Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the last review in September, the article underwent a copyediting treatment (I'm not a native English speaker) and I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (issues fixed)

  • Fixed.
  • File:City_of_Angels_music_video.jpg - fair-use for such a collage doesn't work. Most persons in this collage have their own article and simply showing their portrait photos doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding. A crucial scene screenshot, widely discussed in reviews, could be shown as "fair-use", or a collage of free images (if available).
  • A collage of free images is not available and the music video basically shows people telling to the camera what LA means to them (it is not a narrative piece). What should I do?
  • You'll have to remove the collage image, sorry - it doesn't meet our fair-use policy. Maybe another reviewer has a better idea for a suitable replacement. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's more like a mini gallery, and would be OK license-wise (assuming only free images were used). GermanJoe (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a collage with free-use images of some celebrities who appear in the video.--Earthh (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New collage looks fine copyright-wise, thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other images are CC or valid fair-use, with sufficient source and author information.
  • (Not relevant for this FA) As side note, the song sample is OK here, but has a rather weak FUR in its second article usage. Showing "variety and experimentation" is no valid fair-use reason in an article, which doesn't even mention the song and includes 3 other samples. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per last nomination. Everything still looks to be in order, although I find it curious that "experimental rock" is now listed as the sole genre when it generated so much bickering back then. Tezero (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly -- best of luck with a renomination in the New Year if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jamaican teenager, Dwayne Jones, who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and I believe that it is now ready to undergo FAC. I'd particularly recommend it to any editors interested in LGBT issues, crime, Jamaica, and human rights. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check[edit]

Drive-by comment

I just glanced at the article and was left confused as to what Jones' biological sex was. It's implied that he was biologically male, but the article doesn't explicitly mention that in the lead or the "Early life" section. In the lead something like "Jones was born biologically male but was gender non-conforming" would be a lot clearer to the reader. I'd like to see something similar in the "Early life" section as well. While gender is not always so clear-cut, sex (biologically male or female) is generally pretty straightforward, and being very clear about the latter would help the reader understand why Jones was killed, I think. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a very interesting point. The problem is that we don't have a source that explicitly states that "Dwayne Jones was biologically male". I assume that he was, but without confirmation would hesitate to state it in the article; it is possible that he was intersex or even biologically female, although I thin it unlikely given the information available to us. It seems more obviously clear that he was of the male gender; his two friends (both of whom were transgender women) referred to him using male pronouns and called him Dwayne, so I think that that is a fairly obvious point, which I hope is reflected in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • AP is an agency or publisher, not a work
    • Could you clarify what needs to be changed here, Nikkimaria; I am afraid that I am a little perplexed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Associated Press, footnote 2 - it shouldn't be italicized, it's likely in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, thanks for the clarification; for some reason I thought that you were talking about the image. I have corrected the reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • QCJM is a publisher, not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, apologies but I have no idea what QCJM is, or what requires changing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quality of Citizenship Jamaica - again, this value is in the wrong parameter in the citation template. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, thanks for the clarification; I have made the required correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.

  • For any LGBT article, a copyeditor will be thinking of the tension between using simple terms that everyone understands and more accurate terms that often need to be explained. I think since you've already got a footnote that is very specific about how the subject's friends saw him, we can keep the lead more accessible by talking about his "perceived effeminacy". Let me know if that doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly -- best of luck with a renomination in the New Year if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Freedom Planet[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I created this article in early June, let it languish for a while, then quickly scurried it up to GA, making further improvements after it passed and then waiting for a while for Tony Hawk's Underground's FAC to close, which would finally happen earlier this morning. Two more notes: every image used in the article is free, and because of the title's relative obscurity, there really aren't any more reliable reviews than those listed in the table and, where they didn't give a score, summarized in the prose. (However, if more are released during this FAC, please be sure to tell me.) If passed, this article would earn me my second Four Award, which, while certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of editing, would be nice. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

Resolved comments

Article's been languishing awhile, so I'll take it on. Won't have time for a day or two, though. Opening comment: why does an American game need a {{nihongo}} title? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Japanese title is used in the official cover art (all versions) and title screen and a couple critics have mentioned it as part of larger points about the game's East Asian influences. Thanks for reviewing, though! Tezero (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay; off-wiki stuff has been keeping me busy lately. I'll try to get to this tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting:

  • "a 2D platform/action video game" — From what I know, 2D must be introduced via "two-dimensional (2D)" before it may be used alone. Also, "platform/action" is vague to non-gamers, on top of being an informal construction.
  • Done the 2D part. What would you suggest for the genre? Neither action nor platforming really dominates or was purported to by the sources, so I can't really remove one; would you prefer a hyphen or en-dash as a separator? Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better simply to call it a "platform game", for the sake of clarity. It would make sense, too—most games considered action-platformers are in the vein of Gunstar Heroes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an ad hoc studio headed by Stephen DiDuro." — I don't know what an "ad hoc studio" is, and no wikilink to the concept is provided. Should be rephrased in clearer terms.
  • "Ad hoc" is used without explanation in the lead of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, an FA. I really don't know much more, though, about the context; none of the sources even mention individual members of GalaxyTrail other than DiDuro. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That FA is over six years old, and the phrase "ad hoc" did not appear in the version that passed FAC. The sentence needs to be changed in some way—preferably by cutting "ad hoc" and leaving the details for the article body. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "It features a cast of primarily follows three anthropomorphic animals; the three playable characters are—the dragon Lilac, the wildcat Carol, and the basset hound Milla. Along with their duck-like friend Torque,—as they embark on a quest attempt to defeat the evil Lord Brevon, who plans to wants to drain energy from the planet to rebuild his starship and conquer the galaxy."
  • Partially done. I want to keep it as two separate sentences since your suggestion is a bit of a run-on, and Torque is a major character so I don't think it'd be right to leave him out. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the emdashed section makes it a run-on, but so be it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not incomprehensible, just a lot of clauses in a row that I'm surprised you'd consider FA-quality. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gameplay is fast-paced and involves unique attacks for all three characters." — I get no sense of the game from this sentence. It needs to be replaced with something more meaningful.
  • It doesn't really offer anything either way, so I've removed it. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem now is that the gameplay is not described at all, which doesn't work. Something needs to be there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a brief, uncontroversial description of the gameplay that also mentions "action" without placing it in the main genre field. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starring Lilac in the form of a hedgehog" — This is hard to follow. If it means that the protagonist was originally a hedgehog named Lilac, then the sentence should be rephrased to make that more obvious.
  • Done. It was the same Lilac as made it into the final game, but as a hedgehog. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disillusioned with this task" — What made him become disillusioned? Alternatively, if this is just a roundabout way of saying that he lost interest, then it should be rewritten along those lines.
  • It turns out I got the chronology of development a bit mixed up in the intro: Lilac becoming a dragon didn't happen until after Ziyo Ling had been taken on. I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeking to create something more original" — This clause doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. Also, what does "more original" mean here?
  • A rewrite:
  • "She designed the new characters and DiDuro reworked the game based on fans gave fan suggestions for more changes, thereby allowing the game to which transformed the game into its own intellectual property."
  • "East Asia-influenced in its art style; the title is written in katakana" — The art of East Asia is, by Wikipedia's own assessment, insanely diverse. Needs clarification. Also, the semicolon is not correct and should be replaced with a simple "and".
  • Reworded. I chose to link both China and Japan, but I can change that if you'd like. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done per the body. I was under the impression that the body text would be too specific for the lead, but if "Chinese art" really reveals that little, I'm fine with this. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "The game was released for Microsoft Windows first as a Microsoft Windows demo in August 2012, and then—after a few delays—as a full game for Windows via Steam on July 21, 2014."
  • Another rewrite:
  • "Both before and after the game's full release, critics have universally Freedom Planet has been widely compared it to the Sega Genesis Sonic games., Critics praised giving positive comments to its gameplay, aesthetics, and modulation balance of Sonic elements with original content, but were though they were more mixed on its pacing and length."

