Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2011

August 2011

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:17, 30 August 2011 [1].

---

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Nominator(s): Fanaction2031 (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've worked day and night on trying to improve this article (and so have other users), improved the sections, and did most in accordance to the FA criteria. It is pretty stable, and it's reference formatting is clear and consistent, I also believe that it has a favorable prose, and consists of a "neutral point of view". If you do not support my opinions, feel free to state on what is wrong with the article, and I will do my best to correct it. Cheers! Fanaction2031 (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

The lead alone has many issues including but not limited to citation, unclear prose and MOS. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Citations
• {{Citation}} and {{Cite}} and the specific templates such as {{Cite news}} and {{Cite book}} generally are not mixed. Try converting those two into more specific citations. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "specific citations", can you link a Wikipedia article to the parameters? Or can you give any suggestions? Fanaction2031 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Prose'
• Try avoiding the n+ing phrasing such as with Peter Cullen and Hugo Weaving returning. A helpful guide is found here: User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done
• due to the film being --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done
• The script was written by Ehren Kruger, who collaborated in the writing of the second film. The film's story is set three years after the events of the last film. I can see three instances of the term "film", two of which are the second sentence. Perhaps you could be more specific. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done
• release date of July 1, 2011, to two days earlier, June 29, 2011, I thin the context is there. Two days earlier. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate more on this? Fanaction2031 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• in order to receive an early response to footage or in order for the footage to receive an early response? --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• release date of July 1, 2011, to two days earlier, June 29, 2011, in order to receive an early response to footage. The film was then released one day earlier This part is unclear. What really was the intention? --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done
• in unadjusted dollars what is that? --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Linked it.
• Critical reception was mixed to negative, praising the visuals but criticizing the writing, acting, and length. It reads like it was "Critical reception" who praised the etc etc. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate again? Sorry for the inconvenience. Fanaction2031 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• MOS issues
• As the Autobots continue to work for the NEST military force Link anyone? What is NEST? --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Linked. Fanaction2031 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• $1.1 billion worldwide, being the 10th film to cross the $1 billion link to the dollar signs please. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done
• fifth highest-grossing film of all-time all time here need not hyphen because it is not being used as an adjective. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done
• I can see block quotes which have quotation marks. That should be removed per Wikipedia:MOS#Block_quotations. --Efe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done

Oppose - agree with many of the issues raised by Efe above. In addition, there are problems with captions (those that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods), deficient FURs for the non-free media, overuse of non-free media, use of questionable sources (including but not limited to blogs), and inconsistencies in citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please list the inconsistencies and the unreliable sources? Also, elaborate more on the overuse of the non-free media. Fanaction2031 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape has revealed some duplicated content here.[2] It claims to be © 2010 Popular Weblog. Graham Colm (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, it is not duplicated from the site. The people who wrote this article and I have written the article, with no duplicates involved. Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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 14:43, 30 August 2011 [3].

---

September 11 attacks

Nominator(s): Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because following discussions and peer review, this article has stabilized and I think it's pretty good. As we come up to the tenth anniversary I'd like to see it one of our featured articles. I look forward to your comments, and the resulting improvements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Former featured article, has not been on main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even after three weeks, there was *not* a peer review (what there was on that page was a series of misstatements about citations in the lead, but no review): at minimum, I see numerous MOS issues that will need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose just on a read through, I see quite a few uncited paragraphs. Please do not ask me to withdraw the oppose until the MOS issues are taken care of. Once that is done, I'll take another look. Thank you for trying to bring quality to an article which gets many hits and will get many more in two weeks, and please see my oppose as a way of pushing you in that direction. I certainly have no intention of standing in the way of promotion, but we ain't there yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on prose, just covering the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• "(often referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day)": "in combination" dangles; see WP:Checklist#dangling.
• "Qaeda", "Qaida": consistent spelling needed
• "upon the United States": The bigger the event and the greater the passions, the more important it is to simply describe what happened before getting into the interpretation. Nineteen guys didn't launch an attack on the entire United States that day, even though that's an accepted interpretation; what actually happened was, they destroyed two buildings and damaged a third, killing around 3000 people. "in the United States" would be my call, but if reviewers disagree, Chicago prefers "on" to "upon" unless the word is followed by an event.
• "commercial passenger jet airliners": IMO this could be tighter; 4 words, and we still don't have a clear picture of the scale. I'd probably go with "jet airliners carrying x passengers", where x is the total number of passengers.
• "thousands of those working in the buildings": more accurate would be "thousands in and around the buildings"
• "U.S.", "US": consistency needed.
• "The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda members, and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act.": I'd delete "and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act", both because it's impossible to give a quick, neutral description of it suitable for the lead, and because a war isn't in the same category as political blather.
• "the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011": That's a few days away ... will it be ready or won't it? - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've now skimmed the first couple of sections. When there are this many prose problems (and other problems noted above and below), it doesn't work well to try to fix them at FAC. I'm sorry WP:PR didn't work; for this article, I recommend the military history project's A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, unfortunately - I admire the tenacity of contributors trying to engage with such an article, but it's not yet at FA standards. In addition to the undercitation noted by Wehwalt and the prose issues identified by Dank, there are MOS issues (overlinking, consistency issues, etc), image problems (stacking/sandwiching, caption issues, etc), and inconsistencies in reference formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS: ellipses, nbsps, MOSNUM attn needed at minimum. Prose issues are evident everywhere, here's a sample:

In the 1998 fatwā, al-Qaeda identified the Iraq sanctions as a reason to kill Americans: "despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million ... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres,

Yes, it's a direct quote, but it is easy enough to figure out how to shorten that quote to avoid three uses of "despite" in two lines. And is it really "once against"? Is that part of the quote? If so, a "sic" is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Having followed the evolution of this article for some time, my impression is that some editors who have recently been on the winning-side of some content-related issues are now trying to solidify these achievements by getting the article designated as a featured article on the project. (There are also some hints pointing to this interpretation in the rather voluminous talk page archives.) A number of uninvolved editors have pointed out a rather large number of issues that should be dealt with before the article could be promoted to featured article status. I share these concerns, and I would add the overuse of references in the lead section as another issue which should be addressed.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I am not aware of that, but the project is large and my time is limited. Can you back the first part of that up with links?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

- "the issue will arise again and again and again...it is one reason why this article is not likely to ever be FA level." Archive 55

- "Plainly put...the CT section has to go if this article will ever be FA potential" Archive 54

  Cs32en Talk to me  22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're opposing because the article doesn't detail the conspiracy theories? The Rfc's made it clear that the CT's were to be removed...what part about that did you miss?--MONGO 00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors have pointed out several reasons why the article's current version does not meet the Featured Article criteria (see above). I generally agree with their analysis, and I've given another reason (overuse of references in the lead) why the article, in its current state, should not be classified as a Feature Article.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Our reasons are actionable. FAC should not be used to beat a dead horse revisit issues disposed of at RfC. As for references in the lede, they aren't necessary and I don't consider doing that the best practice, but I don't think it's worth an oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It's obvious that a good deal of work has gone into this article, which given the highly emotional context, especially for Americans, is very commendable. It's equally obvious from the comments above that it has some way to go to get through FAC on this occasion. Even if it had been perfect, it would have missed the 10th anniversary, so why not withdraw now, get all the help you can to address the issues, and bring it back in the middle of next year. If it passes then, it would be an obvious contender for the 11 September 2012 TFA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  I believe that its best to leave it up and allow some editors the opportunity to use the advice and suggestions to get it to FA...there are a few of us that will have (such as myself) a lot of time to dedicate to this article this coming weekend. I feel confident once we address the finer points made by commentators here that if invited to revisit the page say on September 5th or the 8th, the opposition may reconsider their opposition.--MONGO 10:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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 14:43, 30 August 2011 [4].

---

Willamette River

Nominator(s): Jsayre64 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is already a GA, it underwent a peer review (found here) and problems were addressed, and then a group of editors (Finetooth, Shannon1, Valfontis, Pfly, and myself) have discussed the article's FA potential on its talk page. We have decided to nominate it, and we are confident that it meets the FA criteria. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Laenen and Dunnette
• FN 102: page(s)?
• No citations to Dodds
• FN 5: page(s)?
• Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors/editors
• FN 31, 40: page(s)? In general, multi-page sources need page numbers
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher and location for newspapers
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
• be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate states in citations
• Check alphabetization of Works cited list. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It should all be good now. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"near the river's mouth at the Columbia." sounds a bit funny.

"although Willamette Falls, just above Portland" the word "above" doesn't seem super clear.

"In the 21st century, major highways follow the river or cross it on one of more than 50 bridges." are all the bridges for major highways?

"major highways follow the river or cross it on one of more than 50 bridges. Since 1900, more than 15 major" overuse of "major" in too short a span.

"Despite the dams, other alterations, and pollution (especially on its lower reaches), the river and its tributaries support 60 fish species, including many species of salmon and trout." too busy with commas and parens.

"Part of the river's floodplain (the Willamette Floodplain)..." might be better as "Part of the Willamette Floodplain..." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Better now? Jsayre64 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good. I support the lede so far. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the first para of the body. "The upper tributaries of the Willamette originate in mountains south and southeast of Eugene and Springfield. Formed by the confluence of the Middle Fork Willamette River and Coast Fork Willamette River" seems like maybe it should be "the mountains" and "the Coast Fork"? Also "from the larger stream's mouth" the word "stream" is maybe OK, and maybe not. I'm getting the feeling there may be a few copy edits needed per para. The next one has 13 commas and 6 semi colons. And maybe that's fine, but it seems a bit odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope I took care of that. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments.
• First, I notice that you list the mouth as the confluence of two rivers. Is that standard practice? I thought, for example, that the Mississippi was the same name all the way to the end.

• I avoided switching between the two by just saying "mouth on the Columbia" or similar. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In the 21st century, major highways follow the river. Roads cross it on more than 50 bridges." - those two sentences are pretty short and cover the same content - could you combine them?

• Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Since 1900, more than 15 large dams and many smaller ones have been built in the Willamette's drainage basin" - given how few "15" is, could you give an exact number? Technically 100 would be "more than 15".

• If you add up all the dams on all of the rivers and creeks that flow into the Willamette, you end up with 371. The number fifteen counts the dams on the major tributaries of the Willamette, which is what we consider its drainage basin. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite the dams, other alterations, and pollution (especially on its lower reaches), the river and its tributaries support 60 fish species, including many species of salmon and trout." - I'll admit I was confused about the first part when I first read it. I suggest moving it around to something like: "The river... of salmon and trout; this is despite the presence of dams, other alterations, and pollution, the latter of which is especially prevelant on its lower reaches." That makes it much clearer what's going on.

• Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• In Course, you should probably establish the state. I know it's in the lede, but it couldn't hurt. Sometimes I just jump right into the first section.

• Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The main channel enters the Columbia about 101 miles (163 km) from the Columbia's mouth on the Pacific Ocean." - any way to avoid saying "Columbia" twice?

• Done: "… from the larger river's mouth on the Pacific Ocean." Jsayre64 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Arising at 438 feet (134 m) above sea level" - I just want clarification - do you mean that is the elevation it starts out at? I think you should say something clearer then, like "The river starts at 438...".

• Changed to "Beginning at 438 feet…"; I hope that's better. And yes, indeed, that is the source of the river. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "have detected reverse flows above Ross Island" - what does that mean?

• Added a note in parentheses. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Between about 15,500 and 13,000 years ago, the Missoula Floods, a series of large outpourings originating at Glacial Lake Missoula in Montana, swept down the Columbia River and backfilled the Willamette watershed." - you should probably have a dash instead of a comma after Missoula Floods to indicate you are explaining what the term is.

• Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the 1993 earthquake, you should specify the year and the currency type. And speaking of the earthquake, how is that related to the river? There's already a separate article on the Willamette Valley. And btw, what's the difference between the "Valley" and the watershed? I can vaguely guess (valley is the area between mountains, and watershed is defined as what water flows in), but they seem fairly overlapping.

• I linked to the article about the earthquake. It was a major earthquake in the valley, and is thus related enough to the river to justify its presence in the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The currency type is U.S. dollars. WP:MOS#Currency says "Use the full abbreviation on first use (US$ for the U.S. dollar and A$ for the Australian dollar), unless the currency is already clear from context." I think it is clear from the context. Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "About two million people lived in the Willamette River basin, 86 percent of them in urban areas, as of 2005" - two things. First, why "percent" and not %? And second, are there any more recent estimates? There was a recent census, after all.

• I updated the population statistics with a new source and changed "percent" to "%", as that seems to be what WP:PERCENT prefers. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to butt in here to disagree. It's a fairly minor matter, but the first guideline at WP:MOSNUM#Percentages says "Percent (American English) or per cent (British English) is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings." I think we are fine with "percent" here. Finetooth (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "it is the largest remaining unplowed native grassland in the region" - in what region? Oregon? Pacific Northwest? West of the Rocky Mountains? US? North America? Earth? Solar System? Milky Way galaxy? Local cluster? :P

• Specified, according to the source. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "During at least some points in history" - weak wording, IMO.

• Replaced with: "Although it is unclear exactly when…" Jsayre64 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The Willamette River and its tributaries were also heavily exploited; the Willamette area was even referred to as the "Willamette River fur trade"." - could you find a way not to use "Willamette" three times in one sentence.

Changed to "Fur traders also heavily exploited the Willamette River and its tributaries." Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "the Willamette, even though the Willamette" - redundancy?

You are quite right. I have removed a couple of reps of "Willamette" and recast slightly. Finetooth (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "was going on" - could you find a more professional way of saying that?

Replaced by "The expedition members noted extensive salmon fishing by natives at Willamette Falls, much like that at Celilo Falls on the Columbia River." Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Oregon City grew up around Willamette Falls " - see above

Replaced by "Starting in the 1820s, Oregon City developed near Willamette Falls". Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "to the United States government for $200,000" - as with before, the year and currency type would be good.

I added the year, 1855, but also removed what I considered unnecessary detail, including the $200,000, from this paragraph. Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Palmer, later criticized for bringing unnecessary risk to white settlers by angering the Native Americans and for often treating them unlawfully, was removed from the legislature in 1856." - that's a rather long clause before you get to the rest of the sentence. Try rewording.

You are right. I tightened the whole paragraph considerably. Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In 2011, the Army Corps of Engineers operates 13 such dams, which affect flows from about 40 percent of the basin." - the source was accessed in 2010, so how can it be "in 2011"?

Good catch. I removed the year and just let the present-tense verb carry the weight: "The Army Corps of Engineers operates 13 such dams... ". Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... is the Willamette Falls Dam, a low weir-type structure " - could you link to the latter portion?

Linked weir. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's my review up through and including "History". My biggest complaint about the article is the apparant redundant nature of the articles, such as Course of the Willamette River, Willamette Valley, Willamette Floodplain, and Willamette Valley. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments thus far. On this last matter, though, I'd like to point out that I created Course of the Willamette River to keep from freighting the Willamette River article with unnecessary detail. Whether Willamette Floodplain and Willamette Valley can both be justified on their separate merits is debatable, but that seems to me to be a side issue and not actionable here. Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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 14:43, 30 August 2011 [5].

---

Future of the Earth

Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the predicted future of the Earth, based on current scientific extrapolation. It disregards the possibility of large scale human intervention—the likelihood and effect of which is difficult to predict, or the impact of random mega-disasters. The latter is already covered by Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. It is presented as something of a survey of future trends, rather than presenting everything in great detail.

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already made its way through a pair of review processes (PR & GA) and I feel that it should satisfy the FA criteria. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals
  • I removed the one instance I saw.
• FN 7: publisher?
  • Added.
• Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
  • I've modified the templates to use the multi-author and multi-editor fields. They should now be as consistent as the templates will make them.
• Be consistent in how "et al" is notated
  • This should be fixed per the above.
• Compare FNs 8 and 11
  • Fixed the spacing of initials. Not sure what else you mean.
• USA or U.S.A.?
  • Fixed.
• What is CRC?
  • It's an abbreviation for Chemical Rubber Company, or CRC Press as it is now called. CRC is part of the book title.
• FN 25: check pagination
  • That's the format of the page numbering: 42–1, 42–2, and so forth. Not sure of a better way to indicate that.
• Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether initials are spaced (ex. "E. F.") or unspaced (ex. "J.F.")
  • I took care of this.
• FN 38: page(s)?
  • Added.
• FN 40: formatting doesn't match other book sources
  • I moved it down to the Bibliography.
• FN 49: can we omit the underscores here?
  • Looks like sfn works without underscores now, so I removed them.
• Watch for small formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I caught the last of those by converting to 'citation' templates. Actually I had to switch back to 'cite book' because the {{sfn}} template doesn't work with {{citation}}. So there is one instance in the Bibliography section that is caused by a template quirk.

Thank you for checking the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't want to be the one who pours cold water on this project, but I am worried about two things in the nom statement. First: "The article has been left to germinate for a year and a half since the GA", and then the request for "feedback on how this article can be further improved". These do not give me confidence that any serious attempt has yet been made to match the article with the specific FA criteria. FAC nominators should be reasonably sure that their work meets these criteria before bringing it here; this is not a place for article preparation. On the basis of the nomination statement, and the fact that the last peer review was nearly two years ago, it looks to me as though the nomination is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was not my intention to express the belief that the article is not ready for FAC. Rather, it had more to do with the fact that this is something of an open-ended topic that will be subject to change as new understanding is achieved and new ideas presented. I modified my statement accordingly. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion the article is too small. There are many other things you can write in it. What about the possibility of colliding the Earth with another astronomical object? Section "Human influence" can be extended, there is no separate section about the future of Earth's atmosphere. I heared that it will disappear in 5 billon year, and perhaps it is the closest catastrophe we expected. --Heller2007 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, random, unpredictable risks to humanity and the planet are covered by Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. What would you suggest I add about the future impact of humanity that doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL and isn't covered by Conservation biology, Global warming and Human impact on the environment? As for the topic of the loss of the Earth's atmosphere and the eventual fate of the planet, these are covered. Both are determined by the changes in the Sun, so they are discussed in the Solar evolution section. RJH (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you say that this article should not contain the information about unpredictable risks, the article title do not precisely identify the subject. I think you'll agree that such risks is the part of the future of our planet. So, you should clarify the title or write a few words about such risks in article. As for "Human influence", I just suggest to expand this section, insert more statistic information, for example. --Heller2007 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll see if I can add a short summary section on unpredictable risks that have a long-term, global impact on the planet. As for human influence, it is unclear to me exactly what you are looking for here. A pro-environmentalism message would be PoV pushing, and it also seems too short term a perspective for this article. I take the view that, if humans go extinct during this century, most likely by 65 million years from now it will be as though we never existed. (See Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event for example.) I'll see if I can find something about the expected time for the planet to recover after we're gone. Any other outcome is too unpredictable. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Added a paragraph on known but unpredictable risks to humanity. RJH (talk)

An alien invasion by an extraterrestrial life form is not a real scenario for known risks that can have a global impact on the planet. It's more concerned with science fiction and not conserned with the natural world. Conversely, there are some theories that claim that it is impossible to reach from one habitable planet to another in space. It is better to remove this information from the article in my opinion. --Heller2007 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you find that objectionable, but not nanotechnology, genetically engineered diseases, an artificial superintelligence or, for that matter, colliding planets? Sorry, the answer is and should be no. First, it is covered by the citation. Second, notable public figures have commented on the possibility, including Stephen Hawking. Thirdly, your statement about it being impossible to reach another planet in space is false. See interstellar travel.

I've attempted to address your concerns. if you want me to take them further, then I would appreciate something more specific. Thank you for your remarks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's a really good and interesting article, you have done a great job, thank you for that. I'm just trying to fix some problems that prevent article from becoming a featured. As for alien invasion, it's really hard to believe for that simple reason that the travel time of such an interstellar travel is greater than a lifetime of tipical civilizations. But maybe you are right, it is covered by the citation so it has a right to exist. Nanotechnology, genetically engineering and so on are really working. But there is no any convincing evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life forms, this is the difference. --Heller2007 (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Heller2007. I agree about the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life forms; at this point it's just a form of scientific extrapolation. But this is also true of much of the remainder of the article. As for the travel time problem, well there are conjectures about technology like von Neumann probes that could persist long after the originating civilization ends. In essence, the message is just that there's no way to really predict with absolute certainty what may happen if humans stick around. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments. I do not really like the lead. It simply does not summarize the article well. I think it should be rewritten. A number of more specific problems:

  I've overhauled much of the lead, but will try to do more as points suggest themselves.

1. loss of heat energy from the Earth's core It is not scientific. In addition, the heat flux from the core is only 1/7 of the total, not very significant (and the article's text says nothing about the core). A better way to communicate this idea is: "cooling of the Earth's interior".

   Okay, I changed the wording.

2. biochemistry at the Earth's surface I would say "chemistry".

   Fixed.

3. Milankovitch theory predicts that the planet will continue to undergo glaciation cycles It should be mentioned that glaciation cycles will continue only for a few million years (not forever as this sentence implies), until Antarctica moves away from the pole.

   While I can confirm that ice ages may occur when there is sufficient continental surface area located at the poles, I'm having trouble avoiding WP:SYNTH in trying to demonstrate this specific assertion. RJH (talk)

   I modified the text to indicate that the glacial periods will continue until the quaternary glaciation comes to an end. RJH (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

4. One billion to three billion years in the future, the steady increase in solar radiation caused by the helium build-up at the core of the Sun will result in the loss of the oceans and the cessation of continental drift. At the first glance, the solar radiation has nothing to do with continental drift. I know that it is due to loss of water, but a clarification is necessary.

   I indicated that the presumed end of continental drift is caused by the loss of the oceans.

Outside the lead I found the following problems:

1. By the time the Sun begins to grow as a red giant, the orbit of the Moon will have expanded several days I do not understand what it means? Probably several times?

