has their opinion on what sounds best. This is why I don't like style based concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"is frankly a misstatement." As pointed out above. "only claimed" means that he made one claim. "claimed only" means that any number of claims could exist but this one only said one thing. "only claimed" is the only acceptable phrase based on the logic of the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have read only the lead so far. It looks quite good. Some suggestions for improvement:
  • The name of the article is The Lucy poems (without double-quotes) but the lead starts out 'The "Lucy" poems' (with double-quotes). The reliable sources I found with a quick search (e.g., Hartman 1966, Matlak 1978, Ferguson 1973) tend to just say "the Lucy poems", though some other sources do say "the 'Lucy' poems" or even "the Lucy-poems". Also, the leading article "The" should not be part of the article name, for the same reason that the Iliad is covered in Iliad, not in The Iliad (which is just a redirect). Wikipedia article names are best done without punctuation, and since many reliable sources also seem to prefer that, I suggest renaming the article to Lucy poems, beginning the lead with 'The Lucy poems', and consistently say just 'the Lucy poems' thereafter.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead image is way too dark. I suggest this alternative photo of the same painting (this photo is also from Cornell[30]).
  • 'claimed to be only refining his development from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation' Whew! That's a lot of high-lit jargon, and the wikilink to Mimesis won't help the newbie reader much (that article says that mimesis "carries a wide range of meanings", so which one are we talking about here?). I'd either translate this into simple English, or remove it.
  • The lead caption is too long and is a bit forbidding and has some wording problems:
  • As far as I know, the painting is untitled and so its description shouldn't be in italics.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ', Cornell University, Ithaca, New York' The minor detail of the painting's permanent location need not be in the lead caption.
  • 'and dates from when the poet was 28 years old, the same year that he' is worded infelicitously.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the poems later known as the "Lucy" series'. Again, too much wording. Just call them the Lucy poems.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this rewording of the caption?: "Wordsworth in 1798, the year he wrote the first draft of the Lucy poems." Or maybe you can think of something even punchier and more intriguing.
Shortened. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead uses British spelling ('idealisation') but American-style quoting ('"Lucy"'). I suggest sticking with British style uniformly, as the subject's British.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. Need to consider you suggestion of changing the article title. For now though your other suggestions were positive. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input..Actually I wrote this caption - William Shuter, Portrait of William Wordsworth, 1798, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York per the VA projects correct MoS for painting captions - Artist, title (description), date, collection.....As to the rest of the captions I unlinked redundant title links; and will leave the rest to the authors of the article..Modernist (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this were an article about art, the full painting caption would be required. But it's an article about poetry. I don't know what "the VA projects correct MoS" is, but surely it covers articles about art, not articles about poetry. To take one WP:FA example, it's perfectly reasonable that Daylight saving time's caption for Image:Franklin-Benjamin-LOC.jpg says only "Benjamin Franklin suggested firing cannons at sunrise to waken Parisians" and it is neither necessary nor reasonable for that caption to add anything like "Engraving: H. B. Hall from the original picture in Passel painted from life by J.A. Duplessis in 1783, and now (1868) in the possession of John Bigelow Esq." Readers of Daylight saving time shouldn't have to wade through irrelevant information about Duplessis, and readers of The Lucy poems shouldn't have to wade through irrelevant information about Shuter. Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your image appears to be more red. Is it the same portrait? I haven't seen the actual one, and my copies tend to be black and white so I cannot verify which is more accurate. Do you have any information on that version? Also, mimetic should mean just a standard reflection of life. The idea would go back to M. H. Abrams Mirror and the Lamp. The mirror (mimetic) reflects life where the lamp guides people forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the same portrait. There's only one 1798 portrait at Cornell. Our goal in this article is not to reproduce the portrait accurately; it is to illustrate the Lucy poet accurately, and (unless we're trying to suggest that Wordsworth wrote the Lucy poems in the dark) the lighter-colored photo more accurately depicts the Lucy poet. If you look around the Internet, lighter-colored and cropped versions also appear in Bowdoin[31], Today in Literature[32], and answers.com[33]. Only Wikipedia seems to be using the too-dark image when talking about poetry.
  • Thanks for explaining "mimetic", but I'm afraid the explanation here won't help the typical Wikipedia reader there. How about replacing "from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation" with "from mirroring to expressing life"? That's shorter, sweeter, and less abstruse.
Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of using too many words, I changed the phrase to "from mirroring to expressing aspects of life". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Wordsworth, all spruced up, but with with uneven edges.
Wordsworth, all spruced up and cropped.
To my mind, the Wikipedia image is closer to the original image in that it (likely) doesn't distort the saturation level of red. In other words, my guess is that the other image has been processed and both its saturation level of the red/orange bands and its brightness have been bumped up. If you want something brighter, but not color-distorted, I can easily produce such an image. Give me a few minutes. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be nice, thanks. Also, it should be cropped; that's standard in situations like this. Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two images. It turns out that the original is not a perfect rectangle perhaps a result of some distortion (some uneven stretching or shrinking if it hadn't been framed for an extensive period (?)), or maybe the camera viewing angle was not the best. Anyway, I've also created a very slightly cropped version. If you want it cropped more, let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work F&f, no more copping please. I was gonna say something about no cropping, I'm gonna use the second lighter version...ty...Modernist (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good..better than the red ones...Modernist (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks for that. I see Modernist has added the lighter version.[34]. Looks well! Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome. Wonder how long he sat for that. It shows though that artists (at least some) were faithful to what they saw: smile lines and slightly thinning hair up top is shown even on a 28 year old. Also, conventions for portrait view-points (turning the torso to one side and then looking ahead) had been set long before the camera age. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the Napoleonic chest hold....couldn't see that in the darker version...Modernist (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is way better than all the other online versions of this painting I've seen. Very cool. Thanks, F&f. Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ottava Rima first noticed the color imbalance in the other versions. He deserves our thanks too. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks needed, really. My first role here is as another reviewer. Although I am listed on the nomination, I haven't had a direct role in the page for many months, and the page has changed a lot from the original userspace version that I worked on. If anyone was curious, the last time I had a major part was since here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Is there a reason why the references are not in the Harvard/Cite format and the citations not in the {{Harvnb|...}} format? It is a bit of a pain for the authors, but once done, it not only helps the readers immensely, but can also be used by the authors in other Wordsworth articles, of which, hopefully, there will be many. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help out with this, if there is demand. See, for example, History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 (section 1 onwards). Clicking on the footnote takes you to the citation with page number as it usually does, but then clicking on the citation, takes you to the reference (which is also highlighted in blue), and there, if an isbn number or link is provided, the text in the cited book can often be read. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our strong preference is to leave the cites as they are, I don't think templates are a requirment. Thanks anyway....Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009 [35].

Movieland[edit]

Nominator(s): ViperSnake151

This article has alot of good detail, and I managed to get it back up to good article status a few months ago, cleaning it up and arranging it better. There has not been any coverage of any "positive" aspects of this site, and its pretty much just notable for its spyware. ViperSnake151 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. comment from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Dabs and external links (toolbox), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1b. This doesn't look comprehensive at all to me. There is no information about the history of the website, only history of the complaints. Who developed it? The Overview section is a paltry paragraph that details its ads on other sites. Describe its services and what kind of content it offers. If it's a subscription-based movie download website, what kinds of movies does it claim to offer? Mainstream studio releases? BuddingJournalist 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009 [36].

International Space Station[edit]

Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk)

I would like to nominate this article for Featured Article status as I believe it details an important topic in a very interesting and complete manner, meeting all of the FA requirements. Since the last FAC we have dealt with all of the issues raised within it, conducted an A-class review and had two copyedits from members of the Guild of Copyeditors. I believe that, thanks to that, this article is ready for FA. Colds7ream (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Large chunks unreferenced, including statements of opinion such as "This provides experience in maintaining, repairing, and replacing systems on-orbit, which will be essential in operating spacecraft further from Earth, reducing mission risks and advancing the capabilities of interplanetary spacecraft." or "The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the US segment of the International Space Station as a national laboratory with a goal to increase the utilisation of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector.""The station had sufficient operating power to carry out its near-term programme with only modest impacts on operations, so to prevent further damage, the joint was locked in place." These are just examples. Numerous unsourced statements throughout, including paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - agree with Ealdgyth that it is too thinly referenced for challengeable material. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made some changes to the article to mark some of these statements. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written article, I'd say that referencing is acceptable for FAC, although there is a small amount of room for improvement. My only concern is over the potentially dated statements, but I don't think this is serious enough to warrant throwing out the FAC, so I am inclined to support. --GW… 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I've started work on obtaining citations. Please bear with me whilst I do so. Colds7ream (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit from a Peer review; I'm very surprised to see that a WikiProject just passed it as A-class. It has an external link farm, MoS issues throughout, citation issues, and listy prose. I suggest withdrawing and getting an independent peer review, outside of the Project which just passed it A-class, utilizing the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. While FAC is backlogged it cannot serve well in place of a solid peer review. (Please review WP:DASH as well, to understand the difference between hyphens, WP:ENDASHes and WP:EMDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the article just had a peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive3. It is formatted as an ACR in the article history. -MBK004 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm surprised to see it passed as A-class; that Project needs to improve peer reviews, and while FAC is backlogged, it should not be used as peer review. In the absence of editor reviews, I seem to have no choice but to begin pointing this out myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took this as a hint and undid the A classification. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External link farm taken care of, dashes taken care of. I'm wondering about the "listy prose", do you have specific sections that you feel are not up to standard ? It would help a lot of we see elements named I think --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. review from Truco (talk · contribs)

Dabs and external links (toolbox) and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 00:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until you can fix factual errors. Distance traveled relative to what? Actual distance traveled should be 0. You can't just say c.2,000,000,000 km and expect someone to know what you are talking about. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you found any other errors? The distance travelled parameter is standard across all spacecraft infoboxes. However, it's a little gratuitous and I don't think many would miss it if it were removed from this article. Apollo 8, for example, does not include the parameter even though its infobox supports it. Wronkiew (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same thing. It's mostly there for the schoolkids (they tend to ask such questions) and it is hardly proper information. I was also wondering why we bother with some of the more technical data. It's too inaccurate to be technically correct, constantly out of date and hard to grasp for laymen. I suggest to scrap: "orbit periode" (technical term, also covered by "orbits per day"), distance travelled (inaccurate, incorrect term, not properly supported by data of NASA), perigee, apogee and orbit inclination (incomplete orbit information unless all 6 orbital elements are specified, too technical, and constantly out of date). I also have little love for atmospheric pressure, since it is specified elsewhere in the article I believe. Then we could simply keep the link to NSSCD and add a link to the NASA orbital data page to the infobox. Seems much simpler and more accurate. People are directed to the proper information, while we still keep useful data for the laymen (average height, orbits per day, orbits since launch) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I think that's all the unreferenced sections dealt with. Colds7ream (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is not of FA quality yet. I will list some problems that I noted:
  1. The station offers an advantage over spacecraft such as NASA's Space Shuttle because it is a long-term platform in the space environment. The station allows long-term studies to be performed, both on specific experiments and on the human crews that operate them. Redundant sentences. In addition, the second sentence duplicates the first.
  2. Scientific results from station research, in fields from basic science to exploration research, are being published every month. Another redundent sentence. Do readers really need to know that the results are published every month?
  3. I actually came to a conclusion that the 'Overview' section is not necessary. The overview is supposed to be provided by the lead, and the current section is full of vague sentences (see examples above). I suggest removing it, and moving some information to the lead.
    The reviews so far suggested that the lead was too long and that an Overview/Purpose section should be added. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Scientists have several plans to study biology on the ISS. Another redundant sentence.
  5. I do not like 'Areas of research' subsection very much. It is essentially based on just one NASA source, which it closely follows. I think more sources should be found. Many statements are too vague. For instance, Also, because fluids can be combined nearly completely in space regardless of their relative weights, they are interested in investigating the combination of fluids that would not mix well on Earth. It does not say anything specific about planned experiments. I think it will be good to provided examples of fluids that need investigation.
    Wouldn't that make the article much too technical ? Because I doubt we have articles on such fluids. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the problems of the article as a whole and 'Areas of research' subsection in particular is overuse of 'also'.
  6. As a multinational collaborative project, the legal and financial aspects of the ISS are detailed and complex—governing ownership of modules, crewing and utilisation of the station, and responsibilities for station resupply. Redundant sentence.
  7. In the same section the second paragraph (and the assignment of time) is unreferenced.
  8. The last sentence in this section: Giving a precise cost estimate for the ISS is not straightforward, as it is difficult to determine which costs should actually be contributed to the ISS programme, or how the Russian contribution should be measured. is redundant as well.
    But isn't that important ? The fact that something is close to immeasurable ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin says ... actually former NASA administrator.
    good point (Griffin handed over administration effectively half of February officially January 20).
  10. The section 'Future of the ISS' is too heavly focused on US. Do other partners have opnions about the future of ISS?
    Good point. I guess it should be clarified that without US operations, the station basically cannot continue operating. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should clarify that without Russian operations, the station cannot continue operating. Wronkiew (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multi faceted here of course. With the american shuttle retiring, russian services are critical for continued operations of human presence on board the station. Without NASA however, the station (as a piece of technology) can not "fly", because NASA controls the critical elements of the station; power supply, flight control/stabilization, cooling, electronics, communication services (called TDRS). In theory, Zarya/Zvezda can be decoupled, but that section could only survive for 6 months or so. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In the 'Space station' section: Nine of these components are already in orbit, with ... However in 'Assembly and structure' subsection I read As of July 2008[update], the station consisted of ten pressurised modules Which number is correct nine or ten?
    Corrected --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This high-voltage distribution line allows for smaller power lines I do not know what "smaller power lines" mean. Actually it should be "wires with smaller diameter".
  13. Please, check that all abbreviations like CSA are spelled out.
  14. I think one of the problem of the article is lack of a section devoted to the detailed description of pressurized modules. The current 'Scientific modules' subsection fulfills this role only partially. I think it would be beneficial to have 'Modules' section containing a subsection for each module. The 'Scientific modules' can be merged with it.
    One of the problems here would be however that sections don't have dedicated functions. Their role changes over time, There used to be a section describing them, but they were moved, then we had a table, but that basically contained a lot of information that was duplicate with other statements in the article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I think the article would benefit from a table where all modules are listed (with launch dates, mass, volume and other information).
    Table restored. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The article is mainly based on NASA/ESA/RKA sources and newspapers. Can publications in peer reviewed journals (or in other reliable third party sources) be cited where appropriate? (especially in sections that deal with science).
    I doubt wether much science results are publicized yet (can take up to 10 years). Perhaps there are science journals on the proposals that were submitted to NASA/ESA/RKA. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above list of problems is not exhaustive. The article actually needs much work before it becomes featured. Ruslik (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article ignores the books published on the space station and relies exclusively on web-based research and thus does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", as required by the FA critiera. This Google Books search shows that there are plenty of books available. I would also expect that there are scientific papers available elsewhere. Where there are books, there are papers, since papers come first. Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact there are some books cited in the article, the reason for there not being more is the fact that most of them are out-of-date, having been published before or during the post-Columbia assembly halt. Colds7ream (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:39, 10 March 2009 [37].

National War Memorial (South Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bilby (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it is ready, and I believe it to be complete. I've been working on it for a while now, and have pretty much exhausted the sources. It's been through a peer review and GAN, and since then I let it sit for a bit while I waited for access to the physical site and for any input from other editors. Plus it never hurts to get a bit of distance from your writing. At any rate, I really enjoyed doing the research on this, and I hope that it is at a featured standard - but, if not, it should come out a better article via this process than it was going in. Bilby (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. :) Found and fixed. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I spotted a contraction "didn't" in there
  • The odd thing is that the dimensions and height of the memorial isn't specified, which I think it needs to be if possible.
  • Good point. :) Surprisingly, they were hard to come by - most of the accounts don't seem to mention them. Anyway, it should be better now. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why you did not take a photo of the inner chamber. That seems to be missing
  • That was a tad problematic. The memorial has been closed for most of the time I was working on the article, and the public were only recently given full access. I took some pictures inside it, but while I wasn't relly happy with them, one of the bronzes looks ok, so I've added that to the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in the historical intro, it would be good to add how many SA people and % of SA people served in WWI so that the the significance of the war effort and its impact can be better understood
  • Done. I used Scott as a source, as it is easily accessible as well as seemingly authoritative, in spite of the age.- Bilby (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first caption in the main text is not quite accurate as the angle seems to be from the corner of Kintore/NT looking NW into the face rather than directly W from Kintore.
  • Actually, I recall thinking the same on one trip to the site, and promising myself that I would remember to fix it when I got home. I didn't, but I have now. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the general number of labourers it took to build it?
  • Unfortunately no. Richardson didn't mention the numbers, and no-one else would have tried. :( Some could theoretically be derived from Tillet's records, which I've been told still exist, but that would only hold for the stonemasons, and would probably be OR. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information about vandalism/misuse of the war memorial. There are always yobbos there skating on it ... :(
  • I've been over everything I can get access to, and there isn't anything that we can use - there are three newspaper articles about vandalism, but they're individual cases. There was also something in Hansard about improving lighting in the area to cut down on drug use, but I gather that was the surrounding areas, rather than the memorial as such. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistencies with choice of date format in refs needs to be fixed.
  • I don't agree with the BW caption of North Terrace. The picture is taken from about 50m west of Kintore and maybe 200-250 metres east of King William Road, which is closer to Kintore than KWR.
  • Good point. I've adjusted it to say the photo was taken between Kintore and King William - hopefully that's ok. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a great article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the toolbox there are a couple of dabs and broken urls that are waiting for you. Apart from that the sources are all fine and scholarly. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestions - they were great. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Inglis (2008), p. 281. -- Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Inglis2008p281 -- Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I didn't realise that the tool could do that. :) All should be good now, though. - Bilby (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your welcome. Its a very hand tool. (Reference formatting found up to speed.)--TRUCO 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • That's who I got it from. :) I'll see them again and inquire about the source. The date mentioned was what they presumed it to be, but I agree there's leeway in this - although on the plus side I've seen a picture of him from the mid 40's, and he certainly looks younger in the picture I've used. I'll push for something more exact. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The architecture museum curator is sure that the picture is prior to 1946, but she doesn't have anything to confirm that (other than the mustache, which he didn't have in 1946), and none of the works we know of in which it has been used include an attribution. However, I tracked down the 1929 issue of "Who's Who in Australia", which included a photo that is definitely safe, so I've swapped them over. (File:Louis Laybourne Smith 1929.jpg). I've got an even more dapper picture from the 1909 "Cyclopedia of South Australia", (handlebar mustache and everything), but the quality is lower and the 1929 pic is the right period for the war memorial. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:North Terrace, Adelaide, 1940.jpg is not the postcard the description states it to be. P. 9394 (1940, hence PD-US and AUS) is this one; the vehicles are different, the shot is taken further away, and the weather seems drier. The postcard that is used for this image is this one (H82.289/208), which is circa 1946, hence not PD-US (though PD-AUS).
  • Your link doesn't work, I'm afraid - it seems to be a temporary search result. However, the wrong number was on the postcard, as the correct number is P 9446. I suspect I stuffed up somehow. Presuming that's the one you found, then 1946 may be right. I can't swap the two, as the first one is from the SA Library, and they claim ownership (but not copyright) on the photos. So unless I can get my own copy of the postcard I don't think I can really use it. On the plus side, I should be able to get my own copy, so I'll chase that up in the next couple of days (when my pay clears) and report back. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, here is the permalink: click here. Yes, I agree a better picture than theirs would be much better. Jappalang (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I tracked down a copy of the 1940 postcard, P. 9394, and replaced the 1946 picture with a scan of the new one. So all should be good. I also added a second picture that I found at the same time - it's an earlier number in the same series, P. 9259, and is similarly dated 1940 (although judging by the state of the vines on the wall, I'd guess that it's pre 1936). - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one I can fix immediately. I've updated the description: it's from The Advertiser, January 21, 1928. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the postcard should be easy to resolve (a swap would do). Inquiries for the other two images could likely resolve them too. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All images now in the article are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy yet—1a. I read only the lead, which doesn't fill me with confidence. The whole of the text is at issue; these are mere examples of what I mean. Tendency to long-windedness, inter alia.