That's it for now. The article's a bit rough in the prose department—it could have used an outside copyedit before being sent to FAC. I'll plug away at this review however long it takes, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the GOCE certainly does keep itself busy, and I was getting impatient. I'll fix these when I'm at my real computer. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. I'll be back to continue the review ASAP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more; I only have a short time to squeeze this in:

  • "Freedom Planet is a 2D platform/action game." — Same problem as before.
  • "The player controls any of the three playable characters—Lilac, Carol, or Milla—while running and jumping through levels and destroying robotic enemies." — This suggests that the player is running and jumping in real life. I can't think of a way to fix it without rewriting the sentence from scratch, but perhaps you have an idea.
  • "involve environmental features" — Excessively abstract. Perhaps, "contain obstacles".
  • "followed by cutscenes that advance the story" — Placement suggests that the player fights the cutscenes. Maybe, "after which the story is advanced by cutscenes".
  • "As a result of wide-ranging similarities in the" —> "Because of its".
  • The first screenshot's caption is a tedious, hard-to-follow list of terms. Strip it down to something that the average reader would find interesting.
  • Yeah, admittedly I only wrote that up in the first place before the image was freely licensed. FURs are tedious in general. Clipped. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "One significant difference from Unlike in Sonic, is that the player character has a standard health hit point meter instead of Sonic '​s a ring-based health system."

I'll be back later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool. I've been busy lately and will continue to be for a few more days with finals and projects, but I'll edit when I can. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been distracted, too. I'll sit down and force myself to burn through the rest of the review soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing, do you think you'll have time soon? Tezero (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sorry for the delays; definitely not my best review. Here we go:
  • "red, crystalline leaves that are scattered" —> "leaves scattered". Less fancy; easier to read.
  • "occasionally dropped by enemies to regain health" — Suggests that the enemies drop them to regain health.
  • Moved clause to the beginning of the sentence. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the player's health; when the player with no remaining health is attacked, they lose a life" — The player does not lose health or his/her life.
  • Weird; I don't remember writing that. Must've been someone else popping in. Anyway, done. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still a reference to "the player's health" in that sentence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with little consequence" — Not encyclopedic language.
  • "occasionally" — Used twice. Both should be removed, since they don't add anything but length.
  • A rewrite:
  • "The basic attack can be used repeatedly with no penalty, but the more powerful Special attacks, while more powerful, depletes an energy gauge shown on the game's heads-up display and cannot be performed again before the gauge has sufficiently recharged."
  • Done, but with "until" instead of "before" as it seems to flow better. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basic attacks are similar" — Similar to what?
  • To one another. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Milla's involves launching a gelatinous energy cube to deal damage" — Surely there's a simpler way to describe the attack.
  • "and she periodically finds motorcycles throughout her levels that allow her to scale walls smoothly" — I really don't follow.
  • Really? Seems very straightforward to me, but rephrased. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sidenote: all instances of "also" can be removed from the article without loss.
  • "twirling, tornado-like double jump" —> "double jump".
  • I don't think that'd really capture it, because it's not just a regular double-jump. I can't really think of anything to compare it to, except maybe a more mild version of Peach in Super Smash Bros.; have a look for yourself. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with double jumps that involve twirling animations—Super Mario Galaxy, for example. A double jump is still a double jump, though, and so the detail is unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by vigorously flapping her ears like wings" — This is one of many informal, review-style passages in the article. An unfortunate step down prose-wise from Sonic: ATS and the finished THUG.
  • You know, for future reference, comments like this aren't very helpful. I've already admitted that I didn't wait around to get this copyedited, so all you're really saying here is that you disapprove of a current FAC not being on par prose-wise with two FAs, one of which you extensively reviewed. And on top of that, you've given no indication as to why this is informal or what "review-style" even means. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put the point bluntly: it reads like something from a fan blog or a video game review, rather than from an encyclopedia. It's needlessly detailed (the whole thing can be removed without loss to the article's main thrust) and it engages in literary language ("vigorously", for one) that Wikipedia avoids. Many similar examples can be drawn from the article—particularly the Plot section. Such phrasing would be more-or-less fine in another format, but encyclopedia prose is spare and fairly dry, and that's the standard to which we must adhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "vigorously" and a few more. Tezero (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not select a character from the beginning, but instead chooses either Lilac or Carol when they temporarily split up" — I'm lost as to what this could mean.
  • "The game features numerous achievements such as defeating an end-of-level boss with a certain move, clearing all of a certain character's stages, or collecting all of ten cards dispersed throughout each level." —> "The player earns achievements by accomplishing certain goals, such as completing the game." (Assuming there's an achievement for finishing the game. If not, replace that with the next most basic example.)
  • I've stricken the cards one, since the cards aren't used for anything in the game besides their associated achievements, and I've reworded as you said. I do want to keep the end-of-level boss one, though, as including only the game-clearing achievement seems kind of generic and obvious. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section is in pretty dire shape. For starters, it needs to be reduced by 40-50%—there simply is no need for four large paragraphs. Also watch for overloaded, unclear, redundant-word-filled passages like the following: "Lilac and Carol rush to the Kingdom Stone's shrine to protect it, briefly being interrupted by Shang Tu's officers, General Gong and the priestess Neera Li, who refuse to believe their claims of a theft plot. However, they arrive just in time to watch the Stone be stolen by Spade, Dail's half-brother who is stealing the stone for Zao in order to discover the truth of his father's murder." Finally, scrub the section of all informal language, as seen in phrasing like "untold amounts of energy" and "the intent of meeting a dragon".
  • Just a note: I think the official standard for video game plot articles is the range of 700-1,000 words, and this is around 800. It's likely that some details can be removed, but it's not like it's violating some policy here or getting into undue weight. I've rephrased the first of the specific examples here and simply removed the second, but I'm confused as to what you want me to do with this passage. I could reword it to make it a little clearer, but that would also make it longer. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passage, along with the entire section, needs to be condensed and rewritten. It's tedious, overdetailed description, loaded end to end with names. I can barely follow it. Remember the Sleeping Dogs Plot section debacle at FAC? This section has exactly the same problems. Also, WPVG's length guidelines are irrelevant when the issue relates to criteria 1a and 4. You could write a 900-word plot summary for The Legend of Zelda (video game) and meet WPVG's guideline, but the section would fail criterion 4 by "going into unnecessary detail". That's the issue here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't read your mind, but I've trimmed some details and instances of writing that sounded a little like the back of a book cover (some of the last remnants of the original authors of this section, which was about twice its current length), and I'll try to be back for more soon. Tezero (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brainchild" — Informal word.
  • "DiDuro is also known online as 'Strife'" — Unnecessary.
  • "ad hoc development team" — Same problem as when this phrase was used in the lead.
  • Fixed. Ideally I'd simply state that he conceived the game and introduce him forming the team later, but it's not really clear exactly when other people started joining or when it became an actual team. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've run out of time again, but these should keep you busy for awhile. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, JimmyBlackwing, I've been caught up in some real-life affairs that... to be honest, aren't going away anytime soon. But I'll have time to address some of this, if not all, today. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing, how do you feel about the Plot section now? For the record, it's down to 615 words. I found a few more instances of non-encyclopedic wording and unnecessary details today and yesterday and scrapped them. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A big improvement. I've done a bit of follow-up copyediting. If I mangled the story in the process, feel free to adjust my work. I'm going to be busy until the end of the year, but I'll dedicate whatever time I can to finishing this review. Sorry again for the slowness—far from professional. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep this review from taking even longer, I'm going to copyedit the article personally, without the step-by-step prose dissection. I just don't have the time. For any future FAC, be sure to obtain a copyedit before you nominate—it makes a reviewer's job much easier. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Going to be taking care of the prose side of things first:

  • "created by indie developer GalaxyTrail, an ad hoc studio" - Ad hoc? Best make this more clear for unfamiliar readers
  • "Freedom Planet began development as a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame" - was it still a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame upon release or did it change to be more independent along the way? The development section states that "DiDuro felt that the Sonic affiliation would hold the game back"
  • It started as a Sonic fangame, but he realized he wanted to aim higher, so he changed Lilac from a hedgehog to a dragon, got rid of Eggman and the rings, and made other alterations. It is not usually considered to have ended as a fangame. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game will be released on the website GOG.com in late 2014" - any updates for this? It's almost the end of the year!
  • Late 2014 is as specific as the GOG page gets, and the official FP Facebook page didn't mention anything more. I expect this'll have to be updated soon. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "Post-release" have a hyphen and "Prerelease" doesn't?
  • czar claimed that "prerelease" is a word and "postrelease" isn't, which matches up with the red lines my phone's giving me. Personally, though, I'd prefer hyphens for both. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not sure on that, Oxford dictionary uses the hyphen for 'pre-release' and the hyphen can also apply for words that sometimes don't need it, for example 'over-rated' and 'build-up', but I think some of that lies down to ENGVAR. If you like, use them for both! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can wait to see what other reviewers say, then. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, Jeffrey Matulef from Eurogamer" - needs to be italicised, again with "Jonatan Allin from the Danish Eurogamer thought similarly"
  • WP:VG convention is to leave unitalicized the names of websites that didn't start as magazines, e.g. Kotaku, IGN, GameSpot, Destructoid, Joystiq, MeriStation. Might change in the future, but for now I think it should be okay. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the game receive any aggregate scores?
  • No, it doesn't have enough reception yet. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section is large, have you thought about expanding more on what the critics said in the lead section? I feel like the lead could summarise the article better
  • Added one more point about reception to the lead. Overall, though, I don't think it could be expandedmuch further, since critics were pretty universally positive and uniform in their reviews. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead, nor the infobox, does not mention anything about a Steam release
  • Added to lead. Infobox mentions Steam in the image caption; WP:VG convention is to omit placing it in the platform list. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now a less comprehensive reference check. I can guarantee that someone else will make a more extensive review for the references, but a few things are clear:

  • No dab links
  • All the references in the article appear to be working properly and the citations are all in the correct places, so no problems here.

Those are all of the pressing prose issues out of the way, and also a minor reference check (references aren't my field). Everything seems to be in good shape. I'll support this transition from GA to FA as I'm satisfied with the way the article is written. Hope this isn't too premature, but I really like this article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dank[edit]

I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.

  • I focus on copyediting, but sometimes I read sources when I don't understand what the article is saying. The lead says: "DiDuro is currently saving money to release the game for other platforms." The source quotes DiDuro: "I had that as a stretch goal to try and get it on Android, PlayStation Vita, that kind of stuff, but I overestimated the amount of time and money it would take for that. So what we’re going to do is focus on the Steam version first then move to other PC platforms like Good Old Games and Humble Bundle. We’re going to save up money and try to get it on PlayStation Vita or Wii U." Per our WP:CRYSTALBALL policy and per the "try to" language in the source, I don't think there's sufficient support for the statement in the lead, and I removed it. If he had said that he had invested a certain amount of cash or entered an agreement, that would be something concrete we could report on (even if we know that such plans don't always work out). But I don't see anything concrete to report on here ... I wouldn't even qualify it by attributing it to DiDuro. I'm aware that there's some difference in approaches between wikiprojects on this sourcing issue; any thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel strongly about it as long as we're not removing all mentions of later platforms from the article altogether, since that does make up a good amount of what DiDuro talks about, including on the official Freedom Planet Facebook page. Tezero (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly -- best of luck in the New Year if you choose to renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Xx (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus. Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spike Wilbury[edit]

Object as in the previous nomination. I find it a bit curious that this was opened when little was done during the first nomination to address objections (other than negating them) and nothing of substance has been done to the article since the last nomination closed. It closed with three open objections, 2 of which directly reference plagiarism concerns. I also find it troubling that you notified three editors of this nomination, but failed to notify any of the editors who opposed the last one. I can't help but to feel you are trying to sneak it under the radar. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Wilbury, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM--[8]), [9], [10])--while the FAC was going on! You don't find that the least bit suspicious? SNUGGUMS was ultimately "neutral", while Tezero gave a "tentative support", and Ian Rose concluded there wasn't enough to determine a consensus. I'm not obligated to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences or objections about musical jargon or close paraphrasing--I didn't leave these objections unanswered, I responded to them and defended by position with an effort equal to the one give by those who objected. If you don't agree, you're free not to, as am I to ask for others' opinions. Why would I invite the reviewers from a review that led to no consensus? I didn't agree with your objection, and am highly suspicious of RationalObserver and his interest from the start. I feel the previous FAC was tainted, and I'm free to open a new one when there was no consensus before. Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56, I've tried to be patient with your paranoia, but now this is getting abusive. If you accuse me one more time without filing an SPI I will file an AN/I report for personal attacks. FTR, Nikkimaria was one of the last editors to take a look at the last FAC, and she concluded the following:
"Ian Rose has asked me to do some spotchecking on this article, in an effort to resolve the dispute above. I don't see anything that I would consider a copyright violation, at least in the material I checked. However, while limited close paraphrasing can be done with proper attribution, I would caution you against over-relying on that provision - fair use becomes harder to justify the more it's applied. The intent of 'limited' is that such paraphrasing is used sparingly, and it seems that this article goes quite a ways beyond that. There are also a few instances where efforts to avoid close paraphrasing seems to have led to text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example."
I agree that this article is not only littered with close paraphrases, but there are also numerous instances of text-source integrity issues, as Dan56 demonstrates an inability to properly paraphrase without changing the intended meaning. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response in the previous FAC to aforementioned Nikkimaria's comment:
"I think rationalobserver embellished those instances, particularly those where certain technical phrases or simple words could not be paraphrased but did not "copy" the creative language of the source. As for that example, Phrases in her AllMusic review comments that the "restraint and sophistication ... [are] all the more impressive". I don't see how it's controversial to say that she found it "remarkably poised and sophisticated" when she said that those qualities make it "all the more impressive". The meaning is the same IMO; "impressive" for its "restraint and sophistication" = "remarkably poised and sophisticated"." Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, that's a WP:SYNTH to take Phares' comments about the album being "remarkable" and "sophisticated" to say that she described it as "remarkably poised and sophisticated". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, you're just misrepresenting my argument out of obstinance. Phares' comments are "[the] restraint and sophistication ... [are] all the more impressive". Not SYNTH. Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Nikkimaria, will you please settle this matter by clarifying why you said, "text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example"? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Dan56 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dan56, I've tried my best to stay out of the conflict between you and Rationalobserver. I only mention her opposition because it was outstanding at the time of the last FAC closing. I have reflected on your comments to me regarding your method and motivation for bringing this back here without changing it much. I still don't like it, but at the same time, I don't think my participation here is helping in any way. So, I'm striking my objection and unwatching the page. Good luck going forward. I do hope the endgame is the improvement of this article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mashaunix[edit]

Comment I'm no expert on this subject matter and FA standards, but since I've been invited to do so, I'll share what I have to say. I think the article is comprehensive and generally very well written, but needs some more work before being granted FA status. In my opinion it would be good to invite another experienced editor with a close interest in the subject to review the style and content of the article and make some improvements to these areas, addressing some of the concerns raised above. As of now the article seems a bit too subjective as far as I can judge, though I feel that it could be promoted to GA status. I'm willing to offer some specific ideas for improvement myself later this month when I have more time, but I don't think I have the knowledge and experience needed to make all the changes that I'd like to see.

Also, does the article meet MOS:TM?--MASHAUNIX 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Teh Thrasher[edit]

Comment Same as MASHAUNIX, I'm not that experienced on editing music articles, but I think it could need some tweaks. It just doesn't seem feature-worthy to my eyes yet.-Teh Thrasher (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

Dan has asked for the nomination to be withdrawn so I'll be actioning that shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Typhoon Karen[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Karen in 1962 is regarded as one of the wost natural disasters in the history of Guam. A powerful Category 5-equivalent storm, Karen battered the island with winds estimated at 285 km/h (185 mph), destroying the majority Guam's infrastructure and devastating the environment. Some referred to the wasteland left behind as "hell" with almost nothing left standing in the storm's wake. Despite the ferocity of Karen, relatively few people lost their lives. In the years following Karen, a massive change in how the United States handled Guam took place. Formerly an area of military occupation, Karen paved the way for military security to disbanded and allowed the economy to flourish.