   I decided to remove this sentence because I couldn't find a better source. The loss of the Earth's oceans might have some impact on the lunar tidal acceleration, but I haven't seen a source that treats that issue either. Best just to leave it out, I think. RJH (talk)

2. Other effects that can dissipate the Earth's rotational energy are friction between the core and mantle, tides in the atmosphere, convection in the mantle, and climate changes that can increase or decrease the ice load at the poles. The rotation of Earth is being slowed by Lunar and Solar tides only. The rotational energy is dissipated by friction including those between the core and mantle, the atmosphere and solid Earth. Convection in the mantle and pole ices can cause only minor short-term variations in the rotation rate. This sentence mixes friction mechanisms (calling them wrongly "other effects" that slow down the rotation) and real effects that cause minor variations of the rotational rate.

   I modified the sentence to only cover friction effects. RJH (talk)

3. There is one glaring omission in the article: the fate of the liquid core. Will it freeze sooner or later? How this will influence magnetic field generation, dynamical properties of Earth? Will this lead to changes in the plate tectonic and volcanism? What will be consequences of the loss of the magnetic field?

Ruslik_Zero 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ruslik0. I'll work on writing an improved lead and see what I can do to address your other concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments. Nicely written, interesting topic. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki...
  • Vulcanology could do with some expansion, in particular the impact of supervolcanoes and even less frequently but more seriously the creation of large igneous provinces such as the Deccan traps. The latest New Scientist has an interesting article on unusually hot blobs of "Ancient superhot Magma" under Africa and the Pacific.
  • C3 and C4. On the time scales we are considering the switch from C3 to C4 is just a matter of gradual evolution. As for life in the oceans I'm assuming you aren't just talking about life at Hydrothermal vents, so a mention of why photosynthesis could persist in water for longer than on land would be helpful.
  • In the short term the glaciation bit needs a little work, I'm assuming that the contrasting figures for a 5,000 and 50,000 to 130,000 delay in the next glaciation are because of contrasting projections and assumptions, if so this could do with clarification. I get the point that CO2 levels are liable to fall if we take humans out of the equation, but the carbon that we've extracted is going to take a while to get resequestered.
  • Supernovae, this section currently combines a frequency of every thirty years across the whole Milky way with risk/damage of events within 26 or 32 Light years and a probability of Supernovae being within 100 Lightyears. As the probability of a Supernova within 26 Lightyears is about sixty times less than within 100 lightyears this has a risk of being misleading.
  • Stellar encounters. This only mentions the possibility of a pass close enough to perturb the Oort cloud. There are also risks of closer encounters, much less likely, but whilst the odd Comet strike may cause a mass extinction, stellar near misses could see the Earth have its orbit radically altered or even be slingshotted into interstellar space.
  • Since the relevant halflives are well known I would have thought we could source some projections as to the rate of cooling of the earth's core. Also I'd be surprised if someone hasn't done some predictions as to what would happen if lack of water ended plate tectonics - that heat would get out eventually.
  • "However, no new species of existing large vertebrates are likely to arise" - I think you'll find that prediction is based on the next 100 to 1000 years, but your positioning it makes it look like a prediction for the next five million years, and on that timescale one would expect that many if not most large vertebrates of five million years time would be species that have not yet evolved.
  • On a more general note, where you talk about a previous event such as a local Supernova it might be useful to include evidence of past effects on Earth.

ϢereSpielChequers 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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 14:43, 30 August 2011 [6].

---

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article, on a highly important and unique aircraft, with a popular recognition effective making the Harrier an icon of an era, is a well researched, and well reviewed, article that is one of the better aviation articles to be generated to date, and is worthy of being considered to be one of Wikipedia's best works. The article has been extensively researched and developed, and I feel this is now above normal levels of quality, and serves as an example for other aircraft articles to be modelled upon. I also feel that the continued criticism of review shall fuel continued improvement and result in a further improved article. Kyteto (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A lot of work has gone into this article at its two A-class reviews at MilHist. I first dropped in on the review because, although not my area of expertise, it's an iconic aircraft. At that time, the article had clearly been painstakingly researched and put together, but lacked the polish or finesse of an A-class article or FA. After a lot of elbow grease from myself and others, I think it now has that finesse and deserves recognition as one of our best articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors

Think I've correctly addressed this issue. Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• FN 14: what kind of source is this?

Tweaked the citation with a catlogue url, but I don't understand what exactly you're asking me for? It is a publication from within the USAF. Kyteto (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether it was a book, journal, report, or other type of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Jefford 2005, Norden 2006 (unless these were typos?)

Typos fixed. Kyteto (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• No citations to Jackson 1973, Scott 2009

Removed entries. Kyteto (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure all page ranges use endashes (rechecked 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC), not done)
  • That was tedious, but done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Need page numbers for all book citations

I'll assume this is reference 56 alone. I'll look into resolving it. Kyteto (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The one I noticed is fixed, but is that the only one? Please advise as to if this is completed or not. Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FN 122 needs pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Have I addressed the right one now? I just took one out near there. Kyteto (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations, and if so what information is included and how it is formatted

I've done my best with this, is it good enough right now? Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, still some issues. For example, you need to specify whether "Washington" refers to D.C. or the state. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Addressed the example. Kyteto (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 99-101: formatting

I'm guessing this is to do with the date. I've put all available date information in place where available for all references. If a citation's date day-month-year is known, it is included. If the day is missing, I cannot include the day as I don't know it, thus I am only able to go to month-year on those few instances. I can either invent a day to please this requirement, or remove the days on 40+ entries; neither seem to be particularly truthful/informative. Kyteto (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually you're missing retrieval dates and have some strange italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Kyteto was referring to adding meaningless retrieved dates for original print sources that are now avaiable online. Retrieved dates have been added anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I need to understand if I am misinterpreting policy regarding rules, or I've simply made slips that for the life of me I am unable to spot for the 300 or so times I have viewed this article in the five months of refining work here. I need examples of where these slips are, so I can understand what I'm looking for. Because I'm just not seeing them. I'm not saying the errors aren't there, but I cannot fix what I cannot find, and the needle-in-a-haystack of 170 citations is not getting anywhere. I thank you for continuing to pay this article attention even now. Kyteto (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what Nikki's getting at: why are "David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Bethesda", "Army Command and General Staff Coll Fort Leavenworth", and Naval Postgraduate School Monterey italicised? Publications should generally be italicised, but those appear to be publishers (which should not). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it helps to know I'm looking to take away italics from items that shouldn't have them, over looking for items that should have them but don't; I think I have addressed this now; unless there was more depthes that I have missed. Kyteto (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Foreign-language sources should be notated as such

Done (unless I accidentally missed something) Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't speak the language used in this source, so can you elaborate on what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

It is the website of the Museum that houses one of the Harriers. I would assume that the best source that the aircraft is at this museum would be their own website. It isn't a polished website, but as my ability to read German goes, I would say it is official. Kyteto (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It starts off: "The flight exhibit at Hermeskeil is a family business founded in 1973." - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure about that one. Would it be possible to replace it? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's acceptable if it's a museum's official website being used to cite that that museum has a plane? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• In general, citation formatting could be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Some replies above, more work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Well written, some improvement thoughts below:

• Hatnote - 'Models' is a US term, 'variants' would align with this strongly British subject.

• Lead - A good summary of the article, 'flexible' and 'versatile' mean the same thing don't they? Perhaps replace with one better word.

• Infobox image - A bit dreary and right facing, inflight images are preferred (can link to the guideline if reqd). There is another Commons category not linked 'Harrier 1'. Seems to be overlap in Commons for the Harrier but getting anything fixed over there is hard work!

• Origins - Hawker Aviation is a redirect and is linked twice, we normally leave redirects but this name appears to be wrong (hence the redirect). Why link turbofan to jet engine when we have a turbofan article?

• Italics - Some designations are italicised (they are aircraft types so I believe they should not be), the tail numbers in aircraft display are treated as names and are usually italicised.

• Wikilinks - I think a sprinkle more would help for lay readers, who are Martin-Baker, what is a 'sortie', what is a transponder?

• Production - Ski jump text seems to be in the wrong section. How many were built? An order for 60 is mentioned but there are no production figures given in the infobox or in the variants section.

Finding a good source for the production numbers; I haven't found one in searches for months. As for the placement of the Ski-jump info, it didn't really fit under RAF, and where it is leads nicely into the navy variants. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have Mason - Hawker aircraft since 1920? It's listed in the bibliography. Orders and production numbers are given, I can add them to the article talk page if you don't have it. It's not straightforward as the numbers are scattered through the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have that book unfortunantly, that was added by somebody else kindly helping out. If it is a lot of work, perhaps only some of the numbers should be used; I do not wish to impose upon you. Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added the numbers from Mason with the page range at the article talk page, would have thought that the number built would been a fundamental fact for an aircraft type article? Per WP:VERIFY they can be added and cited even if they are not absolutely correct. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Op history (RAF) - Air field is one word. Grammar/plurals; Falklands conflict, a single threat is introduced but there are two given.

• Aircraft on display - Brooklands can be linked to Brooklands Museum as can Imperial War Museum North. The other museums should be red links (not a problem in a Featured Article).

• External images link - It's broken and according to the documentation should be removed anyway when other (internal) images exist. Seemed well out of place in the 'specs' section.

• Design (overview) - Seems a tiny bit short (this is effectively the bit on the aircraft itself). Does it have flaps, does it have conventional controls? Having to take the wing off for an engine change is a major pain and is sure to be mentioned in sources.

Expanded with some of the negative criticisms.Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Balance/NNPOV - Article is worded quite neutrally, leaning towards a glowing account (unavoidable because it was obviously a successful type). The engine change mentioned above would be a negative design feature. I believe the Harrier suffered a very poor accident rate in its earlier days (especially with the USMC?), there appears to be little mention of it apart from the word 'unforgiving'. I also believe that pilot selection was quite stringent in the RAF (noted in Mason's book) and possibly still was for the later variants (which have retired now I think).

Have seen the expansion on the engine change and flight safety record, might need to summarise the latter in the lead to reflect that paragraph (the lead could run to four paras if needed). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review Mostly good, one image with major problems, a few bits of information are missing, will detail those below. First though, a general comment; this page has, in my opinion, too many images. I'd remove File:Harrier GR3 233 OCU hovering 1984.JPEG and File:Dedalo(R01).jpg, and then move File:BELIZE 90 23.jpg to the right side of the page (same place in the prose, just swap the alignment in the thumb text). This would reduce visual clutter while sacrificing images that don't really add a great deal to the article (as the Dedalo is in the lead image and there are multiple RAF images in the section where the 1984 picture is). Now for the detail stuff:
  • File:Dedalo(R01).jpg The one with the aforementioned "major problems". Translation I got was "Scanning a photo of my property." That's not particularly acceptable as a source, as it dosen't say who took the photo or where it was scanned from. On his userpage, it's in a section of scans of other peoples' work (the other ones I checked had full sourcing information). Per above and per this, I'd strongly suggest removing this from the article, and if the uploader can't be reached, removing it from Commons.

Done Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• • File:Hawker Siddeley XV-6A Kestrel USAF.jpg is missing a lot of information. The source isn't descriptive enough, and there's no date or author information.

I have added a url to its probable source, to help out. Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• • File:DN-SN-83-08324.JPEG's licensing is kinda sketchy, as it would appear that the photo wasn't actually taken by a US Army employee, it was taken by a McDonnell-Douglas employee. I added the National Archives tag to the desctiption, so that's probably the best place to check for clarification. As it stands now though, the PD Army tag makes me uncomfortable.

This one is difficult. I suppose I could email the National Archives for a brief on how it is allowed to be used, I'll take this under advicement as I wouldn't want to disturb them unnecessarily. Kyteto (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The image has now been replaced by another user. Kyteto (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• • File:Aircraft engine RR Pegasus cut-out RH.jpg has no date and curiously enough, no metadata (to draw the date from). Doesn't look like there's much we can do on this one.
• The rest checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • New images check out. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Differences between versions, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you been able to check the lower half of the article? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm on a copyediting break while I'm working on the WP:OPNORMANDY articles and a job application. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Back from my break, finished up. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support On hold Support – covers all majors aspects of the Harrier, neutral, verifiable, well-written prose, illustrated by good images and follows MoS. No reason for otherwise. @Kyteto: and you thought A330 would make history! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - excellent article, however I have an issue with the "Skyhook" section. Either it's just me, or it is not explained very well - what was to be the exact means of launching and recovering the aircraft? And why on earth would the UK have sold arms to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? Mark83 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Skyhook was the means of launching and landing aircraft, a giant hook grabbing the aircraft while it is hovering. The reference to the Russian Typhoon class is in the source material, it is because it is the world's largest submarine, and probably the only submarine platform capable of meaningfully using a Skyhook in theory. It wasn't to suggest it actually was going to be fitted to Soviet submarines. Kyteto (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that since the initial comment regarding Skyhook was made, the paragraph has been altered. Kyteto (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – any status on the current operations with the Royal Thai Navy? This might be mis-remembered fact, but I saw a publication which says the Thai Navy had retired the birds... Here it is "Thailand's operation of the Harrier has had its problems with the aircraft grounded in mid-1997 (and operation of the carrier curtailed) due to a chronic lack of funds". The quote's from Stewart Wilson's book BAe/McDonnnell Douglas Harrier. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Being grounded isn't necessarily the same as being retired; the Harriers were underfinanced and thus many were unservicable without appropriate spare parts. From my reading into Thailand's usage of them, the Harriers are still active, just not very often flown and only a few at any one time. I'll look up the issue again later today, see if there is anything more I can discover and add. Kyteto (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Double-checked, the grounding is already mentioned in the text, it was not a retirement however. There is continued operation after that, which is included. I did not find anything of substance to add in my search. Kyteto (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to do this, but I think there are some information missing regarding the twin-seat trainer version of the Harrier. There are at least six first-generation twin-seat Harriers mentioned in the Wilson book, including the T.2/4/6/8/10/60 and TAV-8A. I know it's mentioned under "Variants" already, but I suggest writing a brief summary about the versions under "Differences between versions". Any comments? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A little too specific for my liking, but the detail is added. Kyteto (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone done sourcing checks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I see you went through the article almost sentence by sentence at the first ACR; did you get a sense of whether the text abuses the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not those that I can access, though I wan't looking for close paraphrasing. I'm a little busy right now (online, but dealing with real life, and peeking at my watchlist occasionally), but I'll go through again later. Although I hate the tedium of spot-checking, I do know the text well so it hopefully won't take me too long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Earwig gives no violations on this page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Source spotchecking, with apologies for the delay. I checked a dozen online sources, and found two issues. All other sources verified the information they're citing and I found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing in any of the 11 sources I could access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. 53 doesn't seem to work for me—it just loads a plain white page.

53, the Flight article, appears to load here. It is a bit of a fiddly site that Flight Global operate, as PDF embedded files often have issues being displayed on some machines, depending on the browser/OS/Adobe software used; a pain actually. Can anybodsy else confirm it's working from their position? Kyteto (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. 89, this article, does not appear to contain anything relevant to the sentence preceding it. It's one of two sources at then of that sentence, but I don't have access to the other.

I've accidentally linked the second page, rather than the first of that article. I have replaced the link to the first page now. It mentions the ground attack and troop support roles for the Harrier in the field as well. Kyteto (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any last minute observations and reflections for me to make I have the weekend to address the article and do work on it, but I don't currently have an objectives or work requests to do upon it; so if there is a flaw, please note it here and I'll get on it. Kyteto (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I've stumbled this page, which has a free diagram of a skyhook in action. I just think it's a more interesting picture than the one which has the caption "An RAF Harrier GR.3 in Belize, 1990". Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That image isn't free, I recognise the diagram, and it appears to have been lifted out of a book. A month ago I made a call to an able artist to make a Skyhook Diagram, but that is only a request at best. Kyteto (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the "Operators" section has flags for only some countries; why is that? In any case, is the use of the flags consistent with WP:MOSICON? Ucucha (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of not unnecessarily delaying an old FAC, I just went through and made it consistent. I removed the flags, since they should obviously be used for all countries or none, and none is less effort! If anyone wants to add them to all countries, be my guest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Ucucha (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "The Harrier received criticism for having a high accident rate and for a time-consuming maintenance process."

  This sentence seems particularly disruptive to the reading experience where it stands (and the way it is phrased) now.

• "Similar V/STOL operational aircraft include the contemporary Soviet Yakovlev Yak-38 as well as one variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which is currently under development."

  This item (the Yak-38) is not described in the main article text (of which the lede is supposed be a summary).

P.1154

• "The P.1154 won the competition to meet the requirement despite several rival bids from other aircraft manufacturers such as Dassault Aviation."

  This does not seem right to me. I would presume the goal of such competitions was to secure a government contract (meeting the requirements is the requisite of the goal). Furthermore, "rival bids" is perfectly natural in such a competition and not contradictory in any way.

  Politics came into it a great deal. When the French wanted to buy a 'NATO' plane, a sceptic could reason that they only wanted to use their participation and influence as leverage to see the French design come up top-trumps regardless of merit. Tactics like worksharing and promises of lucritive contracts to other nations were made to swing their 'wholley impartial' judgement to their way of thiking, and help make sure the 'right' decision was made. It wasn't a very equal or fair contest, the rival projects were being very hotly pressed at the highest levels of political office; a recognition of the competition is certainly very warrented. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  That pretty much describes many contract tenders; there is nothing "contradictory" about awarding the contract to the P.1154 in the face of underhand tactics (one could not be sure if the P.1154's team did not adopt certain tactics as well). "The P.1154 won the competition to meet the requirement, which also had intense bids from rival aircraft manufacturers such as Dassault Aviation." would in my view be a better summation of the situation. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The project was cancelled in 1965 after the French government withdrew following the selection of the P.1154 over the Dassault Mirage IIIV."

  This sentence reads very funny to me. My interpretation is "NATO cancelled the project after the French government selected the P.1154 over the Mirage and withdrew from the project". Is this the case?

  The French government would not, and did not, select the P.1154. They wanted the French plane, the Mirage, to get the contract, the French plane losing was unacceptable. NATO representatives selected the P.1154 as the aircraft were better prospects and thus their favour for development, so the French officials chose to walk away as they didn't get their way. The decrease in orders kind of destroyed the merits of a NATO multi-nation collaboration with one of the major customers walking out, so it fell apart. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  The sentence to me was quite ambiguous (and thus opposite of what you said). Reading the source, it states "After much lobbying and jockeying for position, the P1154 was declared the 'technical winner' of the NBMR3 competition, which proved unacceptable to the French who decided to do their own thing." I think a much clearer sentence about this would be "The French government did not accept the decision and chose to produce their own VTOL aircraft. The NATO VTOL project was cancelled in 1965 after the French withdrawal." Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Overview

• "... four vectorable nozzles for directing the thrust generated:"

  Supposedly, this encylopaedia project avoids technical jargon or explains it on first use. I doubt the common layman would understand the characteristic "vectorable".

  The first two incidents of 'Vectoring', first in the lead and the second in Origin are linked. I don't know of a good word to substitute vectoring other than 'thing that changes direction of heated air'. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps, it might be best to simply replace all instances (only two) of "vectorable" with "rotating",[7] "swiveling",[8] or "vectoring,[9] which would lessen the need to decipher a term not commonly used. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... incorporating an Inertial navigation system, ..."

  Why is "Inertial" capitalised?

• "... though Nordeen notes that several conventional single-engine strike aircraft like the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and LTV A-7 Corsair II actually had worse accident rates."

  "Actually" is unnecessary: undue and possibly biased.

  Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... on any effective V/STOL aircraft."

  What does "effective" add here, why is it used at all?

  Perhaps because it was possible to design a V/STOL aircraft that was easy to maintain, but it would have so severely compromised the plane's performance it'd have joined the dozens of aborted prototypes developed by the superpowers and a few other nations trying to make a breakthough in VSTOL tech. There were so many different designs, but all proved to be appaullingly bad in operation to the point where you'd be better off in a Spitfire or standing on the ground with a pea shooter. Designing a V/STOL aicraft proved to be easy; getting one that was worth its salt and could do anything practical, that's a complicated kettle of fish that is so rarely got right there's practically nothing that compares to the Harrier even now. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well, it does not matter if it was effective or not, does it? I do not think ineffective V/STOL were produced. The more important question here about this inclusion of Buland's opinion is: were there any other V/STOLs that were easier to maintain than the Harrier? Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Engine

• "The engine is equipped for water injection to increase thrust and take-off performance in hot and high altitude conditions;"

  This seems extraordinary to me: injecting water into hot engine chambers to improve thrust? I think this requires a bit of (brief) explanation.

  I shall look into what I can add; but I've previously had huge problems trying to get reliable information on the water injection system. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... powered by the Pegasus 6 engine which was replaced by the more powerful Pegasus 11 version ..."

  "Version" seems redundant.

  Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... spent a £3-million annual budget to investigate and develop engine improvements."

  I think "develop" would cover investigation as well.

  Done. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Several variants have been released which improved on the original engine; the Pegasus 11–61 (Mk 107) is the latest and most powerful version of the engine providing 23,800 lbf (106 kN)."

  Suggestion: "The latest variant is the Pegasus 11–61 (Mk 107), which provides 23,800 lbf (106 kN) of thrust, more than any previous engine."

  Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Not quite, "Several variants have been released which improved on the original engine" is not removed; the gist of it is basically a repetition of the preceding sentence: "to develop engine improvements." Reading it again, I suggest rephrasing the entire "Several variants have been released which improved on the original engine; the latest variant is the ..." to "Several variants have been released; the latest is the ..." (I boldly implemented this). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Controls and handling

• "It has been viewed as a significant design success that the cockpit only required the addition of a single lever over that of a conventional aircraft."

  Viewed by who? So how many levers does a conventional aircraft have? Which conventional aircraft has vectorable nozzles?

  1. A collection of RAF Senior Officers who wrote the source. 2. I don't know, I'd only noting what the source from men far greater and far more knowledgeable than I am in the field have noted. 3. I don't know of any, I'm sorry that I'm too stupid to answer your last two questions. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  During the develop of various failed VTOL aircraft, they were monumentally impossible to control, the control systems were designed for people with two heads and five arms to be operated effectively, to put it bluntly. That somebody had eventually managed to create an VTOL aircraft that didn't make the controls into an unworkable pig's breakfast (thus defeating the point, a plane you or anybody else cannot practically pilot is worthless) was viewed as a resounding breakthough. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Please do not berate yourself; an article at this state could not be written by someone stupid. The issue here is that we are trying to present a (hopefully) clear view of the subject to the readers. Introducing a piece of information that evokes more questions than answers would be contrary to that aim.