  • Second sentence: illogical structuring of ideas. "Opened in 1931, the memorial was first proposed in 1919 and was funded by the Parliament of South Australia." No ... "First proposed in 1919, the memorial was funded by the Parliament of South Australia and was opened in 1931." is getting there. But then we're shunted back into the story in the second para. Hmmm ...
  • "The first competition, conducted in 1924, produced 26 designs"—Remove "conducted", and "which was run" later.
  • "In this, the work is not displaying a material victory, but instead a victory of the spirit." --> "The work is not displaying a victory of the spirit rather than a material victory".
  • "Within the memorial can be found bronzes lining the walls of the inner shrine on which are listed the names of all South Australians who died during the Great War." OK, so names not from WWII. "the Great War" will be understood as WWI, will it? Maybe. It's long-winded; why not: "Bronzes line the walls of the inner shrine, on which are listed the names of all South Australians who died during the Great War." Comma required, since not a subset of such shrines—it's the only one, yes? Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a good massage if the prose is to be regarded as "of professional standard". We're doing justice to a lot of people who died, so smooth, authoritative writing is the least we can deliver. Tony (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead has been rewritten per the above, and restructured: the first part now focuses solely on the big questions - what is it, who is it for, where is it - while the second covers history and design, following the structure of the article proper. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I started with "History" and don't have a great feeling about the prose. Some sample issues:
    • "Almost 35,000 South Australians served in the First World War, accounting for ..." To me, this is strangely organized so "accounting for" wants to refer to "First World War" rather than the 35,000.
    • "In response to these deaths, Archibald Peake, the premier of South Australia, declared that he would be asking the state ..." Why not cut the "declared he would be" and just write "asked"?
    • Moving on from there: "... parliament to fund the building of a memorial commemorating" More wordiness; why not just "fund a memorial"? Clearly they are funding its construction.
    • "... it received unanimous support in both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council." What is the word "both" doing?
    • "As a result of this decision, the South Australian Government became the first in Australia to elect to build a memorial to the soldiers of the First World War." They didn't "elect" as a result of the "decision"; the election was the decision. Either eliminate the entire opening clause, or eliminate "to elect".
    • "It was decided at the time that the new memorial should be referred to as the 'National War Memorial'" Twisted and wordy passive voice. Solve the problem by making it active and tell us who decided: "<Whoever> decided to refer to the new memorial as ..."
Lots of work needed. --Laser brain (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those have all been addressed, and I've made a light pass through "History" to fix anything else I can spot in that part. I'll run through the rest and try to tighten the language, as well as making another pass on the History section. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received. - Bilby (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - was granite and marble the only used stone ? A reference I have tells me that Stoneyfell Quartzite (Tea Tree Gully Freestone) from Bundey's quarry was also used. Isn't the main structure this stone ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [38].

Water fluoridation[edit]

Nominator(s): Eubulides (talk)

This became a Good Article after a careful and helpful review from Doc James along with critical and ultimately supportive comments by II. It went through peer review with positive comments by Finetooth and a useful quick comment from Colin. It's ready for a shot at Featured Article status.

Fluoridation is sometimes controversial. The article focuses on technical aspects and briefly summarizes the controversy in its Ethics and politics section, with a subarticle Opposition to water fluoridation (not part of this nomination) that goes into more detail. Eubulides (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom, images and sources reviewed. (Please avoid the use of caps to hide comments, per WP:FAC instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs, ref formatting, and external links found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS, dabs and external links checker tool.--TRUCO 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns regarding article structure have been moved from here to the talk article's talk page, because at approximately 6.5Kb they have been deemed too long for this venue. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of templates to hide long commentary is discouraged at FAC as it causes FAC archives to exceed template limits (see the WP:FAC instructions). Long commentary is better placed on article talk, with a brief example of WP:WIAFA issues placed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia that long and detailed commentary such as the above would be better discussed on the talk page, and have copied it and replied to it in Talk:Water fluoridation #Article structure etc. I suggest to Xasodfuih to remove this long thread from this page, as it sort of gets in the way, but that's up to Xasodfuih of course. Eubulides (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I intend to re-read the article before posting my opinions. However, it most certainly is not a drug article (and even if it was, WP:MEDMOS only offers suggested headings; it doesn't insist on them.) WF is a public health issue, not a treatment one gets on prescription from a pharmacist. There are medical and bio-chemical aspects to this topic but they sit alongside many others. For example, the safety of WF additionally concerns the implementation at the treatment works, and environmental impact. Neither feature in a drug article's section on side effects. Colin°Talk 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In general this article conveys the right message. The more egregious issues have been solved during the previous FAC round. It's clear to me that the remaining differences of opinion regarding this article will not be resolved in an editing environment like this, so this is as good as it gets. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing comments by Peripitus (talk · contribs) - not a comprehensive read as yet but some things stand out.(note I've struck my oppose - reasons later below - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • There is material in the lead (highlighted by the use of inline references) that is not elsewhere. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and this is instead written more as an introduction. I would suggest moving all of the material and citations to the body of the article then rewriting the lead. As it stands the lead section is full of statistics and cited details but is lacking an overview of some parts of the article.
    • The article is very US-centric in places and almost totally in others. Much of the lead, almost all of "Implementation" and "History" sections, and quite a few other places are overly focused on this one country. A worldwide perspective is needed.
- Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, every statement in the lead summarizes a corresponding statement (or statements) in the body. Can you please be specific about any problems in this area?
  • Every inline citation in the lead is also cited in the body; surely there's nothing wrong with this style, as it's common in technical Wikipedia articles.
  • "I would suggest moving all of the material and citations to the body of the article" As far as I can see, all the material and citations in the lead are already present in the body.
  • "the lead section ... is lacking an overview of some parts of the article" Which parts are those?
  • "The article is very US-centric in places" The topic has come up before (please see Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive 2 #Mechanism and worldwide view, for example) and the consensus has been, on reflection, that the article does not place undue weight on U.S. views. The topic is inherently U.S.-centric, as water fluoridation was first done in the U.S., most water-fluoridation research has been done in the U.S., and about half of the world's fluoridated population lives in the U.S.
  • For reference, here is a list of every source in Water fluoridation that is cited 5 or more times:
Overall these statistics do not indicate a U.S.-centric view; on the contrary, given the topic, if anything the statistics suggest a bit of a bias against the U.S.
Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An observation. I don't agree with his analysis, but your response is obfuscating as well because a review can be cited for any number of issues, from country specific stuff to scientific info (mechanism etc.) or a metaanalysis of some studies. He's referring to the coverage of the text, whereas you reply with a fairly meaningless argument of how often some sources are cited when that does not correlate at all with what he's talking about. It's discussion like this that made me give up trying to improve this article further. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that counting sources is only a crude approximation; my excuse is that it was the best impartial approximation I could do in a hurry. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to opposition. The implementation section could not possibly focus on countries that have not implemented WF. The cost in the lede is from US, and should be clarified as such. Having said that, costs for Australia are available, and could mentioned. The history section is also by necessity US-centric since the US was the first to fluoridate, and that's where the initial research took place. That section being summarized in the lede (1-2 sentences) does not appear WP:UNDUE to me. The only possible US-centrist stuff in the lede might be the juxtaposition of the percentage of the U.S. population with the one for the rest of the world; percentages for other implementing/English-speaking countries could be mentioned; the last sentence can give the impression that WF is an US-only thing. The map (later in the body) which combines natural and artificial water fluoridation (although the original data source gives them on separate columns) isn't terribly useful at pointing out which other countries implement WF on a significant scale. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, I removed the U.S.-centric juxtaposition from the lead. The original data source gives the total fluoridation as the last (and summary) column, and this seemed to be the best column to use for the map. In the context of the article it'd be misleading to color Gabon white (for no artificial fluoridation) simply because natural fluoridation suffices. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments in FAC before restart. Not going to repeat the whole thing. Your last comment, which was confusing:
  • (copied from before restart - complaint that fluoridation redirects to water fluoridation so that anyone searching for fluoridation will be redirected to this article on the controlled addition of fluoride to the public water supply.) This is my main complaint about the article, that it conflates natural and artificial water fluoridation. The very first sentence is the following: Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay.[4] I still feel the article would be better off not pretending to just discuss "the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" as it really discusses fluoridation in general, and mixes the statistics of natural and the "controlled addition" of fluoride, as well as discussing the effects of fluoridation in toothpaste, salt etc. The article does not remain focused on the "controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply" that the lead sentence says is the topic. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Eubulides - copied - in part - from before restart) The article is supposed to be about water fluoridation, and the vast majority of its text focuses on WF rather than on its alternatives; but it's impossible to cover WF in an encyclopedic way without also briefly discussing related topics (toothpaste, salt fluoridation, dental sealants, etc.), just as it's impossible for Autism to discuss the topic of classic autism in an encyclopedic way without also discussing Asperger syndrome, PDD-NOS, epilepsy, etc. Perhaps some of these related topics are discussed in too much detail (and if so, please say exactly where and when), but surely it'd be too much to ask Water fluoridation to not discuss these related topics at all. Eubulides (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (my response before restart regarding conflation of fluoridation natural water fluoridation with artificial fluoridation) This is like a situation in which Autism redirects to Asperger syndrome so Asperger syndrome is now compelled to discuss Autism in general rather than focusing on Asperger syndrome. Bear in mind that anyone who wants to know about fluoridation gets redirected to Water fluoridation which starts out by limiting the article to "the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply". However, in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases. Since there is no general article on fluoridation, why not make this one general. Or at the very least, water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural. Then both could be discussed. It would be easy to explain why statistics and maps etc. cannot always separate the two, and the article could discuss the effects of fluoridation in water as well as the alternatives methods of distribution like salt, toothpaste etc. would remedy my major objection to the article which is the conflation, as mentioned many times above.
  • My objections prior to restart remain. Since they have not been addressed, and do not seem to be understood, I will register a formal oppose, which previously I was trying to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Fluoridation should redirect to Fluoride therapy as the fluoridation of toothpaste, water, milk and salt are all delivery methods of that "therapy". The current redirect is perhaps inappropriate as it is to only one type of fluoridation and the reader wouldn't immediately be aware that there are other types. Would that help? Someone would have to check all the "what links here" to ensure they point to water fluoridation where necessary.
Water fluoridation, the article, cannot be changed to generally discuss "fluoride in the water". As mentioned in the previous FAC, "fluoridation" is an active word, not a passive description. Colin°Talk 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay to making the focus strictly narrower to the controlled addition, but in that case the map in the Use around the world section should not conflate the natural and artificial sources given that the data is given separately in the source cited. The lucky guys in Gabon don't seem to spend a dime to fluoridate water. The details on defluoridation implementation could be removed as well. Also details like "In some locations, notably parts of Africa, China, and India, natural fluoridation exceeds recommended levels." appear off-topic as well if assume the narrower focus. The article currently meanders between natural and artificial fluoridation in a way that may confuse readers; it confused Mattisse anyway. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of natural fluoridation should not be removed from the article, as natural fluoridation is essential for understanding the topic of artificial fluoridation. As for meandering and the map, please see the changes discussed (outdented) below. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural." Reliable sources don't use that terminology. The cited source, CDC 2001 (PMID 11521913), says "Fluoridated drinking water contains a fluoride concentration effective for preventing dental caries; this concentration can occur naturally or be reached through water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply." Following this source's distinction between (artificial) "water fluoridation" and (artificial or natural) "fluoridated water" should alleviate some of the confusion noted above. I did this by inserting the following immediately after the lead sentence:
"Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."
and then went through the rest of the article, systematically using the term "water fluoridation" to refer to artificial fluoridation, and "fluoridated water" to refer to either artificial or natural fluoridation. I hope this change fixes most of the confusion noted above. (Fluoridated water already redirects to Water fluoridation, which justifies emboldening the newly-added "Fluoridated water" in the lead.)
  • "in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases" Can you please mention specifically which statistics have this problem? Effectiveness does contain phrases like "Compared to water naturally fluoridated at 0.4 mg/L, fluoridation to 1 mg/L ..." which attempt to make it clear that we are comparing fluoridation at recommended levels to fluoridation at natural levels. I did find that the article did not clearly state that fluoridation has a beneficial effect even in the assumed presence of toothpaste, so I added that (citing McDonagh et al. 2000); if you can mention other specific instances of confusing wording, I'd appreciate it.
  • Reliable sources generally assume that Fluoridated water's effectiveness doesn't depend on whether the fluoride is natural or artificial. This assumption has not been well-tested; however, I added to Effectiveness the York Review's comment that no differences between natural and artificial fluoridation was detected in the review, but the evidence was inadequate to reach a conclusion about this.
  • "Perhaps Fluoridation should redirect to Fluoride therapy" That would be less accurate than what we have now, as the popular use of the word "fluoridation" is to refer to community fluoridation, not to individual treatments such as fluoridated toothpaste.
  • "the Use around the world section should not conflate the natural and artificial sources given that the data is given separately" As mentioned above, the source for that section's image gives the data both separately and together, with its rightmost table column giving the bottom-line figures that form the basis of the map.
Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments from Peripitus (talk · contribs) in response to the question on my opposition. For me at the moment the article fails criteria 1(a) (well written) and 2(a) (lead).
    • In the lead, please see sentence 1, paragraph 2. The statistic is mentioned only once that I can find (not echoed in the article). The last sentence of this paragraph and the "unknown fluoride levels" section in the first paragraph at least do not seem to match what is in the text. While for some facts (and many biographies) some citations in the lead are needed, this over-abundance makes the lead far less attractive and readable. Note that ref [18] in the lead is used to assert that "moderate fluoridation prevents cavities" and yet this precise assertion is not matched by the same reference used in the text. I can't see from this that the lead is the type of summary of the article needed.
    • US-Centric. The issue is not the citations but the text itself. In the "History" section there are 4 1/2 paragraphs about the U.S. and two sentences about other countries. This article is supposed to be about water fluoridation and (if the 5.7% world pop and 60% US pop figures are correct) then most people (67%) who drink fluoridated water live outside the US, many of whom have had it for over 1/2 a century. The article continually and repeatedly mentions "U.S.". Eight paragraphs into the article, about a subject that affects over 300M people outside, the US is mentioned about 1/2 a dozen times before any other country comes into the picture. The article tells me that other countries have had fluoridation for over 50 years but in many sections I would believe that this happens only in one country.

- Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further comments. Some thoughts:
  • "sentence 1, paragraph 2. The statistic is mentioned only once that I can find" Thanks, fixed.
  • "The last sentence of this paragraph and the "unknown fluoride levels" section in the first paragraph at least do not seem to match what is in the text." The last sentence of this paragraph:
"Fluoridation may be more justified in the U.S. because of socioeconomic inequalities in dental health and dental care."
summarizes the following text in Effectiveness:
"Fluoridation may be more justified in the U.S. because unlike most European countries, the U.S. does not have school-based dental care, many children do not visit a dentist regularly, and for many U.S. children water fluoridation is the prime source of exposure to fluoride."
The "unknown fluoride levels" section:
"Bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels, and some more-expensive household water filters remove some or all fluoride."
summarizes the following text in Implementation:
"U.S. regulations for bottled water do not require disclosing fluoride content, so the effect of always drinking it is not known.... Pitcher or faucet-mounted water filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride."
  • "While for some facts (and many biographies) some citations in the lead are needed, this over-abundance makes the lead far less attractive and readable." The citations are indeed ugly, but WP:V requires them. The topic of water fluoridation is complex, current, and controversial, and as WP:LEADCITE says, the article's lead therefore needs many citations.
  • "Note that ref [18] in the lead is used to assert that "moderate fluoridation prevents cavities" and yet this precise assertion is not matched by the same reference used in the text." I altered the body to make the precise assertion to mimick the lead. That part of the body is a summary of the rest of that section, so the lead already summarized substantial material in that section ("In the 1930s and early 1940s, H. Trendley Dean ..."), but I suppose it can't hurt to say it one more time so that the citations line up.
  • "I can't see from this that the lead is the type of summary of the article needed." All lead-related problems specifically noted in your comment have been fixed, so I hope the lead is now a reasonable summary.
  • "if the 5.7% world pop and 60% US pop figures are correct) then most people (67%) who drink fluoridated water live outside the US" I don't know where that 67% figure came from, but it's not quite right. The cited source is relying on older fluoridation estimates, I think the 355 million estimate put out by the One in a Million source (PDF); 355 million would have been 5.7% of the world population in 2002, which sounds about right for the date of that 355 million estimate. One in a Million lists 171 million in the U.S, which would mean that when that estimate was made, about 52% of the people who drank artificially fluoridated community water lived outside the U.S.
  • "In the "History" section there are 4 1/2 paragraphs about the U.S. and two sentences about other countries."
  • I added discussion of the Brantford-Sarnia-Stratford study in Canada (1945–1962), the Tiel-Culemborg study in the Netherlands (1953–1969), the Hastings study in New Zealand (1954–1970), and the Department of Health study in the U.K. (1955–1960).
  • That same edit added discussion of the history of fluoridation in Ireland.
  • It also added discussion of the discontinuance of fluoridation in Basle.
  • I added discussion of the history of fluoridation in New Zealand.
  • I added discussion about Africa's developing countries.
  • I added discussion of early proposals in Britain and in Germany to add fluoride to the diet.
  • I added a mention of Australia in the lead. (Later replaced with the World Health Organization, which is even better.)
As a result of the above changes, by my count History contains 301 words (41%) about non-US countries, 63 words (8%) of international material that is not about any country in particular, and 379 words (51%) about the U.S. This should be about right, given the topic.
  • "Eight paragraphs into the article, about a subject that affects over 300M people outside, the US" According to the One in a Million source mentioned above, only 184 million people outside the U.S. use water fluoridation.
  • "the US is mentioned about 1/2 a dozen times before any other country comes into the picture." As a result of the edits I've made recently, Australia the World Health Organization is now mentioned first. In the lead, Australia the World Health Organization is mentioned once, Europe once, and the U.S. 3 times.
  • "The article continually and repeatedly mentions 'U.S.'" A heavy emphasis on the U.S. is required by the topic. The vast majority of reliable sources about water fluoridation are U.S. sources and use U.S. data. "The science justifying fluoridation, like the practice itself, has remained predominantly American." — Sellers C (2004). "The artificial nature of fluoridated water: between nations, knowledge, and material flows". Osiris. 19: 182–200. PMID 15478274. Hmm, maybe that should go into the article?
Eubulides (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment, so I added "Water fluoridation's science and practice are predominantly American" to Use around the world, citing Sellers 2004. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've struck my oppose as, on the face of it, my concertns have either been explained as incorrect or the edits have removed the issue. I can't change to support as I think that, especially given the above debate, this would require a deal more familiarity with the subject that I have at present. I do note something worrying, remove the lead and read the article without it. I get quite a few words in before the article tells me what the subject is in clear terms. I would have thought that a definition of the topic would be rather earlier.- Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [39].

The Return of Dr. Octagon[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

This is part of a series of articles, including Kool Keith, Dr. Octagon and Dr. Octagonecologyst. A lot of hard work has been put into this one, and I think that it should require minimal edits for it to be passed as a FA. When this article was nominated as a GA, the reviewer commented on how well-sourced the article is. Text has been written carefully and undergone some copyediting. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The image in the "Lyrical themes and storyline" section is distorted and badly out of focus. Further, the image has no connection to the caption on the image in the article. Useless image to the context of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — The image shows Kool Keith rapping in concert. It illustrates text describing his lyrics/raps. Thus, it is not useless. Secondly, it is the best image of Keith that's available under a free license. Actually, it's the only image of Keith on Flickr that's under a free license. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • That it's the best image available doesn't mean a better one can't be obtained. The image sucks. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's bad enough to oppose the article's opposition. Readers can see what's going on in the image. It's clear enough to even be used in an album's liner notes, I think. It's only slightly blurred. You act as if it's completely abstract, when most viewers can see a man on stage holding a microphone. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • It is an extremely poor image. My stance remains the same. This is far from Wikipedia's best work. If you doubt it, attempt to raise the image to featured picture status. It will be raked over the coals. I will not consider this article our finest work with that image in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is the illustration of Dr. Octagon fine? The fair use rationale was written by another user for the Dr. Octagonecologyst article, and I slightly rewrote it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
              • No, it's not fine. Using an image for illustrative purposes alone is insufficient rationale under fair use policy and guideline. If there were discussion in the article regarding the unique appearance of the character as being significant to the story line, then perhaps. Not in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
                  • Removed my oppose. With the image removed, my objections are removed. I have no comment on the rest of the content of the candidate article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Dweller

Oppose based on finding multiple problems in just the first small chunk of the article. I can only assume that there's lots of other problems thereafter. Suggest thorough copyedit by uninvolved editor, or, preferably, PR.