From a mighty disaster came a new beginning for Guam. Both the economy and infrastructure of the island were overhauled due to the typhoon and Karen is the key catalyst that has made Guam what it is today. I hope you all enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it! Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as GA reviewer. That being said, I have just a few tiny nitpicks.

  • You should explicitly mention SSHS in the lead if you're gonna say Category 5.
  • Link maximum sustained winds in the lead?
  • " Total losses on the island amounted to $250 million" - are losses and damages the same?
  • "either California, Hawaii, or Wake Island" - either implies only two. I'd drop that word.
  • " it was later attributed with improving" - change "with" to "to"
  • Maybe indicate where Truk is in the MH? Otherwise, if you started upon reading the MH, there is no indication which ocean or continent the storm formed near.
  • "The lowest verified pressure was 931.9 mb (hPa; 27.52 inHg) at the Agana Naval Air Station." how is this the lowest if the one after it was lower?
  • The lead says that Karen reached peak intensity after Guam, but the MH doesn't mesh with that. How come?
  • "Wind gusts over the southern tip of Guam were estimated to have peaked around 185 km/h (115 mph)." ... " Based on this measurement, a study in 1996 estimated that gusts peaked between 280 and 295 km/h (175 and 185 mph) over southern areas of the island." = see the problem?
  • "The ROK Han Ra San and RPS Negros Oriental sunk" --> "sank"

Just those few little things. I'm still happy to support :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just noting ... several of those were fixed, "sank" wasn't. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I've checked all of them and fixed "sank". All were fixed except possibly the one about "wind gusts". - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

All images have sufficient source and author information and are either CC or work of the US military. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Per WP:MOSTIME: "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used; in both, colons separate hours, minutes and seconds". I put in colons in half of the article already; please do the rest.
  • "The damage across Guam was described as "'much more serious than that of 1944' when [United States] troops liberated the island."[1]": That's more of a spotcheck problem: you're representing material quoted from two sources as if it came from one source.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through the article again, I'll finish tomorrow morning, looking good so far. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, went through it again, found and fixed some instances of the problems Andy points out. Still supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a. I started reading at Aftermath and didn't make it far.

    • Very good to see you back, Andy. I'm frustrated by some of your suggestions below, but I know from experience that you're a good copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were delayed due to the inoperable airstrips" is ungrammatical; "due to" is only appropriate when it can be replaced by "attributable to" or "caused by", i.e. used as an adjective.
    • m-w.com, usage note: "Due to is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognized as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid due to."
    • dictionary.com (from the Random House Dictionary), usage note: "due to occurs commonly as a compound preposition and is standard in all varieties of speech and writing."
    • Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style, p. 264: "both [meanings] are fine".
    • American Heritage Dictionary, usage note: "the tide has turned toward accepting due to as a full-fledged preposition". - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite damage at the Guam Memorial Hospital, other civilian and military installations were able to handle injured persons as many were transferred to the Navy's hospital" I can't parse this sentence. Why would people be transferred to the Navy hospital "despite damage"?
    • Thanks. I've improved readability with: "Guam Memorial Hospital was damaged, but other civilian ...".
  • "Additionally, he instituted a curfew between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m." lacks clarity. The curfew was from 8 to 6, but why write it to introduce the ambiguity that he performed the action during that time frame?
    • Andy, tell 10 people that someone set a curfew between 8 and 6, and ask them if they thought that you meant that the person chose a time between 8 and 6 to say that they were setting a curfew for some other time. If any of them understood the sentence that way, I'll rewrite it. If none of them do, then the sentence isn't ambiguous.
  • "At schools, teachers were called in to guard supplies and equipment" Again, ambiguous writing. The calling was done at the schools? Better: "Teachers were called into schools to guard supplies and equipment."
    • I see what you're saying, but for me, the outside possibility that someone will misread it is more than compensated by the better flow of the text as it is: it establishes the setting with the very first noun.
  • "Additionally, a 15-man team ... were deployed" Normal for British English, not elsewhere.. are we going there, and being consistent?
    • Thanks for catching that, but I don't like your fix. It was "Additionally, a 15-man team of United States Air Force communications technicians were deployed"; the "was" would grate after all those plurals. I changed it to "Additionally, 15 United States Air Force communications technicians were deployed ...".
  • "It was also estimated that schools on the island would be closed for six months." Here and elsewhere you use the passive tense and avoid stating a subject. Is the subject unknown, or unimportant? In the previous sentence it was Guerrero doing the estimating.
    • The source says "Officials estimated that schools would be closed for six months." Why is that better than "It was also estimated that schools on the island would be closed for six months"? Who cares who the officials were? I'll read through checking for passive voice to see if the writers are misusing it, but they aren't misusing it in this case.
  • Photo caption uses the "massive junkyard" quotation; it's in quotation marks earlier in the prose but not here?
    • Fixed.
  • There is some error ("chapter=ignored") in the References section.
    • Cyclonebiskit, can you have a look?

Looks like it needs a once-over. --Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll go through it again. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking on passive voice ... none of these are a problem for me, are they a problem for you?
    • "Typhoon Karen was the most powerful tropical cyclone to strike Guam and was regarded as one of the most destructive events in the island's history.[1] Karen was first identified as a tropical disturbance on November 6, 1962, well to the southeast of Truk."
    • "It was regarded as the worst typhoon to ever strike the island."
    • "only 11 people were killed"
    • "Thousands more were sheltered in public buildings and later tent villages for many months."
    • "More than $60 million in relief funds were sent to Guam over the following years to aid in rehabilitation."
    • "On November 6, 1962, a tropical disturbance was identified over the Pacific Ocean ..." - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the responses. I don't have a problem with any of these, nor a problem with any of your responses—I fully recognize that many items in grammar are subjective. I think you misinterpreted some of my comments as requests for changes when I was really just asking the author to check his assumptions against mine. For example, no person would misunderstand the curfew sentence but ambiguous writing is just a poor practice to be in, and it often confuses ESL readers. Re: passive vocie, when one reads a sentence in the passive voice, the assumption is that the subject is either unknown or unimportant. I'm just asking to make sure that assumption is correct. Oh, and the "due to" item is widely discussed and disputed—I happen to consider it clunky and there are much more elegant ways of stating the point. Will read through again tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through again. I also look for "due to" when I'm copyediting, mostly because of WP:Checklist#because, and because "due to" will sometimes force what would have been a verb to turn into a flabby noun. I just found one of these objectionable due tos and rewrote it ... I also found a case of passive voice that shouldn't have been passive (we know that Guerrero said it, and we should say that). Let me know if you see anything else that needs fixing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. And, I'm sorry but I keep getting delayed in finishing my read-through. Will do my best to finish up within the next 24h. Do we know where the nominator is? They haven't edited this page since it opened. Are you the proxy? --Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rush. I'm helping out. I'll start off with a message on the nom's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • "Karen underwent a period of explosive intensification as its eye became small and increasingly defined." I'm having a lot of trouble relating things like this to the source provided. On what page does this information appear?
  • All the constructions similar to "35 km (22 mi) wide eye" are odd to me as they are all missing the necessary hyphen. It's ungainly and needs rewriting. Curiously, I clicked through several other Typhoon FAs and didn't notice this construction in use at all. Most of them mention the eye or the eyewall but don't provide measurements.
    • I agree. I allowed it because a variety of other writers like it, and I haven't been able to win the fight to get rid of it, but "35 km (22 mi) wide eye" is just clunky. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "After attaining this initial peak intensity on November 9" Is there another peak intensity?
  • Later, "Continuing west-northwestward, Karen attained its peak intensity on November 13" This is confusing to me, the lay reader. How many peaks are there?
    • He's using the term sources use in general, but I agree with you that that usage is jargony. I'll raise this issue over at WT:TROP in my current thread there. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Closest to the eye was Naval Magazine where a pressure of 907.6 mb (hPa; 26.80 inHg) was estimated but never verified." This (among other things) are sourced to a letter to the editor of a magazine. Why is that a reliable source? Doesn't it matter who wrote the letter? What's implied is that someone at Naval Magazine wrote a letter claiming they made this measurement, but this needs a lot more clarity.
    • I personally consider the Mariners Weather Log a reliable source since it has been held in high regard by the meterological community for a long time and was even saved from being put out of existance in 1995 after several letters/phone calls testifyed as to the value of the magazine. This is backed up by meterological services from all around the world, who have contributed various reports and letters into it for publication etc. Having been given digital copies of all of the issues last year i have gone and read the letter in question and can state that the letter was written by the Meterologist in Charge of the Guam Weather Station. However, all of the pressure readngs were contained within an editors comment on the letter, but i do not see any comments on if they were verified.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damage to vegetation was total across central areas of the island, with complete defoliation taking place." Just not well-written. "Damage was total" sits very oddly.
    • Changed to "Vegetation was completely defoliated across central areas of the island". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Military structures suffered the most from this phenomenon as the buildings were designed in a way that pressure differences between the interior and exterior would not equal out." No, the source doesn't really say that.
  • "like being 'shrapnel or artillery missiles.'" Again, just awkward phrasing.
    • Crap, that was a typo I introduced yesterday when I fixed something else. Fixed now. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I'm not too comfortable going much further with this due to the absentee nominator, but I'm pretty readily finding glitches everywhere I look. I don't think it's ready. --Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing problems could be quite significant, but odds are someone over at WT:TROP will fix them, in this FAC or the next one. I'll ask. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This has been open a long time but I'm loathe to archive it when you guys are actively reviewing/editing. If the nominator has left, however, we may not have many options -- will check back in a day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a msg yesterday at the nom's talk page, and today at WT:TROP. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a friend of Cyclonebiskits on Facebook - i have dropped him a PM today but it would not surprise me if hes rather busy in real life.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, this article slipped my mind. I'm busy this weekend with family but I'll try to read through what I can when time allows. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit, any update on this nomination? --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) [12].[reply]