  To clarify, this phrase "the cockpit only required the addition of a single lever over that of a conventional aircraft" suggests that conventional aircraft also have vectorable nozzles, by virtue of insinuating that the Harrier used only one lever whereas conventional aircraft would require several.

  The source reads, "To a pilot; this was the crowning success of the P1127 design — the fact that it needed only one additional lever in the cockpit."; it does not compare or mention conventional aircraft. After reading, I suggest "It is viewed by senior RAF officers as a significant design success that this feature was controlled through a single lever added in the cockpit." Would this be agreeable? Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The nozzles point rearwards with the lever in the forward position, for horizontal flight; the nozzles point increasingly downwards as the lever is pulled back, for short or vertical take-off and landing."

  This reads awkwardly to me, I suggest: "For horizontal flight, the nozzles are directed rearwards by shifting the lever to the forward position; for short or vertical take-offs and landings, the lever is pulled back to point the nozzles downwards."

  Switched.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The Harrier has two control elements that fixed-wing aircraft do not usually have:"

  Awkward, suggest: "The Harrier has two control elements not found in most fixed-wing aircraft:"

  Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Again, I think it best to explain briefly what the RCS would do for this aeroplane.

• "Wind direction in reference to the aircraft is crucial during VTOL manoeuvres."

  I think "The wind direction is a critical factor in VTOL manoeuvres." is much more concise.

  Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• One question seems unanswered: How high can a Harrier hover (at 90° vector angle)? Is there no reliable source that covers this?

  Not one that I found. It would depend on how heavy the Harrier was, and what grade engine it had I guess. Normally vertical flight wouldn't be used unless you were low and coming into land. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... called vectoring in forward flight, or "VIFFing". This was a dog-fighting tactic, ..."

  VIFFing is no longer used by Harrier pilots in dog-fights ("was")?

  Suppose it should be 'is', it can be a tactic today, if anybody still cared to train up in them for that. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Differences between versions

• "Changes included the removal of all magnesium components ..."

  What were these "magnesium components"? They are not mentioned anywhere else (more importantly earlier) in the article.

  Magnesium alloys today are known for being lightweight, back in a world without composite materials and a dozen other advanced material engineering breakthroughs it was exceedingly brilliant. However, Magnesium is a pain in the butt due to it reacting with pretty much anything, including oxygen in the air: Sea Water was not good. Magnesium is a very, very common component in Aerospace construction, potentially hundreds or even thousands of components could have made use of it. But for the Harrier to be suitable for being out at sea without being FUBARed (and left inoperable by doing nothing more than being there for anything more than a few moments), the Magnesium had to go. Its the sort of thing you wouldn't strip out of an aircraft design unless it was pretty much essential to do so, it'd be like wiring up a city without the use of copper cabling: It can be done, it just isn't something you'd want to resort to unnecessarily. More information is available on the P.1127 article, and the source document is available online as well (highly worth a look if you're interested). It doesn't go into the details of components x and y being made of it though. Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  The issue in my view is that "magnesium components" are not given a suitable context (the reader would wonder why remove them). As you explained (and the properties of the metal and aeronautical purposes of its use I am aware of), a short simple cited add-on ("... the removal of all magnesium components, which degraded quickly at sea, ...") or such would help. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... in order to aid quick turn-around ..."

  "In order to" can be cut to simply "to".

  Done.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The RAF had their GR.1 aircraft upgraded to an improved standard, ..."

  Reads a bit funny since "upgrade" would imply "improvements" ("[improved] to an improved standard"). Why not "The RAF upgraded their GR.1 aircraft to the GR.3 standard, which featured ... and Pegasus Mk 103."?

  DoneKyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The USMC also upgraded their AV-8As to the AV-8C configuration;"

  As implied by "also", what other aircraft did the USMC upgrade?

  Done; this came about because I had originally written "The RAF upgraded their Harriers to the GR.3, and the USMC also upgraded their Harriers", if that makes any more sense.Kyteto (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Royal Air Force

• "Two further squadrons were established at RAF Wildenrath as part of RAF Germany in 1970, while a fourth formed at Wildenrath in 1972. In 1977, the German-based Harrier force was moved forwards to RAF Gütersloh, closer to the prospective front line in the event of an outbreak of a European war, with one of the squadrons being disbanded and its aircraft being distributed between the other two."

  Quite confusing (RAF this, RAF that, xxth squadron, etc). I propose; "Two Harrier squadrons were established in 1970 at RAF's air base in Wildenrath to be part of its air force in Germany; another squadron was formed there two years later. In 1977, these three squadrons were moved forward to the air base at Gütersloh, closer to the prospective front line in the event of an outbreak of a European war. One of the squadrons was disbanded and its aircraft distributed between the other two."

  Implimented.Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "British forces had been stationed in Belize for several years due to tensions over a Guatemalan claim to Belizean territory, and were finally withdrawn in 1993."

  This sentence is skimpy of necessary details (why should Britain defend Belize?), suggestion: "Harriers were also deployed to bases in Norway and Belize, a former British colony. ... British forces had been stationed in Belize for several years due to tensions over a Guatemalan claim to Belizean territory; the forces were withdrawn in 1993, two years after Guatemala recognized the independence of Belize."

  A very good call, changed. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A defining combat experience for the Harrier was the Falklands War in 1982, in which 10 Harrier GR.3s of No. 1 Squadron operated from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes."

  Is the "defining combat experience" the Falklands War or the operation of 10 GR.3s from Hermes?

  I suppose it can be both. There were many people sceptical that a small carrier air wing of Harriers was worth anything more than a packet of cigarettes, the fact they were the backbone of a carrier force and managed to hold their own is significant; it signlehandedly validated the 'Harrier-carrier' concept and since then three nations have purchased Harriers primarily for that purpose, which'd have been doubtful to happen if operations onboard the Hermes had proved to suck beyond all belief. Dozens of nations took note of the Harrier's performance, from Japan to India, Italy to Greece, even Russia. They were all eager to know if a V/STOL carrier could do anything in real war or if it was just a useless 'paper tiger' for penny-pinching, and considered purchases on the back of that outcome. Both were pretty, pretty big. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  It would be better to be clear on which (Wars or operation) is the defining experience as cited to the source. The War would mean the entire combat operations (Sea Harriers and GR.3), whereas operating from the Hermes would pertain only to operating GR.3 on the ship. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Following the Falklands war, a new technique of enabling smaller ships to operate Harriers was explored, known as Skyhook."

  Why is "Skyhook" in italics? Suggestion: "Following the Falklands war, the British navy explored a new technique (Skyhook) to operate Harriers on smaller ships."

United States Marine Corps

• "The United States Marine Corps began showing a significant interest in the Harrier, around the same time the first RAF Harrier squadron was established in 1969, ..."

  Aside from a repetition of the aircraft name, why is there a comma after "Harrier"? Suggestion: "The United States Marine Corps began showing a significant interest in the aircraft around the time the first RAF Harrier squadron was established in 1969, ..."

  DoneKyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The AV-8A entered service with the Marine Corps in 1971 and attack squadrons converted to the Harrier."

  "The AV-8A entered service with the Marine Corps in 1971, replacing the planes in the marines' attack squadrons."

  Done with a substitution, I replaced 'plane' with 'aircraft', some editors can get naff-ed off with the usage of plane so I've noticed. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Supplies, including armaments, were to be regularly ferried by Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions from the main base to the dispersed forward bases."

  This does not seem relevant to the Harrier and possibly unnecessary for establishing the context of the Marines concept of forward operations.

  Well, the supply situation of the forward basis was/is angrily contested to these days, some military hotheads would state they were utterly useless with such short supplies of fuel and ammunition on hand immediately; the fact that an extensive air logistics setup was implimented and tested over and over again to the point of being fully prepared to keep up with real world demands of the FOBs is potentially relevant, it demonstrates how the Harriers would have been kept running missions and striking enemies forces even though the standing strength of the FOB is commonly mocked. The Super Stallion resupplies were an essential operational detail to how they would have been able to function. It can go on your insistance, I will not argue against you, I only wish to convey a reason why I believe it could be important. I'll await your confirmation of intent. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  The feasibility of the forward base system should not be in details here, but in the system's article. Putting myself in a layman's shoes, I felt that this detail was superfluous (I would have been pretty much happy simply knowing that the planned SOP for Harrier deployment was from forward bases). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other customers

• "The Spanish Navy operated the AV-8S Matador from their aircraft carrier Dédalo (formerly the USS Cabot), with the Harriers providing both air defence and strike capabilities for the Spanish fleet starting in 1976."

  Noun plus gerund construct: "Since 1976, the Spanish Navy operated the AV-8S Matador from their aircraft carrier Dédalo (formerly the USS Cabot); the aircraft provide both air defence and strike capabilities for the Spanish fleet."

  Tuned in accordance. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Note that I tuned it further (the second clause did not seem correct). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Of these only India became a customer, with the Sea Harrier."

  I doubt India does business with Sea Harrier: "Of these only India became a customer, buying the Sea Harrier."

  Alright, it is changed. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Spain sold seven single-seat and two two-seat Harriers to Thailand in 1998."

  Repetition of "two": "Spain sold seven single-seat and two double-seater Harriers to Thailand in 1998."

  I've made a change to twin seat, but no doubt someone will come along and criticise that on every other mention in the article (and most source material) it is expressed as 'two seat' and putting it as 'twin seat' on a one-off basis is "confusing" or some such stuff. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation; but the change is made. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Thailand considered acquiring ex-Royal Navy Sea Harriers around 2003, more suitable for maritime operations and better equipped for air defence, to replace their AV-8S Harriers, ..."

  I suggest "Around 2003, Thailand considered ... Navy Sea Harriers, which were more ...", which would place the description closer to the subject.

  Improvement implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft on display

• I do not see any encyclopaedic purpose in this section.

  I see it as questionably encyclopedic as well, WP:Aircraft recently had a discussion on this, one of the listed defences is the WP:Air/PC guideline. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  I believe any notable displays could be worked into prose, which tends to work much better than a list. Regardless, the discussion pointed also shows that the proponents of this section believes it should be restricted to a select few and which are notable. The current list (numbering 17) is too indiscriminate. I suggest we prune this down to either one display per country or one display per model (the most notable locations of the displays such as that at the Imperial War Museum would be the preference). Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  I have suggested possibilities at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier#Trimming the Aircraft on display list. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See also

• Why should links that already appear within the text (e.g. the Harrier IIs, VFW VAK 191B) be again mentioned here?

  Other editors have previously overrode my intention to dispose of the duplication, I'm unable to get rid of them dispite your (and my own) will. Kyteto (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  We can point them to WP:SEEALSO ("Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See also' section"), which is reinforced by WP:Air/PC's own "See also: Links to other related articles not already linked." To show that you are not alone, I boldly went ahead. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:AV-8C VMA-513 takes off from LPD in 1982.JPEG: Nowhere in the source or the DefenseImagery site does it state the author to be a US Navy personel (or any federal employee). For all we know, it could be a defense contractor (and there are quite a substantial number of photographs taken by such people on the US military websites). I would advise not to use this until the author is affirmed to be a US federal employee. Furthermore, if this aircraft's serial number is 158384, then it seems impossible for this photograph to be taken on 1 April 1982. 158384 crashed on either 5 September 1980,[10] or 9 August 1980.[11] I would say the ambiguous nature (authorship, date, and content) of this photograph would not be apt for display in a Featured Article.

In short, most of my concerns are with the language, which seems to require a bit of tightening and elimination of a jargon. Jappalang (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Jappalang, and a quick glance reveals two consecutive paragraphs in the "Other operators" section beginning with "Due to", an independent copyedit is in order. We should not expect to see this amount of issues this far in to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The copy editing we've got going leading up to FAC is covering, depending on your point of view, somewhere between 70% and 90% of what needs to be covered, and the percentage is shrinking every month as the volume grows. I'll discuss it at Milhist, and eventually, we'll come up with something. In the meantime, it's no skin off my teeth if you archive articles that don't meet FAC standards. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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 20:08, 28 August 2011 [12].

---

King Charles Spaniel

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it fulfills the requirements of being an FA. I've nominated articles before, but have never succeeded in making the article all the way to a fully fledged FA, and I've attempted to cover the issues raised in the nominations on those other articles here before making the nomination. The article has been peer reviewed and given a copy edit both by the Guild of Copy Editors and by some colleagues at the Dogs WikiProject. A note on naming conventions (as it has come up in previous nominations), it is the Project MOS that dog breed names have each word capitalised (e.g. King Charles Spaniel or Pug), however where the word refers to a type of dog then it is in fully lowercase (e.g. spaniel or toy dog). Also, as per the requirement, I am a competitor in the WikiCup. Miyagawa (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I'm happy to see a dog breed nomination. There are a few issues I wanted to mention, more may come later:

• Singular and plural usage throughout the article is inconsistent. This is exemplified here (singular-plural-singular-singular): "The King Charles has ... On average, they stand 9 to 11 inches (23 to 28 cm) at the withers, with a small but compact body. The breed has ..." I prefer singular but my preference is worth beans -- regardless, it should be consistent. This needs to be addressed throughout the article as there are a couple more examples.
• "a black margin around its lips" This can probably be said in more standard and specific way. You mean the skin and not the hair -- it's ambiguous -- so say "black skin around its lips" or something to that effect. I just checked my copy of the Rice book and it was introduced there, and since I can't recall hearing this phrase within the dog world, it should probably be quoted or attributed more directly if it's not switched out.
• When not beginning a sentence, is it "The Kennel Club" or "the Kennel Club"? I always assumed the former, as it's part of their "official name" and I've seen it used that way elsewhere, but their site indicates that it is written "the Kennel Club" so I've probably got it wrong.
• I don't know whether or not this is a requirement but many access dates are missing.

I don't want to mess around too much as I have no FA experience, but I'd be happy to do some close paraphrasing checks of several offline sources, since I own a few of the books. (That's assuming that the portions used aren't available in Google Books -- I didn't check.) Anna ^talk 01:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone through and removed the plurals - foolishly I went through at one point and added them. Copyedited the black margin line, and corrected all the Kennel Clubs to The Kennel Club. Also added all missing accessdates, although I'm sure that at least one isn't displaying. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think I fixed all of the errors WRT pluralization. Incidentally, are we sure it's not "the Kennel Club"? Similar to "the Bahamas"? I'm hopeless with that sort of thing so perhaps someone else can verify which one it is. Anna ^talk 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Switched it all to "the Kennel Club" - checked their copyright page on the website here. Thanks for fixing the pluralization, it's always one of the major issues with my writing. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
• Check italicization - website publishers shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the double period I found and corrected the website italization. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I was checking up on my own FAC, and was quite pleased to see a dog breed article up for review. My comments are on the writing mostly, so I didn't check the sources to verify information or check for plagiarism issues.
• amalgamated - what?
• It's a little weird that the "Traits" field in the infobox is empty... I clicked "show" expecting to find some tidbits.
• are more suited to being lapdogs. - "better suited to being lapdogs"?
• There's no rule that says you need a citation after every sentence. Indeed, if multiple sentences are derived from the same source, you don't need to repeat it (unless there's a quote).

Just a few things at first glance... nice work. Juliancolton (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced amalgamated with combined, filled out the traits section in the infobox and changed the line to better as suggested. Also went through and removed a few cites where they were doubled up in a paragraph without them following a quote. Miyagawa (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Caption on History lead image needs editing for grammar
• File:Felipe_of_Spain_and_MariaTudor.jpg: source link returns 404 error

• In looking this one up, I discovered that it was not the painting as described in the text by Antonis Mor. So the caption is a lot simpler, and I've added a different source url. It doesn't give the normal level of permissions, but I've added it anyway as per Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. Miyagawa (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• File:The_children_of_Charles_I_of_England-painting_by_Sir_Anthony_van_Dyck_in_1637.jpg: ditto

• Added new source url. Miyagawa (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• File:149._King_Charles_and_Blenheim_Spaniels.JPG: can you expand source info?

• Managed to identify the artist and added further details. Miyagawa (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• wiki/File:Blenheim_Spaniel_1903.jpg: ditto

• Added further information regarding publishing information of the source. Miyagawa (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• File:Ruby-Spaniel-Red-Clover.jpg: ditto

• Added more information, and added a PD UK Unknown tag as there was no author information given in the book, and the book was only seemingly published in the UK (and not in the States). Miyagawa (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• File:King_charles_spaniel.jpg: can we translate the source info? What kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I checked and "Chovatelská stanice z Valldemose" is the name of the author's dog kennel. Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments It's nice to see a doggie candidate, but there was an obvious typo in line 2 (now fixed), and a most unlikely assertion a little later: "The red and white variety of toy spaniel was first seen in paintings by Titian around 1505". The problem with this is that Titian was around 15-17 in 1505, & the earliest works conventionally attributed to him are from 1507 (no dogs in them either). This could be a typo, but I suspect is in the source used, which seems to date to 1911, & whose reliability must be questionable. There could be more on the types of Japanese dogs the breed may descend from. I haven't read all the article thoroughly yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the Titian check, it's certainly thrown up a big question. I've looked into it, and two pages after making the 1505 it displays Venus of Urbino, which from the list article is the first appearance of a red and white spaniel in a Titian painting. It seems that the information given on Titian in the source is just plain incorrect - although they give his date of death correctly, it lists his birth year as 1477. I will have a dig around for an appropriate source to support the correct Titian details. As for the existing source itself, I would say that in the realm of dogs it's reliable (the author, Judith Blunt-Lytton, 16th Baroness Wentworth was heavily involved in establishing some of the toy breeds in the UK) - although for art, it's apparently not! Miyagawa (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would have been a standard view on his birth date in 1911, based on what are now thought to be fibs by Titian himself in his old (but not that old) age - see the article and talk page archives - you may remember there was a Commons Question Time kerfuffle involving Brown & Cameron on just this point a few years ago. 1505 for the Venus just looks odd though; I doubt that was a common view even then. I'd just say "The red and white variety of toy spaniel was first seen in paintings by Titian, for example his Venus of Urbino (1538)..." if that seems compatible with your ref, and with an extra ref for that date (which I can help with if required). Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested wording, I'll incorporate that into the article immediatly. I'll check the venus article for a suitable reference for the date. Miyagawa (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to my previous note, I managed to find a reference which also contained information about why the dog was in the painting, so this all worked out for the better. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 01:45, 26 August 2011 [13].

---

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

Nominator(s): Cowik (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has a lot of good sources, good images, and well written. Cowik (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• comment - Hi, you hadn't added the FAC template to the article talk page, I've put one on for you but you should really have done this yourself. Also, have you consulted any of the regular editors of this article prior to nomination? It doesn't look like you have made all that many edits to the article. Coolug (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes this a reliable source? This? (needs to be formatted)
• Also, this needs to be formatted with {{cite web}} as well
• Sources 60, 61 and 62 need reformatting as well.
• Source 74 needs to list the original publisher, not web.archive.org.
• Echo Coolug's comments about consulting the regular authors.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Well I guess there could be some improvements, I can easily reformat those refs. Cowik (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on images: File:LaResistance.jpg is adding nothing to the article, and has a very poor rationale. It should be removed. File:South Park - Bigger, Longer & Uncut.jpg is practically exactly the same as the poster, so should also be removed. For reference, while there is something of an "automatic" allowance for a non-free album cover on an article about the album, but that doesn't extend to other related articles, whether or not there is an article on the album. File:KennyUnhooded.jpg is being used in a section that doesn't even mention the character, let alone discuss how he looked at that particular time. Again, the lack of a decent rationale means it is difficult to assess the usage. File:SPMovieBluRay.jpg is in no way an important image; we can understand the article without seeing this cover. The rationale claims that it is used "To show the reader that this well known movie has been released on Blu-ray." We don't need a non-free image to "show" that it was released- explaining that it was released and citing reliable sources is fine. File:SouthParkbiggerlongeruncut.jpg is justified, but, again, needs a better rationale. The other images are fine, copyrightwise, but the three images together will cause hell on small screens, and seeing File:RATED R.svg is hardly useful... J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [14].

---

David Morrissey

Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

David Morrissey is a prolific English actor who has had a long and varied career playing shady men with varying degrees of facial hair. Having worked on this article since November 2008, I believe it is now ready for featured status and hope others will agree. The toolbox brings up three dead links; two have been archived and the other, to the RADA graduate directory was used only to verify Morrissey's graduation date, and was active when I first accessed it in 2009. Please enjoy. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page needed tags that need to be addressed (although some seem unnecessary)
• Good practice to include retrieval dates for online newspaper articles, as these are sometimes updated or modified after posting
• "eight hundred lives" is the work, not the publisher
• This link returns a 410 error. See here for a list of potentially problematic links
• Be consistent in whether you cite online news sources using newspaper name, publisher name or website name
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• What is UNRWA? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. In response:

1. Two different archives were unable to supply page numbers for all print sources, however, apart from the two Time Out citations, all have convenience links for verification.
2. Are you including convenience links?
3. The UGO link is archived.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If a newspaper is being cited, it is labeled with the newspaper name, and if a website is cited, it is labeled with the website name.
5. Bloody-Disgusting describes itself states "We strive to maintain the best and most reliable source for all things horror on the internet[...]"[15] The cited page, an question-and-answer style interview done with Morrissey on a film set, is used only to support Morrissey's own opinions and experiences of working on The Reaping. A further discussion of this source was held at the Horror Wikiproject.
6. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where page numbers aren't provided, the links act as the source - they're not considered convenience links unless they're in addition to a complete citation, and thus a retrieval date is needed. For the consistency issue, compare refs 43, 48 and 89 for an example of what I'm looking at. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are simply different brandings; "bbc.co.uk" (now known as BBC Online) is the BBC's website, "BBC News Online" the pre-2008 branding of the BBC News subsite and "BBC News website" the 2008-now branding. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikki, I've restored or added link retrieval dates for those citations without full info. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments I've only glanced at this so far, but, much as I hate to say it with all that's going on on various project talk pages at the minute, your prose isn't quite up to 1a standards. I don't see anything show-stopping—my main concern is that parts of it just don't flow very well. There are quite a few instances of several short sentences in quick succession, which move abruptly from point to point. Some of these could be combined to just make longer sentences broken up with commas or dashes, like this as a very simple example. Examples:

• Seldon Street is now demolished.[10] He attended St Margaret Mary's School. Short sentences and a very abrupt change of topic
• his father developed a terminal blood disorder.[6] He was ill for some time and eventually succumbed to a haemorrhage... Another abrupt change
• Russell disagreed with the director Gordon Flemyng and producer Keith Richardson over the casting of 18-year-old Morrissey and Leigh; he believed that the sympathy of 16-year-olds running away was lost by casting older actors, though he did not have any problems personally with Morrissey and Leigh. Trying to cram too many facts into one sentence (I sympathise, this is something I have to work hard to avoid in my own writing)
• His One Summer co-star James Hazeldine convinced him otherwise, and he went to London for a year. He became homesick while there and did not enjoy the way RADA was turning him into a "bland actor". Again quite abrupt, but easily improved by putting the "while there" at the start of the second sentence.
• ...told him that he had been through the same homesickness phase when he first went to RADA. McGann's reassurance got Morrissey through his studies... Not as abrupt as some of the above, but there is room for improvement.