    • Comment — The article underwent a strong copyedit during its GA nomination. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Good. But either they were not uninvolved/unfamiliar with the material, or a lot has changed since then, because I found lots of problems. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • better known/best known should both be hyphenated. And the one in the body should be referenced.
  • Where was it released in 2006?
    • Nationally. Does it really have to say this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Erm, nationally for me isn't necessarily the same as nationally for you. Which nation? USA? That's not my nation. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's an "emcee"?
    • "Emcee" is the phrase usually used to describe a solo rapper. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Maybe so, but people unfamiliar with rap music may not be aware of that and need help with some kind of link. This is why it's important that the copyedit is by an uninvolved editor. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • These changes weren't made by a copyeditor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • "The album revives the character of Dr. Octagon, who was killed off by another Thornton character, Dr. Dooom, on his 1999 release First Come, First Served." I have no idea what this means, it's not explained by the wikilinks and is of dubious value for the Lead, where in any case, you don't have the flexibility to explain things much.
    • Rewritten. It means that the character died on a previous Thornton albums, and that the murderer was Dr. Dooom, another character created by Thornton. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • First mention of Fanatik J not wikilinked.
    • There's no article on Fanatik J. It was deleted because this is the only notable album he's been involved with. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • What's a "One-Watt Sun team"?
    • One-Watt Sun is the combined credited name for the three producers who worked on the album. Rewrote for clarification (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I don't think you mean "outtake" in the way I understand it, so presume it's music industry jargon. Needs some kind of link.
  • "generally mixed reviews" - "generally" is a redundancy
  • It didn't chart anywhere?
  • "production that many felt fit neither Thornton's style of rhyming nor the Dr. Octagon character" clumsy English
  • Automator not properly introduced.
  • If Automator replaced Fanatik as the producer, as I think the article's saying, why does the infobox credit the mysterious "One-Watt Sun"? --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what it says. Dan the Automator produced Dr. Octagonecologyst. The Return of Dr. Octagon was produced by three producers crediting themselves as "One-Watt Sun". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref format comments -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS (copy-and-pasted).
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/dr-octagon-the-return-of-dr-octagon/ |title=Review of ''The Return of Dr. Octagon'' |accessdate=2009-01-27 |last=Frauenhofer |first=Michael |date=June 29, 2006 |publisher=[[PopMatters]]}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead''TRUCO 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Dweller - new copyedit noted. I'll take another look, probably on Monday. Nominator, feel free to nudge me if I forget. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments by Dweller
  • Partial reuse of wikilinking following Lead. E.g. Thornton/Kool Keith not wikilinked, but Dr. Octagonecologyst is.
  • "The album was produced by Dan "The Automator" Nakamura." Which album? Presumably you mean Dr. Octagonecologyst but that's far from clear. And if so, the relevance of that information in this article is equally unclear.
    • It introduces Nakamura, who is mentioned more than a few times in the article, and offers his criticism of The Return of Dr. Octagon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Please ensure ellipses conform to WP:ELLIPSIS.
  • "Fanatik J engaged in a legal battle with CMH over contractual terms that did not give him artistic control over remixes, stating that he wanted to prevent the album's release." Confused and confusing. The "artistic control" clause appears to refer to FanatikJ's opinion, but by the end of the sentence, we appear to be reading the record company's opinion, without any direction from the text that this is the case.
  • "Thornton stated that with Dr. Octagonecologyst, Thornton gave Nakamura his first successful album as a producer" Should be "had given".
  • Per WP:REDLINK, link One-Watt Sun on its first occurrence and then, depending on how you responded above, first mention in body (or not, as the case may be)
    • Being that One-Watt Sun is not notable enough to have its own article, it doesn't need to be linked. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I still can't see in which countries the record was released.
  • "Although Thornton's vocals were largely constructed without his involvement" how can vocals be done without the vocalist's involvement?

More to come --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm uneasy about the reliability of rapreviews.com. Can you provide some information demonstrating their reputation for fact-checking and editorial process? Are there any reliable publications referring to them as being authoritative? --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [40].

Braid (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t)

Braid, an independently developed game, has gained a lot of attention due to not only it's innovations in gameplay (involved time-manipulation), but the overall experience of game, art, and music. There's a heck of a lot of information for a game pretty much made by one person, which I've hoped I've captured well for this. Thanks goes to Drilnoth who helped to also copy edit this while undergoing its GA nomination. MASEM (t) 03:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs need fixing (found using the dabs checker tool).
  • External links (found using the external links checker tool) and ref formatting (found using WP:REFTOOLS) is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dabs corrected as well as one floating redirect. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dabs have been found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's me again, and you can probably guess what I'm going to say. :) Needs serious attention to prose. Examples at random:
    • "Braid tells the story of Tim, the protagonist, attempting to rescue his princess, and has many allusions and interpretations." Two disconnected clauses awkwardly mashed together. Latter clause is puzzling.
    • "requiring the player to use these abilities to collect keys to complete each level and puzzle pieces to fully complete the story." Tiring sentence structure.
    • "Developed over a course of three years on his own money, Blow " Misplaced modifier.
    • "designed the game to reflect on much of the current trends he favored and disliked in current game design efforts." Eh?
    • "Artwork for the game was drawn by David Hellman, with the graphics iterated several times to achieved Blow's desired vision for the game." Redundancies and proofread!
    • "Its release on Xbox Live was very positive " No doubt reaction to its release, no?
    • "While working on the art direction, Blow improved on the puzzles in the game to make sure they could play better." Can't get more unspecific than this. Explain please.
    • "One mechanic that Blow could not develop further was a world with no "arrow of time", requiring the player to get from one end of a level to another in a way which would allow them to retrace their steps back, making things such as a drop from a height higher than what the player could jump would be impossible"
    • "Blow then began adding puzzles that made philosophical points on game design in general, and resulted in dropping some worlds that were not as interesting as the remaining levels in the game"
    • "Blow also specifically avoided using a first- or third-person view for the game like these other title had done as, despite the fact that the time effects are better experienced from those perspectives, some of the puzzles in Braid would have been impossible or more difficult in any other perspective" Try reading this one out loud.
    • etc. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather have the input than none :). I've gone through with a fine comb to try to cut apart the longer rambling sentences and remove redundancies. Please give it a second look. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you'll need to spend a couple hours at least on the prose. Problematic sentences are abundant, and the problems are not just limited to simple spelling/grammatical errors (although they're there as well). You'll have to spend some time thinking about the best way to reword them. Think carefully about your audience; assume that readers will not know anything about the game (e.g. "it has been interpreted as an oblique ironic comment about traditional platform game design"...I don't see the irony...explain). More examples at random:
        • "The story is left ambiguous leading to many allusions and interpretations." Still have no idea what the heck this is trying to say.
        • "While the game features traditional aspects of platform games, it incorporates a number of time manipulation features, requiring the player to use these abilities in collecting keys and completing each level and puzzle pieces to fully reveal the game's story." Latter half causes readers to run out of breath.
        • "designed the game to reflect on his opinion of recent trends in current game design efforts." Eh?
        • "As each world was build up using these piece, Blow suggested more changes that reflectd the tone of each world and avoided art that distracted from the gameplay."
        • Audit for "then"; it's a lazy way of trying to achieve narrative flow. Makes articles read like school book reports. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a copy-edit on the lead, but I would consider withdrawing the nomination so more extensive work can be done. -- Noj r (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Points addressed above. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1 (b). The PC version is less than a month from release, and if it has even half the impact of the XBox version, there should be coverage enough to bulk this article out significantly. As it stands, the article is incomplete. If the release was due next year, I'd feel differently. But because it's so close, I don't think the article will meet the comprehensiveness requirement until the dust has settled on the PC release. For context, I'd feel the same way about a film article nominated before its theatrical release was complete, or an article about a sporting competition nominated halfway through the playoffs. On a side note, this article has improved tenfold since I read it last year; back then, I considered working on it myself. But under your supervision, I can't see that FA star's being too far away. All the best, Steve T • C 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and agree to a point on that, though the transition from Xbox to PC is less significant of a jump than if this were a PC title being ported to the Xbox; I can't see how much this would add beyond "controls suck on the PC". However, I don't discount there could be more, I just haven't seen anything. (eg if Blow was reading a level editor I would have expected to see news about that) --MASEM (t) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, I'm thinking more along the lines of critical reception, release info., unforeseen problems and further awards, development coverage, and—not meaning to diss the console press, though it appears I am—hopefully some decent coverage that interprets the story and themes in more detail than we've already seen (New Games Journalism—no matter what one might think of the term itself—is something that appears not to be as popular in the console community, but which has provided much insight at the PC end—Braid is ripe for such analyses). Much of this is likely (if at all—I'm not unwilling to discount the possibility it won't) to appear either closer to the release or after it; give it a couple of weeks and I'd be willing to bet on an explosion of coverage. Steve T • C 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1b. I agree with Steve here, surprisingly enough. Seeing little subsections makes me naturally hesitant about it being comprehensive, and the news results suggest that this is going to be more impacting than, say, Halo 2's PC release (which aside from male nudity was released way past relevance, although I still need to add in reception for the PC version and so that's prolly not the best example.) On an unrelated note, is there a better image to replace the shot of Blow, say File:Jonathan blow speaking.jpg or similar? The disembodied hand and long shot is rather disconcerting. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the advice of waiting for the PC version to settle out, I'll withdraw this nomination for now. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009 [44].

The Battle (boxing)[edit]

Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a wonderfully written and illustrated article on one of the most significant boxing matches of 2008. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

I don't follow boxing and know little about the ins and outs of the sport, but the article seems to cover everything that it should. There are some issues I picked up, though:

  • "resulted in a eleventh round technical knockout victory for Antonio Margarito" - no need to use his full name, as he was only introduced in the previous sentence. Just use his surname here
Done.
  • Lead: "Both Cotto and Margarito's victories on April 12" - this seems to pre-suppose that readers know both men fought on that date. Maybe try something like "Both men had previously fought on April 12 and emerged victorious, thus clearing the way....."
Changed the sentence to your suggestion.
  • The full quotations in the lead seem a bit excessive, maybe just state that multiple commentators praised the bout
Done
  • wikilink "mandatory contender", non-boxing fans probably won't know what this term means
Since there is no wikipedia page on this, I've decided to add a sentence that states what a mandatory challenger is.
  • "former three–division champion" - use a hyphen here, not an ndash
Done
  • Danny Perez is not wikilinked - is he not notable?
There is no wikipedia page for him.
  • "en route to a technical knockout victory in the fifth round at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas" - full stop missing from the end of this sentence
Sorry, forgot a period.
  • Talking of full stops, there are a number of places where a sentence ends with a quotation and the full stop is placed inside the quote marks - it should be placed outside
Done
  • "After Floyd Mayweather, Jr. defeated Zab Judah on April 8, 2006, He rejected" - no need for capital on "he"
Fixed
  • "both Cotto and Margarito both" - stutter :-)
Fixed
  • "and the fight took place at the MGM Grand" - it seems strange to list this as the very last fact about the fight, giving it almost the feel of an afterthought. I'd have thought the venue where it took place is one of the most important things about a fight, so it should be mentioned more prominently
I agree and I moved it up in the section.
  • "Cotto picked up in the second round where he left off" => "Cotto picked up where he left off in the second round"
Fixed
  • "...but was able to avoid further trouble" - the subject of this sentence is "a left hook" so as it stands it is gramatically incorrect. Change to "but he was able to avoid further trouble"
Fixed
  • The very last two sentences both start "On February xx 2008" - vary the language bit more
I put the february 10 date in the middle of the first sentence. Showtime2009 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very good article, but with quite a few very minor niggles that need sorting out -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is the first fight that I've seen at FAC. It's always good to have a unique article come here, but rough edges usually need to be smoothed out when that happens, and there's no exception here. Here are some specific suggestions:

  • First, date links were deprecated a while back, and the Manual of Style discourages their use.
Fixed
  • The poster needs a better fair-use rationale than "To use an image at the top right section of the article." My advice is to look at a wrestling featured article that uses a poster and see what it says.
I read some of the WWE posters and essentially wrote information similar to them.
  • Any chance the photo in Margarito's article could be used somewhere here?
I wasn't aware there was a photo for his article, so I've included it in his part of the Background section.
  • Change the en dashes in the pre-and post-fight headers to plain hyphens.
Done
  • The box by Pre-fight information interests me. Has anyone from the boxing project thought about using that as an infobox? That's not really relevant here, but that's something to consider for the future. In that box, use en dashes in the fighters' records.
Done
  • "It was Cotto's first fight in Las Vegas since December 2004, According to promoter Bob Arum". Change the comma to a period
Fixed
  • Consider hyphens for "third best" and "third highest" in the third paragraph.
Fixed

I'll review more of the prose at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed
  • Miguel Cotto: "If the champion decides not to defend the title against the mandatory challenger, then the boxing organization strips him of his title." The struck word isn't needed.
Done
  • "eventually to the point where Urkal's corner retired after throwing in the towel in the eleventh round." I'm sure the fighter retired after his corner threw in the towel, so this sentence could be improved.
I removed after throwing in the towel
  • "in front of a sellout crowd of 20,658." It's not great to end a sentence with a number; see if this can be tweaked.
Changed sentence to In front of a sellout crowd of 20,658, Cotto defeated Judah by technical knockout in the eleventh round.
  • "the media speculated that the winner of the two fights would likely fight each other next." Check to see if "winner" should be made plural.
Yes it is plural
  • "With the match taking place...". This is a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a difficult-to-find prose error. For more, including information on fixing it, see this.
Fixed
  • Antonio Margarito: A bunch of sentences in the section's first paragraph start with Margarito. See if you can change a couple to offer readers more variety. That would make the prose more compelling.
changed some of the sentences that started with his name to simply he or his
  • "After the fight, Margarito discussed interest in a major fight with Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, or Fernando Vargas." The word "his" seems to be missing.
added his between discussed and interest
  • The second sentence of the section's second paragraph feels like a run-on sentence. I would chop it in two after "unintentional headbutt in round six". Also consider linking headbutt to help those who aren't boxing fans and may not know what it means.
  • "Margarito overwhelmed the less experienced Cintron". Can we cut down on the hyperbole a little bit, please? Even if it isn't exaggerated, it feels like it.
Changed sentence to Margarito defeated the less experienced Cintron...
  • "on February 18, 2006, in which he defeated...". in which→when.
Fixed
  • The $8 million figure needs a non-breaking space, like the one I provided here (click edit page to see it). While I'm on the topic of money, are there reliable sources that say how much Cotto and Margarito made for this bout? That's always a topic of interest when big fights are in the planning stages.
  • "citing a hand injury for the reason on not taking the bout." I recommend a change to "citing a hand injury as the reason he did not take the bout."
Changed
  • Why is Autumn capitalized and linked?
Sorry, it should not have been. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs
  • Need to be fixed, as found with the dabs checker tool in the toolbox.
Fixed Showtime2009 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...are found up speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting
External links
  • Are found up to speed using the links checker tool.--₮RUCӨ 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the websites (sweet science, boxing scene and fight news) were listed by the Daily Telegraph in a article titled "Top-ten boxing websites" Doghouse boxing is a boxing website with a collection of interviews of numerous boxers and several articles can be read on the front page. www.f4wonline.com is primarily a wrestling website owned by Figure Four Weekly Online, LLC, it has an archive for past articles and interviews and they also issue their own newsletters. Showtime2009 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is information on how and what information the sources in question collect and how they get it.
The Sweet Science [45]
BoxingScene.com [46]
DoghouseBoxing Information from this source has been reported on ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation [47] and Sun.Star [48].
f4wonline.com [49]
Fightnews.com information from this source has been reported on The Vindicator, [50] Augusta Chronicle, [51] and The Monitor (Uganda) [52].

Strong oppose - I left comments above, but those are not my main concern at this point. I'm worried about plagarism from this source, which recaps the fight. Here are a few examples:

  • "Margarito kept targeting the body, but drew two seperate warnings for low blows in the span of less than a minute." Copied word-for-word from the source.
  • "A left hook to the body had Cotto on the defensive early in the seventh round". Copied word-for-word except for the addition of "round".
  • "Cotto picked up where he left off in the second round, coming straight at Margarito while easily getting out of harm's way when Margarito attempted to counter. That dynamic changed about a minute into the round, when Margarito landed a right hand that momentarily had Cotto along the ropes." Some copying, and the structure is clearly lifted from the source.

There are other cases where the sentence structure feels too similar to the reference. Plagarising a questionable source is not an indication of our best work, and should never be done, period (the plagarism part, that is, though I'm not fond of bad sources). I refuse to look at any more until the entire section is rewritten, and the rest of the article is checked against the references. Not sure if this can be done while the article is at FAC, but it's for the best. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:09, 7 March 2009 [53].

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick[edit]

Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because – after passing as a GA and getting a helpful peer review – I think it should be ready for FAC. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've had some problems with which template to use to cite the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but I guess "cite encyclopedia" is the best option. I've included (subscription required) in the JSTOR links, as well as the ODNB ones. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use {{cite encyclopedia}} for that myself, and I use it for all the collected conference works also. I don't think {{cite conference}} gives isbn numbers... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, I've always had problems understanding exactly what MOS says on that, but I've changed it now in titles, and also where it says "the earl" to "the Earl" etc. Lampman (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the ahnentafels: two strings of redundant info, all of which should have been converted into prose (if relevant). The ahnentafel is a waste of space, and encourages editors to create colorful (and terribly annoying) sections of large templates instead of good old plain prose. It is also not a standard presence in any encyclopedia, so it is arguably irrelevant here as well. And just who decides which generations of ancestors are the more important? And just who decides that the same can't be done for regular people? We've had this discussion in respect to other articles, and it turned out that the ahnentafels are singularly endorsed by a group of editors who contribute very little other than that, and who make little or no distinction between wikipedia and genealogical sites. If we have to feed into that preference, could you at least make the template collapsible? Dahn (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're talking about the table titled "Ancestors of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick", I didn't put it there, and I dislike it probably just as much as you do. I also feel strongly that Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a genealogy site. If there are no objections, I'd be happy to remove it. Lampman (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made it collapsible, so now at least it's much less intrusive. Lampman (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I reviewed this at PR, made numerous suggestions most of which had been acted on. I am satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria; it is well-written, compehensive and informative. I wish I knew what the comment immediately above was about, but I'm sure it is unrelated to my support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to my comment, it's about the huge and awkward ahnentafel at the bottom of the article, which contrasts terribly with the rest of the article and adds little info that can't be turned into prose. Btw, if something in it is relevant, it should be in the text (or else the article is not up to FA standards); if it is trivia, it should be removed (or else the article is not up to FA standards). But, at the very least, if we have to keep these things, can't we make the template collapsible as it is here? Dahn (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are verfiable to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments —

  • "He appears to have entered into the service of King Henry VI by 1449, when mention is made of his services in a grant."
Are the tenses here correct?
  • I believe this is common practice, since were talking about his appearance in a historical document that still exists.
  • "This conflict was also a pivotal period in Warwick's career, as it was resolved by his appointment to the captaincy of Calais. The post was to provide him with a vital power base in the years of conflict to ensue; Calais was not only a town of vital strategic importance, it also held what was England's most significant standing army."
Should Calais be mentioned explicitly as a French-land occupied by the English either in or before this sentence. The predominance of English towns before this might lead one with lesser geographic knowledge of the land to think it is in England (unless they follow the link). This could potentially confuse when the next section mentions "Warwick crossed over to England ...".
  • I've added a bit more on Calais.
  • "The promotion of Warwick's brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king ..."
Is the tense here correct?
  • This would be similar to the above case.
  • The Historical assessment section seems a bit short. Are there possibilities to flesh out the qualities of the earl discussed here? For examples, instead of stating "pointed out his deficiencies as a military commander", perhaps a short expoundation on what Oman found lacking in Warwick that made the subject a flawed military man. Furthermore, Weir has pointed out the earl's popularity and influence not just with the people, but within the European diplomatic circle (as illustrated by the Abbeville letter to Louis in the article). This shows the earl's influence as a man. His popularity with the common people at its peak rivaled or exceeded the young Yorkist king, which leads further strength to his "Kingmaker" moniker.
  • I've added some more on Oman's military assessment. As for the other points you mention, I think I've covered this in the lines: "His claim to prominence in national affairs was not a product of illusions of grandeur; it was confirmed by the high standing he enjoyed among the princes on the Continent.[128] Furthermore, Warwick's cause was not considered unjust by contemporaries, which can be seen by the earl's popularity exceeding that of the king at the time of his first rebellion in 1469.[129]"