I Never Liked You[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An impressionistic cartoon story of Chester Brown's painfully awkward adolescence. A quick read, and one that I reread frequently. the book demonstrate's its creator's mastery of his medium without resorting to pyrotechnics—superficially the reverse of a Maus, Watchmen, or Jimmy Corrigan, which is likely why this quiet masterpiece gets less press. Real comics connoisseurs know that this thing is the real deal, though, and fully the equal of those headline-snatchers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comment Reading through, but this is mostly there. Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Not sure why this hasn't attracted more commentary but as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere I'll be archiving it shortly. In light of the minimal feedback, I'd have no issue with you re-nominating in less than the usual two weeks, Curly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Caldas da Rainha[edit]

Nominator(s): Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a city in Portugal. It was promoted to Good Article less than a month ago. A request for Peer Review received zero feedback. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As GA reviewer, I'm not sure I'm allowed to do this, but I can't find anywhere that says I can't so... Support. The article is well-written, well-sourced, neutral, stable, has relevant images, a good lead etc. I gave it a pretty thorough review at GA and I can't see any problems with the article. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: It is perfectly OK for an article's GA reviewer to support its promotion to FA, provided that judgement is made on the basis of meeting the featured article criteria, which are rather tougher than those for GA. I haven't read through the article, but being a fan of most things Portuguese, I've skimmed through and found a few issues:

  • The lead is not, at the moment, an overview of the whole article, as required by WP:LEAD. At present it reads more as a collection of general facts about the city, without any real order or structure.
  • "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections, including temperature and rainfall information – see, for example, Belgrade, Minneapolis, Seville etc. This information seems to be absent from this article.
  • Although most of the article is well referenced, the penultimate paragraph of the Arts and culture section has no citations at all. There are paragraphs elsewhere in the article that end with uncited statements – see, for example, "Attractions" and "Sports" sections
  • The wording that opens the Attractions section: "Attractions not mentioning a civil parish are found in Nossa Senhora do Pópulo, the eastern half of city proper, containing the historical centre" is not clear as to purpose or meaning.
  • What criteria were used to decide who should be listed as the "notable people"? It is not always clear what their connection with the town was. Also note: "bares his name" → "bears his name".
  • My skim-reading gave me the impression that there was rather a lot of small detail. Example: "The ceramics are available for purchase at stands in the daily market at Praça da República (Praça da Fruta) and shops in the vicinity. They are available in stores outside Portugal, including a number of up-market housewares stores." These reads more like promotional material than a summary encyclopedia article. There may well be other similar instances.

I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October, since when there has been virtually no editing activity on the article. In other words, there has been no specific preparation for this FAC. I don't honestly think the article is ready at present (preparing the Climate details is a fairly big job on its own). Your best bet in my view would be to withdraw and resubmit, after the necessary work has been done, and after the completed article has been reviewed against the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will work on improving the article based on your suggestions. I have added a few comments below yours.—Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not...
    • The lead is organized as follows: 1) intro, notability, claim to fame; 2) history and origin of name, 3) culture, education, and sports; 4) population, geography, and transportation. Question, do you prefer the lead before or after this change: [14]?
    • Done I have reworked the intro, making it more targeted and concise, and undoing some of the additions that brought it to Good Article status. Is this better?
  • "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections...
    • Done I do not believe that this is a requirement, nor do I know of a source for this information. I do agree that there's an air of incompleteness without the info. I'll dig to see what I can find.
  • Although most of the article is well referenced...
    • I will search for and add references. (Or excise info. for which refs. cannot be found.)
    • Done Unreferenced paragraphs no longer exist.
  • The wording that opens the Attractions section...
    • Done I reworded for clarity.
  • What criteria were used...
    • Answered and Done The criteria are notable individuals who were born in, lived in, or worked in Caldas who have Wikipedia articles. Three were born in Caldas (Alvorninha being a civil parish of the municipality, as mentioned earlier in the article), and one built his famous ceramics factory in Caldas. Thank you for catching the typo.
  • My skim-reading gave me the impression...
    • The sentences are not intended to be promotional. Rather, they are intended to demonstrate the global popularity of ceramics from Caldas. Question: would it be preferable to mention stores selling the ceramics in text or just as refs.?
    • Done I have rewritten the entire ceramics paragraph, eliminating this concern.

I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October...

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your feedback. Your suggestions have been very helpful in improving the article. I believe that I have addressed your concerns. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These improvements are welcome. One further point you might address is to clarify what connection your notables had with the town, for example whether they were born there, or settled there later, etc. I don't know whether I will find further review time for the article, but I wish you well with it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the well wishes. For each of the notable people, the dates and places of birth and death are given in parentheses directly after their name. For the one individual not born in the municipality, the text mentions the ceramics factory that he founded in Caldas. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Pt-cld1.png: what is the copyright status of the original design? Same with File:CLD.png
  • File:Leonor_de_Viseu_-_José_Malhoa.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • File:Caldas_da_Rainha_Pottery.jpg: what is the copyright status of the pottery itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to review and help me improve. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly; per FAC instructions, please wait a minimum of two weeks from today before considering a renomination here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [15].[reply]

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of KFC. Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can anyone explain why this article didn't pass the last time? Given that explanation, we can evaluate to see if those concerns have been dealt with. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stevietheman, User:Ceranthor had a few comments that I didn't have time to look into. but have since been addressed. Tom (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Auntieruth55[edit]