Basically, the way you connect one sentence to the next needs a little work so it flows. From what I've read so far, though, it's otherwise an excellent article. I'll be happy to look in more detail once some progress has been made and once this bloody cold goes away!. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, HJ. I've made a couple of changes in the Early life section and will run through the rest of the article later today. Get well soon! Bradley0110 (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've been through the article and massaged out a few stubby sentences. If there is anything else, please say. Bradley0110 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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 Ucucha 12:50, 23 August 2011 [16].

---

Louis Kahn

Nominator(s): Rossi101 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Louis Kahn is a very influential architect of 20th century. He is considered as master of International style and Brutalist architecture. His works are considered as highly monumental, beyond time and culture. I think Kahn is more important figure than the architects featured as like as John Douglas (architect), Rudolf Wolters, I. M. Pei, Charles Holden etc. Rossi101 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Rossi101

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - while I agree that Kahn is an influential figure in architecture, FA status is based on the article not its subject, and at this point this article does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Lead is too short - per WP:LEAD, given the length of the article it should be at least 2 paragraphs
• File:Yale_Center_for_British_Art.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information
• File:Louis_Kahn.jpg: where and when was this photo taken?
• Many more references are needed. A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, but more is usually required
• Don't use contractions outside of direct quotes
• Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent. Web citations must include title, publisher and retrieval dates. Print sources need page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: There is little or no evidence that this article has been prepared for this FAC against the FA criteria. The Personal life section is unreferenced; other sections have unreferenced or inadequately referenced paragraphs; the text looks far from comprehensive; the prose includes non-encyclopedic contractions; there are MOS violations, e.g. misuse of italics. Too much of the article is in list form. The checking tool indicates a disambiguation link in the lead. The article has never been through any formal review process; in my view, at present it barely meets the required standards for its B rating. I agree with the suggestion that the nom should be withdawn. The article should be worked on significantly, then sent to peer review before coming back here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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 12:10, 18 August 2011 [17].

---

Scream (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be an exceptional article on the subject. It is comprehensive on the topic, detailed, contains no NFC apart from the infobox poster and one image in the casting section which I believe to be important and for which I have added a rationale. The article contains media where appropriate, is well-written (prose having been checked by peer review, guild of copyeditors and GA process) and references are filled, complete and uniform. I have spent weeks/months researching the topic and believe it to be the best that it can be at the moment short of new information being uncovered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Should include time references for audio/video sources, particularly when citing very specific material like direct quotes
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
• FN 9: formatting. Check for other malformatted refs
• When a source is English-language, you don't need to specify the language
• Web sources need publishers and retrieval dates

In general, reference formatting needs to be cleaned up and made consistent, and sources need to be assessed for quality and reliability. Looking briefly at the article text, I also see some Manual of Style issues (including overlinking and hyphen/dash problems). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• That makes the second reference reliable.
• [18] may make your fourth cite reliable. Scroll down the page beyond the user comments are several press comments regarding the site. USA Today has some articles sourcing them. http://www.usatoday.com/search/results?q=seeing-stars.com&p=1
• Deleted the IMDb source and replaced, I overlooked it when developing the article from what it previously was.
• Working on the other two refs.
• Removed the English language thing
• I believe I caught all the references lacking a publisher and accessdate now. Had a lot of help from User:MikeAllen & little help from GrappleX (Just making sure they gets due credit)
• Removed what I believe to be overlinking. Everything that is left I believe to be useful to the reader. Tried to be very strict on repeat links.
• I can't see what is wrong with ref 9, can you be more specific?

Comment If I am meant to include time sources does that mean I am meant to repeat the same source multiple times with only a time-code difference? Also means I have to rewatch 12 hours plus of content -__- Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Further Comments: Not sure what to say about musicfromthemovies.com, its the website of a magazine that has seen print, written by this guy [19] and while no article exists on here for the site, a quick search for musicfromthemovies.com has a lot of articles here sourcing his work. I don't know what it takes to ascertain how reliable he is though.

• have outright replaced the film-in-america source. Leaves only musicfromthemovies.com I think.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the times for the commentary and other audio/video sources, you can see an example of a featured article that has these by looking at Over There (Fringe). I know going through a load of sources again just to find the times is a pain, but from having to do this myself on another article I can see why it's necessary. The sources in a featured article need to be watertight and if you can't prove where you found this information (by making it as easy to find as possible for anyone who wants to find it) then it doesn't really belong on the article. Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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 12:05, 18 August 2011 [20].

---

2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team

Nominator(s): ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I ran it through peer review and I think it meets the criteria. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• WP:MOS issues: "%" should be spelled out in article text, hyphen/dash issues, etc
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times - avoid constructions like "Temple fell to the Blue Devils 78-61, as Kyle Singler broke out of a shooting slump to score 28 points for Duke. Lavoy Allen's 17 points and 13 rebounds were not enough to stop a second half Duke run that blew the game open"
  • See below. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reference formatting needs to be more consistent
  • I fail to see the inconsistancy. Please show me. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• FUR for the logo needs expanding
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Given the length of the article, the lead should be at least 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Don't use characters like "&" in section headings. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – Originally was just going to check the source reliability, and that looked fine. I then decided to peek at part of the article, and unfortunately ran into the unencyclopedic tone mentioned above. I'll give some examples, which I believe cause this to not meet the criteria at this time...

• "Despite losing by 15 at the half, Maryland staged a huge comeback...".
• "but his backcourt mates Corey Stokes and Maalik Wayns lit up the scoreboard...".
• "Fernandez also missed the January 12 matchup against St. Bonaventure, but the Owls destroyed the Bonnies nonetheless".
• "The Owls blew the game open with a 16–0 run in the second half and shot 56 percent on the game."
• "The Owls creamed La Salle 96–76".
• "Juan Fernandez had a miserable shooting night, going 3 for 17."
• "Aztec star Kawhi Leonard stole the ball from Khalif Wyatt and his uncontested dunk proved to be the dagger."

All of these resemble the sports recaps that I read every day. While I enjoy reading them, articles on Wikipedia that imitate them just come across as informal, and that's what's happening here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Just wondering how I can keep the prose fresh, without simple "Allen scored 16 points. Moore scored 15 points. Temple won, 73-57." That stuff is boring, yo. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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 12:02, 18 August 2011 [21].

---

Mark Satin

Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria and because I believe it is of compelling interest to those who care about American activism and innovative political thought over the last half-century. Its subject entered the public eye as a draft dodger leader during the Vietnam War, spent the next 20 years helping to frame and popularize the concept of “New Age” politics, and spent the next 20 doing the same for “radical middle” politics. He is now either a mere pragmatist or a cutting-edge synthesizer of disparate political ideologies, depending on your POV.

I wrote the original stub article on 18 February 2004 and did the major expansion / revision in 2005 (21 April, 17:07 through 29 April). Here I have updated, revised, and greatly expanded it (like, by a factor of 10) in an effort to make it truly useful for readers and researchers for decades to come. I did it with the “preferred article” attributes firmly in mind – not least of all (a) treating the subject in context, and (b) providing a (hopefully!) compelling narrative that conveys the evolution of the subject’s main ideas, and some critical responses to those ideas.

On my own, I had it reviewed for substance by some of those familiar with some of the events discussed. In addition, I had it copyedited by the managing editor of a literary magazine here in San Francisco. I hope you will enjoy reviewing it.

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in the 2005 revision (the original stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) “p.” or “pp.” before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers of quality texts (see, e.g., Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought, Westview Press, 2nd ed., 1998, pp. 281-316). My principal goals here were – and are – clarity and ease of reading.

Note on links in the “References” section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the “Publications” section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention. Babel41 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, unfortunately, because while it's clear there's been a lot of time put into researching and writing this article, I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Specifically:

• Use of contractions in article text, which should be avoided outside of direct quotes
• Organization seems odd. For example, seeing the section heading "Choices" I'm not sure what material such a section would contain, and the section itself spans a considerable time period and does not exclusively cover "choices"
• File:Draft_dodger_counseling_office.jpg - Phillips contributed the photo to the public domain, but who holds copyright on the image on the door? Is the artist known, is the image PD...?
• Some redundant or repetitious phrasings - for example, four consecutive sentences in "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" begin with "For..."
• Tone is at times more appropriate to a journalistic than a encyclopedic venue, for example "Sometimes he spoke from the gut...Sometimes he spoke from the heart..."
• Newspaper references without weblinks should have page numbers
• Include ISBN links for book sources.

You might consider having a peer review done on this article to improve its chances of reaching FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from principal drafter of article. Thank you for getting back to me so promptly, and for your very thoughtful critique of my article. I believe I can allay your seven concerns. Let me respond to them in order:

1. Contractions. It is my understanding that there is not a blanket prohibition on contractions. I read the Manual of Style before drafting my article, and under "15.6. Contractions," it states that uncontracted forms are "generally" preferred to contractions, but that contractions "should not be expanded mechanically: they are sometimes acceptable."

There are approx. eight contractions in my 7,200-word article (not counting those in the quotations, of course); that does not seem excessive to me. Moreover, I try to be a very careful writer, and when I did use contractions I used them because I felt they were appropriate in their context. Brief explanations of each appear in parentheses below.

(#1, "Youth" sub-section, first para., fourth sentence – "he'd" precedes a quote from Satin’s mom in which she uses two contractions. #2, "Contentions" sub-section, end of second para. – "he's" occurs in a description of Marilyn Ferguson’s argument, and Ferguson is a very informal writer. #3, "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, fourth para., third sentence – "he'd" keeps the sentence from sounding ponderous. #4, "New Age Politics, the book" sub-section, second para., first sentence – "that's" keeps the sentence from sounding pompous.

(#5, "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, third sentence – "he'd" occurs in another paraphrase of Ferguson, the informal stylist referred to earlier. #6, "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, third para., second to last sentence – "it's" precedes a very informal quoted phrase in which the author upbraids Satin and his "law school buddies." #7 and #8, "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, second para., first and second sentences – the "they'll" and the "they're" are meant to convey Satin’s folksy way of justifying reliance on the Four Key Values.)

I would not go to the mat in defense of any of these contractions! But I did want you to see that they are not there because of inconsistency or, God forbid, laziness. They are each there for a purpose. I even feel they represent good writing. But I would un-contract them in a jiffy, if Wikipedia's editors insist.

I've searched on "he's", "he'd", "that's" and "it's" ... I'm not getting any hits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Organization. You state that the article’s organization "seems odd." From your one example, I cannot tell what you mean. The sub-section you mention, "Choices," appears in the section "Personal life." Nothing in or about the "Personal life" section implies that the whole section is meant to be confined to Satin's youth!

The prior sub-section, "Youth," touches on Satin's home life through high school; and the "Choices" section goes on to discuss the key life-altering choices Satin made as an adult, from college on. And the third section, “Contentions,” conveys some of the many (contradictory) explanations journalists and others have given for what many see as the "odd turns" in Satin's life, some going back to his adolescence. All this seems pretty logically organized to me. Perhaps you mean simply that the section headings in the "Persona life" section are not sufficiently clear. I will be happy to change them to accommodate Wikipedia’s editors. Perhaps "Home Life," "Life Choices," and "Explaining Satin’s Choices" will do the trick.

The rest of the article’s organization is hyper-conventional, and so are the section headings and sub-headings. The three subsequent headings convey the three stages of Satin's political development over time ("Neopacifism," "New Age politics," and "Radical centrist politics," respectively). And the nine sub-headings are all named after the books, newsletters, or political groups that are discussed in those sub-sections. I do not see what you find confusing here.

I don't generally see "Choices" or "Life choices" as subsection headings in featured articles that are biographies; I conclude that the community doesn't feel that those words convey sufficient information. Life is full of choices. Anyone want to jump in with a suggestion? - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! I suggest for the “Personal life” section, the sub-sections “Youth,” “Colleges and career(s),” and “Explaining Satin’s ‘odd turns.’” These titles hopefully convey sufficient information, and the third title keeps the sequence from sounding mundane. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

3. Copyright problem. I do see why the image in Phillips's photograph might cause you concern. Fortunately, I can assure you that there is no problem. Satin designed the door himself a couple of days after the New York Times Magazine article in May 1967, and he had a couple of draft dodgers come over with paint and brushes to execute his design (and also to paint the front room). He had them color the door yellow, an ironic comment on what most U.S. citizens then thought of draft dodgers. No one could paint letters well – that’s why the letters look so awful. Somebody did manage to do a less than completely atrocious job with the peace dove beginning to land (presumably, in Canada). The maple leaf appeared in its beak a few days later.

No one was proud of this work, let alone harbored any illusions that it was art. It did make many unhappy people smile. After the SUPA Anti-Draft Programme became the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme on October 1, 1967, the group moved out of the Spadina Avenue office, and the door was painted over in thick, dark brown. Nobody cared.

4a. Redundant. I have looked closely, but I cannot find any "redundant" (your word) phrases or sentences in the article. You would have to give me an example. Or perhaps you are using redundant as a synonym for repetitious, #4b below.

4b. Repetitious. There are three "repetitious phrasings" (your term) in the article. The first I apologize for – the four sentences beginning with "For" in the first paragraph under the "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section. My readers or I should have caught that. It is very easy to fix, and I shall do so. The first two sentences should stay the same, since they work together ("For some ... For others"). But in the third I'll use "At first" instead of "For some time." And in the fourth I'll simply eliminate the beginning phrase "For example" and begin with, "In January 1967." Thanks for catching this.

There are two other instances of repetitive phrasing in the article – the series of sentences beginning with "Instead of" in the second and third paragraphs of the "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, and the series of sentences also beginning with "Instead of" in the second through fourth paragraphs under the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section.

Thanks for the fix. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

However, these are deliberate. I have created what grammarians call "parallelisms" here as a way of deftly making an extended comparison of two things. In the TADP sub-section I'm comparing the traditional pacifist-radical approach to draft dodger assistance (carefully set forth in the first paragraph of that sub-section) to Satin's more entrepreneurial and media-savvy approach. And in the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, I'm comparing the guiding ideas in the New Age Politics book to the guiding ideas in the Radical Middle book.

When that is the purpose of sentences beginning all in the same way, then it is (as I'm sure you know) stylistically perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is a device that's often used in British and American quality nonfiction. Wikipedia itself has a brief but useful description of the device on a page called Parallelism (grammar).

Agreed, and that's a good description of parallelism. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

5. Journalistic tone. I am sorry that you find some of my tone "journalistic." I would not characterize it that way. I strive to be clear, concise, and expressive, but none of that is out of keeping with Wikipedia’s stated policies. For example, the third paragraph of the Wikipedia:Featured article advice page states that FA articles should not "merely provide information," but should strive to do so in a "way that is compelling and engaging to non-specialist readers."

The one example you cite from my writing – probably the most expressive passage in the entire text – provides a good case study of how careful I've been to prevent expressive language from becoming merely journalistic or rhetorical. Yes, the fourth para. of the "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section does contain the phrases "Sometimes he spoke from the gut ... . Sometimes he spoke from the heart ...." But please note that (1) these phrases provide reasons to support the claim I make in my earlier sentence, that Satin "rejected the intellectual apparatus of traditional pacifism and socialism." Moreover, (2) I follow each phrase up with a concrete example to demonstrate what I'm talking about (e.g., Satin spoke from the gut when he blurted out to the New York Times Magazine reporter that America is a "godawful" place). Thus I provide evidence to support the reasons that support my claim. That is good logic, not blowsy journalism at all. Finally, please note that (3) in my last sentence in that paragraph I mention that Satin identified not with older pacifists but with Holden Caulfield, a fictional character well known for speaking pretty exclusively from the gut and the heart.

I'll give a general reply below in my own review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

6. Newspaper page numbers. You state that newspaper references without weblinks "should have" page numbers. With all due respect, on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, 6.2.3., "Newspaper articles," it clearly states that "page numbers are optional." I made an editorial decision to exclude page numbers because overwhelmingly, in the 2010s, researchers are looking up old newspapers not in library stacks but via online databases like ProQuest, where the author, date, and article title are more than sufficient to locate the article. Has the rule I read in 6.2.3 been changed?

7. ISBN links. Your last comment is that I must "include ISBN links with book sources." Once again, with all due respect, it was my understanding that ISBN numbers are optional. On the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, 6.2.1, "Books," it unambiguously states that "ISBN is optional." I made an editorial decision to exclude ISBN numbers because in the year 2011 I see them as so much clutter, and because my references section is already lengthy and full of more important numbers. Again, unless the rule in 6.2.1 has been changed, I would very much like to stick to my original decision.

To conclude: Again, I appreciate the work you put in on my article, and the seven important issues you raised. I hope my responses will persuade you that my article is closer to being FA-ready than you initially supposed. I would like to hear from other editors on these seven issues. - Babel41 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ... not because I hate the article, I really like it ... but please understand that Wikipedia in general and FAC in particular is driven by consensus and compromise. WP:MOS encodes a lot of the compromises ... and granted, many of these will come across as silly little issues (silly for you, but not silly for me when I have to edit every other sentence to get this to pass FAC) ... for example, we insist on straight quotes (") rather than curly quotes at FAC for a number of reasons, including the fact that searches for straight quotes will miss the curly quotes, and we insist that everything inside quote marks was actually in the quote unless otherwise noted (by brackets or ellipses), even the punctuation ... which is a semi-British style, and again, a compromise. The point is ... it sucks up a lot of reviewer time to deal with a host of issues that could have been dealt with at peer review. So, best of luck, and I hope to see you back here soon (ish!) - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. And once again, Nikki has done a superb job and I agree with all that, except that I don't know much about image copyright issues. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've made some general points about how FAC works on your user talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Concerning "from the gut" and "from the heart", we're talking about:

  Sometimes he spoke from the gut, as when he described the United States to the New York Times Magazine as “[t]hat godawful sick, foul country; could anything be worse?” Sometimes he spoke from the heart, as when he told author Jules Witcover, “It’s colder here, but you feel warm because you know you’re not trying to kill people.”

• Those expressions aren't terribly different than saying he spoke during interviews "with emotion", and I won't object if you want to substitute that phrase. I'm comfortable saying they don't match the style we aim for at Wikipedia. (And what appears to some as an absence of style does start to look like a style after a while.) We prefer expressions that have as little subtext as possible, expressions that (from experience) are less likely to engender edit wars. As a reader, I would personally translate "from the heart" to "with emotion" and wouldn't have any strong reaction to it, but other readers will be ascribing subtext: "He's being sincere and human." But we don't know if he's being sincere, unless you have some way to open up his brain and check. If secondary sources came to the conclusion that he was sincere, we can echo them; otherwise, let's go with something more, as we say, "neutral". - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I get your point, but I feel it is overblown here. Unless “objectivity” means that we constantly have to assume that any media figure might be insincere any time they speak, then I don’t see why Satin’s statements can’t be taken at face value here, i.e. can’t “objectively” be described as being from the gut and from the heart. He’s a 20-year-old kid here!

In my world, I would give Satin the benefit of the doubt, unless a significant number of observers judged him to be phony. (They did not.) But I will stop this!! I believe you when you tell me what Wikipedia’s position would be. So let me run this passage by you (and others): “Sometimes he spoke with emotion, as when he [see text]. Sometimes he spoke poetically, as when he [see text].” (I do need the examples to give credibility to the point I’m making; see the entire fourth paragraph in the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme sub-section.) – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Normally I just make edits that might be described as copyediting myself, to save everyone some time, but when the writer is less than impressed with the quality of the review, it's probably better just to comment here, so:
• "the old Maoist slogan “Dare to struggle, dare to win,” with ...": See WP:Checklist#second commas and WT:Checklist for support for the point in style guides. Lose the comma after "win", or add one after "slogan".

Right. I’ll lose the comma after “win.” (To add one after “slogan” would imply that there was only one Maoist slogan.) – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• No hyphen after "-ly", per Chicago and WP:MOS.

I cannot find this hyphenated phrase. I will certainly delete the hyphen; do you remember where it is? – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• In some articles, reviewers seem to want more direct quotations than you'd usually see in an academic survey article, on the theory that we need the extra information to help us comply with our core content policies. More often, reviewers want fewer direct quotes, saying that too many quotes make the prose choppy and unprofessional, that Wikipedia tries to avoid the self-promotion inherent in academic publishing, and that using other people's words avoids taking a position (and we need to be taking a position ... the vaunted "neutral" position). Since this article hasn't undergone any reviews, it's hard for me to make a call, but I'm pretty sure there are more quotes here than most of us are comfortable with.