On the whole, it is a strong article that reads generally well. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, hope I've addressed your issues sufficiently! Lampman (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I still think a greater breakdown of factors into why Oman think Warwick deficient in military ability could be explored (Haig hazarded that Warwick's brilliant exploit of the gap in the First St. Alban's was more to luck, for example). However, that could be too specialized. In any event, the section does present an overview of the major sources' opinions towards the man, so I can assuringly throw in a support. Jappalang (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious why the article deviates from the appendices suggested at the WP:LAYOUT guideline? Is "Literature" Further reading or References? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've changed it to a "Footnotes -- References -- Further reading"-format. Lampman (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the prose still needs some work, is unclear in places, and the whole article needs to be checked over again for MoS compliance such as correct use of dashes, and a thorough look over by a good copyeditor.
    • "... he was instrumental to the deposition of two kings ..." "Instrumental to" sounds strange. "Instrumental in"?
    • "From this conflict he gained the valuable post as Captain of Calais ...". Post of Captain of Calais?
    • "At the age of six, the young Richard was betrothed to Anne Beauchamp, daughter of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, and Isabel Despenser." So he was betrothed to two women, Anne and Isabel?
    • "When Beauchamp's son Henry died in 1446, and Henry's infant daughter died only three years later, Richard also found himself ...". So when was it he found himself Earl of Warwick? When Beauchamp's son died or three years later?
    • "... it also held what was England's most significant standing army." What does "significant" mean here? Largest? Best-equipped? Best-trained? Something else?
    • "There were some initial disputes, with the garrison and with the royal wool monopoly ...". How could Warwick have had a dispute with a monopoly? Over the monopoly?
    • "... he then embarked on highly successful raids of piracy ..." Not sure who the "pirate" is here. Is Warwick the pirate, or is he leading raids on pirates? Awkwardly written in any event.
    • "... their forces were scattered by the king's army, much due to the defection of Warwick's Calais ...". Awkward "much due".
    • "This act caused great offence to Warwick ...". This doesn't quite fit with the previous sentence, which discusses a revelation of marriage. Presumabl;y it wasn't the revelation that caused offence.
    • "... he sought to build the Woodvilles family into a power base independent of Warwick's influence." Shouldn't this be "Woodville" family? I'm not at all sure what "building a family into a power base" is supposed to mean anyway.
    • "... a fact that would later earn him his epithet of "Kingmaker"." I'm not keen of some of the use of subjunctives, of which this is one example. Why not a simpler "which later earned him"?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your suggestions, I've tried to implement them as best I could. I'm not sure I understand your objection to my use of the word "monopoly" though. I am quite confident that this can be both an abstract and concrete noun. In this case it is used in the concrete sense, and specified later on in the sentence. Also, I'm not sure where you believe I have used dashes incorrectly, could you please elaborate on this? Lampman (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to have a dispute with a monopoly, unless the word is being used as a collecive noun. Is it in this case? On a similar note: "The marriage – made on 1 May ...". I have never before seen anyone "make" a marriage. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, OED definition 5 of "monopoly, n.": "A company that has, operates, or claims a monopoly." I'll change "made" to "contracted". Lampman (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on first two sections
    • Intro
      • "Through fortunes of marriage and inheritance" needs to be followed by a comma.
      • "...led him into collaboration with Richard, Duke of York,..." Suggest "...led him to collaborate with Richard, Duke of York...". When was this collaboration as there is ambiguity with the statement in the Becoming Warwick section that he sided against York in 1452.
      • In what way was the post of Captain of Calais valuable - prestige, power or monetary? Or all of the above?
      • the sentence on Warwick's death at the battle of Barnet is somewhat ambiguous - as it follows on from a sentence about Warwick, the Duke of Clarence and Henry VI - it is not immediately clear which of them Edward killed. Suggest use "Warwick" instead of "he".
      • "Edward initially based his reign on Warwick's support..." seems awkward.
      • Presumably the Salisbury who fell in battle was Warwick's father.
    • Becoming Warwick
      • This is a complicated section. It might help the understanding if more years were added to make the sequence of events more explicit. This would avoid the need for "...Warwick (as he had now become)..."
      • The first use of Richard here is ambiguous - it initially reads as if it is the article's subject rather than his father.
      • Explain how Richard (Ralph's son) became 5th Earl of Salisbury by marrying Alice, the 4th Earl's daughter, as this is not a normal route of inheritance for a peerage. In fact he didn't become Earl on his marriage but when the 4th Earl died, at least seven years after the marriage. Need to mention he held the title jure uxoris as is mentioned later for Warwick's own inheritance of the Warwick title.
      • Might be worth mentioning that Henry de Beauchamp (14th Earl) was married to Warwick's sister Cecily.
      • Should have a link to Anne (15th Countess). She was five when she died, an age not usually described as "infant".
      • Need to expand on the reason for the disputed succession to the estates (by way of his wife).
      • Did Warwick inherit the title of Earl of Salisbury on his father's death (1460) or his mother's (possibly as late as 1462), as it was originally her title?
      • The intro says he sided with York against the King, whereas it says here he sided with the King against York. Clarify that these are different disputes.

--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your suggestions, I've made some changes and I hope it's to your satisfaction.
  • Oppose, 1a. I chose a section at random (Historical assessment) and I'm not seeing terribly smooth prose. This probably needs time with an independent copy editor to iron out the problems. Examples:
    • "Early sources on Richard Neville fall into two categories: the sympathetic chronicles of the early Yorkist years, or works based on these, such as the Mirror for Magistrates (1559), and chronicles commissioned by Edward IV after Warwick's fall, such as the Historie of the arrivall of Edward IV, that take a more negative view of the earl." Exhausting to get through with all those clauses. By time I got to the end, I'd forgotten the beginning.
  • I've split it up.
    • "In Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy can be found the other perspective" Why twist this so to hide the subject away?
  • Changed
    • A great deal of wordiness (ex. why "This latter view was to predominate." rather than "The latter view predominated."?).
  • Changed
    • Pet peeve: using conditional tense improperly. It's pervasive (ex. "anyone who would impede the development" and "Later writers would be split"). The conditional tense requires an "if" statement when used properly. Otherwise, all such instances should be "anyone who impeded", "writers were split" and so on.
  • I believe you're wrong. This is not conditional tense, but repetition in the past, in which case the use of "would" is perfectly acceptable. I've changed it anyway, since I don't find this matter essential to the article.
  • I probably am wrong in calling it conditional tense in this case; but, I still dislike that wording. To me, there is no difference in meaning between "He would go to the store every day" and "He went to the store every day", except the latter saves a word. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Though Lytton portrayed Warwick as a tragic hero who embodied the ideals of chivalry, he was nevertheless one whose time was past, as the title implies." Not convinced the title implies that; where is your source? The citation is for the book itself.
  • I've removed "as the title implies" and added a secondary source.
--Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry you feel that way, but thank you for your comments anyway. Lampman (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 [54].

Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured article because it has really turned into a detailed account of an important event. I created this page and nursed it along for several weeks as an article of modest quality and breadth. Lwalt (talk · contribs) joined the fray as the event drew near and after the article hit the main page via WP:ITN it attracted Aaron charles (talk · contribs). These two editors really policed the article and cleaned it up while it was highly trafficked. I was almost AWOL during the main page rush. However, these yeoman editors really helped shape the broad contributions from the public so that the article took shape as a high quality article. As things have quieted down, I have cleaned up the article to take it to WP:GA and done additional cleanup in hopes of WP:FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • The following ref name is used more than once for different references.
  • wbz/>

Please review some MOS issues; numbers and units should have hard spaces in between them (10&nbsp;a.m.) and watch logical punctuation ("Air and Simple Gifts", not ""Air and Simple Gifts,"). There are also WP:ACCESS breaches (no images left-aligned directly under third-level headers or below), and WP:DASH fixes needed ($150-170 million should have en dash in the range) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There remains one malplaced image that I don't know how to move it within compliance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got most of the nbsps with these edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lwalt (talk · contribs)

  • "...and watch logical punctuation ("Air and Simple Gifts", not ""Air and Simple Gifts,")...."
    • I'm perplexed as to why editors here are still having an ongoing discussion about the proper placement of the comma in quoted passages, something that I also follow as a professional writer. Take a look at the information from the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English here, Online Writing Lab site at Purdue University here and here, in addition to a tutorial from New York University here. A few weeks ago, another editor went through the article and inverted the position of the commas and periods beside the ending quotation mark and placed the comma and period outside the ending quotation mark. I corrected the position in this case by putting the commas and periods inside the quotation mark where it belongs. I'll take a look at the article within the next day or so to determine what needs to be addressed, if anything. →Lwalt ♦ talk 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:PUNC of the MOS, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. This practice is referred to as logical quotation; it is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will let the professional writer and the WP MOS expert hash out commas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already said what I need to about writing. Any primary, reliable source that covers "logical punctuation" in a book or an online source? No mention of logical punctuation in any of my books that I used over the years (Chicago Manual of Style, The Elements of Style by Strunk, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (used this one for graduate school) for starters rather than relying on Wikipedia as a primary authority? →Lwalt ♦ talk 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Chicago does indeed mention the alternative style that Wikipedia adopts (they say it was established by The Oxford Guide to Style) as perfectly legitimate in "the kind of textual studies where retaining the original placement of a comma in relation to closing quotation marks is essential to the author’s argument and scholarly integrity". But as others state, if you take issue with something in the MOS, discussion belongs on the MOS talk pages. BuddingJournalist 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are missing the point, Lwalt, which is that we are supposed to use Wikipedia's own standard on this and other matters of style - it may be the American standard to have commas and periods inside the quote, but it is not what the Manual of Style here uses, and that's what we follow. In fact I personally prefer the Wikipedia "logical punctuation" approach as well - whatever it might be called - because, for example, if the original quote did not have a period or a comma, it should not be inside the quote, as that is misleading. By the way, I believe this idea of always putting punctuation inside quotes wormed its way into American usage manuals because of nineteenth century type-setting concerns, not because it made any sense. And I am a professional editor and writer (and American) too, so I guess we don't all agree - not that my, or your, credentials in this should have any weight in the argument. What we can agree on, however, is that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, and we should follow it, and/or argue it out over there, not in the individual articles. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • What Tvoz said—also, if you have a beef with the Manual of Style, feel free to take it up there, but please don't try to push your point of view here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues:

  • The references are not consistent - some newspapers not italicized. some contain publishers and others don't (don't really need them for large newspapers); sometimes newspaper linked, sometimes not; some non-newspaper refs are italicized and should not be
  • There are several primary sources being used (including a press release). Surely, this information was in a secondary source somewhere?
  • I would avoid http://www.wowowow.com/post/diane-feinsteins-inaugural-remarks-astound-179736?promo=news if at all possible
  • There are a few references without publishers listed (current 38 -The Frigid Fingers)
    • There was some debate on the proper way to account for or exclude publisher information with me proposing one way and User:Tvoz proposing another. I think his way of excluding most information is now considered the prevailing method on WP. I imagine he may reformat the refs in accordance with his philosophy now that this has been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 37 (Millions witness moment), doesn't have newspaper listed
  • Some oneline refs don't have access dates
  • The Huffington Post is a blog - is it considered a reliable source?
    • It is 2009 and many reliable sources are now formated as blogs. Instead of posting static articles, WP:RS post articles followed by interactive blogs. Now, this issue is addressed on a citation by citation basis in general, I believe. Thus, the four Huffington articles now in the article need to be evaluated against the facts that they back up. For something like the inauguration schedule, it is a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A second post reference is in a paragraph describing the various perceptions of the speech and it is balanced out by several other sources in the same paragraph including the NY Times and LA Times. I think it is a reliable source here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the factual Kennedy colapse, it is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ordinarily on censorship, it would not be a RS, but in this instance the story is from a news agency. It literally replaces the same story by the same other from another source that is now a deadlink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes www.pic2009.org. a reliable source?
    • It is in fact the official website. Are you contesting whether it is a primary or secondary source or have you just never heard of it? For certain types of facts the official website is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I have concerns about the article's organization. I think there is some missing information and that a lot of what is here is too detailed for inclusion. Image placement is also an issue, and the prose needs a lot of work. I've listed a very few of the prose (and detail) problems that I see - that is by no means comprehensive, and by no means covers all the broad prose issues I see in the article. This needs an excellent copyeditor who is experienced in the FA criteria.

  • Several sections are essentially lists. Where at all possible these need to be in prose.
    • There a quite a few of those, but there is absolutely no reason why an article must be completely in prose. Lists are concise and easy to read. It is much nicer to have a bulleted list of balls than "Obama went to this ball, which was for these people. Then he went to that ball there, which was for people from these states." and so on. Reywas92Talk 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of vague wording. For example, in the lead, The inauguration celebration began on January 17, 2009 with a train ride from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. - this doesn't tell me who took the train ride or where they went or why (seems like a weird thing to do). Even in the body of the article, the train ride is described for a whole paragraph before it is mentioned that Obama was actually on the train
  • Be aware that prose is generally better when the sections begin with the focus on the article topic, not the section topic. For example, instead of "We Are One," the inaugural concert celebrating the Obama inauguration, was held on January 18, 2009, it is much better prose to provide a good transition from the previous section with focus on the topic of the inauguration - (something like)The day after Obama arrived in Washington, D.C., an inaugural concert, "We are the One", took place at the Lincoln Memorial.
  • the presidential motorcade - is that correct usage, since he wasn't president yet?
  • Use precise wording wherever possible - with troops (and family members) who were recovering from wounds - I doubt the family members were recovering from wounds, but that is how the sentence reads.
  • "Jonas Brothers" needs a "the" in front of it.
  • Lots of potentially unnecessary detail:
    • Do we need to know about the first part of Lincoln's train ride, since that wasn't re-enacted? Do we need to know how many stops Lincoln made, since Obama didn't appear to stop in the same places (or same number of places? Do we need to know that the FAA had restrictions on airspace around the events (isn't that fairly standard now?)? Do we care what exact time the train stopped at the train station?
    • I think it is too much to give a listing of everyone who participated in the We are the One concert - that is just a wall of blue. Can we distill it down to just a few?
  • Are you just hating on us for finding a lot of details. If someone wants to know about the inaugural events, this article tells them. Everyone who partook is a notable person and we are listing them. If it were two hundred people, I might see your point. We are dealing with a couple dozen names of people who readers of this section probably want to know. I could not imagine that a reader would want to read about a concert and not know who performed. If you read the Oscars article you will find the names of each presenter, if you read about an athletic team you will see entire rosters. This section needs the detail that causes the blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we care what exact time he left Blair House?
    • I think there is too much detail on what people did for the service day - this section could be distilled easily down to one paragraph (maybe two) without losing any meaning, just unnecessary details.
    • is it important on what date the full schedule of the swearing-in ceremonies was announced (and notice that there ought to be a hyphen there)
    • Do we need to know, here, that Cheney was in a wheelchair and why?
      • This was a news story that was widely reported. In addition, Cheney is an able bodied person who was disabled temporarily. It is very different than say reporting that Dorothy Height was in a wheelchair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of repetition within sentences/paragraphs. This makes the prose harder to read. For example, Obama called for a national day of service on this day,[19] and he described the day of service on the holiday as a natural observance: - "day of service" repeated
  • How were the 40 American citizens selected to participate in the events? Who selected them?
    • I do not know the selection method, but I have added that they were 16 Americans with stories and their families. I have provided links to three of the stories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few too many images. It makes the first 2/3 of the article look way too crowded, and the images thus lose their effect. Also, in the Summary section under Inauguration events, there is a lot of white space between the first two paragraphs, which I suspect is caused by the image placement.
    • There are a lot, but for an article of this size I don't think it's too many. A picture's worth a thousand words, this was a highly publicized event. Reywas92Talk 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOTS of repetition within the Inauguration ceremony section. First there is a summary section which tells us everything that the article plans to talk about next. Then the next section is essentially a prose re-telling of the summary. The individual pieces of the events that require more detail are then explained again in their own sections. That's overkill.
  • Need to have a citation after each quotation. Not the case at all in the section on the inaugural address.
  • The full text of the address is accessible in the section. Putting that many citations for address quotes would be an unnecessary cluttered distraction. Aaron charles (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot in this article mentioning the theme. Is there any more detail on why this theme was chosen? I suspect there is a lot that could be added for this.
    • As a guy who lives in Obama's Chicago neighborhood and an Illinoisan, I happen to know that this year was Abe Lincoln's 200th birthday. I do not know if there is truly a connection between the Lincoln commemoration the phrase "A New Birth of Freedom" and Obama in the press. I will look it up. BTW, the phrase a new birth of freedom is associated with Lincoln because it is part of the last of the ten sentences of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • other notable balls - what made them notable?
    • Isn't the fact that they are widely reported in the press sufficient for WP purposes? That is afterall the usual basis for notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stranded ticket holders with access to radios or cell phones with Internet reception were able to listen to the inaugural ceremony on those devices -is there something special about this that I don't understand? anyone with access to radios or cell phone with internet reception should have been able to listen in, right?
  • May need to review WP:ELLIPSES - I don't think the article is using them correctly
  • Article mentions Of the top 10 media markets in terms of viewership, but then only lists 8 of the markets
  • I don't think the Viewership section needs to be subdivided. The two subsections are both short.
  • Are there any measurements of the television viewership outside the US?
  • How did you choose which countries would be represented in the International section? For example, there is no information on Mexico, nothing in Africa except Kenya. What about reactions in the Middle East/Israel? (and the Europe section is just an unconnected list) What about Australia (a large English-speaking country) and India (extremely populous)?
  • I think it would make more sense to begin the article with a short section on background. This could include the fundraising information (which really needs to be at the beginning), as well as more details on the theme, and possibly some of the information strewn throughout on what is normal during the inauguration ceremonies.
  • The lead does not do an adequate job of summarizing the article. It contains no information on public response
  • There isn't a lot of information on response to the various events. I'd like to see a little more interpretation, or coverage of some of the "big stories" like that Yo-Yo Ma didn't actually play, that Aretha was dissatisfied with her performance, etc. That doesn't need a lot of coverage, but there's not much there now.
    • I found that much was made of Aretha having performed at MLK's funeral and that she wore a customized hat. I did not find notable coverage about her ownn dissatisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of overlinking. Feinstein is linked way too many times.