overall this looks good. I've reached the 1990s, made a few tweaks, and have a few prose concerns:
this sentence in particular has me boggled: PepsiCo was accused of behaving in an imperious manner towards franchisees, who it believed were holding back the firm's growth, while the franchisees believed they had been the backbone of the company during a succession of indifferent corporate owners.[76]
there are a lot of sentences like this: was introduced at over 30 per cent of US outlets... which could be stronger.
overall, I find few problems with the prose, other than case like those two above. I suggest that some of the very short paragraphs (2 sentences on death of Saunders, for example) be woven in elsewhere, instead of standing alone. I will get back to additional proofing tomorrow. auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note The nominator seems unresponsive, and this FAC has become moribund. I will be archiving this in a few minutes. Please wait until two weeks have passed before renominating. Graham Beards (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Spokane, Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...Spokane, Washington, a medium-sized city in eastern Washington. This former railroad, mining, and timber town is Washington's second largest city and is the county seat of Spokane County as well as the metropolitan center of the Inland Northwest region. I hope you enjoy reading and learning about Spokane! G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, suggest quick withdrawal—The nominator is not a major contributor and has made less than ten edits on Wikipedia, enough to assume that he is not familiar with the FA criteria and how the entire process works.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited this article and Wikipedia for years as an IP. Anyway, I do hope you come around, reconsider, and critique the article. That would be very helpful and I would like your opinion. I did read and was aware of the criteria before I nominated it. I know your concern is over this passage: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."
I dont think you should worry though. I think that is just a recommendation. I am familiar with the topic, editing, and the criteria that has to be met. I dont think that can apply to this case anyway because it doesnt look like there are any significant named Users to inform before I nominated it. I hope you and other users can be open-minded and less distracted by how recent the nominators account was created and judge it by the content of the article. A lot of people have worked hard on it and it shows. I believe if it doesnt meet the criteria that we can easily work it out so that it does. Thank youG755648 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - hmm, read this through while at the gym earlier tonight on my smartphone. I think it is pretty good comprehensiveness- and balance-wise (though I concede I don't know the city well enough to stake my life on that), but the prose needs some tightening. I will try and find and either fix straightforward stuff or list queries below, though sometimes if it is this loose it might need more than one extra set of eyes. Anyway..if you know the subject and can help with factual fixes or clarifications this might be a goer.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word "city" is mentioned four times in the first para of lead. Also, the fourth para should be merged into first para as content is similar - will also allow removal of repeated fact that it is the second largest city in Washington.
Done Good idea. It was tricky, but I like it better now.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement - the "and began European Settlement" is redundant - repeated in next sentence. I was going to remove it but left it to you to figure how to rephrase the sentence.
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last para of American settlement section is a bit laboured with the three sentences on railroads - surely this can be streamlined?
Done Combined the first two sentences and references which are very similar. Think the last one should stand alone since its a significant fact and has 3 references that we dont want to get jumbled up with the others.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the new century, Spokane is still reinventing itself to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector - hmm, needs rephrasing, why not just "promoting" or "developing" a "more service-oriented economy"....?
I wouldnt mind that. I do like it the way it is currently worded with 'reinventing' though because I think it conveys more of a sense and reality that Spokane's transition hasnt been easy and it's struggling from losses. The recession that the last paragraph in the 20th century section was talking about saw the shutting down of the 2 aluminum plants from WWII and the loss of many jobs in the manufacturing sector (which isnt mentioned). They briefly mention the loss of those jobs a HistoryLink article, I think Ill put it in there. Let me know what you think.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've done this so far to trim some flab off the writing. There is more - look for repeated words in sentences or adjacent clauses. I have to sleep now - back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed the redundancy, Ill keep an eye out for some more parts like the ones you mentioned. Right now Ive been working on the refs, looking for dead links and page migrations. Thank you for your help!G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get better at it - one of the best things I've read since editing here is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Note that I don't mean make it too dry, there is a fine balance here.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, here are some more examples. The danger is that if an article is really flabby, I will stop seeing them after a while as I become used to the article. Still, I think we are making progress and will get some other folks to review the prose when I am done. I think the prose is tighter further down the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you do get used to it after a while lol. Thanks for bringing your friends in to help, the more the merrier.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Spokane's history is reflected in its large variety of neighborhoods and districts. - see, I'd say this is true of any city and that nothing is lost by this sentence's removal - let the facts of the following sentences speak for themselves.
Done::: Removed intro sentence.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spokane experiences a four-season climate,... - I'd remove this as redundant in the culture section
DoneG755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the fires' aftermath, 32 blocks of Spokane's downtown were destroyed and one person was killed - err, it was the fire, not its aftermath, which did these things.....
Fixed
A more active way to see natural sites in the Spokane area include travelling the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails.... - sounds a bit like a tourism brochure. Can trim to "The Spokane River Centennial Trail features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails....."
FixedG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spokane is served by a variety of print media. - pointless sentence. Would be true of all but the smallest towns. suggest removal
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crime rates in Spokane can vary greatly and differ depending on neighborhood. - true of just about all cities. what would be more notable is a homogeneous city. suggest removal
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hostilities between the natives ceased and this opened the inter-mountain valley of the Pacific Northwest to the safe settlement of white people - "between" or "against" the natives?
Done. against..G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Property crime is of particular concern in Spokane - let fact speak for themselves...I'd remove it.
Done.G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the most common property crime in the nation, auto theft, Spokane had the fourth highest rate in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011 - why not just, "Spokane had the fourth highest rate of auto theft in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011"
Done. Good questionG755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Local and regional law enforcement agencies continually try new strategies, techniques, and technologies to address this issue. - I'd remove - sure this is going on in every city in the world about all sorts of crime....
Done.G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Spokane area offers an abundance of outdoor activities that can be enjoyed in outlying natural areas that may cater to a variety of interests. - I'd remove this - sounds like a tourism brochure. Let following sentences speak for themselves. No meaning is lost by this sentence's removal.
Done. Thanks, Cas!G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The various neighborhoods and districts of Spokane contain a patchwork of architectural styles and landmarks, - I'd truncate this to "The various neighborhoods of Spokane contain a patchwork of architectural styles,..." - otherwise sounds laboured....
DoneG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "cutting edge".....I'd change. Bit....hmmm.......I hate to use the term "unencyclopedic" but I reckon it is apt here.
Done Good point. I put "state of the art" in its place. G755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another hotel with the intention of bringing convention business to Spokane is the new 721-room convention hotel across from the INB Performing Arts Center. - jumps 100 years in two sentences? This seems weird coming after the sentence with 1914 in it...
Done Never thought about that, it is a bit weird. That was included because Dr. Blofeld wanted some info on hotels, and that one will be by far the largest in town once opened. It was also a nice transition since they had the same intentions and the new hotel is owned by the same developer that saved the Davenport. I have taken it out for now since I think a mention of the Davenport as the most notable and well known hotel will suffice for now. If Blofeld has concerns, we can always add it back. If we do add it back, Ill try to make it less weirdG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spokane has a vibrant art scene... - I'd chop this out. I suspect there are many many cities that'd say this....just let the sentences speak for themselves
DoneG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spokane is large enough to have many amenities of a larger city, but small enough to support annual events and traditions with a small town atmosphere. - ditto.....