I did use a relatively large number of direct quotes – 49 passages of more than a couple of words each (not counting quotes from Satin himself). But I did so for a number of reasons, which I hope Wikipedia’s reviewers will approve of.

First, though, let me make a couple of preliminary points. (1) Most of these quoted passages are extremely brief, a phrase or a sentence. (2) I feel that none of the passages – not one – interferes with the flow of the main text; makes it “choppy” or “unprofessional,” to use your words. (2) The 49 passages appear in a text of 51 paragraphs and approx. 7,200 words. In other words, there’s only about one per paragraph, or one in every block of 140+ words. Hopefully that is not too many given the considerations below.

Okay. My main intent in using them was not to avoid objectivity or neutrality. It was to enhance it. The world Satin entered in 1967, and continues to live in, consists of a minefield of competing ideological positions. Virtually every quoted passage reflects one of those positions, and the 49 passages cover the whole gamut of political-ideological responses to Satin’s work. Fourteen can be described as pro-, 21 as con-, and 14 as “purely” informative. So taken together, they provide what I feel can be described as an objective, and wonderfully textured, view of Satin’s work.

Another purpose of mine in quoting those passages, just as important really, was to properly inform the politically aware reader, i.e. probably the majority of those who will actually read this article. As you know, political writing and particularly ideologically attuned writing is laden with nuance. To summarize most of the passages I’ve quoted would inevitably tamp down or eliminate some of the delicious nuances they contain. I chose them carefully. Virtually all of them embody meanings and shades of meaning that a politically sophisticated reader will appreciate.

Finally, about the self-promotion question. As I mentioned above, the con- passages outnumber the pro- passages by a ratio of three to two. Moreover, few of the pro- passages resemble anything like blurbs on the back of a book. Most of them are truly informative – Pierre Berton’s take on Satin’s high-profile status in Canada, John Rensenbrink’s take on the Ten Key Values, etc. In addition, most of the pro- passages are followed by ones from people with different views.

In my view, the one passage that may sound promotional is in the very first sentence of the article – the statement that Satin is “miles ahead of the academics and intellectuals who cling to the Marxist vision.’ I think that passage is important, though. It sets up the whole article by informing the reader that (a) Satin is taken seriously by serious people (important to get across early, because of his draft dodger background and his use of the phrase “New Age”), and (b) Satin’s entire life would be spent seeking for a modern-day alternative to “the Marxist vision.” (The Toronto Star is one of Canada’s largest and most prestigious newspapers, and at the time it was the most liberal of Toronto’s three dailies; it was by no means a red-baiting rag. Robert Nielsen, the author of the article, which covered most of the op-ed page that day, has a biography on Wikipedia.)

I was inspired to use that quote by a very similar passage in the first sentence of the Featured Article on Bernard Williams, in which The Times of London is said to call him “the most brilliant and most important British moral philosopher of his time.” That is actually at least as incendiary a statement as my Toronto Star quote. Certainly utilitarians would disagree with it, Kantians would disagree, Biblical Christians would disagree, followers of some British feminist moral philosophers would disagree. But the passage does exactly what my Toronto Star passage does: it makes the subject of the article sound provocative, and interesting, and worth reading about.

But if Wikipedia’s editors want me to cut down on the number of direct quotes (or to eliminate that particular direct quote) – if I haven’t made my case successfully here – then I will of course do so. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "quasi-pacifist–flexible": quasi-pacifist – flexible

I do not understand this comment. In my text, there are no quotation marks here. If I were to put quotes around anything, it would be the word “quasi-pacifist,” since that’s the word Cummings uses. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph: "he says,": he said (since the rest of the paragraph is past tense) - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

“Says” is in the present tense here because Satin is explaining his 1967-68 actions from the perspective of 2008. If that carries no weight with Wikipedia’s reviewers, then I’ll change it to past tense. - Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... to evade military conscription,": a period would work better there.

This is at the end of the second-to-last paragraph of the Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada sub-section. I believe my punctuation works better stylistically. A short, snappy sentence – “But few observers believed him, then or now” – is followed by a longer sentence containing three brief examples. To break that sentence up would slow the reader down unnecessarily (it is easy to follow as is), and make it less clear that the three examples all pertain to the short, initial sentence. But, again, if I am running afoul of Wikipedia FA style here, I am willing to follow your lead. –- Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "fired/purged": At the third occurrence, "fired" would be better. See WP:SLASH.

Yes, absolutely. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I got almost halfway down, to Confessions of a Young Exile. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from the principal drafter. Thanks for your very helpful critique from August 14. I see that you have recently made a treasure-trove of further comments, and I look forward to downloading them (because of the condition of my eyes, I prefer reading hard-copy text). Here I just wanted to reassure you that I do not see the MOS or Citing-sources rules as "silly little issues"; if I did, I would not have responded to Nikki in such detail, detail that only an editor could love.

The curly-quotes problem you describe was not a result of my ignoring the rules; I used a version of Ariel that has straight quotes. I was just not technologically sophisticated enough to understand that you cannot ever transfer punctuation from Microsoft Word into the Sandbox. I then added and revised text in the Sandbox, which is why the quotation marks, apostrophes, etc., are so, um, diverse. I was hoping that they would all come out the same at your end. Obviously, they did not, so of course I will go over the entire text by hand, entering straight quotes and apostrophes as I go.

I know, I know: ignorance and old age is no excuse. I am sorry I wasted your time, and I will come back with pristine text. Because of my eyes, it will take a few weeks. In the meantime, I am looking forward to absorbing your and other reviewers' comments. – Babel41 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, this was a very productive use of my time. Feel free to take a few weeks if you like ... but also feel free to be as collaborative as you like. There are friendly people all over the place here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I choose collaboration!!! And you’re right, see Ed’s comment immediately below. I can hardly believe this. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've fixed all the curly quotes and apostrophes. If you click "advanced" on the editing screen, there's this cool 'find and replace' tool in the top right that you can use to make changes like this. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear man – sorry, dear “Ed” – you are an angel. You got the curly double quotes all fixed, saving me hours of optical agony. And by following your instructions, I was able to get rid of all 138 curly single quotes and apostrophes with a click of my mouse. We are ON OUR WAY.

BTW, I am assuming I should not enter other suggested changes until I receive possible further comments on all the above. But I couldn’t let this one wait another day. – Babel41 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article must not contain references unless they are direct quotations, and I suggest you using footnotes. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Every bit of information that could be challenged needs a "reference" (assuming we are talking about citations here) and he is using footnotes, at least what Wikipedia calls footnotes (see WP:FOOTNOTE; I don't agree with their definition either, they should be called endnotes). Can you clarify? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [22].

---

Wishology

Nominator(s): 89119 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's first FAC nomination failed mainly because the issue was pointed out that it was yet needed to be copy-edited (admittedly I was a bit impatient so I initially thought skipping the CEs would be okay). Someone finally got to my request at the WP:GOCE page, and here are this user's copy-edits: [23][24][25]. All that in mind, and assuming this article might match up with FA criteria, I put this article up for renomination. 89119 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Procedural close - the previous nomination was closed 3 August, less than two weeks ago. Per the FAC instructions, you must either wait 2 weeks or seek delegate permission to renominate early when your nomination is archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How can we go about to seek delegate permission? Because the previous nomination was, as mentioned above, closed early due to a need of a copy-editor, and thus did not get a chance for a full article scrutiny by others. Now that the copy-editing is done, I was hoping this one could get a chance of a full review, though I understand if FAC instructions still need to be followed regardless and this nomination need to be procedurally closed. (If this nomination is closed, does the two week waiting period reset from today?) 89119 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to post to one of their talk pages (probably either User talk:SandyGeorgia or User talk:Karanacs). My understanding is so long as this nom is procedurally closed (not failed), the waiting period would not reset. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. This will likely be closed, but just for the record... I shan't conduct an in-depth review, but the plot summaries in both the main section and the lead are written quite childishly. For example, the last paragraph includes "Cosmo is fed up with..." Why not simply "Cosmo is angry with" or "Cosmo is at his wits' end"? "Fed up with" is rather colloquial. It is important that you summarize well, because the plot summary is often all that readers view in articles about fiction. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there are more problems with the article beyond fundamental copy-editing issues, as pointed out by User:Interchangeable so far, I advocate this nomination should be closed procedurally, and hope to seek further improvements with writing prose at a more professional standard. 89119 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. We have our WP:WAF and WP:MOSTV guidelines. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [26].

---

S&M (song)

Nominator(s): Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...this article failed FAC last time, and I was advised to wait a few weeks before re-nominating. Also, the article has been through WP:GOCE, which was suggested to me by someone to imrpove my chances, and I feel now that it has further improved upon what it was before. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check WP:MOS issues like quotes within quotes, italicization, etc
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines or not

  As far as I can see, they all have publishers. I think this was mainly to do with Rap-Up? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Not quite - for example, FN 12. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• be consistent in whether you include Viacom in MTV refs

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods

  Where? Trying to find a double space in 125 references is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Foreign-language sources should be identified as such

  Quite a few of the spanishcharts.com, norwegiancharts.com etc. are actually in English, so there is no need to write Spanish or Norwegian etc. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  True, but for something like FN 21, which is not in English, there is a need to identify the language. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized

  Where? I can't see any that aren't. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Compare FNs 22 and 23. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• don't use bare URLs as sources

  Again, where? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• In general, citation formatting should be made more consistent

  Have ammended all MTV, Rap Up, Billboard, iTunes and Digital Spy references, as they are a lot of them. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?

  The second one has expired and I have removed it, but the first one is perfectly acceptable. It is providing accurate information about the details of the songs sales. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  What makes the first a high-quality reliable source? That's beyond simple accuracy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  It's published by Yahoo! and provides factual and reliable information about the songs sales. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  It's also a blog. Does Yahoo fact-check the blogs it hosts? What is its editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Check for typos in references, for example FN 60

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Multi-page sources like FN 62 need to include page numbers

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Web citations need publishers and access dates

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose over multiple citation issues. Also, while I didn't look extensively at article text, the prose remains awkward and unclear in places. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

God, I really don't understand what else I am supposed to do. It has had 3 GANs, which means 3 different editors have all had an input on how to imrprove, 1 Peer Review and someone from the GOCE has also gone through the entire article, in addition to about 4/5 people's comments on the last FAC, as well as my own extensive input. This article has had so much input from so many different people to improve, I really don't know what else to do. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It's difficult I know, but you really do need to try and find a good copyeditor to help with the prose. A few examples:

• "The song was restricted to nighttime television play". Should be "night-time".

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... presents the pop star's wish-fulfillment fantasies about the media, punishing the ones who have written negatively about her". Very awkward conjunction of "media" and "ones".

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... or personally hurt her in sadomasochist-related scenes and fetishes". The way that's written makes it appear as if Rihanna is punishing those with whom she has taken part in SM activities, which I'm sure isn't what's meant.

  I don't think that's how it comes across. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... part of a medley with "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?". It wasn't a medley with, it was a medley that also included.

  Done, well it was was "with" them, it made sense to read, but I've changed it anyway. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... debuting on the UK Singles Chart at number fifty-five on the week dated November 27, 2010". How on Earth can a week be dated, especially by one day?

  Done, quite easily, but I changed it anyway. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The song has since been certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) for shipment of 200,000 copies." Awkward "for shipment of".

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... peaking within the top-three in many countries". Why is "top-three" hyphenated?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In Australia, "S&M" debuted on the ARIA Singles Chart at number eighty-seven on the week dated November 29, 2010." Same point as above. And why "on the week"?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It reached number one in its fourth week on the chart and stayed at its peak position for two consecutive weeks." If it stayed there then by definition the weeks must have been consecutive, so the word is redundant.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "As of July 26, "S&M" has sold 1.05 million copies across Europe." What year?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... giving Rihanna her the tenth number-one single in the US". I think you should ask for your money back from the GOCE.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A conference is scheduled for August 10, 2011". This is too much detail and needs to be updated now in any case.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Paris-based photographer Philipp Paulus later sued as well, alleging further copyright violations, from a scene in the music video where Rihanna wears a big dress, is taped up against the wall with a plastic sheet covering of her, with X's all around, which Paulus believes was appropriated from his own photographic series, Paperworld." You should definitely ask the GOCE for your money back for not fixing that monster of a sentence.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Moved extended discussion to talk. Nominator has expressed frustration but intends to try to address points raised; reviewer has expressed intention to oppose until copy-editing is complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The magazine is called Rap-Up, not Rap Up. There's a hyphen. The publisher is Devin Lazerine, not Rap-Up. Digital Spy should not be italics for some odd reason that I can't explain. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  I've done all of those already. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  Digital Spy should not be in italics because it is not a printed source. It is an online news website.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment: "Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine[where?]" Explain the tag there? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  I don't understand what the where? tag means? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: The article has improved a lot, a few more tweaks and addressing some of the pointed out stuffs earlier will help to achieve FA.--Freknsay (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Per both Nikki and Malleus who have raised excellent points regarding prose and ELs, Calvin would do better listening to them and not crib about it. Reviewer's time and energy should not be exhausted. As someone who helped the article gain its GA status, I can see so many issues existing now that I'm not even sure that this is GA worthy now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah because someone from GOCE removed a load of info. And I'm hardly surprised you are opposing, it feels more like you are making it personal rather than being professional. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And when have I "cribed" about it? I have done all of the prose issues raised, and addressed all of the source issues. So you should find other things to support your oppose, because you can't oppose what has already been taken care of. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: In all honesty, I have to turn this candidate down. Featured articles are not like GAs, where all you need to do is satisfy a simple criteria. For FAs, satisfying criterion 1a is a hell of a job and the article just isn't up to those standards. This just doesn't "exemplify our best work" yet. Some examples below. Sorry, I just skimmed through the page. These may be in random order:

• "is a song by Barbadian recording artist" I thought she was Bajan.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Rihanna performed the remixed version of the song with Britney Spears on the Billboard Music Awards on May 22, 2011." Why isn'tBillboard in italics?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine and Thomas Conner" - Online publications are not italicized.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "and added that ['S&M'] is Loud's pulsating opener" If this is not in a quote then why is "S&M" in brackets?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "with all references to "sex", "chains" or "whips" removed." Wrong conjunction. Either change "all" or "or".

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "as apart of the "Summer Concert Series" - You can easily see that there is a major spelling issue there.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• ""S&M" remix with Britney Spears on May 22, 2011" It may be wise to describe her (American pop singer) as this is the first reference of Spears.

  No, look at the end of the first paragraph in Lead. It's already been mentioned there. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "An official remix of "S&M" was released featuring rapper J. Cole online on January 17, 2011" → "An official remix, featuring rapper J. Cole, was released..."

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "in the iTunes Store." Need a better preposition.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• ""They watched 'Umbrella' ... I was full nude"" - Unlink "Umbrella" per MOS:QUOTE.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "and a Rolling Stones tongue logo over her mouth." → "and The Rolling Stones' tongue logo over her mouth" Be accurate with band names.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears." Again, why no italics?

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are still problems with the Rap-Up references. Soome don't have hyphens, some are not italicized. Fix them.

  Done, and they all had hyphens. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Check ref [45]. A simple Ctrl+F can help solve these issues. ;-) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Woah never knew i could do that! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say the GOCE did a less-than-impressive job. I am not trying to be biased here. There are still issues that have not been dealt with and you just have to look for those inconsistencies. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The annoying thing is, many of the points you have raised were in the article, and the guy from WP:GOCE went through and deleted so much stuff, now I am trying to amend all the mistakes he made. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's that and I have compared previous revisions with that of after the GOCE copyediting and she did address some issues poorly, but such things should not be taken into consideration during a FAC and the final revision is all that is taken into account. I have more comments for you to respond to: —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• ""S&M" is an uptempo Eurodance and dance-pop song. Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed. In April 2011, the song was re-released as a remix single to digital outlets, featuring guest vocals by American recording artist Britney Spears." Three consecutive but totally irrelevant statements that have no transition into the next. Really flows badly, like a list.

  Pasted in a older version of the Lead before the GOCE made a hash of it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart" I think "brought" would be a more appropriate and encyclopedic verb.

  No, that doesn't make sense. The song was at #2, so 'pushed' is fine. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Fine, I must stand corrected, then. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Internationally, the song reached number one" - Why is that linked?

  Pasted in a older version of the Lead before the GOCE made a hash of it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "personally hurt her in sadomasochistic-related scenes and fetishes" - As Malleus addressed above, that really sounds like the media is sexually torturing her. You have to make sure that readers know that this is metaphorical.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "The song was restricted to night-time television play in multiple countries, due to the explicit content of the video." - I don't get this one. You say the song itself was banned, but then you talk about explicit content of the music video. Are you saying that the video's themes also affected airplay for the song, or was it just the video that was restricted?

  Pasted in a older version of the Lead before the GOCE made a hash of it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "During her tour in Australia" - Who's tour?

  I can't see where this is. And it's pretty obvious it's talking about Rihanna, it is a Rihanna article.. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Chart performance. And you don't refer to her by her name in the whole section until the third paragraph. That's my point. It just reads funny. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "as a medley with her two previous singles from Loud, "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?" - You mean "two of her previous singles"? Raining Men was released after those two were in the US. This is in the Live performances section, btw.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "only the chorus plus one verse between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?" - Already linked above. No need as it is overlink.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "with the stage decorated as a S&M-inspired set." - Wouldn't it be "an S&M-inspired set"? Otherwise, use "sadomasochistic" instead of "S&M-inspired".

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• ""her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears." Still not italics.

  Yeahhh it is. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Shit, was I looking at an older revision then? You must be kidding. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Lol, well, Billboard couldn't get much more like looking like The Leaning Tower of Pisa in that section even if it wanted to! ha Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  I see what you did there, xD. I feel ashamed for not knowing how to spell Pisa before.... —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A series of tweets between the two artists" Since Twitter is already linked in the previous sentence, just unlink this.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A new remix featuring Spears was ultimately released on April 11, 2011." Put in some commas.

  Done. Sentence was a bit short so I made it longer Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• ""S&M" (Remix feat. Britney Spears) – 4:17" → ""S&M" (Remix) (featuring Britney Spears) – 4:17"

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Refs [92], [121] and [122] don't use the yyyy-mm-dd date format like the others.

  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Have addressed all of your points, but you need to reply to a few. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Wow, was the GOCE really responsable for all those issues? This group really needs a guarantee policy. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done all now. Yeah, see what I mean by it was better before? I'm clearly not as bad as certain people make me out to be. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Naw, it's not you, it's the article. They just bashed you because you have made the most edits on it. But, please copyedit the articles by yourself or a peer reviewer next time. Too many issues were neglected before nomination. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  I did have PR before I nominated FAC the first time! I said that at the top of this article and it is on the talk page for S&M! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Not my point. What I mean is that don't heavily rely on the Guild of So-called Copy Editors, and make sure they did things right before nominating right away. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  That was the first and last time I use the GOCE. And I trusted what he or she had written, that's why I nominated for FAC. I thought that considering he or she is on the GOCE, that one would actually be good at it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Seeing this is your first time with GOCE, that's understandable. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 04:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  That's good you have addressed all issues. But I'll wait until the other reviewers give a response before putting a vote in. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I am sorry Calvin, but again, this article doesn't satisfy the FAC, enumerated in part as follows:

1. Well written: From the first para in the lead alone, there are errors in the prose.

• It was produced by Stargate and Sandy Vee and was released on January 21, 2011 as the album's fourth United States single and third international single. This is quite a long sentence, and sort of doesn't cohere. Usually you don't combine details about production and release. Also, the usage of United States as a modifier (adjective) to single is not good. You may say "...album's fourth single in the United States..."

• C'mon, it's not a long sentence, and it's not as long as what you consider it to be. And I don't think it doesn't cohere. A sentence is long if you are struggling for breath at the end of it, meaning there aren't enough breaks in the sentence to breath, and that is not the case here. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Because normally you don't mix production with release. That would probably get sentence if you connect "Stargate" with "Eurodance". --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "S&M" is a Eurodance song. That sentence is quite sort. You could somehow connect that to the production info.

• Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed, with some reviewers criticizing the song's overt use of sexual lyrics, The use of noun+ing verb is frowned upon by FAC reviewers and the general Wikipedians / readers. You may want to be guided by this exercise: User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.

• Done. Re-worded Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• the song's overt use of sexual lyrics I feel this awkward. It's not the song that's using the lyrics.

• It's not the awkward to read, and the lyrics make up the song. What else is it??? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Comprehensive: This criterion is usually left by music writers.

• The article doesn't give much info about the song's writing, production, etc.

• That's because there isn't much info about the songwriting, production, etc. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• This was raised during the first FAC which was addressed. If there's no information about it, then there's no way this article is getting comprehensive in coverage. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

& And this article, this article and this article do have extensive Background sections? No they don't. It's not fair to fail FAC just because the Background section is quite small. If that is all the info there is, then to me, that is broad in it's coverage, as it lists everything about the Background of the song. Not all songs have as much detail as an article like this. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The song's lyrics are "sexual" therefore a good analysis of the lyrics must be presented, which would be better if its in a separate section.

• Yes, if there are reliable sources to back it up, and there isn't. I've heard this all before in 3 GANs, 2 FACs and 1 PR. Don't people check those? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Because normally reviewers don't check the history of the reviews. Appreciate if you could provide us links to that. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

3. Well researched:

• That line "basic chord progression of E♭3–A♭2–C♭3–D♭3" might be a wrong interpretation of the sheet music. It could be a series or progression of notes, but not chords. Chords refer any set of notes that is heard as if sounding simultaneously. Those notations there might (just might) be referring to guitar chords. I am not sure. Not my specialty.

• Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not done. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also, how basic is basic chord progression. There are lots of articles using that phrase which might not be true at all in some.

• Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Concise lead: The lead is not concise. There's too much details, others seem trivial for the lead. For example: "S&M" debuted at number fifty-three What make's it significant? Unless it broke a record, or the single debuted at 99 and the following week it rocketed to number 1. The song also peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs and Pop Songs charts. These should have been saved for the succeeding related section.