Karanacs (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion on User talk:SandyGeorgia#cite_usage_question regarding publisher. Generally, I include the publisher and link it if it goes to a different article from the work. They obviously give different information if they are different enough to have separate articles. Thus, I include The New York Times Company as the publisher regardless of whether the work is The New York Times or the Boston Globe. There does not seem to be consensus one way or the other on this matter, but that is what I have done. User:Tvoz has been removing such publishers from this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care if the publisher is in there or not, it just needs to be consistent. Sometimes in this article's references it is included, and sometimes not. 2/3 of the references to one newspaper may have it, while the other 1/3 of the references to that newspaper don't. Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen this discussion when I posted on Sandy's talk page - but as I said elsewhere I'm going by Template:Cite news and logic - the fact that there's a separate article on The New York Times Company is not, in my view, a reason to add that parameter to the references. There's no added useful information to be gained by noting that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company. The article on The New York Times undoubtedly goes into that, and it's not particularly relevant to the tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles that use Times articles as sources. It's slightly more significant, perhaps, for The Boston Globe to indicate that it's owned by the Times, although I'm not particularly in favor of including it there either. This field is more useful when we're talking about more obscure papers that are a part of a larger network of papers, like McClatchy as the template page mentions or Hearst, etc., which would not be apparent by the name of the paper and is not well-known. I agree that consistency should be the goal, but that doesn't mean we should add publishers to all of the places we don't have it, any more than adding location which is only used when it would otherwise not be obvious. We should, however, be consistent each time we reference a particular paper that we always do it the same way. I asked on the article talk page for some consensus among editors to have some guidelines on how to do it. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference style discussion moved. It is now posted at {{Cent}} at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Reference_style.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I only provide the company name if it is different from the publication name or if the publication is not well known. I agree though that consistency is the most important issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A whole section devoted to "Missteps in administering the oath" seems a bit UNDUE to me. It should be easy enough to summarize that into a single paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It is a two-paragraph sub sub section of an event that was widely reported in the press. Given the widespread press coverage of the mistake by leading news agencies it is given a proportional amount of space in the article.
  • Comment — I recall a large amount of controversy about the way ticket-bearing spectators were turned away from the cordoned-off area. I think you really need to mention the problems endured by the crowd at the event in order to give a comprehensive view of the event. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue was already covered on the talk page, see Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Merge purplegate. There is a sentence in the article which states "Amid the massive crowds who arrived at the U.S. Capitol to attend the inaugural ceremony, approximately 4,000 ticket holders were unable to gain attendance to their designated areas because the security gates were closed at the start of the ceremony, leaving many of them outside of the U.S. Capitol grounds."Aaron charles (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very good, well-reference article that I feels has all important information and it presented with images very nicely. Reywas92Talk 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Some of the citations in the Lede can be removed or moved, per WP:LEADCITE
    • The WP:LEAD should either be fully cited or fully uncited. I have to add refs to the third paragraph. This seems to be attempting a fully cited version. Removing refs is not appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Kids' Inaugural: We Are the Future" in quotes?
  • 7:00 p.m. EST →→ 7:00 p.m. EST makes more sense to me. Mostly all readers will understand p.m. and the 12-hour clock, but not all will get the Time Zones of the United States, or even know that DC is in the ET.
  • The first paragraph of the "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: National day of service" section needs rewriting. There are five instances of the word "day", outside of Obama's quote. "The eve of the inauguration day, January 19, 2009, fell on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday recognizing King's birthday." seems fine, but the next sentence, "Obama called for a national day of service on this day,[19] and he described the day, which fell on the date of the King holiday, as a natural observance:" repeats some of the same.
  • "and reflect — it's a" -- WP:DASH There should be no spaces either side of an emdash
  • As Obama had requested previously, Roberts ended the presidential oath with the phrase "so help you God" -- Nope, not according to Refs 48 and 49, anyway.
  • I do not see the alternate explanations in Refs 48 and 49? Ref 54 from CNN is a clear source, even from the title "Obama has asked to say 'so help me God' at swearing-in" Aaron charles (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were refs 48 and 49 when I looked. Now they're 53 and 54. 53 doesn't say he asked to say "So help me, God". 54 does, but neither state that he requested Roberts say "So help you God?", which is a question. By my understanding, Obama was supposed to repeat what Roberts said, and Robert's shouldn't have asked, but also stated "So help me God". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure where you are going here? Is it a third flub by Roberts for the oath? No. It's not officially part of the oath. He said it like it is often said in court. The blogs had fun with this. Like the Huffington Post: "[Roberts] posed, 'So help you God?' as if he were interrogating Obama about whether he does believe in God. Maybe that was just a nervous outcome of Roberts' earlier gaffes. But the courtroom cross-exam Q-and-A tone of it rang unhappily on the ear." I do not think it is important for this Wikipedia article to get into this speculation, but the United States presidential inauguration article would make a good place to note the history of the phrase in presidential oaths. Aaron charles (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states. As Obama had requested previously, Roberts ended the presidential oath with the phrase "so help you God" No. He didn't request Roberts ask "so help you, God?". He requested that the phrase "so help me, God" be added to the endo of his oath. "So help me, God" and "So help you, God?" are different. One he requested. One he didn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box for the video of the inaugural address needs a bit of editing. There's no music, so the image of the speaker with musical notes should be switched out for the one used elsewhere in the article. There is also no need for the Problems listening to this file? See media help. note, as that appears earlier. It can be turned off using a field of Template:listen
  • This is a bit biassed, but I think that File:Barack_Obama_inaugural_address.ogv should be used with File:Barack Obama inauguration speech 2009.ogg, the audio-only version. It's a file that I recorded, edited and cleaned, and uploaded, and it is also a WP:Featured sound. Featured media should appear in articles, apparently, and when I had it promoted, it did appear in this article. It has since been removed.
  • The song title, Pick Yourself Up, should be in double quotemarks
  • The article needs some good copy editors to scrutinise the prose. "The state-controlled China Central Television did a live broadcast" is one thing that jumped out at me, but I also noticed other sentences that didn't read as well as they could.
  • Since most city/state links are [[City, State|City]], [[State]], you should do the same with Arlington, Virginia and
  • "1-175 INF" →→ "1–175 Infantry"
  • I have a lot of issues with the references, which may creep into what has been discussed above:
    • The date format used in the references should be the same as that of the prose. Currently the prose uses the US DF mmmm dd, yyyy, whereas the refs alternate from the same DF, to the Commonwealth format of dd mmmm yyyy and even the ISO yyyy-mm-dd.
    • Ref 3 states it is "undated" -- is this usual? I thought the field should just be left blank.
    • Refs 1, 3, 20, 31, 66, 67, 68, 82, 87, 124 should be attributed to the United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
    • websites like CNN.com, MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com, whitehouse.gov, Salon.com, Bloomberg.com, and CTV.ca should not be italicised, nor should television networks (CNN, FOX News) or organisations (U.S. Department of State, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Nielsen Wire, )
Got some more. Tvoz/talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 98: Should "The New Nation" be italicised? Is it the title of a newspaper? I also noticed it wasn't linked. Is there no article?
    • Refs 38 and 130 need full attribution. Date, work, publisher, author
    • There are inconsistencies in attribution: "Cable News Network" vs "CNN", "MSNBC" vs "MSNBC.com"
    • Ref 23 should be attributed to "WUSA", not "WUSA9.com"
    • Ref 32 should be attributed to "United STates Marine Corps, not "USMC.mil"
    • Ref 34: ".."
    • Ref 36 is missing everything
    • Ref 50 needs correct attribution
      • Replaced the source with working link for better article and included full citation Tvoz/talk 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 51 shows only Microsoft as the publisher of MSNBC.com
      • (Now ref 52) - no "publisher" field generally used for MSNBC.com Tvoz/talk 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Location= fields should be used for Ref 7, 36, 45, 63 (64), 75, 78, 79, 85, 101, 125, 163
      • Most of these don't match anything needing location, at these notes or nearby -clarify please; also note that location= field needs the cite news format not cite web, so those had to be fixed; fixed others not listed here too Tvoz/talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 216 is missing part of the quote. It stops at "and"
      • No note 216 - please clarify Tvoz/talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -think I found what you were referring to (at note 137) - should have been part of the text in any case - fixed. Tvoz/talk 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 161 has some odd bolding issue
      • Looks ok, must have been caught in another edit. Tvoz/talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes the following reliable sources:
  • An academic expert ranks pretty high in most people's books. Ad-free, also.Aaron charles (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is a newspaper source, although I think the text is kind of insignificant. Tvoz/talk 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for right now. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I noticed many problems in the format of the refs as well and have been working on getting them into better shape - hope others will join in the effort to fix them, especially those who added some of the citations that are being questioned. Tvoz/talk 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll try to get address some of these myself, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have reservations about the prose and what the article chooses to focus on based on what I've read so far (not much).
    • "The inauguration celebration began on January 17, 2009 with a train ride by the President-elect and a party of family, collegues and guests from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania commemorating Abraham Lincoln's inaugural train ride." Problematic sentence for a few reasons. It's a bit long and awkward, especially with the embedded list with "commemorating Abraham Lincoln's inaugural train ride" tacked on at the end, far removed from what it's modifying. Also, this train ride is left unexplained. We're giving where it starts but not where it ends. People unfamiliar with the inauguration will just wonder if this was just a short, ceremonial train ride that didn't actually go anywhere.
* Revised. Aaron charles (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, I thought this was referring to the section "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln" That's what I revised last night. That other sentence/paragraph does need to be revised. Aaron charles (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still somewhat long and awkward; the "tribute" problem is still there. BuddingJournalist 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Official events were held" What does official mean in this context? Was the train ride unofficial?
  • Actually, yes, somewhat unofficial, as the train ride was organized by Obama's team, not the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
  • Then this should be explained somehow rather than leave readers hanging with the ambiguous "official". BuddingJournalist 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On January 17, 2009, Obama began a tribute and partial reenactment of Lincoln's train ride by holding a town hall meeting with a few hundred supporters at the 30th Street Station in Philadelphia before embarking on the train ride.[10][11] The 2009 inauguration activities began with a train ride to pay tribute to Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States and, like Obama, a former Illinois politician, by partially re-enacting Lincoln's 1861 train ride to Washington, D.C. in commemoration of Lincoln's ride" Lots of needless repetition. Note the orphaned "tribute" at the beginning.
    • Is the detailed description of Lincoln's train ride really necessary?
    • "During the tour, Obama recited his trademark rejoinder "I love you back" in response to enthusiastic crowds." Rather than give unspecific trivia such as this (what crowds are these? along the train route? at stops?), how about describing more substantive happenings? For example, a description of the major topics of his speech "to a crowd of around 40,000 people" might be appropriate, rather than just saying that he spoke.
    • "More than 40 American citizens " This suggests that Obama, his family, his staff, the press, etc. are not. BuddingJournalist 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely we can do better than "The 41 were composed of 16 invited citizens who had special stories and their families." to describe how they were selected. "Special stories"?? And are four separate references really necessary to back up this claim?
  • three of the refs are to particular stories. I think detailing the stories would be a bit much, so I linked to them with footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wasn't asking for a detailing of the stories if that's what you mean (not sure); a) the sentence is not well-written b) what the heck does "special stories" mean? A concise description of the selection process would do wonders.
  • Also quite concerned that the article does not discuss the preparations for the inaugural (1b). When did planning start, who all was involved, what did the process entail, etc. BuddingJournalist 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1a, 1b. Sorry, but I don't think this is ready. The article does not adequately cover the preparations for the event as I alluded to above. The prose is pedestrian in some places, and overall, it just lacks a narrative flow; the page in many spots reads like a collection of facts rather than a compelling, encyclopedic article. To pick one section at random: Ceremony: "A New Birth of Freedom":
    • There's no flow whatsoever between the first three paragraphs. First paragraph gives exact times of events, so I figured i was in for a chronologically-organized section. Then all of a sudden, the second paragraph addresses the theme (with mountains of repetition and elementary prose). The third leads with "The program by the congressional leaders included"; what the heck is "program by the congressional leaders"?
    • "which was both pre-recorded and performed live synched with the recording by" so confusing. Surely there's a better way of describing this.
    • "Despite the fact that the performance was described as "classical-music equivalent of lip-syncing", NPR described it as "a transporting moment that moved many with its beauty and calm." NPR? No, NPR's Anya Grundmann. "was described as" <- missing a subject. What's notable about her opinion here?
    • Can we please avoid three uses of "the fact that" in two sentences?
    • "Other participants included the " Participants in what? And surely we can organize this section better than just giving a list of participants?
    • "Vice President-elect Biden took his oath first from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens." An artful transition from the previous paragraph that ended with the mention of Rev. Lowery's benediction, which occurred after Biden's oath. No context for "first", so readers unfamiliar with the inauguration will wonder what that means (first from Stevens, and second from whom?).
  • Other random spots for improvement:
    • "Domestically, the inaugural address was received with mixed reviews in which conservatives had reservations about the message of rebuke toward the outgoing administration and liberals had a favorable take." Try breaking up this long un-punctuated sentence: "Domestically, the inaugural address received mixed reviews—conservatives..." Weak use of "has". The rhythm of the sentence is broken by the unbalanced length of the comparison; either flesh out what liberals admired or cut down on the explanatory prose for conservatives.
    • "Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Obama, while Michelle Obama held the Bible that was used in 1861 by Abraham Lincoln at his first inauguration." Think about your audience. Will readers unfamiliar with U.S. Presidential inaugurations have an adequate picture in their minds based on the prose? I'd be willing to bet that many of those readers will be wondering why the Michelle Obama is holding a Bible...
    • "Obama had previously asked to include "so help me God" after the oath." Again, audience. This might make sense for political junkies, but those unfamiliar with the matter will just wonder why this matters.
    • "Obama's address did not have memorable sound bite phrases." Wow. Never knew that "memorable" could be stated as fact.
    • "Instead, he used traditional references to connect his new administration with the nation's history in a speech that was understated deliberately," Can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to say.
    • "The speech reinforced words " how exactly does a speech reinforce words?
    • Interesting that the analysis of the speech is largely one expert's opinion in Tulane University's official news publication. Is this indicative of the scholarly assessment of the speech? Or did editors just choose this one at random to compose this section? BuddingJournalist 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article has not had a peer review, and the extensive comments indicate that one is in order: with the backlog at FAC, it should not be used as peer review. I recommend following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate editors you might invite to participate in a peer review to better prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 [62].

Arular[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the requirements. It's my first music-related FAC, so hopefully I haven't made too many egregious errors :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both those sources are referencing the point that multiple minor music news websites reported the impending release of a single which never actually came out. There didn't seem to be a better reference than a couple of the sites in question. Is that acceptable.....? Foreign language sources have been flagged up too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After triple-checking, I've now removed it completely. Looking at the sites in question, they all claim to be referencing a news item on XL Recordings' official website, but even using the Wayback Machine I can't find any evidence that such info was ever posted. Given that, and the fact that no "major" music news sites (Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, etc) appear to have reported the info, the legitimacy of the announcement seems decidedly questionable, so I've taken it out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors in references found using WP:REFTOOLS

  • {{cite web | last=Empire|first= Kitty| title= Pop Review of the Year 2005| url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/2005/story/0,,1672054,00.html | work = [[The Guardian]]| date=18 December 2005 | dateformat=dmy|accessdate=12 August 2008}} | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Amgmiach | A named reference is used but not defined--TRUCO 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kitty Empire duplicate refs combined into one. "Angmiach" ref is ref 55 as it currently stands and is defined in its second usage immediately after "Billboard 200", so I don't see what the issue is there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that <ref name=" Amgmiach "/> is used but the original reference formatting is not defined, which is <ref name="Agmiach">(ref content)</ref>. So that's what is the issue with that ref.--TRUCO 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems to be resolved now, the problem was that some of the usages of that ref were entered as <ref name=" Amgmiach "/> - note the spacing. Although they displayed OK and internally linked to the right spot in the refs list, the spaces around "Angmiach" were confusing the tool you were using..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh okay, yeah I don't think the tool can pick that up, next time I'll search for things like that manually. Ref formatting is found up to speed.--TRUCO 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps more reviewers will engage with a fresh start in 7 to 10 days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 [63].

1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak[edit]

Nominator(s): WxGopher
previous FAC (01:29, 22 August 2008)

I nominated this article for Featured Article status last year, and I believe that I've addressed the main concerns from that candidacy. I feel like this is a well-referenced and complete article and am looking forward to your comments. WxGopher (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Some Issues that I notice, hope this helps:
  • Use of unexplained jargon in the lead section: "an F4 that hit the town of Comfrey, Minnesota, an F3 that hit St. Peter, Minnesota, and an F2 that hit Le Center, Minnesota. Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter". You should explain what an F4 or F3 is. When I see F4, I think fighter jet, and that's confusing. Simply saying rated F4 on the Fujita scale would help clarify.
  • Well, F4 is linked to Fujita, and the list is preceded by "was caused by three tornadoes—", so I think the context helps establish what F#'s are referring to (people unfamiliar with the Fujita scale will think some type of tornado, and click on F4 for further information). I think the current wording balances clarity with succinctness; if it's absolutely necessary to explain further, perhaps "one rated F4 that hit..."? BuddingJournalist 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find some of the wording awkward, and I would probably rewrite the whole lead to make it both more accessible to laymen, and more readable.
  • I'm not sure if it's appropriate to this case, but many featured articles on meteorological events have sections on the preparations.
  • I find the article somewhat Minnesota-centric. The entire Historical perspective section only talks about Minnesota history, what about the tornadoes in Wisconsin? Cool3 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take a look at the lead again.
  • The Tropical systems are the articles that have preperation sections, because you know they are coming days ahead of time. Tornadoes are very localized and impossible to predict for any given location more than a few minutes in advance, so there is no notable prepation for them.
  • For it being Minnesota-centric, that's because 99.9% of the impact of this event was felt in Minnesota. At first, the article only mentioned Minnesota, it was only later that I noticed that Wisconsin did have 2 (minimal impact) tornadoes, so I decided to mention those as well. As far as historical context, these tornadoes were not notable for Wisconsin like they were for Minnesota. Between 1950 - 2008, I found that Wisconsin has had about 25 tornadoes in this timeframe, and about 20 of them were stronger than these two. Meanwhile, Minnesota only had I think around 5-6 tornadoes in this timeframe, so the 14 that touched down in this one nearly tripled the previous total. WxGopher (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did re-word the lead a little bit, let me know if that seems better. WxGopher (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Some type of link for "favorable upper-level dynamics"?
    • "Over $235 million in damage was recorded" This wasn't clear to me whether this referred to the damage caused by the overall tornado outbreak or the supercell discussed in the previous sentence. If the former, perhaps a paragraph break might be helpful?
    • Think about your reader audience. Will non-Americans know what "Twin Cities NWS" means? Introduce abbreviations such as NWS before using them (in the lead, National Weather Service is mentioned). Link Twin Cities.
    • "Early on Sunday March 29" Early = what?
    • "[g]iven strength of vertical shear profile..." Lots of unlinked jargon in this quotation.
    • Prose is OK; at times it's rather pedestrian, and I spotted little errors (especially puzzling was the lack of punctuation for possessives) here and there. Give the article a proofread. BuddingJournalist 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll try to address your comments. The one thing I can make now, is the "g]iven strength of vertical shear profile" is a direct quote that was published by by the Meteorologists issuing the advisories. Here is the text leading up to this: Just before 12:00 pm, the Storm Prediction Center issued a mesoscale discussion stating that "[g]iven strength of vertical shear profiles... When you see it that way; that is it a quote from their advisory, does that make more sense? I don't want to re-write the actual quote, since then it wouldn't be a quote. I thought about putting the the wiki-quotations in but I wasn't sure if such a small amount of text would qualify for that. Otherwise, do you think that there should be some kind of other explanation in there? WxGopher (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't quite follow you here. I was just hoping for some wikilinks of technical terms in the quotation. BuddingJournalist 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I addressed the rest of your concerns, with the exception of upper-level dynamics. I agree that should be linked to something, I'm trying to figure out the best way to do that. Except for the proof-reading. I see that you made a bunch of edits, did you fix what was concerning you, or was there more? Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed what I saw up until the point I stopped reading (I didn't read the entire article). The errors that I encountered made me think that a proofread of the entire article might be helpful. BuddingJournalist 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell, most of the technical terms should be linked in some manner. Although a term like upper-level dynamics is kind of an all-encompassing thing, so there is not a direct link for that. I tried to do something that made sense though. WxGopher (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WxGopher (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - shouldn't the title be 1998 Comfrey–St. Peter tornado outbreak; i.e., the en-dash is not spaced? An em-dash wouldn't work in the title. Sceptre (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed in the previous FAC, here is the reasoning for the current title: Comment – Please move the article to 1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak and correct the instances of the name in the article; the en dash should be spaced because the second item it connects (St. Peter) has a space. Right now, the dash appears to connect Comfrey with St., which is bad style. WxGopher (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The current title is correct, per MoS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the current title is correct, per WP:DASH and per previous discussion. The junction is not Comfrey to St., rather Comfry to St. Peter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comment -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • {{cite web|title = Event Record Details – Lonsdale tornado|publisher = NCDC|date = March 29, 1998|url = http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~325620|accessdate = 2008-05-15}} | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead--TRUCO 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments for now.
    • All damage figures should indicate they are 1998 USD, and they also need a conversion to 2008 (or 2009) USD.
    • I think the Fujita scale should be mentioned in the lede, but that's up to you.
    • You might want to check with someone else, but I'm pretty sure per WP:MOSNUM that the first usage of any numerical units, they should be Wikilinked.
    • I think the meteorological synopsis should be explained better. First, what was the origin of the "surface-based low pressure area" (and what is that - no link?)? I think the acronym "CAPE" should be spelled out, as it makes more sense, to me at least. The last sentence of the met. synopsis is confusing, in regards to the two wind speeds. I think "respectively" should be added somewhere in there.
    • Watch for unit consistency. It looks weird to see "two miles (3 km)". Also, watch out for unit rounding. If one unit is rounded (150 miles), the other unit should be rounded to the nearest ten (241 km).
    • "The F4 tornado that struck Comfrey is also the strongest tornado ever measured" - little quibble, but tornado windspeeds aren't measured. They're estimated, based on damage.
    • Ref #59 says " March 29, 1998", but the event report was from 2005.
    • Why is this link in see also? 2006 Dakota–Minnesota tornado outbreak
  • ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the years to the infobox. Is this to where you were referring, or were there other spots?
  • Fujita scale has been mentioned.
  • Low pressure area is linked earlier in the article.
  • For CAPE, I can see that both ways. People who do not know what it is may understand it better if it's spelled out, however, even though it may sound jargony, I don't think I've ever seen it spelled out before, unless I'm looking in a glossary. CAPE is the way to which it's reffered. Does it help that it's linked?
  • The meteorological synopsis is tough. It's difficult to get too in-depth without it becoming just a mass of scientific terms. So what I tried to do is hit on the major points without telling too much. If there are any more examples of parts you think should be cleaned up, I can try to do that.
  • For the F4 tornado, you are correct. I re-worded that to make it more clear.
  • Ref is fixed.
  • The for 2006 tornado outbreak, the reason why I put there in there was because it was another large tornado that was just a couple miles from the tornado that hit St. Peter. I can remove it though if that is too far off-topic.
  • Will look into the rounding, and linking units.
Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've addressed most of your concerns, Hurricanehink. The only thing that I didn't really touch on was the meteorological synopsis, per my reason above. Let me if if there are any other comments. thanks! WxGopher (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 [64].


Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore[edit]

Nominator(s): Dineshkannambadi (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the required criteria. It is well cited and has been copyedited by User:Michael Devore and User:Finetooth. It has been peerreviewd by User:Ruhrfisch, User:Taxman, user:Michael Devore, User:Kensplanet, user:Finetooth, and User:Redtigerxyz. The article covers an important period in the development of Kannada literature.