DoneG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression - within striking distance I think. The sourcing looks ok and the article strikes me as comprehensive and balanced. I found quite a bit of fluff to trim in the prose and it's looking better, and I can't see any clangers outstanding. However I am cautious as once I read through a few times I too start missing things, so will ping another prose-analyser to take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for helping out Cas Liber! You have a tremendous eye for detail and have done a great deal to clean up this article and make it better. :)G755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I think we're over the line now and prose is tighter...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Casliber for your support and all youve done to help and make this article better.G755648 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crime rates- the figures in the table are derived from an FBI table of total crimes, not crimes per 100,000 as shown, e.g. 1,369 violent crimes in a population of 212,163= 645 per 100,000. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what youre talking about, but Im at a loss on how to fix it. If I could I would just take that note out but it looks like its embedded in the template. Is there something we can do to the template? I could change the source to the state UCR data for crime rates per 100,000, which is cited in the prose, but I would prefer not to since that template and source is sort of standardized on many city articles with a Crime section, including the Tulsa, Oklahoma and Hillsboro, Oregon featured articles which have the same issue. Let me know what you think is bestG755648 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same here- I don't know. It does seem a template problem. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope someone who can help finds out about that and updates it. Nice job noticing it.G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done Changed the alt so it isnt the same as any of the captions. Tell me if it still needs work or if I missed one. Took out the carousel pic.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'll read properly over the next day or so, but meanwhile two quick points on spelling: I've never seen "deaconess" with a double "n" (perhaps a UK-v-US thing) and "orthopaedic" rather than "orthopedic" looks more like BrEng than AmEng to me. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. More from me shortly. Tim riley talk 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done You are absolutely right about the spelling of 'Deaconess', it is supposed to have only one 'n' and if you find one with two, it is a mistake and feel free to take it out; I took out the one instance I found in there. I dont know about BrEng vs AmEng on this, but the Shriners website uses "orthopaedic" so I just went with it. I do think "orthopedic" is more common and looks less of a mouthful though so Im going to change that too. Thanks for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has gently reminded me that I have not honoured my undertaking to look in again. I hereby promise faithfully to re-read the article and comment further here in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have you Tim! Take your time and thank you!!G755648 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment on the prose, and I am happy to say I think it meets the FA criterion 1a – I find the text engaging, clear and well put together – in short, a pleasure to read. As to the content I defer to Dr. Blofeld's wide expertise, but noting the nominator's reply to Dr. B's comments I incline to provisional support. A few points for the nominator to consider:
  • Hyphenation: I am no expert, but I see some phrases that I think could do with a hyphen, and I suggest you ask User:Chris the speller to look in: he has helped me greatly and often with hyphenation and countless other fixes.
Done. The kind sir gave it a nice look over.
  • Name of nation: "United States" is used 28 times and "U.S." 21 times. As far as I can see, as a European outsider, the preferred form seems to be "U.S.", and so perhaps some or all incidences of the two-word version might be trimmed to initials.
Done.G755648 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK: Wikipedia's rules are clear: a maximum of two links from any article to another: one link from the lead, and one from the main text. You have quite a few triplicated and quadrupled links. There is an invaluable and simple tool here that will help you fix this, and I'd say it definitely must be fixed before the article is judged fit for promotion to FA.
That's all from me pro tem but I shall watch the review and will contribute further if wanted. Tim riley talk 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and support Tim. It looks like I will definitely be doing a lot of de-linking before this nomination is wrapped up to combat the sea of blue and Ill change as many of those 'United States' instances as I can. Thanks again!:)G755648 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is my first stab at a review, so please be patient. In reviewing the lead, I think you might want to take the historical information from the last two paragraphs and combine them into one, and put the resources and notable institutions into its own paragraph at the end. Currently it seems a little disjointed to see the history start and move on to a new topic only to return later.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Good point. I shuffled some sentences around and now all the history comes before the other facts about its name and nickname and colleges. Hope you like itG755648 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pretty good article but I can't support an article which has such a poor coverage of architecture and landmarks. Cityscape should contain the bulk of the architecture and notable landmarks and be a separate section. It should be one of the longest sections in the article, yet it missing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good idea, I will start working on this as soon as possible. However, I never thought to put that in there partly because I dont recall seeing many FAs with a section dedicating a whole lot to landmarks and architecture, could you show me some examples I can use as a model?? I know the Tulsa article talks a fair amount about it but I havent seen a whole lot of others.
Information about many of Spokane's landmarks are sort of dispersed throughout the article but most of it is in the Neighborhoods section, it should be very easy to bring this info all together and supplement that with some new content and put them into a nice section. Spokane has plenty to talk about on the matter and I look forward to making this section. A lot of the downtown is Romanesque Revival style architecture and a lot those buildings are Spokane landmarks. Im already brainstorming some ideas. I can also talk about Kirtland Cutter, an architect who started practicing in the city and holds the majority of his famous works as well. Again, if you could give me some examples of what youre looking for that would address the issue, that would be very helpful. Thank you!G755648 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Copenhagen for an example. Now, naturally I wouldn't expect a similar coverage for Spokane, Copenhagen being a capital city, but I would like to see a sizable section covering the most prominent buildings in the city and coverage of the more notable registry places. I'd add a sizable Architecture sub section to the Cityscape section I've now created. You could discuss the Romanesque architecture downtown, when certain buildings were built and their architects. Then mention a few of the most notable mansions/houses in the area etc. In fact a separate article Landmarks of Spokane, Washington covering it in detail and a condensed summary in the main would be good. When wanting to learn about cities for me personally having quick access to the most notable features of a city architecturally is one of the main things I look for. I think having a solid section on Landmarks discussing most of them in one section instead of throughout the article is more convenient for those looking for a concise summary of the most notable buildings and features. There's nothing wrong with mentioning things like theatres and museums in Culture but I'd think the bulk of the main admin buildings, prominent hotels/houses etc and a general overview of architecture should go in a chunky section itself.
My first observation aside from the architecture is that the lede is poorly balanced and focused and tells me little actually about the city; it wouldn't even meet GA standards. Cut out all the info about population in the wider county, it's not relevant. You only really need to say something like "As of 2014 the city had a population of xxx with xxx in the wider metropolitan area" in one sentence, not a whole paragraph! Cut back a lot on the history and etymology and try to make sure something from each section of the article is mentioned in the lede. The reader will want an overview of the contents of the article, so you need to mention some of the landmarks, top sports teams etc. My feeling though is that this needs way too much polishing and improvement to really be a viable candidate right now. I'd withdraw it and get some experienced editors to look and it and try to improve it further and then nominate when we're all positive about it. I think it would benefit from some copyediting and a general polish which would result from several pairs of eyes reading and editing it. I may give this a full look later in the week and help you out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the idea of an architecture and landmarks section, Im surprised you dont see a section like that more often. Im glad that you pointed that out to me because that is one of the most interesting parts of any city or town that I like to know about too if I were to visit, knowing what the sites are important, even if its not a tourist hotspot. Ive made good progress on the section that is dedicated to landmarks and architecture and Im going to more or less talk about the architecture of notable neighborhoods in Spokane with emphasis on the downtown core, which is obviously the most relevant as well as talking identifying of the landmarks in other neighborhoods that stand out and are worth a mention. Also, I have created a paragraph that tells of the types of architecture that is most commonplace and listing some of the notable buildings that are of a particular style etc. I think I will briefly delve into city layout and its grid system, mention of the citys extensive skywalk network, and Spokane's very good record in saving and preserving historic buildings and its architectural heritage. I have dedicated a paragraph about Spokane's only real architect of note, Kirtland Cutter, and I talk about how he started out in architecture, rose to prominence, and the buildings hes done in town. I will put it in the article when Ive made it into a somewhat coherent piece, I will be trying to dedicate as much time as I can to get this done this week.
I will chop down the lead a bit, I do think it can be more lean without taking anything away. We can experiment with the Lead, its just a summary so nothing will be lost by doing some cutting. That is something easy to fix and we just need to find the right balance. As for the copyediting, I been working quite a bit on that lately as well some other reviewers here, I think we have cleaned it up real nice. If more copyediting is needed, this is the best place for it. I think that working on copyediting is the most commonplace issue here at the FACs and that is mainly what were doing here, sprucing up the article and trying to put the finishing touches on it so it can be brought up to spec. That being said, I welcome any help I can get and Im happy youre being proactive about it and going to take a look into it yourself. Thanks so much for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty much what I was looking for, good job. Perhaps a few sentences on hotels and restaurants/cafes at the end of other notable landmarks would be good too. I have visited the city a while back and I must admit that the "Spokane's crime rate is also higher than average in both violent and property crime, having a rate higher than 98% of communities in the United States" really felt like it at the time, although walking through parts of NYC felt about the same. Walking through the downtown at dusk past gangs hanging out on the corners and the night in the motel was probably the most threatened I've ever felt in terms of personal safety and remember putting a heavy chair up against the door! The park I remember was quite pleasant though. Seems as Tim doesn't see any major issues with the prose perhaps it's best to keep this running then, but I can see some areas needing sourcing improvement. I've already added two sources. I'll try to give it my full attention tomorrow. I really need to take a careful look and read each aspect of it before I'm ready to change to support. Can you try to balance out the lede as I suggested in the meantime, I'm surprised Tim didn't pick up on that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an unfortunate experience at the motel and Im sorry to hear it. Good thing you didnt die, that would have sucked. The crime is supposed to be getting better, we can only hope. In the mean time, I suggest packing an Ak 47 for your next trip to Spokane lol.