• I've seen FAs with longer leads than this, so to me this is not a problem. If anything, the lead of S&M holds back on info, because there is so much more which is discussed throughout the article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's not about the length, at least as regards to my comment. But its the content that's making the length unnecessary, especially if those details are trivial for the lead. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

5. Appropriate structure: I think the "remixes" section should go first before "live performance". That section should prepare the readers apropos of the Spears remix prior to the latter section which mentions the remix.

• Again, have been through all of this before, and consensus was that it stays where it is. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please provide link. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

6. Media

• The audio sample doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The caption talks about the lyrics which can be detailed / explained / elaborated in the prose. The provision of audio here is not significant.

• So you want it removed? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am not saying I want it removed. Justify the inclusion. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Either of the two screenshots in the music video section should be removed. There's not much difference of the two, therefore a provision of details in the prose alone could suffice understanding.

• It's to show the resemblance between Rihanna's video and what she has allegedly plagiarised, you'd know that if you would read the music video sections. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Both pictures are almost the same. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• What are you not understanding? It's to show the resemblance between them, hence why they are similar. That's the whole point of why they are both there. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go over the article and submit it back once you and others feel its up for another FAC. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Have addressed your points. Some you need to clarify. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note to Sandy. I might not be able to update my comments here until next week, as usual. My Oppose will remain strong. Unless there's improvement in the article in question, I might try to log in. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [27].

---

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR), Novice7, Adabow 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very interesting song article. I also have very helpful co-authors who remain intersted in the subject. After a productive GA run, I thought I would give it a shot here. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - an interesting article, but needs work to reach FA standards. Here are some specific concerns: — Nikkimaria 21:41, August 1, 2011 — continues after insertion below

• See also link should instead be a hatnote
  • I am often corrected for having hatnotes to the main link from a dabbed link. Are you sure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the see also link is needed at all. Removed. —Andrew_stalk 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the sound sample pages are missing song length. Also, the article says "According to Allmusic, the original track has a 3:09 length, but when it appeared on the 2006 compilation album Essential Nancy Sinatra, it had a length of 3:11", but the sample page gives a source of Nancy and a length of 3:11
  • Fixed, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • File:NancySinatra_HereWeGoAgain.ogg is too long, given the corrected song length. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed the sample. Decreased the length by one second. Novice7 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The non-lead infoboxes aren't "main infoboxes"; FURs for non-lead cover art should be amended
  • Something is wrong with the template and the override fields are only adding text to the default. I put in a request for technical assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Infobox parameter usage has been clarified and I have now corrected the template for these files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay. Somewhat echoing the point raised by Sven below, but there's an awful lot of non-free media here, both sounds and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Consider the amount of text related to each FURed file. IMO, the charted versions should be kept. I also think there is meaningful text for the other versions, but like I said before, these are somewhat negotiable. They certainly help the reader better understand the variety of renditions that have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Are you talking about "I got a call from Ray asking if I'd be interested in singing on this duets record"? That does not really seem to me to be a quote within a quote and I don't see anything else that you could be talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Some prose/grammar problems for example "For the week ended June 7"
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That specific example was fixed, but this is a general point. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• "For the week ending June 14, 1969, the song spent its fifth week" - repetitive and redundant phrasing, check for others
  • I don't understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "week...week" - repetitive and somewhat redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Specific example fixed. There are other areas where the prose could be tightened. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• "countrified ache" - is this a direct quote from the source? If not, should be reworded; if so, should be notated as such. Look for other examples of unquoted phrases with unencyclopedic tone
  • Fixed instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• "when Charles' was understated" - Charles' what?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Some WP:MOS issues, including capitalization and overlinking
• I have addressed some capitalization and overlinking problems. Do you have any further advice about possible lingering concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we need to link all instruments every time in credits lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I have removed many redundant instrument links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Should "PopMatters" be italicized or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not sure, but I deitalicized, like its page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Make sure all citations are complete - websites must have publishers, books should have ISBNs, etc
  • I found 3 offending citations. I have fixed one. One of my co-authors found all the ISSNs for the Billboard stuff. I will note that refs 30 and 44 need may need them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I think Novice7 fixed the remaining ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Still issues here. For example, FN 4 is missing a retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That ref got added late and it has been dominated by better refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• NeutralComments – this article has been largely improved since I first saw it at GAN. It would be nice if this article about a great song gets featured. Good job to bring it to GA status, by the way! I can not support until this issue with the non-free files is resolved.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

link "beats per minute"

fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

link Hammond organ instead Hammond and organ

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking, for example "Allmusic"

I was going to delink a second use of its Grammy links, but since they occur so late in the article and are so important an issue in the article I reverted myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I found a few other redundant links and removed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales, that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album, make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. " reads better

I am confused at the suggestion. "that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album" is neither an appositive of sales nor a parenthetical. I am not so good with grammar, but do not understand why it should be set off with commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I will strike this, after re-reading it sounds ok. You are right.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Note that the song won Record of the Year, but not Song of the Year." "Note" fails WP:YOU; instead write in passive voice. What about "It should be noted that..." or simply "Note that ...

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Technicians" under "Credits": sometimes you write the first letter in capitals, then in lowercase.

Fixed for consistency. Only brands start with caps now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 33: ""The Billboard Book of Top 40 R&B And Hip-Hopp Hits"

double p fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 7: "[[]Tribune Company]]"

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 91: delink Billboard

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the reliability of Songfacts.

I found a replacement reference, but I will need help polishing it up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Will re-review later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"and it was listed as the sixth of ten tracks on the Invites You to Listen album (catalog number ABCS-595).[4][5][6]" would be better to remove "it", as unnecessary

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"When Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (1962) was reissued in 1988, it was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on the album.[2][3] " remove the last album, and replace it with "it".

fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

""Another excellent example of how Ray Charles was able to fuse blues and country, "Here We Go Again" is a soulful ballad in the Southern blues tradition. Lyrically, it has a resignation and pain that makes the blues, simply, what it is. The recording has a simple and sterling gospel arrangement and, in retrospect, is one of Charles' finer attempts in the studio from the 1960s."[13]" 'Here We Go Again', and not "Here We Go Again", as quote in quote, per MOS:PUNCT

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"The original version debuted in the Billboard Hot 100 in the May 20, 1967 issue at number 79.[14] " on the

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"The duet was released for digital download on January 31, 2005.[87]" what does that mean? The duet version?

The 2004 cover was the first prominent duet vocal arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is in the Norah Jones/Ray Charles section, so it is not necessary to include the phrase. Change "The duet" to "it". "it was released digitally...".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it in that instance. "The duet" appears four other times in that section, btw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Steagall's version with McEntire (who he is credited with discovering at a 1974 county fair)[104][105] is 3:10.[106]" do you mean "who is credited to discover McEntire at a 1974 county fair"?

Changed to who Steagall discovered at a 1974 county fair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In the last section, last paragraph, link Alto flute, instead of just flute

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-reviewed.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that this has way too many non-free audio samples, however I am recusing from formally doing the media review (and giving the Oppose vote that would come from the NFCC issues) because of prior interactions with the nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that there is value in having a wide variety of samples. Certainly the three charted versions serve a purpose. I also think having a pure country music version and a jazzy version are beneficial. Obviously, if limited we would cut the other versions that did not chart, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Efe 14:03, August 5, 2011 — continues after insertion below

• Generally not comprehensive. The info on the original version gives little to the reader.
  • We are talking about a song that was not a Top 10 single. There is not much information out there on it. It is not written about in Ray Charles books. I have basically exhausted the Chicago Public Library for information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The criteria are not compromised just because there's not much information published. If there's not enough sources, then by all means this must not be passed as FA. I cannot recall where it is written here in Wikipedia, but it states that absolutely not all articles are FA-worthy (perhaps due to little information) and this one might be one of them. Unless more information are published and can be used here in Wikipedia. --Efe (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I am not really sure what kind of content you feel is missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, keep in mind that when compared to other FA songs, this will not have performance details for the most notable version since its success was posthumous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Did I find enough of added content for you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Prose. Choppy prose. One paragraph for each sub-section. Paragraphs are like segments of sentences of different topics.
• Prose.

• Vague and might be redundant: the song was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on it a bonus track therefore not part of the original and standard tracklist

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The song was also included on Ray Charles Anthology (1988) I just thought the use of parenthesis is sloppy and breaks the "reading"

• That seems to be the standard preferred format for an album to put its year in parenthesis afterward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please lead me to that "preferred format". Though not a big deal, but it really is sloppy or unreadable-breaks the reading. IMO, those years can be rewritten as part of the sentence instead of having them enclosed in the parenthesis. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe I am mixing up films and albums. I will convert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Do you want the same change in the opening paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I made these changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Looks fine. Though there are still issues in the lead. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestions welcome. Do you think removing those remaining parentheticals would help the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions like there are a lot of trivia (chart info), the enumeration of names (cover versions), etc.. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is much performance history since it was a posthumous success and he was not in good health in his latter days. I aware of an official video. Thus, much of the other type of text you would see in an FA is not going to be in this one leaving it with a lot of chart performance. In terms of amount of chart performance, I opened up three songs and found Hey Baby (No Doubt song) 1653 characters, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) 2972 chars, and Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) 2006 chars. This article has 1967 version 1172 chars, 1969 version 1301 chars and 2004 version 2548 chars. Total chars is high, but per charted version the amount of text is pretty normal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course its not practical to compare this with contemporary singles. What I meant by trivia is this, for instance: By August 12, it was no longer among the Hot 100,[21] although it remained number 8 on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles. What is the significance of that?

And also this one which fails to meet FAC #4. The entire paragraph could be best placed in the album's article: The song was the best-selling track on a record-setting album on many levels. For the week ending September 18, 2004, Genius Loves Company sold 202,000 copies, ranking second on the Billboard 200. This was Charles' highest charting album in over 40 years and represented an opening week record for a duets album (since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking such statistics in 1991). Frank Sinatra's 1993 Duets sold 339,000 during the Christmas week, eight weeks after its 173,500-unit opening. The initial shipment of 733,000 units was an all-time record for the 31-year history of Concord Records and the sales represented a Soundscan record for the company.[83] In addition, the album placed at number five on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums for Charles' highest placement since A Portrait of Ray peaked at fifth in 1968.[84] These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. The previous record for most tracks from the same album was 9 by Neil Young & Crazy Horse with their 2003 Greendale album. — Efe 14:03, August 5, 2011 — continues after insertion below

This is an attempt to show that the song was the most successful song on a successful album. Not sure how much of this to move to the album article. However, the GA reviewer mentioned the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Record_charts#Chart_trajectories for guidance. The articled is littered with such. --Efe (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of that policy. Didn't realize how different our content is from other chart performances. Will clean up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is also influenced by the genres of country music[11] and gospel music. The use of "also" is not useful at all because the preceding sentence does not talk about genres and influences; unless you will transfer that after the first sentence of the paragraph.
• Allmusic described the original as "Another excellent.. Please add the name of the reviewer, and long quotations must be introduced by a colon instead of letting it stand like a sentence in a sentence.

• Trivia-like info. Those chart "trajectories" are really unnecessary. Some of it are contained in the lead, which should summarize the article and therefore those must be removed / rephrased.
• Media. That audio sample(s) is not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. It adds no significance to the readers, and the description is not descriptive at all.--Efe (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not clear to me where the line is, so I am not sure what needs to be removed. I await a content review. IMO, since this is a country music song, we should have a country music sample and all other music samples have significant amounts of content in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Just like images, audio samples should not be used simply for "sampling" purposes for each cover of a song, otherwise that is decorative. Even just a single sample from a notable song is not an immediate allowance for its use. That said, for this article, I see only two of the samples having any type of commentary on the quality of the song's performance: the original song, and the duet one. The other three are excessive, not discussed at all in the article, and ergo, fail NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Commenting on the version where the text and comments have been added since, I would have to argue that there is still too much use of sound files here. Again, the original song and the Norah Jones duet piece - those seem fine, so I'm not going to comment on them. But the other samples seem poorly justified, the next strongest would be the one by Nelson and Jones but even then, if the point of the sound file is to show Nelson's lackluster vocals against the overall song, that can be described in text without a problem. Or to put it another way: I believe the other three sound files could be removed, and the reader's understanding of the article would not be affected the slightest, generally a sign that the files are extraneous even if there is commentary that leads towards them. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Of the three files that you question, I can concede that the Nelson/Jones version is not important to the overall history of the song. It would be unnatural for us to have an article just on that version if the other versions did not exist because it never charted and has been barely mentioned in reliable sources. I continue to be at a total loss in understanding WP:NFCC. I spent some time looking at WP:FA and the 5 songs within 10 years in either direction from this song. Only "Hey Jude" makes sense to me. I remain unable to understand why "The Long and Winding Road" has no audio samples while "What'd I Say" has two from the same song. "Like a Rolling Stone" includes a sample of a Jimi Hendrix with little explanation while "Layla" does not include the Grammy Awarded Eric Clapton Cover. As a result, I am not quite sure how to present my case/clarification request. But here goes. The Sinatra version charted at Billboard for five weeks. If we were to create a separate article for it (in the absence of other versions) with an audio sample that would be considered entirely natural for the encyclopedia. Any song that charts for five weeks by a notable artist could have a song with an audio sample. In this case, we have a song that charted in one musical style and was described as another, which happens to be the original. Thus, we have a song for which the interpretation of the musical style was at controversy. This should leave the reader to wonder why is it Easy Listening according to some and Country according to others. Hmm. Let me listen and see. Not to mention the fact that it charted on Billboard for five weeks. O.K. so when I listen to it, it remains unclear to me exactly why it isn't true country. What could help the reader understand? Obviously a straigtforward hard core country version. Thus, the Strait version. The Strait version not only helps the reader understand the controversy surrounding a charted version, but it also presents the song in the style it was written. At WP:FS the Strait version might be considered the most important because versions that present the song as written are regarded as the most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I think starting from the assumption that any notable song is entitled to a non-free sample is the mistake here. That simply isn't a clearly allowable use as, say, cover art for published works. Many notable singles can be discussed in broad terms without the reader having to hear a sample to understand the encyclopedic nature of the song. We do allow samples where the audio style has been explicitly discussed in a manner that the audio would significantly improve the reader's understanding. Hence why the original song and the duet are reasonable samples to include here, since there is commentary that works alongside the audio.
          • One thing on past FA's: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any FA passed before, say, 2008, is likely not a good example to draw from as NFC checking was not as rigorous as it is today. Of the examples, "What'd I Say"'s two sample rationale is discussed in the FAC, in that both parts were critically commented on, but take from effectively two different songs (part I and part II), thus allowing for both; for "Like a Rolling Stone", there actually is dicussion in depth of the Hendrix version within the article body (it doesn't have to be in the caption). The others that lack samples are completely fine - again, it is not a requirement that a notable song need an audio sample. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
            • First of all, thanks again for giving me feedback. I don't understand how NFCC is applied, so I am just going to ask directly about my specific samples at issue. Ignoring the argument that it charted making it notable and just focusing on the fact that it charted in one musical style, but is classified by some in another why doesn't that make a presentation of the Sinatra audio file encyclopedic? This song is peculiar as a Country song that hasn't charted as a country song.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Regarding the Strait version, why doesn't it matter how the song was written. It seems encyclopedic to me to say, this song has charted on all kinds of other charts, but not the Country song despite the fact that it is truly a country song and then show the reader what the song really was written to sound like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See responses to J Milburn and Hammersoft below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The audio samples are poorly captioned therefore we cannot identify its significance. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have recaptioned them now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• That free image in the infobox seems impractical. That was previously embedded in the prose. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I will move it back to the prose and leave the infobox empty.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• I was hoping for more substantive thought on whether as captioned the various files can remain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The audio files? --Efe (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Efe's Oppose

Hi Tony. The page is lengthy that it's becoming hard to navigate. Please pardon me for introducing another "sub section" of my review. Going back to the above, let's summarize the details:

Criterion 1a Prose

• Still there are areas there prose is not quite good. For instance, Charles' 1967 tour for the album began with a benefit on the USS Constellation. I just can't understand what do you mean by "began with a benefit".

• Linked instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOS issues. "sing-a-long pop style." as opposed to "sing-a-long pop style". Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside

• Fixed instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 2a Lead

• There's just lots of information in the lead. Perhaps you could trim or better summarize the chart performance details, as well as the cover versions.

• I just trimmed the chart stuff. Working on covers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Covers trimmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 3 Media

• Still an outstanding issue apropos of the issues raised by other reviewers. Despite of that, some were already taken from the article. Only two (audio samples) are left.

• Waiting for a review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Although its free, the provision of two images of Nora are not, well, don't know how to explain. Perhaps one could do?

• That version was contemporary in both 2004/05 and 2010. She had different looks in those time periods. Although the 2010 picture is easier to see, the 2005 picture is from the slightly more important time period. It would be hard to go with one since the 2010 picture is so much better. Since both are free, I have included both. I don't understand what the issue is since both are free. Which would you like me to remove, if I remove one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not an issue actually. But just because its a free image doesn't mean its fine to choke the article with images. Unless there's a significant reason to add more than what is really needed to perhaps identify the artist in question. --Efe (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 4 Length

• This song was made during a phase in Charles' career when he was performing a lot of country music. I think this sentence summarizes that section. So perhaps you could do another round of re-organization.

• How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The same section. There are unnecessary details like "However, Tangerine did not appear on the label of his works until 1968." Although you did a good job in providing readers insight to the time when Charles was doing a lot of country music, still those details should be somewhere else but here.

• This is an attempt to explain the main image that does not include the name Tangerine or its logo. I am not sure what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Performance history. How does the song relates to that section?

• For 21st century song FAs it is very common to have a performance history section outlining specific important dates that a song was played and concert performance. The section might say something like the song was played on Saturday Night Live, Late Night with David Letterman and Good Morning America on such and such dates. It's debut was on the night of the American Music Awards on X date. The song was also part of the Big Name Tour playlist which began on date x and ended on date y. The song was used in the following television episodes and on the soundtrack to Movie X. Of the original versions FA contemporaries (songs within 10 years in either direction: "Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Layla"), only Like_a_Rolling_Stone#Live_performances exists. I think it is pretty safe to say that the best charting song from the album was part of the album tour playlist although we have no specific evidence. That is the best I can do with this. I know of one date when he appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, but I don't expect any responses to my talk page query about what songs were performed on the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have added the following sentence "The album tour playlist is not readily available, but "Here We Go Again" was the best-charting song on the album (and likely on the playlist)." I am not sure if the part in parenthesis can be included as a logical deduction from/synthesis of the sources or should be considered WP:OR. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• P.S. if anyone knows how to find American Bandstand playlists and performance lists that would be helpful although according to List of acts who appeared on American Bandstand Charles never appeared on the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Composition. According to the sheet music published by Dirk Music, "Here We Go Again" is a rhythm and blues and soul song Yes it first became notable as an R&B/soul song, but the article introduces it to the readers as a country song.

I am a little bit confused by this edit by a recently retired editor. The freely-accessible part of the ref doesn't mention R&B.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To add soon as I can get back to this. Thanks Tony for the patience. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There's a real problem with NFC here. Concerning the covers, I'm not seeing why any but the original should be there. Yes, it is generally held that a single identifying cover image is acceptable in an article about a single; that does not automatically extend. None of the other two covers which you use are significant, and we are perfectly able to understand the article without them. Maybe if the covers themselves were in some way significant, but I'm seeing no reason to believe that they are. As for the samples... I'm very dubious. Some samples may be useful, but this seems excessive. Further, it's difficult to assess the use of the samples because of the utterly useless copy-paste rationales. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly. I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose The extreme overuse of non-free content is completely unnecessary to the purposes of this encyclopedic content. This mass overuse of non-free content places this article in the top .008% of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usages. Extreme usage requires extreme justification. Yet here, on every...every...sound sample the rationale for usage is a cloned copy of what we find at {{Music sample info}}. I.e., no actual thought went into the idea of how these non-free sounds samples are used in the article and how that works within our WP:NFCC policy. They've been included because they can be included. That's it. I also concur with J Milburn's assessment of the covers. The 2nd and 3rd are totally superfluous. Strip all non-free content except the first image in the top infobox, and then very, very judiciously consider adding non-free content and paying very special attention to a real justification for the usage of each item. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly. I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The album covers are covers. I'm not interested in the pedantics. As to the rationales, it isn't a question of fixing them. It's a question of stripping the article of the sound samples, and figuring out what passages in the article really need the reader to hear the sound sample to gain understanding. Since these sound samples were added so loosely, it's unlikely any of them are closely tied to the text. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was not being pedantic. I was truly confused on what was meant by the only cover that should remain was the first. cover (music) has a meaning that is different from what you were using. I have removed two cover arts and two sample files. I have changed the FUR on the Sinatra version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that I was not referring to you as pedantic, but referring to the difference between covers, as in album covers, and covers, as in later performances of a musical work, as pedantics. There is a difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have actually reconsidered the two sample files that I removed and readded them with better descriptions that clarify the relevance of their inclusion. I have also modified the FURs. Do you still absolutely oppose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. There's still not a comprehensive understanding of the role of NFCC that needs to be present for this article to be understandable by the reader. For example, You modified [28] the rationale, which echoes unreferenced text in caption of the image, with the only connection to the prose of the article being that it mentions (without citation) the instrumentation used in the Strait version. So what? I don't need to hear the sample to understand that. You gotta go from basics; don't look at trying to figure out how to retain non-free content. That's backwards. Go from the other direction; start with nothing and work forward, finding stretches of referenced text in the article that isn't understandable without non-free content. This doesn't come close to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• What are you saying is unreferenced? The text provides a reference for the instrumentation, the fact that it is a country song and the fact that it has not charted on the country charts. Do you want citations in both the article description and file description page in general? In this case, the article starts with a sentence that says "'Here We Go Again' is a country music standard . . . that first became notable as a rhythm and blues/soul music single". Isn't it encyclopedic to demonstrate to the reader what it sounds like as a country music song. Is your point that it does not help the reader to understand how the song was written?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is excellent. Right here you've highlighted the problem with using the non-free content in this way. Just because a song is mentioned doesn't mean we should include a non-free sound clip of it. There is no entitlement to using non-free sound clips. You can't use them just because the song is mentioned. See the last couple of sentences of WP:NFCC #1. Then go back, strip out all the sound clips, and start over. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, I thank you for your patience and your promptness in reply. I always end up getting lost in NFCC issues, which is where I need a co-author. For a long time this article had no country music sample. I really wondered what the song sounded like in the country style. I think your point is that although the article has several facts about country music (This is a country music standard, this song has never charted on a country music chart, this song has instumentation consistent with country music style, etc.), but the article has no stylistic facts about a country music version requiring the reader to listen to the song to understand said fact. I am going to check a few reviews before conceding this point. However, confirm that this is the point please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sort of. The global issue is whether a particular sample from a particular song is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Alternatively, if something significant about the style is referenced by secondary sources is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Only then should a given sample really be considered for inclusion. From there, it's whether the reader can understand the article just fine without the sample. If no, then there's a better reason for inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I had to dig a bit, since the song is not really reviewed. Based on reviews of the album, I have cobled together a summary that this is the most straightforward and hard-core form of the song in the style it was written. I think that makes it something that the reader benefits from hearing a sample of. How do you feel now with the latest references and reformatted FUR and CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And again this is backwards. You don't include non-free content and then go "had to dig a bit" to find references that mention it. That's completely backwards. You might as well start with non-free content for every cover that's ever been done with this song, and then figure out a way to keep them. Again, strip the content, and start from zero, then work forward. I still strongly oppose. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Strip the content? not really sure how that would help. Basically, we have samples of both a commercial success and critical success version and two samples that are included as it relates to the style of the song as it has been promoted versus the style it was written in. I have removed what you might regard as a shoehorned version by Nelson that I had to dig a bit for. Could you consider my comment dated 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC) above and help me understand the relevant issue here. Whether I remove the sample and put it back in or not, I still have the same issue with the reader not understanding the stylistic controversy and the issue of what other parts of the project (FS) would consider the most encyclopedic version meeting with objection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe we're at an impasse. I've made every attempt to explain the seriousness of the issue. I'm lacking in the necessary skills to convey this issue to you. Regardless of my shortcomings, I remain opposed. This article clearly does not pass. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Sandy: I have given up on including several fair use samples today and await an NFCC review. It is my belief that the current objections are largely based on NFCC concerns. Not sure that any will convert to supports, but I expect some opposes to be withdrawn and possibly to have an NFCC endorsement in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the best place to ask for an image review if WT:NFCC fails?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to get an FU file review so that I don't have to set up a whole separate PR just to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have non-media concerns from a couple of reviewers, I am wondering if there is a way to get the NFCC review before this closes or during a PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [29].