Some comments by the primary author seeking advice from constructive reviewers

I am the creator and primary author of the article. I began to expand the article around November 7 2008, and by December 16 2008, the article had expanded sufficiently to cover all the literary aspects I felt was necessary to give the reader the full picture of events. I changed the article's title to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE", which I felt was the appropriate name for the article, a title that did not impose any geographical limitations on the Kannada literature written in this period. However, claiming inconsistancy of the changed name (relative to other literature related FA articles I have written) and that the main article, Kingdom of Mysore was in a FAR (now closed with "keep"), User:Fowler&fowler (the nominator of the FAR), reverted my move, bringing the article's title back to what it is now: "Kananda literature in the Kingdom of Mysore". Fowler's comments are available on the archived PR page and the talk page of this article. Taking advice from two well established administrators, User:YellowAssessmentMonkey and User:Dank55, I decided to bring the issue here, to let the reviewers help choose the best title for this article in a constructive way. On the peer reivew, two well established users, User:Taxman and User:Ruhrfisch suggested a more flexible approach and a sort of compromise. The contents of the article are now balanced, giving the reader full info on the development of each literary genre. So, keeping the content together is vital from the point of view of balance and completeness. I am seeking constructive and helpful comments to resolve this simple issue. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article cited only few references, the article do not cite any information for any other more references.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, but I dont understand your comment. If you mean to say 162 citations (with numerous clubbed citations from multiple sources) from some 20 sources are not good enough, then I must say your comment in inactionable. However, if you can point out where you want more citations, I can provide it gladly. Literature is one of those subjects where information after some point become repetitive and adding more and more sources to the article becomes meaningless. Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This opposer hasn't edited much and has only two other nomming contributions to the FAC process, one was completely unreferenced and closed about 0-7, and the other was deleted as a copyright violation so he doesn't seem up to speed with FAC. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not involved in this FAC on the merits of the article, but now I'm watching the FAC itself for off-topic discussion per SG's nudge. Information on the process of getting an article to FAC has been moved to the discussion page. More may be moved. Please focus on the merits of this article and what can be done to promote this article, or archive it until it can be nominated again. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's Post 1
  • Oppose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some comments.
    • Poorly written. See my two sets of remarks on the article talk page: F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random)
    • Why is the Mysore Palace photograph relevant to an article that is about literature? The palace was built between 1897 and 1912, and its own page says nothing about literature. The lead paragraph in the KLKM article says, "The available writings date from around 1600 CE to the early 20th century." How was a palace that was completed in 1912 relevant to these "available writings?" It is especially irrelevant, when the primary author is attempting to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE" and is inviting others to discuss that issue in this FAC.
      • PS Since I made this post here, the primary author has changed the caption of photograph (without informing us here) from "Mysore palace" to "Mysore palace, centre of the court and its literary circle." Who were the members of this literary circle that existed in the narrow window of time between the completion of the palace in 1912 and the end of the "early 20th century" in ... ? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tagged File:KRWIII.JPG (used in the article) for deletion. The image has no source information. No name of artist or when s/he lived or any documentation that the portrait is whose it is claimed to be, has been provided. (My own personal view is that it is not a painting at all, but rather an old colored-in photograph, which is likely not of KRWIII for reasons I won't go into here.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F&f's post 2

(Reply to user:DK's post below of 19:00, 22 February 2009) I'm afraid you keep changing your story about why the image is relevant. I have posted a response to your latest rationale in the article talk page section, Mysore palace image As for your response to my criticism of the article's prose (in the article talk page sections F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random), I would like to suggest that you take it seriously if you are interested in improving this article, Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's Post 3

(Reply to user:DK's post of 22:16, 22 February 2009) Citations or no citations, how can a palace whose construction was begun in 1897 and completed in 1912 be home to a theater in 1881, and how can its image then be meaningful in the lead of an article whose scope doesn't extend beyond the "early 20th century?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's Post4

I have moved the post to the talk page subsection: F&f Post 4 from FAC. I note that I made a similar post in the peer-review, but user:DK never responded to it.

I note too that user:DK has not responded to my other posts on the article's talk page (which link to my posts 1 and 2 above). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's post 5

I note again that user:DK had not responded to my posts on the prose and the logic in the first and third lead paragraphs (See article talk page sections F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random)) which are linked to my posts 1 and 2 above. After having stated, "Regarding 'poorly written,' feel free to suggest prose improvements and I will incorporate it if necessary, considering every user has his/her own views," he has done nothing with my posts—neither incorporated any variant of them, nor given reasons for not doing so.

In addition, he has only obliquely responded to my post 4 above (by describing the entire post as "off-topic"). Since the Kingdom of Mysore lasted until 1947, there also seems to be inconsistency in the logic of his arguments: on the one hand he wants to keep the image of the Mysore palace (the latter was completed in 1912) on the grounds that the article's name has not yet been changed to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900;" on the other hand he is restricting the scope of the literature to the early 20th century, as if the change to the new name has already happened. Why shouldn't the scope of the literature be synchronous with the life of the kingdom, i.e. 1600 to the mid-20th century? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's post 6 (note for SandyGeorgia and Moni3)

I note that user:Dineshkannambadi has continued to not respond to my post 4 above, except obliquely by singling out one point in part 4 of that post and holding it up as "off-topic," but not explaining why it is off-topic. user:DK has stated in his introduction, "I am seeing (sic) constructive and helpful comments to resolve this simple issue (i.e. of changing the page name to 'Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE')." However, after having stated that, he has repeatedly ignored my arguments. I have stated that 1600–1900 corresponds to no known periodization of Kannada literature. If user:DK would like to change the name of the article, he needs to answer that objection. I would like to request him again (this third time) to answer my objections in posts 4 and 5 above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f post 7
In the various points below, which I will keep adding as and when I find time, I will show that this article involves both synthesis of disparate material and undue weight given to topics that are typically not included in Kannada literature; in addition, the primary author has—over and over again—incorrectly paraphrased the secondary sources. (Later, I will say something about the sources themselves.)
  1. Yakshagana Why is Yakshagana included in an article on Kannada literature? Yakshagana is a folk dance-drama. It is not included in any of the major sources on Kannada literature used in the article: for example, 1) Narasimhacharya's History of Kannada literature, 2) E. P. Rice's Kannada literature, 3) Shiva Prakash's "Medieval Kannada literature," 4) M. Narasimha Murthy's "Modern Kannada literature, or 5) D. R. Nagaraj's "Critical tensions in the history of Kannada literature."
    1. Added after user:DK's response. Four and a half sentence out of 85 pages (Narasimhacharya) and three sentences out of 127 pages (Rice) does not constitute significant mention, and what Narasimhacharya says is not very charitable (see below). Neither work includes "Yakshagana" in its index. How is that a recommendation for two sections in an article on Kannada literature? As for your sources, I'd like to see a modern survey of Kannada literature that describes Yakshagana as a significant literary movement of the period 1600–1947, one deserving its own section. (I'm sure there are some Google links that refer to Yakshagana as literary; however, that is hardly an argument agains WP:UNDUE) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kannada-speaking region The point is not made anywhere that the Kingdom of Mysore, for all but 40 years between 1600 and 1947, was less than half of the entire Kannada speaking region in Southern India (what later became Karnataka). The map File:Anglo-Mysore War 4.png shown in the lead of the article, is not only out of context, but is also misleading. Between 1600 and 1760, the Kannada-speaking regions of the Kingdom of Mysore accounted for about a third of the entire Kannada-speaking region of Southern India, what later became Karnataka (see maps File:MysoreRegion1625b.jpg and File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg); after 1800, the Kingdom of Mysore accounted for about half the Kannada-speaking region. A more accurate map for the lead would be File:Mysore1617to1799b.jpg.
  3. Evolution of Yakshagana The section Yakshagana theatre, which has two long paragraphs, mentions the birth of Yakshagana in South Kanara and North Kanara (as do most references on Yakshagana; see, for example, map from the book, Yakshagana). However, neither region was a part of the Kingdom of Mysore except very briefly from 1766 to 1792 under the Muslim Sultans of Mysore, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan (during which no Yakshagana artist is described in the article anyway). Why are two paragraphs being devoted to Yakshagana's birth outside the Kingdom? Is there a single sentence in these two paragraphs—but especially the second—that is relevant to the title of the page: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" (with scope 1600–1947)? Why aren't these two paragraphs examples of both synthesis and undue stress?
    1. PS In his reply to the point above, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "You seem to have left out Shimoga district (Ikkeri, Keladi, Soraba and Nagara towns) as one of the places of evolution of Yakshagana in that very map. I am sure you are aware that Shimoga remained very much part of Kingdom of Mysore from 1799-1947. More over, North and South Kanara are very much needed for context, completion and well-roundedness of a FA. I did not read anywhere that Yakshagana went out of vogue during the period 1760-1799 when Haider Ali and Tipu (rulers of Mysore) captured the Kanara region." He once again misreads both my post and the book he quotes. The Shimoga district was not a part of the Kingdom of Mysore during the period 1600–1763 during which Yakshagana developed; how does it matter if it became a part of the Kingdom of Mysore during the years 1799–1947 ? We are talking about the evolution of the folk-art form in that section. The book, Yakshagana, says on pages 21–22, "... one of its feudatories, the Keladi Kingdom (1563–1763) during which the Yaksagana of Andhra and the Yaksagana of Karnataka State might have developed." Fine, for the "well-roundedness of an FA" you could include a sentence or two, but an entire section with two long paragraphs? If that's not undue stress, then I don't know what is.
  4. Inaccurate paraphrasing The second section on Yakshagana, Proliferation of Yakshagana is another example of synthesis used for the creation of "padding," which in this case consists of two paragraphs, the second quite long. The third sentence states, "However literary developments progressed unhindered even within the royal family, with King Narasaraja Wodeyar II, Nanjaraja and Queen Cheluvambe making important contributions.[5][6][7]" What are these three references? Well, the first two are to the Bangalore University dissertation in Music (with no ISBN information), Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638–1947 A.D.) by M. Pranesh, and the third is to Narasimhacharya (published in 1934), p. 25 (please see). What does Narasimhacharya, in fact say about Yakshagana and the royal family on that page? Here he is: "These (i.e. Yakshaganas) are opera pieces or rude forms of dramatic presentation suited to rustic audiences. As a rule, they are characterised neither by dramatic skill nor by literary merit. The works are mostly based on some incident or other of that inexhaustible store-house of old stories, the Puranas, and are generally acted in villages to the immense joy of the masses. It is not to be understood that there were no other kinds of literature during this period, though the number of Jaina and Virasaiva authors of any merit is very small." Then Narasimhacharya mentions a lists of some 18th century works, among which is a work of the Queen of the Wodeyar court. How does all this translate into: "However literary developments progressed unhindered even within the royal family, ..."? This is what I mean by inaccurate paraphrasing (often involving drastically optimistic readings), all this when the three modern surveys of Kannada literature used in the article say nothing about Yakshagana.
    1. PS In his reply to the above post, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "Narasimhacharya's personal views on Yakshagana are not important. Wikipedia gives importance to majority views. There are no shortage of sources that discuss the importance of Yakshagana in the genre of South Indian theatrical literature. The fact that Sahitya Akademi, an organisation supported and recognised by the Govt of India, has provided several pages of information on this is proof enough." I'm afraid I don't understand. Narasimhacharya has been footnoted, 32 times in this article. Why do his views on Yakshagana only become "personal views?" The survey articles on "Medieval Kannada Literature" (1997) by H. H. Shiva Prakash (footnoted 20 times in the article) and on "Modern Kannada literature" (1992) by M. Narasimha Murthy (footnoted 26 times in the article) are both in collections published by India's National Academy of Letters (Sahitya Akademi). Neither mentions Yakshagana. The article, "Critical tensions in the History of Kannada literature" by D. R. Nagaraj, in the book, Literary cultures in history edited by Sheldon Pollock, and footnoted a dozen times, says nothing about Yakshagana. Why do we need "majority" references in this instance, when we didn't in all their other footnotes?
  5. Sarvajna Why is Sarvajna included in an article on Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore? He was born in Northern Karnataka, which was very far away from the Kingdom of Mysore. See map File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg for how far this was in 1704; in Sarvagnya's time, the Kingdom of Mysore was smaller, so the distance was even farther. True, he was a wandering mendicant, but he was never identified with the Kingdom of Mysore in any way. His major influence has been in Norther Karnataka, which was not only far away from Mysore, but the movement he inspired was quite the opposite of the literature popular in the Kingdom of Mysore. Here is D. R. Nagaraj (footnoted 12 times, see above), "... a new brand of writer, in the class of Ratnakaravarni and Sarvajna—one that was unaffiliated with any established monastery—was wandering throughout north Karnataka writing a vital kind of lyric; ... (These writers) composed poetry, remarkable for its style, that served as a curtain raiser to modern Kannada poetry. The class of writers that produced poetry at and for the Mysore court, by contrast, was not only conventional in its literary tastes but also socially conservative. ... (This) privileged class that kept on producing old texts with more archaic themes and ancient tales was left behind in history; to the contemporary reader, at least, they look boring and dull. The centers of textual production in both the court and monasteries had lost their social energy." Moreover, the biography Sarvajna by K. B. Prabhu Prasad and published by Indian National Academy of Letters, regards Sarvajna to be a 16th century poet. With these sorts of uncertainties, how does Sarvajna become included in "Kannada literate in the Kingdom of Mysore?" This, I'm afraid, is quite blatant original research.
  6. Sources. Two books, Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638–1947 A.D.) (a Bangalore University Music dissertation published locally in Bangalore, India, and without an ISBN information) and A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present also published locally in Bangalore and also without ISBN information (and written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist views) have been footnoted 37 times and 27 times respectively. Can user:DK point to any publication (in English) on Kannada literature that cites these books, (let alone cite them 37 and 25 times respectively)?
  7. Reply to user:Ruhrfisch and the page name question I believe we have made some progress. user:Ruhrfisch (and I'm guessing user:Dineshkannambadi) are agreeing with me that this article is not about "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore." Yes, I did oppose the page name change, which took place in the middle of an FAR of the parent article Kingdom of Mysore. Here is the basic problem. You can choose to make the article about Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore or you can make it about Kannada literature in general. If you choose the former option, the literature will be limited by the spatial and temporal boundaries of the Kingdom; if you choose the latter option, you will be limited by the periodizations of the literature in the secondary sources. The problem is that there is no known periodization of Kannada literature that corresponds to 1600–1900. Scholars have unanimously regarded the end of the 18th century to be the end of late-medieval- or early-modern stage of Kannada literature, which means Modern Kannada literature begins around 1800. (See four sources here, including three published by India's National Academy of Letters which are liberally footnoted in this article.) This is in fact the convention adopted in the parent article Kannada literature and sister article Modern Kannada literature. If user:DK would like to change of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1800," I will have no objection (or call it late medieval/early-modern Kannada literature), but that's is a different article and a third of the present text will have to be removed. The problem with this article is that it was written to be "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore," but then towards the end of the writing (likely for many of the reasons I have given) was changed to another name, without significantly altering the content. Unfortunately, we are not free to do this at our own whim; we have to respect scholarly convention. user:Ruhrfisch's proposed title, "Kannada literature during the Kingdom of Mysore," has similar problems. For example, for the period, 1600–1760, why is the "Kingdom of Mysore" even important for Kannada literature? Mysore was a small principality which covered less than a third of the area of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Reply to user:Dineshkannambadi's objections. This is far from the first time I have raised the issue of periodization. It was raised in this FAC on 24 February in my post 4 (above) and later moved to the talk page with link provided above. See link here. user:DK responded to post 4, with: "Sandy, could you please explain to Fowler that I am open and flexible regarding the name of the article. I am not willing to discuss about off topic issues such as Modern Kannada literature here." And that itself was not the first time the topic was raised in Wikipedia. It was raised in December 2008/January 2009 in the KingFAR. See here, for example. As for my views on what the title of the page should be, they have remained consistent and user:DK has again my misread my comments. When I said that the scope of the literature should be 1600 to 1947, I was addressing the scope within an article with title "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" (for the reason that the Kingdom itself continued to exist until 1947). However, when I address the question of article title, I am not bound by any constraints; I choose the best name and scope for the article taking into account the consensus in the scholarly sources. According to this consensus late-medieval Kannada literature ends (and Modern Kannada literature begins) around 1800. To date, I have not seen a single survey article on Kannada literature that has scope 1600 to 1900. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler's final assessment and recommendation

The article synthesizes disparate sources (especially, in its inclusion of Yakshagana and Sarvajna). It places undue emphasis on Yakshagana, giving it a primacy it has not hitherto enjoyed in all five existing surveys of Kannada literature (all of which have been liberally footnoted in the article except in the Yakshagana sections). The author—time and time again—inaccurately paraphrases the secondary sources. This remains a major problem. I have already given one example above, however, so confident do I feel about this that I am happy to undertake a similar exercise for any paragraph in the article chosen by any participant in the FAC. Some of the sources themselves remain a problem. The source which has been footnoted most often (37 times), Musical composers under the Wodeyar dynasty, is a Bangalore university Music Department dissertation, which was published locally in Bangalore, and has no ISBN information. To my knowledge, no scholarly article (written in English) on Kannada literature has cited this source. The article remains poorly written. My recommendation: Withdraw the article as an FAC. Re-write it as "Late-medieval Kannada literature" or "Early-modern Kannada literature" with scope 1600–1800, paying especial attention to sources used in scholarly writings about Kannada literature, to accurate paraphrasing of the sources, and to good writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of Fowler&fowler's posts
Replies by DK to F &f's post 1,2,3
  • I have cited why the palace image is useful. It is the location of the royal archives, containing manuscripts and records about Mysore poets and composers under royal patronage, covering a period of over a century, their dates of appointments, their salary, promotions etc etc. I dont see any need to name poets.
  • Regarding "poorly written", feel free to suggest prose improvements and I will incorporate it if necessary, considering every user has his/her own views.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the image 'KRWIII.JPG' for now. Will add back if it remains undeleted.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mysore palace image : Comment by Fowler - It is especially irrelevant, when the primary author is attempting to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE". The name change is a suggestion I have put forward to reviewers, since Fowler reverted the article name to what it is today. Removing an image before the actual name change happens, is a hypotheical approach. If the name change seems to be popular among the reviewers, then we can revisit the issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To Sandy Gerogia

Sandy, Fowler has deleted a piece of information I added (with citation from Kamath) calling it "false", that the Palace was the home of Kannada stage called Chandrasala since 1881. I dont want to revert this, but wanted you to know of this. Here is the full quote for your interest if you like: Quote:"Modern drama took shape with the founding of a stage called Chandrasala in the Mysore palace and organising the palace troupe in 1881".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DK's reply to F&f's post 4

Sandy, could you please explain to Fowler that I am open and flexible regarding the name of the article. I am not willing to discuss about off topic issues such as Modern Kannada literature here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Shiva Prakash (1997), p. 191 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Murthy (1992), p. 167 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Murthy (1992), p. 169 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Narasimhacharya (1988), p. 24 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Sahitya Akademi (1992), p. 3934 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Narasimhacharya (1988), p. 26 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Murthy (1992), p. 168 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead--TRUCO 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to club citations calling upon a common referenced page. Will do .Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed commentary from an anonymous IP for not addressing issues in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Moni3 on the direction of this FAC:

  • I removed a comment about the above anonymous IP user and a peacock tag in the article. I'm going to distance myself from this FAC and make its goals very clear. I will remove any commentary that does not specifically address problems or merits of the article.
  • Fowler&fowler and Dineshkannambadi, apparently there is some enmity between both of you that I was only vaguely aware of before jumping into this nomination. If neither of you are unable to see this article as an entity that is unrelated to your past interactions, then I advise you not to participate in this FAC. It can be archived until you are able to discuss the merits of the article unrelated to slights or misbehavior you have suffered in the past. Please do not use FAC as a battleground to score points or get back at each other.
  • Fowler&fowler, I gather you have some experience in the topic. If you could please keep your comments strictly about the points in the article you think would be a detriment to an FA. Be specific, neutral, and please do not use hyperbole in your FAC commentary. Do not make comments about editors involved in the construction of this article, other reviewers, or make reference to issues outside of this FAC, please. I also ask that you keep all of your comments in one location in this nomination, as opposed to spreading them out among other reviewers' comments.
  • Dineshkannambadi, your job here is to overcome objections from reviewers. I see the tag, which is a mis-tag and should be {{peacock term}}. It can be easily rectified by removing the "noted" from in front of the author's name. He is still an author and is inherently notable on the subject. It appears to be inevitable that you and Fowler&fowler will have some issues that may not be overcome. That does not mean that the article will not be promoted. If you come across an objection that you simply feel you are unable to be rectify, explain why please, for SandyGeorgia to read when she closes this nomination, in a simple statement that will read: SandyGeorgia, I am unable to overcome this objection because it is my experience that... Please base your comment on your experience researching the topic, not on Fowler&fowler's behavior. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moni3. I am in the process of improving the wording for clarity, wherever "vague" tag was added. W.r.t the "sic" tag, which to me means the reviewer found some form of inaccuracy, I am trying to make it more accurate. If I find a tag that I feel is unjustified, I will mention it here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the list of "vague" and "sic" tags and made the content clearer and and more accurate.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to F&F's post5
  • Sentence 1: body of literature composed in the Kannada language- Says in what language the literature was written.
  • Sentence 2: Available? Is that needed? - Removed available.
  • Sentence 3: Many of the works of this literature are labeled Veerashaiva or Vaishnava (Fowler wrote-You make it sound that the faiths were charitable foundations). DK reply: I believe this was your input, not mine. Please see this [65]
  • Sentence 4: clarified.
  • Sentence 5: Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on. Fowler wrote: We were never told that V- and V- were sacred writings--Specified the Vaishnava and Veerashaiva writings were religious.
  • Sentence 6:Organised Kannada literature flourished for a short while in the neighbouring kingdom of the Nayakas of Keladi--clarified it was written in the court and hence "organised". Improved wording.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments by Fowler about Lead:

  • Sentence 1:Not only were the court poets prolific writers-- Copied Fowler's example.
  • Sentence 2: Wandering mendicant-poets wrote compositions meant for the country folk--Specified post-Vijayanagara period.
  • Sentence 3:Sentence 3: "A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic--reduced list to just a few, to give the reader an idea about metrical forms.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to later part of post5 regarding image and coverage of literature
  • Please read the article before making oblique remarks about author intentions and such. The literature does cover upto 1949. No matter which title is eventually choosen, the period 1600-1947 is covered.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to F &f's post 7
  • Yakshagana has been touched upon briefly by both Narasimhacharya and Rice. Yakshagana is a folk theatrical literature combining poetry, dance, dialogue and costume, and I have included aleast 4 sources (including a Sahitya Akademi publication) which discusses it as such. I can point you to another dozen reliable sources but they are all available on google search anyway. I don't think there is a rule in wiki that every source book in the article should discuss every topic detailed in the article.
  • I will replace the mapDineshkannambadi (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)There are no shortage of books that describe the importance of Yakshagana in the field of South Indian theatre. That is proof enough I think. example (Sahitya Akademi, vol 3):Quote":Yakshagana (Kannada) is a fascinating form of folk theatre now fostered in the coastal and hill tracts of Karnataka...."
  • 3)You seem to have left out Shimoga district (Ikkeri, Keladi, Soraba and Nagara towns) as one of the places of evolution of Yakshagana in that very map. I am sure you are aware that Shimoga remained very much part of Kingdom of Mysore from 1799-1947. More over, North and South Kanara are very much needed for context, completion and well-roundedness of a FA. I did not read anywhere that Yakshagana went out of vogue during the period 1760-1799 when Haider Ali and Tipu (rulers of Mysore) captured the Kanara region. A Mysore king was a famous Yakshagana writer, Mysore was very much a hotbed of Yakshagana stage and troupes in the 18-19th century. Do I need to give more context that this?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4)Narasimhacharya's personal views on Yakshagana are not important. Wikipedia gives importance to majority views. There are no shortage of sources that discuss the importance of Yakshagana in the genre of South Indian theatrical literature. The fact that Sahitya Akademi, an organisation supported and recognised by the Govt of India, has provided several pages of information on this is proof enough. I have rephrased that sentence you pointed out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fowler has it occured to you that these sources you are talking about may be focussing on "classical literature" only and not "folk literature". Any why should we limit ourselves to these sources. You mention that two of the sources whose work is published by Sahitya Akademi (Prabhu Prasad and Shiva Prakash) do not mention Yakshagana, but I have sourced other publications by Sahitya Akademi that dwell at length on Yakshagana. See vol 3 of "Encyclopaedia of Indian literature" I have referenced. Why should we limit ourselves to Narasimhacharya, Pollock and Shiva Prakash when it comes to Yakshagana.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5)Regarding Sarvajna: Fowler, you finally came to the point I had expected you to. Sarvajna is a drifter. Just every book, including Prabhu Prasad, Shiva Prakash and Naikar call him "poet of Karnataka". Not poet of North Karnataka or Poet of Dharwad. His impact is felt everywhere. Remember, you changed the name of the article which had no geographical limitations. Now you cant say "Gotcha". We come to wikipedia to build articles. Not "gotcha" the author and drown the article. If the article had been called Kannada literature, xyz, you could not have made this an issue. You changed the name of the article to what it was before my expansion of the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6)Fowler, you have been through this act of condemning my sources in other FAC's too without understanding what information those sources bring to the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Sandy

Fowler has moved my response to his post 6 to the talk page.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch As noted I peer reviewed this and find that it has improved, but still has some places needing improvement. I am not an expert on India or any of its many cultures and their literatures. These are just points I found on a careful reading of the article that may need to be fixed (or may be my ignorance showing). Because of time constraints I will only comment on the Lead and Overview for now.

Issues resolved (more coming) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch overlinking - Vachana is linked twice in the lead, one time as "Vachana" and once as "vachana" - this should also be consistent, although I do not know which is preferred.
  • The last sentence in the lead also seems to say vachana is free verse (A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic, were popular including tripadi (3-line verse), shatpadi (6-line verse), vachana (free verse) ...) but the Lit. prior to the 16th Cent. section says they can be in several metres ... pithy poems called Vachanas (lit, "utterance" or "saying")[17][18] propagated devotion to the god Shiva and were written in the native prose-poem, tripadi, hadugabba (song-poem) and free verse metres.[19][20] I realize in the elad one is capitalized and one not, but both link to the same article and seem to be the same thing
  • In the lead, I do not think of prose as a metre, so perhaps change this A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic, were popular including tripadi (3-line verse), shatpadi (6-line verse), vachana (free verse) and gadya (prose) metres.[12] to something like ...including tripadi (3-line verse), shatpadi (6-line verse) and vachana (free verse) metres, and gadya (prose).[12]
  • To provide context to the reader, I think it would be helpful to add an explanatory phrase describing both Veerashaivism and Vaishnavism (not in the lead, but at their first mention in the Literature prior to 16th century section) which explains that they are worshippers primarily of Shiva and Vishnu (I think more than a link is needed). I note that Shiva is mentioned later in this section, but not Vishnu that I can see.
  • Per WP:HEAD, should the section named "Literature prior to 16th century" just be "Prior to 16th century" (already know this is about Literature)?
  • Problem sentence "The early Veerashaiva literature (1150–1200 CE), comprising pithy poems called Vachanas (lit, "utterance" or "saying")[17][18] [which?] propagated devotion to the god Shiva and were written in the native prose-poem, tripadi, hadugabba (song-poem) and free verse metres.[19][20]" I think a word is missing and have suggested "which". I also think lit, should be literally or perhaps lit. (full stop or period, not a comma at the end). Italicized "lit" followed by a comma is used again in the artticle, so if it is changed here it should be fixed throughout
  • The capitalization of Kannada words seems inconsistent, although this could be reflecting their transliteration into English (they may be capitalized differently in Kannada). For example why are these lower case: "native prose-poem, tripadi, hadugabba (song-poem)" while these are capitalized: "such as the Kirthane (compositions based on rhythm and melody), the Suladi (rhythm-based) and the Ugabhoga (melody-based).[27]"?
  • Although Keladi is linked in the lead, I would link it again in The Kingdom of Keladi was centred at Keladi and near by Ikkeri town in the modern Shivamogga district. I also think it should be "nearby" not "near by"
  • I would also link Karnataka on its first use in the next sentence
  • Would adding a word help here A spurt in Vaishnava writings resulted in [new] renderings of the epics, the Mahabharata, ...?
  • The caption Yakshagana artists preparing for the play is a bit cryptic and makes it sound as if there is only one play they ever perform. Looking at the image information, would something like Yakshagana artists applying makeup to prepare for a play be clearer?
  • I am not clear why some Kannada words are italicized (which seems proper by the MOS) but others are just given in quotations, such as in Yakshagana theatre where the usage is with quotation marks such as this: The "Yakshagana Tenkutittu" (lit, "Yakshagana of the southern style") is popular primarily in the Mangalore region ... why is it not like this: The Yakshagana Tenkutittu (lit, "Yakshagana of the southern style") is popular primarily in the Mangalore region ... ?
  • Unclear what the names Nagachandra and Aggala after the dates in the parentheses are in a term which appears in the 12th century Kannada writings Mallinathapurana (c. 1105, Nagachandra) and the Chandraprabha Purana (c. 1189, Aggala[40]).[41] If they are authors, perhaps ...Mallinathapurana (c. 1105, by Nagachandra)... would be clearer
  • Inconsistent citation in According to the scholar M.M. Bhat (Yakshagana-Stage in Karnataka, 1963), Chattana, a native composition adaptable to singing ... "Yakshagana-Stage in Karnataka, 1963" should be in an inline ref I think
  • Missing word? WOuld this read better as the Vaishnava bhakti (devotion) movement which started with the 6th century Alvars of modern Tamil Nadu and spread northwards, reached [its] peak influence on South Indian devotionalism with the advent of the Haridasas of Karnataka.[47]  ?
  • Any way to avoid using "poets" four times in two sentences in Though some poets, such as Tontada Siddhalingayati (1540), Swatantra Siddhalingeswara (1565), Ganalingideva (1560), Shanmukha Swamy (1700), Kadasiddheswara (1725) and Kadakolu Madivallappa (1780) attempted to re-popularise the tradition with noteworthy poems, they lacked the mastery of the 12th century poets.[50] The most notable of the later day Vachanakaras ("Vachana poets") were undoubtedly the wandering poets, Sarvajna and Sisunala Sherif (late 18th century).[51][52] ?
  • Would this A new genre of mystic literature, a synthesis of the Veerashaiva and the Advaitha philosophy, called the Kaivalya literature,... be clearer as A new genre of mystic Kaivalya literature, a synthesis of the Veerashaiva and the Advaitha philosophy, ...?
  • Missing an "and" I think English language education, the role of missionaries, their translation of the Bible into Kannada in 1820, the arrival of the printing press, publication of newspapers and periodicals, [and] the earliest Kannada-English and English-Kannada dictionaries helped to modernise Kannada prose.[58]
  • Is the verb tense "has" correct in This was followed by the earliest social plays with similar themes, a trend that has already set roots in the modern literatures of Marathi and Bengali languages.[60]? It seems like it should be "had" .

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, on 17th century writings

  • Better wording for From this period, the foundation of an independent state that would influence regional polity and culture was laid. perhaps T he foundation of an independent state that would influence regional polity and culture was laid in this period.
  • Clarify this - is the earliest available ever or just in the Mysore Kingdom or just in the 17th century? The earliest available writings are by Tirumalarya I (or Tirumala Iyengar), ...
  • Can the other works be briefly explained His other writings are the Ashwashastra, Hayasara Samucchaya and Brahmottra Kanda.[64] Are they religious works? Political? Historical?
  • Missing word? Toward the end, impressed with Arjuna's devotion, Shiva bestows [on?] him a weapon called Pashuptastra.[69][72]
  • Last paragraph of "Transition from Vijayanagara" - some works have just title, some have title and year, some have title, year, and brief description - probably should be consistent in terms of information provided for noted works
  • Missing "and"? The king's other works are commentaries on the Bhagavata and the later chapters of the epic Mahabharata, a thirty verse poem called Chikkadevaraya binappa ("Kings Petition"), [and?] a collection of devotional poems composed in praise of the god Cheluva Narayanaswamy of Melkote.[82][83]
  • Problem sentence: Singaraya, a brother of Tirumalarya II, wrote Mitravinda Govinda (1680), the earliest available classical drama in Kannada, a play inspired by the Sanskrit drama Ratnavali ("Pearl necklace" by King Harsha of Kannauj).[95] Among notable women poets, Srirangamma (1685) wrote Padmini Kalyana ("Marriage of Padmini"), and Sanchi Honnamma (lit. "betel bag"), a Vokkaliga from Yelandur ... First are the italics correct for "Sanchi Honnamma"? Second, this is a very long sentence and could be split after (lit. "betel bag"). The Vokkaliga phrase starts oddly as it is. Wait, I think Sanchi Honnanama is the new subject and was a Vokkaliga?? Anyway this is unclear and probably should be split.
  • Would it help to add king before "Chikka Devaraja" a few more times in Golden Age to remind readers who he was?
  • Need a ref for A few of his later poems give more hints about his adulthood, his Guru and a possible unsuccessful marriage.

Looking better, hope this helps, will work through the other sections too, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more Ruhrfisch comments (almost all on 18th and 19th and 20th centuries). I have made some copyedits too - please revert if I introduced errors or changed the meaning:

  • One last 17th century comment - do the two poems by Sarvajna need inline refs? Also might need an inline ref for the poem from Giriyamma.
  • Problem sentence - not sure how to fix it Musical instruments the prasanga is rendered to include maddale and chende (types of drums), and a sruti (harmonium-like instrument).
  • Is there a date for the discovery in His fourteen Yakshagana compositions, written in various languages but in the Kannada script, were discovered at the government manuscripts library in Chennai.[115]
  • The regular spelling is "minstrel" - is this correct these itinerant Haridasas made valuable contributions as "ministrals of God".[117] ?
  • Final comment - I have pointed out or corrected all the places needing attention that I could find. I have read and in some cases reviewed the other Kannada literature articles - the ones for a particular period are also organized by a particular kingdom or empire, so I think the title and scope covered here is fine. I also know Jainism experienced a general decline in this time period, so it seems reasonable to me to expect that were fewer notable Jain authors and works in this era. I hope my comments help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning towards support, but want to reread the article and perhaps do some more copyedits first. However, I will have to wait until tomorrow to do that. I did look at the lead just now and have two comments. First, could the sentence The writings date from around 1600 CE to the mid-20th century. also talk about the kingdom, so perhaps The writings date from the Kingdom of Mysore, which existed from around 1600 CE to the establishment of modern India in 1947. I think it would tie the literature into the title better. Second, per WP:LEAD a lead is supposed to summarize an article and give an idea of the broad themes and trends in it, without too much detail. I found the four tags which are now in the first paragraph of the lead (ambiguous, vague (twice), and off topic) to be unnecessary and unhelpful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Laser brain for the copyedit (I did not do any more copyedits). I find the article is well written and nicely illustrated. There are many references and to my eye they appear to be used correctly and from reliable sources. I take Fowler&fowler's critiques seriously, but it also seems to me that at least part of the problem is different perceptions as to what should and should not be in the article. It seems to me that there are at least two ways to look at Kannada literature: time and space. When I peer reviewed this article, the title was soemthing like "Kannada literature from 1600-1900", which was only limited in time. Fowler&fowler was the loudest voice insisting the title be reverted to the current version. The problem is that doing so can be seem as limiting the scope of the article only to literature composed within the Kingdom (limited to space), which seems to be much of Fowler&fowler's criticism. I see the article as covering all literature written in Kannada, during the time of the Kingdom of Mysore (limited to the time period 1600 to 1947, limited in space only to southern India). If this is correct, it seems to render much of Fowler&fowler's critiques moot. I wonder if both Fowler&fowler Dineshkannambadi could please comment on this? If my understanding is correct, then perhaps if the title were something like "Kannada literature during the Kingdom of Mysore" this would be less contentious? If I have understood the article correctly and this title would be better, then there are other places where this emphasis could be made clearer / more explicit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Ruhrfisch. Fowler's revert of the article's name is a primary problem here. Though not the author of the article, he reverted the name hence limiting the scope to Mysore only, when the intention of the author (myself) was never to limit the scope of the literature within any geographical constraints. This is why I brought up the issue in the nomination. I agree that the article's name should be moved to a more inclusive one. Wikipedia is about concensus and Fowler can't dictate the "title" and the "content".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply to Ruhrfisch
Thank you for your review. I will pay close attention to your comments starting tonight. regards Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help - these are pretty nitpicky, one reason why I stopped was so that if a problem can be fixed throughout the article (or if I did not understand something), then I do not have to mention it again in later sections, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing Corrections based on Ruhrfisch comments
  • Removed Vachana since it was mentioned twice in lead. Replaced with Sanskritic Shatpadi metre.
  • Removed Hadugabba (song-poem). This is an ancient native form. Nothing to do with Vachanas though some Vachana poets are known to have popularised singing the Vachanas (which are written as rythemic prose-poems).
  • Seperated Gadya prose from list of metres.
  • Clarified what is Veerashaivism and Vaishnavism
  • Trimmed title of first section after lead per WP:HEAD
  • Added suggested [which], corrected lit, to lit. Will find other examples and correct them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made composition styles all lower case for consistancy.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinked and corrected suggested word
  • Wikilinked
  • Added suggsted word
  • Fixed image caption
  • I normally use italics for metres, genres, other composition styles, names of Writings, Honorifics, Titles in vernacular. "Yakshagana Tenkutittu", "Yakshagana Badagatittu Bayalaata" and "Nagamandalam" dont come under any of these categories. They are local names. But I will make it italics any. I will keep Yakshagana as is without italics because it is a borad term like the English word "Stage".
  • Specified poet names

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created inline note for inconsistant citation.
  • Added missing word
  • Reduced over usage of "poet" in two sentences
  • Fixed sentence on Kaivalya literature
  • Added missing "and"
  • Fixed tense.

I have started to and will continue to read the article for similar errors and make necessary corrections. Thanks again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections based on Ruhrfisch comments on 17th century writings
  • Corrected sentence per example
  • Specified earliest available from Mysore period
  • Ashwashastra, Hayasara Samucchaya and Brahmottra Kanda-- I will try to find more information on these works.
    • Corrected wording. Multiple sources concur that Chamarajokti was written by the king himself, but the the three mentioned above were written "during" his reign but does not say who wrote it and about what it was. I will remove it for now, if it is sticking out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added missing word
  • Last paragraph of "Transition from Vijayanagara"--I have specified 17th century for works whose exact dates I don't have. Will look for them in more sources though. Same w.r.t brief information on content of writing. If the exact dates are not available, the patron king's ruling years would give the idea.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actully the 30 verse poems is Chikkadevaraya binappa. Improved wording.
  • Problem sentence--Improved sentence. Removed italics for Sanchi to reduce complexity, reworded for clarity. Please see if this reads okay.
  • Added "king" few more times.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided citation. Modified to avoid speculation by source.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements based on Ruhrfisch's comments dated March 1st
  • Provided inline refs
  • Simplified sentence regarding musical instruments
  • Will look for a date of discovery at Chennai (in the sentence fourteen Yakshagana compositions)
  • Corrected spelling
  • Thank you for you comment on the decline of Jain literature and the title of the article. As I have mentioned earlier, I am flexible with the title, so long as the content of the article is "intact". Again, thank you for your decent and patient review. Whether this article becomes a FA or not, Kannada will remain a classical language, something the Govt of India has recognised on Nov 1, 2008. It's wealth and contribution to Indian culture can't be diminished by the success or failure of this article at FAC.Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biased in that there is a deliberate attempt in it to downplay the Jain literary heritage. "Despite a gradual decline in the popularity of Jainism, authors devoted to the faith produced some works of merit." This statement doesn't go well with the rest of the article which mentions many Jain writers as notable and the single author (Bhattakalanka Deva) most elaborated upon in the article is a Jain.

The intro itself is poorly written. "During an age of revival and innovation, some Mysore court poets brought back the classical champu (a composition in prose-verse) form of writing." When did this age happen? Throughout the period of several centuries which spans the scope of this article? It is vague. I have added a citation-needed tag in the intro, too.59.91.253.126 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandy and Moni3
Sandy, The above IP appears to be that of a banned user I had mentioned earlier.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) earlier.[reply]
Dineshkannambadi, I removed the previous IP comment because it was a vague generalization, barely civil, and not helpful. This is different, and I will allow it to stay. If you cannot overcome the IP's objection, state why so Sandy can take this into account when she closes the FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to IP:No, the article is not biased. It is accepted widely that Jain writings in Kannada declined, a decline that began in the 13-14th century itself. Just claiming bias means nothing. True, I have mentioned some Jain writers, but the number of Veerashaiva and Vaishnava writers is far many more. However, if you can bring reliable citations from scholars to prove that Jain writers were equal in number to the other faiths, I would be glad to accomodate it. I have added a few citations, of which there is no shortage.
  • The earlier period when champu form of writing dominated was 9th-12th century. Some champu's are available from 13th century also, but the decline is clear. Will provide more citations if necessary.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning toward support. This is quite good, and I think it's close to ready. I don't see any evidence of bias and it appears quite neutral. I did find a lot of minor prose issues, most of which I fixed as I went along. Those I couldn't sort out (or didn't have time) are listed below. Great work - there is an impressive amount of research and writing represented here. I just have to note that I love the Sarvajna verse about the tongue living amongst the teeth.
    • Why are we placing tags in the text instead of commenting here? It is difficult to track feedback in two different places. I simply do not see any reason why these tags are warranted; they should be removed.
    • Normally citations are not required in the lead unless a statement is particularly controversial - why are they present?
    • You are not consistently writing "best-known" and "best known"; there are more of these than I care to look for and fix. Choose one.
    • You aren't consistent with serial commas in lists. I fixed what I saw but please check throughout.
    • "This literature saw a revival in the 18th and 19th centuries." Please revise this... living things "see", literature doesn't.
    • "The work differs from the original in that the god Krishna and his Gopikas' are the protagonists of the play instead of Krishna and his consort Radha." I couldn't sort out why there is an apostrophe after "Gopikas". That's plural, not possessive.
    • When I saw them, I removed the word "town" written after city names. This doesn't seem to be an English-language standard, but please correct me if there is a good reason.
    • "The first half of the 18th century saw Mysore's independence delicately balanced ..." Same comment about "saw" as above.
--Laser brain (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into your concerns carefully today and address them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Laser Brain
  • I have removed the tags based on comments by Ruhrfisch and yourself.
  • Regarding the citations in the lead, this came about in earlier FAC's on literature articles, where the reviewers requested it. So I have just continued the habit here. I am not sure how to proceed on this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took care of a few more best-known and well-known types issues. Will continue to be on the look out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "saw", made it "literature was revived".
  • Removed apostrophe in Gopikas.
  • The use of "town" after the name is a habit that came from other articles where reviewers insisted on it. I will remove it in this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed several occurances of the word "town" after town name. More laterDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed re-occuring "saw". Reworded.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Sarvajna poem is my favourite one too.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, this important article needs to be written to high standards because (i) it's an FAC, and (ii) it's on a literary topic. Nothing less than fine writing is required to do justice to Kannada literature.