---

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

At an FAC last year, the main issue with the article seems to be prose. After a peer review, along with this article being submitted to the Guild of Copy Editors, I feel the prose is a lot better than it was a year before. Some new information was added to the article, mostly about legal ramifications since the passage of this law and what legal challenges it had. Enjoy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review Yay, I can justify using the word "media" instead of "image" this time. Everything is good from a copyright perspective. I'll do some touch up on the captions and the file description pages, but this is good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• FN 7: page(s)? Generally speaking, multi-page documents need page numbers
• Don't mix different types of citation templates, as this creates formatting inconsistencies
• Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors/editors
• Be consistent in whether or not you include locations for book publishers
• Use a consistent formatting for notes and bibliography entries
• Be consistent in how you format newspaper citations, and whether or not you include publishers
• Use a consistent date format
• FN 30: hyphen should be dash
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am working on the citations right now. I added the page numbers for FN 7, but the template seems to use p., even though it is multiple pages (which I been told have to use pp.). Trying to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php for the formatting, but having 500 errors with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose still seems substandard:

• "After Japan's defeat in World War II, there were suggestions to legislate the Hinomaru and Kimgayo as the official symbols of Japan. However, a law to make both symbols official in 1974 failed to gain a majority in the Diet, due to the symbols' connection with the militaristic history of Japan. It was suggested that both symbols be made official in 1999, after a school principal in Hiroshima committed suicide over a dispute regarding the symbols."—overuse of the word "symbols"; "in 1999" is in the wrong place
• "collation partners"—coalition partners, surely?
• "Other nations felt"—nations have feelings?
• "in wake of this law"—in the wake
• "have been challenged in the court systems due to the constitutionality of forcing teachers and students to honor both the flag and anthem against their wishes"—convoluted and wordy sentence; "against their wishes" is unnecessary, but even without that the sentence does not read well.
  • This sentence still doesn't make much sense.
• In the first paragraph of "Text of the Act", it is said twice that rules about use of the flags weren't included. "Respect of" sounds odd.
• "The 1870 proportions had a ratio of seven to ten units (7:10), with the red disc off-center by one-hundredth of the flag's length toward the side of the hoist, which were set in the Prime Minister's Proclamation No. 57"—rather too much space between "which" and its antecedent
• "Japanese law did not designate a national flag from 1885 to 1999, although the Hinomaru was legally the national flag from 1870 to 1885."—odd chronology. Why was the law changed in 1885?

I haven't read further. This article needs a good copyedit. Ucucha 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests take a look at this article; any order passed before 1885 was declared null and void due to a change of government systems in Japan. This is mentioned in the citations at the bottom. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A copyedit is going to be provided. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit in progress. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the above comments haven't been fixed yet. Some other comments:

• Act on National Flag and Anthem is a red link. Why is the disambiguator in the title?
• "The debate surrounding the law also revealed a split in the leadership of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and the party discipline of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partners."—the part about party discipline doesn't make sense. Did it reveal that party discipline was weak in the LDP?

Incidentally, the copyedit introduced some further errors into the prose (e.g., "Nineties"). Ucucha (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • For the "have been challenged in the court systems due to the constitutionality" I changed it to where it says "Regulations and government orders issued in the wake of this law, especially those issued by the Tokyo Board of Education, have been challenged in court due to conflicts with the Japanese constitution." so it removed a lot of text.
  • As for the disambiguator in the title, there are similar laws about the national symbols, such as Law_on_the_National_Arms,_Flag,_and_Anthem_(Mexico). I was suggested to add Japan in the title.
  • The DPJ was shown as split and fractured, unlike the LDP. I changed "party discipline" to just "unity." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [30].

---

Asif Ali Zardari

Nominator(s): Reformation32 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Zardari's page highlights the enormous progress in Pakistan-related articles. He was President of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim nation with ambivalent ties to the United States. This guy has interacted with George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Not only that, his current popularity rating is 11%, down from 20%. His wife is Benazir Bhutto, the Islamic world's first female leader. He has been involved in corruption, kidnapping, scandals, and murder. Its amazing how much this guy is hated! If this article becomes featured it will be a huge accomplishment for Wikipedians. Reformation32 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedural question - has Mni9791 (talk · contribs) been consulted about this nomination. According to edit count tool, he/she has nine times the edits to this article that the nominator does, and has been working on it for several months. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He/She approves the nomination. Reformation32 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note that Mni9791 (the primary contributor) is currently indef blocked, as of July 5, 2011. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Media: File:CleggZardari.jpg has a broken source. A few of the others have direct links to the images, which should generally be avoided, but they all look legitimately PD. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture was removed. Reformation32 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Review from Nikkimaria

Oppose - I appreciate the work that has gone into this article but don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Prose needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. For example: "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead"
• WP:MOS issues - spell out "%" in article text, don't space emdashes, etc
• Tone and word choice is problematic in places - tone should be neutral and encyclopedic
• There are a number of very short paragraphs and sentences, which make the text seem choppy
• Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence of "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead" has been corrected to "his vast presidential powers to that of a ceremonial figurehead."
• The % was spelled out and the emdashes were unspaced. Any other MOS issues?
• Where can I find copy-editing help?
• I tried very hard to make citations consistent. I re-did all 265 citations to make sure every single one was consistent. You can verify that by looking at edit history. How are the citations inconsistent? I think I deserve a better explanation than a vague statement such as "needs to be much more consistent". Reformation32 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You can solicit copy-editing help from WP:GOCE. Other examples of MOS issues include hyphen/dash use, overlinking, inconsistent naming (for example, both "US" and "U.S."), etc. The neutrality concern is not because of any widespread bias, but simply an issue of tone and word choice - see WP:W2W for some guidance on this. For citation formatting: all web citations need publishers and retrieval dates, retrieval dates should all be in the same format, be consistent in what is and is not italicized, use consistent naming (for example, New York Times vs The New York Times), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have requested copy-editing. But besides that one ignominious error that you already mentioned, can you find anything else? I don't think there is a need for copy-editing unless you provide more examples.
• hyphen/dash use? I ctrl-F the whole Zardari page and couldn't understand or find any discrepancies.
• All citations have retrieval dates now. If you disagree, out of the 265 references, could you find any more examples? If you agree, please cross out.
• Retrieval dates are now in the correct format. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out.
• italicized? Whats inconsistently italicized?
• Naming has been corrected. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out. Reformation32 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The page has been copy-edited by Clarityfiend. MOS issues, tone and word choice, paragraph lengths have been significantly revamped. Reformation32 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo comments

Reformation32 asked me to comment [31]. This article was rewritten starting about 6 months ago. At the time, in terms of edit count Huon and I were the primary editors of the page. Although the rewrite added a lot of sources and content, we both had concerns about bias in the rewrite. The subject of the article has received a lot of criticism, and it takes care - and multiple eyes - to state the criticism as criticism and not as fact. The page is better now (probably due to Reformation32's editing) but I still see instances of bias, such as where ideas appear in succession in a way that suggests something more. But that's my opinion. If others think the article is close, then I'm willing to work on the article and fix the biases I see. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. I encourage Nikkimaria, Huon, and Gimmetoo to provide examples of bias so I can correct them too. Reformation32 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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 01:29, 15 August 2011 [32].

---

Mark Sanchez

Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... As one of the up and coming members of the National Football League, Mark Sanchez is an intriguing personality caught in the midst of a world of constant physical body blows—all the while still trying to perfect his craft. Promoted to GA status, with significant input from Bobak, in February 2009, I have undertaken the task of taking the article to the next level so to speak and have put forth quite some time into improving the stature of the article which gradually deteriorated, prior to my arrival, due to persistent vandalism. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Don't mix different kinds of citation templates, as it causes inconsistent formatting - standardize on either citation or the cite family
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Check formatting of quotes within quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (Not sure if I'm supposed/allowed to respond here) NFLDraftScout.com is owned by CBSSports.com (see [33]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate the clarification Eagles. That said, I did replace the ref with one from the NFL's website. I also made the citations uniform using the cite family and I corrected the formatting of one quote. Thank you for your review! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review There was only one thing that needed doing, and I did it already, so this is all good. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for the assistance! May I ask what is was specifically, just for my future reference. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• When one of the images was uploaded from Flickr, its original description text from Flickr was placed in the description field of the Template:Information template of the file on Commons. The Flickr description was an absurdly long biographical monologue that had no real reliance to its use here. I took the whole thing out and replaced it with a more useful description. For laughs, the edit I made is here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Source spot-checking – Checked a handful or so of sources and am very unimpressed with what I found:

• Reference 4 doesn't say anything about Sanchez's mother moving "to be closer to the family"; it just says that she stayed in contact through bus trips.
• Source (ref 4): "had been one of the few Mexican-Americans in a mostly Jewish part of East LA." Article: "one of the few Mexican-Americans in a Jewish part of East Los Angeles...". Pretty close if you ask me.
• More closeness from that source: "So now Sanchez talks to high school kids from predominantly Mexican East LA." This is in the article: "He began speaking to high school kids from predominantly Hispanic Santa Ana and East Los Angeles." Again, the structure is very similar in both.
• From reference 6: "was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." Article: "and was considered the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2005." The structure is almost exactly the same, with the exception of being about two different people. Still way too close for my comfort.
• Later in the article: "Mustain, like Sanchez a year earlier, was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." The full version of the source piece I quoted above: "of touted transfer Mustain, who, like Sanchez a year earlier, was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." This is plagaristic by any standard.
• From reference 84, "so he could do interviews with the Spanish-language media without a translator" is seen in both the source and article.
• Still on ref 84, this is in the source: "He also participated in a fundraiser for Operation Teddy Bear, which provides school supplies to first-graders in heavily Latino areas of Long Beach and the South Bay, and recently joined L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in distributing holiday gifts to needy families in East L.A." Article: "He participated in programs which provides school supplies to first-graders in heavily Hispanic areas of Long Beach and the South Bay, and joined L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in distributing holiday gifts to needy families." Again almost identical.

Sorry, but I have to oppose over all the closeness present in just the sources I looked at, which are a small percentage of the total. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment First and foremost I would just like to say that I had not even noticed these similarties as the sentences were a product of older revisions of the article however, that is no excuse and for that I apologize. Had I known, I would have immediately rid of them because this certainly does not reflect myself as a writer and my previous works can certainly attest to that. That said, I hope you would reconsider your oppose as I have managed to rewrite the sections in question (Early life, College career and Personal life) however, I would understand if you did not. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll strike the oppose, but would still like to see another reviewing spot-check during the course of this FAC. There's plenty of game-related sources that I didn't look at to choose from, among others. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• As to the game-related material, I had to re-write that entire section and find the links to it and so far I haven't spotted any issues. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 10:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll be reviewing this over the next couple of days. The fact that I am a fellow Jets fan does not mean I intend to go easy, it just means I know the material.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've got Rex Ryan's book, so I can check sourcing there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll appreciate the criticism. It only helps you get better. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 10:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily criticism. And I've been caught in problems because of "legacy text" from earlier editors. There's always a tension, you don't want to eradicate the influence of other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, for now at least. I think this still needs a careful reading of the prose. A few examples:

• "Sanchez has been highly touted for his elusive nature, awareness and pocket presence when throwing the football." What on Earth does "pocket presence" mean? He knows where his pockets are?
• "Sanchez has also been praised for his strong, athletic arm, immediately drawing comparisons to Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Namath, both of whom also drew a wealth of star power during their respective eras."
• "Sanchez has displayed sincere dedication to the sport ...". In whose opinion? The whole Player profile section has a feel that it was written by an adoring fan.
• "He is best friends with childhood friend Scotty McKnight ...". More fancruft. How do we know who his best friend is, and even if we do, why should we care?
• "Sanchez has been involved in multiple charities including the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to help raise awareness regarding Type 1 diabetes and Sam's Club's Giving Made Simple to help raise awareness about childhood obesity and ways to prevent it." You need to consider adding some punctuation to that, so that it makes sense.
• From the Mexican-American identity section: "Sanchez was a third-generation, full Mexican ...". We were already told that in the Personal life section .
• "It became a prominent issue after his nationally-televised game against Notre Dame." No hyphens after adverbs.
• "... unlike most of his predecessors, Sanchez was a third-generation, full Mexican and none had been embraced to the extent the Sanchez was." Why "the Sanchez"?

Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed the majority of your concerns. The main issue seemed to be the player profile which I have re-written with a more neutral tone. Additionally, I removed the mention of Scotty McKnight and the hypen after the adverb. Per your sixth point, I removed the mention from the personal section but I felt you should know that the reason it appeared again was because it was necessary in the context of the sentence. As for "the Sanchez", that was just a grammatical error that went unnoticed until you found it! I appreciate your comments and look forward to any additional feedback you have. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Wehwalt has to say about the content, and then I'll comment again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it today. I've been lazy this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read it. I think the prose is borderline and could probably pass with some hand holding. Content. I did not read anything I found surprising , which is a good thing since I'm a Jets fan. My major concern is POV, a bio tends to be pro-the person, but I think this pushes the limits there. Why say he played for the Jets after playing "only" x games in college? I think the pro-Sanchez bits could be toned down so it doesn't sound a bit like one of those sports bios aimed a the younger set. I can either start with comments now or wait until Malleus is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please carry on Wehwalt, I'm probably not going to be around much until next week anyway. I completely agree with your POV comment, and I too see that as one of the article's greatest weaknesses. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm gearing up to leave on a trip early Saturday morning, so may not complete it by then as I want to squeeze the last ounce of having my references (for other articles) around me. TW2.0, you might want to get ahead of the curve.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have some free time this weekend and I'll make sure to pick through the article. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is very jargony, so much so that I am having difficulty understanding parts of it. Could it be rewritten for an international audience, with less jargon? Also, what are "Spring practice" and "Fall practice"? Per WP:SEASON we do not use seasons of the year to designate times. If these are jargon terms is there a way to gloss them? --John (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When this came up in an earlier FAC on American football, I argued that football is allowed terminology just like music and if you don't have to stop to explain arpeggio, you shouldn't have to for linebacker either.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, even if it is just writing with this in mind; it could be as simple as linking arpeggio the first time it is mentioned for those who don't know. --John (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with something like "Spring practice", for example, is that, that is how college football operates. There are practices in both the Spring and Fall, it is not like an NFL Training Camp where it only happens once over a period of a few weeks or so. Unfortunately, I have not found any articles that make any mention of this so far. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that "spring football" or "spring practice" are terms of art, even though we have no articles on them. They are not gratuitous references to seasons which are reversed in Oz, they are a way of keeping players fit and engaged in the offseason, and they are called spring practices because that is when they happen, the NFL lacks franchises in Sydney and Buenos Aires. I would take care to link any football position or any obvious bit of jargon.

Here are some comments to start:

Lede

• Perhaps call him an American football player who plays the quarterback position.
• "amidst" Too fancy. Perhaps "in"?
• "well-disciplined". I think this is unnecessary.
• " At USC, Sanchez was relegated as the backup quarterback though he rose to prominence in the community due to his Mexican-American heritage and brief appearances on the field due to injuries suffered by starting quarterback John David Booty" This sentence should be separated out, Sanchez's on-field stuff and off-field, into two sentences. Additionally, you should say what year and say that it was Sanchez's first, second, etc. season at USC.
• "prestigious" I would omit.
• " was awarded the Offensive MVP." I know this is difficult phrasing, but this is not the best, in my view. How offensive was he?
• "After only starting sixteen games for the Trojans," Perhaps "Although many considered him too inexperienced"
• "and became" becoming
• Can something be said in the lede about media attention towards Sanchez in New York?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the "well-disciplined" adds to the fact that he is a leader however, we can debate this further upon your return. As far as the media attention is concerned, we could possibly do this unfortunately, most of the article I have found so far only make mention, or rather, obsess over his love life. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some more.

Early life

• Given modern day lifestyles, I would add his parents' last name.

  Hey, I got an FAC going about a guy from Whittier too! Something about the water there. That being said, if he departed those happy climes as it seems before the age of six, I would not use the term "grew up".

  There is no objection to referring to a child by his first name, up to the age of 18. However, you should be consistent in whether you are calling him "Mark" or "Sanchez"

  Link Orange County, California.

  "raised them under firm discipline that called on them to be leaders and communicators." Perhaps "raised them strictly, seeking to influence them to become leaders and communicators". But I warn you, the term "communicators" may not lead to full understanding of what you mean. You might want to cut it off with "leaders", that has a good vibe, given we're discussing a QB here. Also, I would move this sentence to be the lead sentence of the next paragraph."

  "Throughout his childhood " This sentence does too much. Split it into at least two.

  "coaches Bill Cunerty and Bob Johnson" as these guys are not linked, I imagine they are not notable. Accordingly, you may want to describe who they are, briefly. As in "West Beverly Hills High School football coach ..."

  "informed the family" He didn't die in Iraq! Perhaps "opined" or "stated".

  " could potentially" I would strike the word potentially, but I don't feel strongly about it.

  "skills and drills". Unrhyme.

  "to further his football career" I hesitate to use the word career referring to high schoolers. Perhaps "would become a better football player" or some such.

  "Sanchez, who was attending Santa Margarita High School, joined the football team and during his first pass attempt as a sophomore, Sanchez threw a 55-yard touchdown" The second part of this is significant enough that it should be its own sentence. As for Johnson, the reader does not need to be so heavily reminded of his role in having him play QB. You should be able to fold it into the first sentence, perhaps wrapping it up "where Johnson, recognized as a 'quarterback guru', was head coach."

Piecemeal, I fear, but I'll get this done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Going back to high school

• "high school career in 2005" Graduation or last game? Needs clarification.

College

• "Sanchez was well regarded upon his arrival at USC." The meaning of this may be unclear.

  I would spell out that the other two QBs were upperclassmen. You do imply it by "returning". Also throw a 2005 in there and a pipe to the article on USC's football season that year, for sure there is one!

  " instead took a redshirt season" Needless jargon, perhaps say that as he did not play, he was allowed to preserve the year of eligibility, and then use redshirt as an alternative term.

  "remaining subject to team-related discipline" better, "though he was disciplined by the football team for ..."

  "fake identification" "false identification"

  "once junior Booty" "once Booty, a junior"

  after the first day of Spring practice, This reads very oddly, after the first day? I would tie it to Booty's injury, or perhaps "once it was clear that Booty would require surgery following an injury sustained on ..." You get the idea.

  No matter how you slice it, seasons of the year, in isolation, are lower case. Even with spring practice. And the international readers' case becomes stronger as it is clear that none of the use of Spring or Fall are properly capped, like "Spring Practice" would be if it were to be capitalized. You might want to research the propriety of using that term.

  How can there by a Fall training camp when colleges play from late August to mid January these days, if they are good? And USC was.

  When did Sanchez get in games in 2007? Mop up situations? It is unclear why you are mentioning first games in which he did not throw a pass, then games in which he did. Surely the latter are the more notable and should be listed first?

  "subsequently " delete, adds nothing.

  I think the mention of Sanchez's being made starting quarterback. You might want to mention Carroll appointed him. You might want to mention, in the Jets part of the article that Carroll once, in a manner of speaking, and at least officially, "coached" the Jets, so to speak, allegedly. (I do not remember the 1994 season fondly).