  • Opening repetitions and winding pathway: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed in the Kannada language, a Dravidian language spoken in the historical Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India and written in the Kannada script." Literature/literature/language/language/written/script. Phew. Rather than circular statements (literature is literature) and redundancies ("composed", "the" and "language"), rationalise it and rob something from the subsequent sentences (time-range?). It's a very unengaging opening for what should be a fascinating topic. "of merit" is POV in this context; anyway, it's damning with faint praise. Leave the judgements until we read about it in greater detail below.
  • "Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on." Clunky sentence, in which there's not much content for the number of words. Ouch.
  • Comma after "Keladi", which is not a person, so "whose" is better avoided.

This needs the attention of copy-editors; it's not an easy task, since just about every sentence needs fixing throughout. Do you know how to find the right assistance? I suggest you "WRR" (withdraw, re-edit and resubmit, probably as a plainer-sailing FAC. Tony (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. I will try my best to have it copy edited.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all reviewers regarding earlier expansion of article

Fowlers claim that the article's name was changed without much addition to the article is false. The expansion began on Nov 7th 2008. On Dec 16th, after significant expansion I changed the name of the article, by which time, the article had virtually doubled in content and citations. Please see the edit summary when I moved the title .[66]. Also, I dont see why the title should cover the period 1600-1800 only, requiring a third of the article to be removed, when Fowler himself had voiced "why not 1600-20th century" multiple times in this FAC. Please see F &f's posts 4 [67]and 5. Why the switch? The intent is to protect well cited content and bring the info to the people.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that description does match the record. On the 13th of December 2008, user:DK was "pondering" changing the name of the article and left this post on user:Michael Devore's talk page, (See talk page post of 13 December, 2008) which began with: "I have been pondering over changing the name of the article to something that is more inclusive of a new section I want to introduce. This new section will deal with poetry written in the Northern Karnataka region, outside the Mysore kingdom, for completeness. But so keep in mind that most of the literary production that is documented and available today is from the Mysore court." Until then, no indication was given anywhere that a page name change was anticipated. The above post, moreover, was made several days after the Kingdom of Mysore FAR (involving KLKM article's parent article) had begun, but only three days before the page name was changed (for which the usual Wikipedia protocols for controversial page moves were not observed). I have replied to user:DK's other points in my post 7 above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid it does not. Am I supposed to tell everyone on wiki what I have been pondering over, from when and how long?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some observations on F &f's post7.7

I would like to point out a contradition in Fowler's statement. Fowler wrote:For example, for the period, 1600–1760, why is the "Kingdom of Mysore" even important for Kannada literature? Mysore was a small principality which covered less than a third of the area of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India.

  • All along, Fowler insisted that the title of the article should be "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore". But now Mysore has become a small principality between 1600-1760 whose contribution to Kannada literature is being questioned. How does the area of Mysore matter to literature?. And just above, in the same paragraph, Fowler wrote If user:DK would like to change of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1800," I will have no objection (or call it late medieval/early-modern Kannada literature), but that's is a different article and a third of the present text will have to be removed. These are contradictions within contradictions. Let me quote Fowler's favourite author D.R. Nagaraj (page 377) whom he has quoted above with regards to Yakshagana:
  • Quote:"At least two courts have been mentioned earlier, Keladi (1500-1763) and Mysore (1610-1947)—had organised around themselves a cultural intelligentsia capable of writing on diverse subjects". I can provide another 20 quotes easily why Mysore is important.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Regent Spark

My main concern with the article is the excessive number of references. I know that sounds odd, but, when I see an article where almost every sentence is referenced, I have to wonder about the degree of synthesis or original research. However, without reading the citations, I'm not sure I can confidently state that the article is a reasonably accurate representation of what is known about Kannada Literature (in or out of the Kingdom of Mysore) or whether this is a view about that subject that is available only on wikipedia so I'll point out a few obvious examples of this synthesis (perhaps the principal author can fix them), but will leave it to others to decide whether the text is encyclopedic or interesting but original research.

  1. Overview. First para. The article states that Kannada literature was influenced by three important socio-religious developments and cites two different texts as support for the three developments leading me to conclude that the three influences are conclusions drawn by the editor rather than by scholars. If there are three important influences, there should be one clear reference that says that this is so.
  2. Genres. In many cases, it is not clear whether the literature genres are generally accepted ones or whether they are the editor's own groupings. For example, the sections entitled "Court and monastic literature' and 'Folk and didactic literature' do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work that identifies these as historical genres. For an example of what would be ideal, the sub-section Haridasa literature starts with a clear definition of the genre that is properly referenced.
  3. Golden age. The section entitled Golden age makes no reference to any scholar who identifies it as being a golden age. Ideally, the first sentence of the section should read "the period blah-blah has been identified as the golden age for Kannada literature.{cite1, cite 2, cite3}" (BTW, a minor point, but there seem to be two golden ages - one in the 17th/18th centuries, and another in the mid-20th century - see the last para of the article.) (Or, do you mean golden age of the kingdom?)
  4. I'm a little stuck for time these days and can't actually look up the references, but the one that I did has been (mildly) mis-characterized. Para 2 of the article states: During an age of revival and innovation, some Mysore court poets brought back the classical champu (a composition in prose-verse), a form of writing that had prevailed in Kannada prior to 13th century. However, the quoted reference (Shipley) identifies this period only as an 'age of revival' (no mention of innovation), mentions this period only briefly and uses the words efforts were made to revive (Campu) without actually saying if these efforts were more or less successful.

(I'll try and add more constructive comments later.--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Other comments
  1. Main article link to Kannada literature in 'prior to 16th century section. 'main article' should be used if the subject of the section is also the subject of another, more detailed, article. In this case, Kannada lit. is much broader. (Perhaps the intention was to place the link under overview?)
  2. I'm not sure what 'contemporary developments' refers to. Contemporary to what? The way I read it, the entire text under contemporary developments provides an overview of the different historical genres of Kannada lit. and covers the entire period that the article covers. In that case, the section title is misleading.
  3. Under 'Court and monastic lit.' the section starts with a reference to the center of Kannada lit moving away from the Vijayanagar empire to the kingdoms. However, there is no prior reference to this. Typically, you want the article to summarize the state of the lit. in the period before the article, describe in detail the state of the lit. during the period of interest, and summarize what went on in the period after. However, you do want connected themes. Perhaps the prior to 16th century section should include a brief description of Kannada lit in the Vijayanagar empire.
  4. Where you say "The Mysore court became the inheritor of the Vijayanagara literary legacy", do you mean inheritor of the Kannada literary legacy or all lit. leg. (incl., Sanskrit, Tamil, etc.)?
  5. Belonged to the 'Pampa' tradition... You should (briefly) tell the reader what this tradition is.

--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regent Spark's responses to Dineshkannambadi's replies
  1. Meaning of literature genres are generally accepted and do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work. This is fairly straightforward. When writing an encyclopedia article, care must be taken that the editor does not 'create knowledge' but faithfully reports what others have created. If the editor identifies a group of literary works as belonging to 'court and monastic literature' then that grouping should have been done by an established scholar in the field elsewhere first. Thus, for the article to be encyclopedic, the grouping must be anchored with a reference to the established scholarly work that groups the works that way. If no established scholarly work has grouped the works that way, then we should not do so on wikipedia.
  2. Golden age. From your response, I'm afraid this sounds like WP:OR to me. What you're saying is that you've collected information from 9 distinct works to describe a period of work that you've identified as important and, because no scholar has given the same importance to that period, you have to come up with a name for it on your own. Such naming is best left to scholarly work that can be peer reviewed. If a single clear reference exists, you should summarize its contents and not have to resort to using 22 citations from 9 works to describe the period and then have to come up with a name. A good rule of thumb is 'do not use a term that has not been used elsewhere'.
  3. Thanks for fixing the main article, contemporary definition, and vijayanagar reference. All make for better reading. I'll try to reread Shipley tomorrow and see what the appropriate wording should be but, in general, it is better not to put loaded words in the mouths of the referred work and innovation is a loaded word.

--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 03:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your questions and concerns tonight.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to RegensPark concerns

I would like to thank you for dropping in with your concerns.

  • 1)Quote:"Kannada poets may be roughly classified as Jains, Virashaivas and Brahmanas. There are also authors of other sects, but their number is comparatively small. The earliest cultivators of the language for literary purposes were the Jains and down to the 12th century, we have with very few exceptions, only Jain authors. For about three centuries after that period, we have along with them a few Brahmana writers and a pretty large number of Virashaiva authors, and from about the 15th century date numerous brahminical writers and Virashaiva works. There are, however during these later periods, some compositions by Jains, but most of the literature of later times originated from other sects." (Narasimhacharya p. 17).

Some scholars (like E.P. Rice, p 15–16) use Vaishnava in place of Brahamanas. Brahmin is a Hindu caste, they follow the Vaishanva faith. The other citation I have provided, from Shiva Prakash, goes into more detail specifically on Virashaiva (also spelt Veerashaiva) and Vaishanva writings. Sometimes I give multiple citations to provide more information to the interesed reader.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2)Genres: Here, in the two sections you mention, "court and monastic" and "Folk and didactic" literature, there are three genres discussed, broadly speaking:Vaishnava, Veerashaiva and Yakshagana. I have referenced eight sources in all, in these two sections. It would help me to better answer your question if you can clarify what you mean by literature genres are generally accepted ones and do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work. Are you suggesting the genres (one or more) are not historically important, or that the historically important genres are not properly studied, or the referenced scholars are not scholarly enough.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3)Golden age:Quote:"A remarkable development of literature took place in the latter part of the century during the rule of Chikkadevaraja Odeyar (1672-1704), one of the most distinguished kings of Mysore"..... (Narasimhacharya p.23). Odeyar is an alternate spelling for Wodeyar. Quote:"He was a great patron of poets and scholars.....It was a period of great literary activity in Kannada." (with reference to Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar's reign, Kamath, p. 230);Quote:"Chika Deva Raya's reign (1672-1704) calls for special mention in Kanarese literature." (E.P. Rice, pp. 89-90). I felt titling a section "Remarkable age" or "Great age" or "Special age" would be awkward. So I called it "Golden age". Do you want me to change "Golden age" to something else?. I can go on providing references, ofcourse, but then it could be considered synthesis.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4)Actually, the innovation part was explained later in 17th century and 18th century sections. I have now added the innovative part to the lead which Shipley describes in the very next sentence. He uses the word "initiated" and I felt it would awkward to say "in a period of revival and initiation". Regarding efforts were made to revive (Campu), he also says "Sadaksari is a Virashaiva poet with extraordinary fancy, and a mastery over classical Kannada". Champu (or Campu) writings fall under "classical Kannada". Sadaksari's (or Shadaksharadeva) three champu classics have been described in 17th century section. I did not write "revivied to the height of glory", just that it was "revivied" during that period. If I had written "attempted to revive", a reviewer may have asked me "did the Mysore poets try to revive and give up half way". Regarding mentions this period only briefly , Shipley describes the whole of 1500 years of Kannada literature (including earliest metrical passages from 500 CE) in 3 1/2 pages. The fact that the period of revivial is even mentioned, goes to show its importance. If you dont like the word "innovation", please give me an alternate word and I will gladly accomodate it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other responses to RegentsPark
  • Corrected loc of main article
  • Changed contemporary to 17th century
  • Gave context to Vijayanagara empire
  • Gave context to Vijayanagara empire in 16th century section
  • The Pampa tradition is actually explained when I wrote classical. I will add one more word to it for clarity.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be responding to concerns twice a day (morn/night) and try to clean up issues the best I can.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of Regent Spark's post, I have now created a subpage, Accuracy of sourcing in Kannada literature in KM FAC, where I have collated what I believe is definitive evidence both of the inaccuracy of paraphrasing in the article and of synthesis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. I did list some prose issue above and have found more since, but after carefully reviewing Fowler&fowler's points, I have grave concerns about the sourcing. I am particularly troubled by the heavy use of Pranesh, a locally-published dissertation I can't access and whose authority is highly questionable. Since this paper is seemingly not published in any peer-reviewed academic journals, we have no way of knowing its reliability or even its content. I'll need to see examples (that I can verify through a scholarly database) that reliable, academic sources consider Pranesh to be authoritative. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose - the structure is causing me a concern. There are many headings immediately followed by subheadings. Level 5 subheadings? You have left hand images under many of these subheadings which goes against WP:ACCESS. Then your types of charts vary in a large way, which causes a lack of formatting unity. I think you need to unify sections more instead of having a lot of tiny subsections. There are some other problems, as with those mentioned above. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:42, 6 March 2009 [68].

1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I've done several days of searching and have found no further information. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth Cyclonebiskit 15:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane editors should know by now that date ranges are not separated by WP:EMDASHes, rather by WP:ENDASHes. The syntax at {{Infobox Hurricane Small}} is too complicated for me to fix; please address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there is a faulty hyphen in {{Infobox hurricane season}} that should be an WP:ENDASH; pls get hyphens and dashes sorted in all of the hurricane templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the one you were thinking of? Potapych (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there are hyphens that should be WP:ENDASHes in the "Season summary" chart. Please understand the difference between a WP:HYPHEN, WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH; date and number ranges are separated by endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this article has an open peer review; peer reviews are supposed to be closed before nominating at FAC. Perhaps the Hurricane and Cyclone Projects should have an in-house peer review process to make sure nominations are prepared before coming to FAC? There are also faulty hyphens throughout the See also section; it is surprising that the Hurricane and Cyclone Projects, having so many FACs, have not prepared this article better for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do its called FAC :P - Nah all joking aside we do have an A Class Review but it doesnt work as no one really reviews their these days Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are a number of templates that need to be cleaned up by the Projects, as well as issues within this particular article; I suggest a better process for preparing for FAC, as there is such a backlog. Articles should not be at PR and FAC at the same time; pls withdraw this nom until it is prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be mostly fixed now, but with all the FAs and FACs that Hurricanes and Cyclones have, it is surprising to see all of those templates get so out of whack. Since FAC is so backlogged, please strive to have articles prepared before coming to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the chart in "Season summary" is still wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to reinstate as soon as basics are in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 [69].

Eastwood, Nottinghamshire[edit]

Nominator(s):  Chzz  ► 

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe, with minimal modification, it can be an exemplary article on a UK town. --  Chzz  ►  06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose First impressions are of an underdeveloped article, with many one or two sentence paragraphs, some list-y section (ie: notable people), an too short a lead. While I commend Chzz's enthusiasm, I do not agree that it would take only minimal modification to get the article up to standard. It is not ready for FAC and would fail a Good Article nomination. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs, ref formatting, and external links found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS, external links checker tool, and dabs checker tool.--TRUCO 00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unreferenced section, short stubby paragraphs, refs missing publishers and other needed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with previous commentators. This article is not yet fully developed and would struggle even at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 [70].

Overlord (2007 video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Stabby Joe (talk)

As the primary contributor to the article's current shape, I nominate this video game article for Featured Article (FA). The article presents a good deal of information on the game's gameplay, story, development, balanced reception and details on other linked products. Edits made thus far have been stable, without recurring vandalism nor any indication of such in the future. The information is sourced, and the images are appropriate for the text content. The article has gone through a successful Good Article and A-Class article Nomination. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, will look into those. Altough can I quickly ask will it matter when the access date added even if it was accessed before? Stabby Joe (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Doesn't matter when the access date is, as long as the source still is correct for the information in the article and its still a live link. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I should quickly point out that Game Rankings is under maintaince or something right now, just in case it looks like the link isn't working. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref format comments -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS (copy-and-pasted).
  • Some refs are duplicates, a name reference should be used.
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.theaudioguys.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=80 | title = Overlord Development Blog - Part One | publisher = The Audio Guys | date = 2007-08-30 | accessdate = 2007-11-12}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • A Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Different references are using the same name.
  • name=dev1 Multiple references are given the same name
  • GR360 Multiple references are given the same name
  • GRPC Multiple references are given the same name
  • DLCnews Multiple references are given the same name
  • PS3 Multiple references are given the same name
  • ignpc Multiple references are given the same name
  • wizardspeech Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could elaberate on this issue please, I'm not sure what the problem is currently. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text not in italics is the problem that was found, the italics is the suggestion on how to fix it. I explained in the main headers what should be done and the sub headers are the examples.--TRUCO 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. This article needs MoS cleanup; I got some of it and left some sample edits, but there is more. I also saw some British spelling, but US dates; which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now when you say US dates, is it any certain mention of dates or in general because if its the later then I'm not sure what needs to be done. Its UK spelling BTW. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She means that even though you use UK spelling, you also US-style dates (i.e. month before day—January 1 instead of 1 January). Consistency is needed, either use UK spellings and date formats or US spellings and date formats. Seems as if it would be easier to convert dates to UK format. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nowhere close to 1a. 1b concerns regarding the Development section. Not impressed when I see sentences like "The game was in development for over a year and a half which began in early 2006[3] and was first announced in May that same year,[4] with gameplay being unveiled at E3 2006." (third sentence of the article, no less) and "The game features a corruption feature, similar to that of the Fable games, but allowing the player to "be evil... or really evil,"[4] where certain actions and choices affect different aspects of the story and gameplay." Since when is "satire" a verb? "Early concept art seemed to show the Overlord, while roughly armoured the same as in the finished product, with a clearly visible human face as opposed to a dark covered shadow with lit up eyes." <-- cited to the screenshots(!); see WP:NOR. Why are the Development sections of video game FACs so often poorly fleshed out? Is this really what passes for GA/A-class nowadays? BuddingJournalist 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 [71].

Real Madrid C.F.[edit]

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's one of the best articles on wikipedia. Hadrianos1990 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments I scanned it and found a few minor things.

  • "The name "Ye-yé" came from the "Yeah, yeah, yeah" chorus in the Beatles' song "She Loves You" after four members of the team posed for Diario Marca dressed in Beatles wigs. The Ye-yé generation was also European Cup runner-up in 1962 and 1964." needs a ref.
  • "Real Madrid ended Manchester United's eight-year reign as the biggest earners in world football." not sure about the wording here, reign seemed an odd word to use since it's not an offical title.
  • A lot of refs not dated. #41, #46, #47, #53 (in fact that has nothing at all), #55-59 and #65. There could be more.
    1. 72 is just a URL
  1. Why is the section with References titled "Footnotes"?
  • "Though Perez's policy resulted in increased financial success based on the exploitation of the club's high marketing potential around the world, especially in Asia, it came under increasing criticism for being focused too much on marketing the Real Madrid brand and not enough on the performances of the team." needs a ref.

Don't really know enough about the club to check ifit covers everything. Prose and images seem fine though. BUC (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, 1c. You simply can't have anything but basic facts sourced to the club's web site (stuff simple enough to be in the infobox). Please withdraw and source the article to reliable, third-party sources. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Forty-one of eighty-three references are to the official site. Not only is that number high, but the history section is sourced almost exclusively to them. It would be one thing if they were only citing statistics, but they aren't. The possibility for bias is just too high. There are also still prose issues (ex. "Real Madrid lead the first edition until the last match, a loss to Athletic Bilbao meant they finished runners-up to Barcelona." Another: "The ye-ye generation was also European Cup runner-up in 1962 and 1964.") Giants2008 (17-14) 05:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to strong oppose per lack of response to comments. It's been six days since feedback began streaming in, and only a bare link has been fixed (and its reliability has been questioned). At a time when FAC is this busy, I see no reason to keep this article here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Clarke, pp. 70-73
  2. ^ a b c Croddy et all, p. 3 Cite error: The named reference "Croddy" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Clarke, pp. 70-73
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference FRWG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference kan5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference nanja was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference maha was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2009&oldid=940420257"