  Arkansas-transfer and former Razorback starter Mitch Mustain" Why the "Arkansas transfer" The whole phrasing seems forced, I would reverse the two QBs and introduce Mustain more easily "Mitch Mustain, a transfer from Arkansas, where he had been the starting quarterback."

  "Mustain, similarly to Sanchez, was " "Mustain, like Sanchez, had been"

  "the coaches". Another good place to mention that incompetent pretender at "coaching".

  " thumb on his right hand" "right thumb"? Simplify, simplify, this is a good thing to notice when you read the article out loud to yourself.

  "the senior Booty" I just don't think class years work well this way, and also, you've already told the reader Booty's year in school, and they are capable of figuring out that he will be a senior a year after he's a junior.

  " at an away game against Oregon" in an away game ...

  "course of the season". It's unclear whether you mean the whole season or just the part after Booty returned. Please clarify.

  "were able to immediately put the kneecap back into place" A braver man than I, Sanchez, but I would strike "were able to".

  " opener against Virginia during the final scrimmage of Fall camp." This seems contradictory, was it a game or a scrimmage? Prose is murky here!

  "early Heisman consideration." The word "consideration" seems a bit much; the voting did not take place for months afterwards. At most "mentions", and you may want to look for a more specific word.

  There is more description of USC's season in that image caption than in the article! Surely that should not be. You need to establish how they got to the Rose Bowl (Who said "The Pasadena Freeway"?)

  You list three quarterbacks, and two years in school. "Respectively" will not work here.

  Since the draft occurred before graduation, I'd guess he finished work on his degree, rather than the degree itself. before the draft.

  Having the Marinovich mention where it is makes it sound like trivia. Why not move it to before the mention of Carroll being against Sanchez's leaving, then it sounds like a stand taken by USC coaches.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:19, 4 August 2011 [34].

---

Pretty on the Inside

Nominator(s): Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is well-written, provides adequate information on the subject, has a neutral POV, and is comprehensive and informative enough to be considered FA status. It is well-sourced with reliable web citations as well as magazine and other sources. I am very well-informed on the topic and the music featured on the album, and I think the article lives up to FA status as far as music history and significance go. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a malformed nomination page that was never transcluded to WP:FAC. I'll begin fixing the mess now. Please read and follow FAC instructions in the future. Transcluded 3 August 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - unfortunately I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Uncited statements, for example "She also cited her work as a dancer as being one of many inspirations for the songs on Pretty on the Inside: "I was blonde, wore makeup, had to support my band by dancing, and had to play this ridiculous archetype at work... so I took, you know, high heels and white pumps, and I had a wiglet— I just took that and messed with it.""
• Wikilinking issues, mostly overlinking
• Incomplete and inconsistent citations, a few non-high-quality sources
• Some unclear, awkward or ungrammatical prose, for example "she picked Erlandson because he had a "Thurston Moore quality about him", and that he played guitar"
• File:Pretty_on_the_Inside_clip.ogg: based on the length given for the original track, a proper sample should be no longer than 8 seconds. Also, needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I have to agree with Nikki that the article is not ready for FAC. Apart from the points that she raises, there are the following relating to sources, just from the first 20 or so I looked at:-

• Refs 2, 3 and others use "pp." for single page numbers
• Source medium is not clear in refs 5 and 15
• Ref 7 lacks a publisher
• No source details given for ref 14, also "pg." instead of "p."
• Ref 17 lacks a page reference
• Ref 19: non-standard format - title should be before publisher. Also page number missing
• Ref 21: retrieval date missing

I haven't looked at the remaining 40 or so refs, but there are sure to be other issues. On a different point entirely, I think there is a misunderstanding about the function of the lead section. This is supposed to be a broad summary of the main article; at present it contains too much detail and too many quotations that would be better placed in te main article. I note that the article has not received a peer review, and strongly recommend that it be reviewed at WP:PR before being brought back here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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 03:19, 3 August 2011 [35].

---

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)

Nominator(s): —Andrew_stalk and Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You all probably know this song for its catchy hook and/or its viral dance video. As for the article, it has been through another PR since the last FAC, and the prose has been tightened up. Now, comment away! —Andrew_stalk 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am taking part in the WP:CUP. —Andrew_stalk 08:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose again - the article has been improved since its previous nomination, but in my opinion it still does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times
  • Unlinked some terms. At present items are linked once in lead, once in prose body and linked in refs (first time), tables etc. —Andrew_stalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • More work needed. On a quick look I see alter ego, Black Entertainment Television, Eye Weekly, and Saturday Night Live linked at least twice each in article body. Also, wikilinking is not consistently done first-time-only in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Allmusic linked in all refs due to the use of {{Allmusic}}. I have linked Amazon in refs once per store (ie Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de etc). Would you prefer a link in only one Amazon ref? —Andrew_stalk 00:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
        • No, that's fine, but why is for example Eye Weekly linked in both FN 52 and 101? Why is Los Angeles Times linked twice in two paragraphs? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
          • This is fixed now. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• "hand clap" or "handclaps"? "J-Setting" or "J-setting"? Check for internal consistency
  • Done —Andrew_stalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• File:Singleladies.ogg: "purpose of use" needs improvement, particularly given the sample's placement in the Composition section
  • Done. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• File:Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It)_screenshot.jpg: who holds copyright to this screenshot?
  • Added. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Both singles were sent to rhythmic contemporary radio on October 12, 2008,[13] and "Single Ladies" was also sent to Urban contemporary radio the same day,[14] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead sent to contemporary hit radio" - what does this mean?
  • Attempted to clarify. I think readers will need to read the linked article to understand the concept fully. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I did, and unfortunately I'm still confused. Can you explain what you want to convey with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • In the radio industry, record labels pay to add songs to a playlist—a pool of songs from which radio stations play. In the US there are distinct radio formats (urban/rhythmic/contemporary/adult etc), and each format has a different playlist. What this text means is that SL was added to the playlists of urban rhythmic radio formats, while "If I Were a Boy" was added to contemporary hit radio. If this is still unclear I will try to find another editor who understands the concept more clearly and have them explain it. —Andrew_stalk 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, what if you phrased it like "Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008;[13] "Single Ladies" was also sent to urban contemporary playlists the same day,[14] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead classified for contemporary hit radio." or similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have rephrased it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• The article is in need of further copy-editing for clarity, tone and flow. Some examples: "recently put a stop to a bad relationship" - not encyclopedic in tone; "thus Knowles became the seventh female in the US to have two songs in the top five positions of the Hot 100.[68] The following week, "Single Ladies" ascended to number one on the Hot 100 chart, selling 228,000 downloads, and thus became Knowles' fifth solo" - repetitive; etc
  • Cleaned up. —Andrew_stalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Those specific examples are done, but this is a general point. I would suggest you find a non-music editor to read it over if possible; if not, you might try reading it out loud to see if you can hear places where the prose is lacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Rechecked 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC), not done. Further example: "As at November 2009...")
• Be consistent in what is italicized when. Check for other WP:MOS issues
  • Can you be more specific, or give an example? —Andrew_stalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • For example, why is "audio" italicized in ref 91? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • That is the way {{cite interview}} formats it, however the source is not actually an interview so I changed to {{cite audio}}. —Andrew_stalk 00:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, another example: should Fuse TV be italicized or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
          • If Wikipedia itself does not italicized it, then i do not think we should do so. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Nikki, I just realized that you were pointing at Fuse TV being italicized in the reference. My apologies. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
  • Paul Grein (Yahoo!) was an editor for Billboard for a long time, and his data is taken directly from Nielsen SoundScan numbers. Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. The other two have been replaced. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Citation formatting needs editing for consistency. For example: compare refs 9 and 10, italicization should be reversed on ref 108, compare refs 3 and 112, compare refs 33 and 128, etc
  • Done a few, will finish soon. Billboard has two different publishers because it changed hands in Dec 09. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, the Billboard inconsistency I knew about. There are still quite a few others, though, so don't give up yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Rechecked 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC), not done. Further example: be consistent in whether or not you include a retrieval date when you include an archive date)
• Ref 162: page(s)?
  • There has been a dynamic IP address anon adding false information and incomplete citations for Brazilian charts recently, so I have removed the info until someone else can verify (and correctly cite) the info. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Done. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• This link says "the requested page is currently unavailable or not found".
  • That refers to a banner advert at the top. If you scroll down the article is there. —Andrew_stalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • Okay. In that case, can you clarify what makes it a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Urlesque is an entertainment magazine, part of The Huffington Post and owned by AOL. —Andrew_stalk 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Struck some, more work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - UK situation poorly researched and unverified. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the source: "In the US she trailed the album with two separate singles - one from each side - but things were played more cautiously over here. We got the classic balladry of 'If I Were A Boy', but not the club-pop throb of 'Single Ladies'. Until now. 'Single Ladies' has proved so popular, cracking the top ten on downloads from the album, that it's been granted an official release - as a download-only single." I have reverted your addition of {{OR}} and {{fv}}. Thank you —Andrew_stalk 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments Hi Jivesh and Andrew and habitues here at FAC. Am I allowed to support or oppose? I am member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Anyways, here are my comments

• No citations please in the lead. WP:LEAD.

• Per WP:LEADCITE some claims need refs in lead. Quotes should always have cites directly afterwards. The sales numbers in the lead have been contested in the past, so I added the cites to maintain stability and verifiability. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*Some critics noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied". I can see only one two, and why the mention in the lead? "Single" is compared to a lot of Beyonce's songs. Thought this might have been compared with "Independent" (other female empowerment-themed songs) in lyrical interpretation

• • Many of Beyonce's songs have the female empowerment theme, but some critics compared it to GMB, musically (dancey R&B). —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. Are we gonna enumerate all those countries?

• These are the notable top-ten appearances. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*I though the term certified should have been linked to Music recording sales certification instead of RIAA certification?

• The RIAA one is linked because it specifically refers to the US cert. Later on it links to Music recording sales certification

*The video achieved great success How do we qualify the term great? Might be POVish.

• Good catch. Removed the whole phrase. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tense issues: "Single Ladies" won numerous awards" it might still earn Knowles awards. "Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States the single I believe is still selling.

• But it has won awards. Past tense doesn't mean it won't again. Eg "I ate some apples" doesn't imply I won't again. Re the second part: Knowles and her labels have moved on to new projects so SL was a commercial success. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• You got it. You could say has won or a variation of the "won", but retain has. --Efe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. —Andrew_stalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*Inconsistencies: United States and US.

• United States the first time, US afterwards. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*"Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States, and peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Perhaps the use of and here is incorrect.

• Changed to "as it" —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*The-Dream's main inspiration for the song was Knowles' engagement to Jay-Z. The source says this was recorded after their marriage.

• Changed to 'marriage' —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• First sections doesn't flow very well. Writing -> Mixing -> Inclusion in the CD -> Inspiration -> Wedding -> Recording -> Inspiration -> etc...

• Shuffled around a bit. Hope it's clearer now. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Still not smooth. Production (mixing) was relegated to the second para, which is an unlikely place where this info should be. Perhaps you could create another para for the production, so 1 for production, 1 for inspiration, 1 for release. Also, you could merge that block quote. --Efe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Had another go at it; I can see now how messy it was before. Although I think that splitting the first paragraph into two would disrupt the flow of prose. —Andrew_stalk 10:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MOS issues:

• Placement of quotation marks: That's where Dream got that concept from". Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside.

• Ooh, nice catch. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I still can find some. --Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*Italics: People Magazine to People magazine

• Even better: People :P —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The live performance section is trivia-like. Perhaps needs re-org and expound those with importance.

• Reorganised into a more logical format. —Andrew_stalk 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional

• No mention of J-setting in the lead

• Added. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*There's a review included in the lead, its not supposed to represent the view of other reviewers/ people in general.

• Not a review per se, but a title coined for the video. —Andrew_stalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

--Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional

• Why is it that Stewart's photo is in the article? What is the basis? How about the other contributor's to the song?

• Further informs readers and helps to identify person(s) key to the song. I have added an image of The-Dream, as he and Stewart produced the song. I have asked the copyright holder of this image to release it under a free license; if he does, I will add it and a pic of Knowles as the four writers of the song. —Andrew_stalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Placement of multiple images is sloppy. You could somehow juxtapose the two images instead of the current setting. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could be interesting if you could provide a free photo of the ring and/or glove.

• I doubt there are any free images, but I shall see what I can find. —Andrew_stalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

--Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I cannot support/oppose but here are some comments: Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Lead

"Single Ladies" was a commercial success -> "was" does not seem appropiate.

• Changed to "became" —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"digital downloads in the US" -> "US" is redundant as "in the United States" and "by the RIAA" has been mentioned.

• Removed. —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, cites are unneeded here, excepting those listed at WP:LEADCITE.

• The sales numbers in leads often have {{cn}} tags added when without refs, so it is better for stability reasons. Also, it's better to undercite than overcite, and it helps readers locate the reference source more easily. The third ref verifies an opinionative quote. —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Composition

"According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Alfred Music Publishing," According to this, it was published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, not AMP

• Where are you reading that. "Publisher:Alfred Publishing Co., Inc." in the 'Song Details' tab. —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am reading it at the sheet itself. At the bottom of it, it appears "©2008 EMI April Music, Inc., B-Day Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing]], LLC," etc.

Fixed. —Andrew_stalk 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Recognition and accolades

""Single Ladies" contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; -> this needs a source, if it is somebody's commentary, then rephrase it to "it was/is/has been noted by whom that SL ..."

• That phrase is credited to the second half of the sentence: "Andy Kellman of Allmusic called "Single Ladies" a "dire throwback" of that song." —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

and in the "Record of the Year" category at the 2009 Premios Oye! Awards." -> There are two "Record of the Year" categories.

Fixed, nice catch :-) —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Response and accolades

"and it was ranked at number 4 on BET's Notarized: Top 100 Videos of 2008 countdown,[109] and at number 3 on VH1's Top 40" -> WP:NUMBERS written below 10 are written out.

Fixed —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Cultural impact

"included in her live album, I Am... World Tour (2010)" -> (2010) was mentioned when the album was linked

Removed —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Usage in media

Link mash-up, as far as I know it is not a common word.

Done. —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Cover versions

"set-list" -> consistency needed

Fixed —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • References

Refs 13 and 14 -> According to Radio & Records VNU Media published them.

Added —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Refs 18, 19, 22, 23, 95, 119, 157 and 159 are publisher by Amazon.com Inc.

Adding that an Amazon website is published by Amazon.com Inc. isn't that helpful to readers and just adds clutter, I feel. —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs 29, 75, 118, 152, 155 are published by Rovi Corporation

These refs use {{Allmusic}}, so I cannot add the publisher. —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can. See Halo_(Beyoncé_Knowles_song)#cite_ref-65. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. —Andrew_stalk 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 47 is published by Contactmusic.com Ltd.

Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies

Ref 55 is published by Viacom

Added —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 61 is published by the Consejo de la Comunicación

New Sabah Times says it's published by Inna Kinabalu Sdn Bhd; where did you find Consejo de la Comunicación? —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, wrong number, I meant the Premios Oye!. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My error, again, Los Premios Oye! are presented by the Academia Nacional de la Música en México and transmited by the Consejo de la Comunicación. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Added —Andrew_stalk 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 99, NPR was linked at ref 91; NPR is published by National Public Radio, Inc.

Unlinked. Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies —Andrew_stalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Review

I put one of the images into a Template:Information page. The only other issue is that the quality of File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg is abysmal. Please consider doing it over (the video must be online). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. —Andrew_stalk 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [36].

---

Białystok

Nominator(s): Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating the Białystok article for FAC. Białystok is the largest city in northeastern Poland and is the capital of the Podlaskie Voivodeship, and has seen a significant number of political boundary changes over the last 500 years. The article is currently a good article which has gone through a rather extensive review during the GA process and with WikiProject Poland at B-Class review. I think this article is at or near the featured article standard. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article, but don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

• Manual of Style issues, including hyphens/dashes and overlinking
• Some instances of unclear and awkward prose. The article may benefit from being read by an experienced copy-editor
• Given the length of the article, the lead should be at least 3 paragraphs long
• Don't sandwich text between images and don't stack images
• File:Bialystok_seal.png: don't use Wikipedia as a source, especially since that particular page has been deleted
• File:POL_Białystok_COA.svg: source?
• Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times
• There are a number of bulleted lists that should be written as prose
• Citations should be complete: all web citations need publishers, all book sources need page numbers, etc
• Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent

Suggest withdrawal to allow time for the article's issues to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Quick comments/question in regard to lede length. The lede IS 3 paragraphs long. I'm also wondering what you're basing this criteria on. I have looked through a number of FAs (granted, they were Military Hist FAs) and the relationship between article length and article lede is very weak [37]. The "average" relationship is given by: length of lede = 1560+.016*length of article net of lede. Since the article length, net of lede, is 25721 characters, this would mean that this article's lede, were it to fit the "average" exactly, would have a lede of 1971 characters. It's lede is 2547 characters, so if anything, the lede is longer than average for an FA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The third paragraph was just added by the nominator. In response to your questions at my talk: the first image originally listed a Wikipedia page as a source, and the second image listed no source. Both issues have since been addressed by the nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Just like my voting predecessor, I also suggest quick withdrawal, and a slower, more meticulous pace of some very basic but badly needed improvements. The article is nowhere near the standard city FA in English. I already told the nominator once, get the "osiedla" and twin cities out of the infobox (check out the Help:Infobox and read some FAs for guidance, like Cleveland and Washington, D.C.). Anyhow, the History and the Economy are the worst. The barrage of bullets, stubby paras, one-lines, gaps and substandard prose are totally unacceptable at this level. — Raczko (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So where is the definition of Standard City FA in the MOS? The twin cities inclusion in the infobox is a valid field entry in the settlement template. I see no appreciable difference between the article and say, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• What are you trying to say Ajh1492? The infobox of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania doesn't show its smallest neighborhoods comparable with "osiedla", and the superfluous twin cities. The History section is well written and properly subdivided. The article doesn't have gaps, stubby sentences, one-line paras, tons of bullets in place of comprehensive prose, entire blocks of refs without publisher, etc. No need for an FA definition to see some of the most glaring inadequacies here. — Raczko (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no definition of "Standard City FA" in the MoS. However, looking at other city FAs can give an idea of the standard required, and there are significant appreciable differences between this article and the one you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This article needs a lot of work on the prose alone, in fact I don't even think it meets the GA criteria. A few examples:

• "Białystok has traditionally been one of the leading center of academic, cultural and artistic life ..."
• "Białystok has been a destination for internal and foreign immigration".
• "Archaeological discoveries show that the first people settled on the territory of present-day Białystok already in the Stone Age".
• "... built Branicki Palace on the foundations of former defensive castle of the Wiesiołowski family".
• "After the war the city became part of newly independent Second Polish Republic".
• "In the nineteenth century Białystok was an important center for light industry and was the reason for the substantial growth of the city's population."

Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest withdrawal - I concede I was too lenient/sloppy with the GA review and there is a lot of work needs doing. It will take at least a few days to sort this out. To the nominator, treat this as a mini-peer review as there is a lot of work listed in a few posts, and come back to FAC with a clean slate in two weeks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [38].

---

Wishology

Nominator(s): 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope Wishology is ready for its first FAC. The article went through a successful GA nomination and two peer reviews. I have checked this article against the FA criteria, and I personally think it satisfies (i.e. refs, images tagged, etc.), though I could have missed a few things here and there (as with everyone, I'm not perfect ;D). The article prose may be an issue, as pointed out by H1nkles in the article's second peer review, but hopefully a few copy-editing suggestions will help remedy that issue as much as possible.

With all that said, I wish this article good luck. 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You indicated at the above-referenced peer review

Thanks for your very detailed and thorough comments! I fixed them to the best of my ability and will plan to find a copy-editor as you suggested. 89119 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

and there have been no edits since then. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC; if the article is not FAC-ready, this is not the place for peer review or improvements, and articles that don't meet criteria shouldn't be nominated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I did submit a request to GOCE here, but no one did any copy-edits yet, and I doubt that would happen any time soon. I know, I'm being a little impatient on that. Sure, FAC isn't peer review, but if people feel an FAC currently does not meet FA-criteria, they would leave specific critical remarks, and I think that criticism here would help improve the article closer to success in its next FAC nomination. 89119 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but Sandy's right: FAC isn't peer review, and this article isn't currently FAC-ready. Here are some specific concerns:

• Awkward and unclear prose, grammatical errors, for example "parts 1 and 3 of Wishology was viewed". You might consider having someone from WP:GOCE copy-edit the article
  • Fixed the grammatical error. As for the GOCE, that's what I'm trying to do so far. Again, if I'm being impatient because I'm requesting a copy-edit from the GOCE and nominating the article here at FAC simultaneously, I apologize. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strange shifts in tense, for example "The trilogy is written by...and was directed by..."
  • Wow, did not see that. Anyway, that's fixed. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• WP:MOS issues, for example inconsistent italicization and capitalization
  • I realize that FAC is not peer review as you just said, but can you point out any specifics please? 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Over-emphasis on cultural references
  • I personally think every cultural reference made in the episode is equally important, like how in Family Guy FA "Road to the Multiverse each of its own cultural references is equally important. Thus, every cultural reference that can be reliably sourced is listed in the article's "Cultrural references" section. For the Wishology article, the only reason why the article seems to overemphasize the "Cultrual references" section is because the Wishology episode just happens to have a lot of them, given that the episode is reliant on them and is three hours long (with commerical breaks). Anyways, do you feel the section still need to be be condensed, given the reasoning above? If so, which cultural references should be removed? 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Heavy reliance on primary sources
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed all references to toonbarn. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • If you're referring to the source from a Brazil website, I hope I fixed it. I wrote "(Brazil)" next to the source's title. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Inconsistencies in reference formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review Everything is good from copyright and caption standpoints, however I'm not sure I like the George Lucas image being in the article, (actually I quite dislike its usage). It strikes me as having an image there for the sake of having an image there. He wasn't involved in the movie at all, his only relation to it is an akward tie in, that he created something that was referenced in the film. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed the George Lucas image. The first peer reviewer of this article wasn't particularly tasteful of the image either. 89119 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.