Ive put off doing the Lead to work on the Cityscape section, Ive started working on that now, let me know what you think of it in the coming days. I will add a section about Cutter's Davenport Hotel, its been called "Spokane's livingroom" and Ill mention the convention hotel thats being constructed too right now. Ill try to think of a at least one other talking point to put in there to make it complete. Thanks for the work youve put in on the article. Im liking your changes. I do think the 'Walkability' section looks a bit oddly placed under the Dams section, but Ill get used to it I guess. Thanks again!G755648 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the walkability, but I didn't think it belonged where you put it so moved it during the edit. I'd be tempted to remove it all, or in passing just mention it somewhere. Hopefully I can take a good look at this over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you replace historylink.org and some of the other sources in the history section to that site which appear to be essays and replace with some more solid primary book sources where possiblr? Just look in google books, should turn up plenty of replacements like this. I know the historylink site says "with a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" but I think it would look better with a wider range of sources from books, like you've done more research. They just look more solid as sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have either added a book source to accompany a HL cite or replaced it completely with a book about 4 or 5 times throughout the article. The vast majority of the historylink cites are at the end of 20th century and 21st century sections and parts of the history section that deal with a very narrow topic (The Great Fire, Hillyard). G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you research this using google books? I think in quite a few places the sourcing could be strengthened and replace with books, there's quite a few places I can see where third-party reliable books etc could replace web based primary sources. Can you try to strengthen the sourcing using google books? I can help you with that if you like.
  • The Sports I think is one of the weakest and tells me little about sports in the city. I'm aware that several other American cities have tables like this but I think it would be best written in prose and you elaborate on some of them. When were they founded? What recent successes etc have they had? I'd make it look like more like the Education section and it'll look much better for it without the table and more information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I think Chopped some off. let me know if its not enoughG755648 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The close proximity of the hospitals, doctors' offices, and specialized clinics scattered around this area form what is known as the "Medical District" of Spokane." -citation needed, looks like OR.
Done.G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think with a fair bit of polishing work and sourcing and content reinforcement this has the potential to pass. The basic material is there but it still needs a copyedit and that something extra to improve flow and avoid repetition in parts and improve the general quality.I've made a good start this evening, it's shaping up. If you're editing it in the meantime can you try to begin strengthening the sourcing to the best of your ability with quality book sources and replace a lot of those web sources, cut parks down and begin writing a nice section on sports without that ugly table? You can save time by pasting google book url into here. I'll resume tomorrow. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im liking what youve done and how its turning out. I like how you split up the Housing and the public buildings section, nice. I might fiddle with the Lead a little bit, if you have concerns, just let me know.
I absolutely share your view on book sources vs web sources and I like traditional book sources better. Im happy to see this article uses a lot of books throughout, and uses more than most featured articles about cities, the biblio lists 13 books now with the addition of that Ware book you just put in there. Compare that to 2 on the Providence, Rhode Island FA, 1 that I see cited in the Erie, Pennsylvania FA, and a whopping 0 on the Tulsa FA. But, even so, I did try to find resources that I could use to replace some of them, but came up empty handed. The majority of the History section uses books, and the ones that dont are sections that are narrow in scope or use the Thumbnail article for the more recent events in the 21st century section. Thats the beauty of HistoryLink there, filling in the spaces between the books. That being said, HistoryLink is a really good resource on a broad range of Washington state-related topics and a wealth of information, its a state government supported Washington state encyclopedia and its been put to good use on this article as well as the Seattle FA article too. Since HistorLink is a solid source, this seems sort of like a cosmetic issue, especially since the encyclopedia lists all of their sources for each essay at the bottom. I do have to say that I like the idea of keeping at least one instance of most of the articles on there so the reader has the option to learn more if they wish to. We want the readers to learn as much as they want and I dont think it hurts to keep one in there so they can have access to it. I think that strikes a nice balance.
I didnt do most of the history section, Ill see what books I can find as some alternatives. I only added in recent years editing irregularly as an nonstatic IP the Kensel sources. and I will see what I can do to get some more book sources to replace the HLs if I can. I own the Stratton book, Ill see what I can scrounge up and yes, feel free to help if you can :).
I see what you mean about the Parks and Rec section and the Sports section. Ill start working on those real soon. I think the Parks section goes into too much detail, and I think I can cut it back a good deal. Ill take your advice and ditch the table, its not important and if someone wanted to know about it, they will take the time to scan the section for what they want. Its a work in progress but it looks like its getting better! Thank you again.G755648 (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely much improved thanks to our combined efforts! The balance now I think is perfect. Let me give this my full attention again on Monday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you back! look forward to working on this with you again. Thank you for your continued interest and your contributions, they are very much appreciated.G755648 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments[edit]
  • The local economy has traditionally been based on natural resources, being a center for mining, timber, and agriculture; however, the city's economy has diversified. - should have a time frame
Fixed Put a date on when the diversification seemed to have happened, by the 1980s according to Schmeltzer.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Fire of 1889 - worth a redlink?
Done I think soG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first humans to live in the Spokane area arrived between 12,000 to 8,000 years ago and were hunter-gatherer societies that lived off the plentiful game in the area. - A summarized version of this would have been really useful in the lead, rather than keep a Euro-centric view
DoneI like that ideaG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the Spokane tribe's (or other Native American tribes') view of Wright and the battles?
I will see what I can find about this...G755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first American settlers in the present-day city" - perhaps "The first American settlers in what is now Spokane"
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that terms are linked on first mention, and not otherwise.
Is this a MoS rule? Since we can only use one link due to the MoS, its important to use it where people would most expect to see it I think, so Ive been linking some of the links in the section that talks most about the subject matter. I didnt want to assume that people will read each section sequentially. Sometimes people only want to read a certain section. For instance, we mention Kirtland Cutter in the History section, but the link to his article is in the Architecture section, where we talk about him at length and where most people will probably gain enough interest to jump into his article. Let me know what you think about thatG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and 36,848 in 1900 with the arrival of the railroads. - Didn't the NPR reach Spokane in 1881?
Yeah it did, but it was followed by the Union Pacific, Great Northern, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific railroads too.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So "arrival of the railroads" can't be correct, as there was at least railroad there for several years (and another followed before 1900, right?)
Done Ah, I see what you mean, thats right. We are going to have to say 'the arrival of additional railroads' or something. Ill work on the continuity issue with the jumping around later.G755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inland Empire - This doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic term
The "Inland Empire" isnt a contrived term, it is what the region centered around Spokane was commonly called and the term still isnt too uncommon today. Youre more likely to hear Inland Northwest though. The article defines this term in the Topography section. The term is used in the source material and I think using period terms brings the history more to life and makes for more interesting reading. Let me know if using it is a problemG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the only other time you use this term beforehand, it is in quotes. Losing the quotes gives a different impression. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I thinkSo, youre saying that since its been defined already I can lose the quotes? If so, Ill change it to ..."capital" of the Inland EmpireG755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a dramatic building boom - Dramatic feels a little weasely and POV. "boom" is already giving the same impressions.
Done
  • Spokane's growth continued unabated until August 4, 1889, - why are we jumping around, from 1900 to 1910 to 1889 to...?
Done Relocated those sentences to a place that makes more sense.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the West - might want to be more explicit, for non-American readership
Done Good ideaG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we get it, the rates were really high. We shouldn't push a POV with so many adjectives.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I think I took one out- if youre talking about the rail freight rates. I see what you mean, it is a significant point though. According to what Ive read, it really hurt the economy for decades.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After decades of stagnation and slow growth, Spokane businessmen formed Spokane Unlimited, an organization that sought to revitalize downtown Spokane. - When?
FixedStratton doesnt list a specific date for the formation of Spokane Unlimited, the book says it happened in the 'early 60s' so I put that down to be faithful to the source.G755648 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • becoming the smallest city yet to host a World's Fair - as of?
FixedSentence and language was a bit confusing. It was the smallest city when it hosted the Fair in 1974, thats what the sentence is supposed to get across. As for being the smallest city today to host a Worlds Fair...Spokane isnt the smallest anymore.G755648 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The success seen in the late 1970s and early 1980s once again was interrupted by another U.S. recession, in which silver, timber, and farm prices dropped. - again, when?
Im not quite sure what I can do on this one and I have to say I dont have the book with me. But, I personally thought that 'late 1970s and early 1980s' was pretty specific (in my mind this would narrow it down to 1977-1983ish- a 6 year period)...the whole US suffered from that recession in the late 1970s, would you like me to put the dates the slump occurred nationally? I think it would probably simply amount to us explicitly saying what most of us are probably already thinking though...that it occurred from 1977-1983, which would be the late 1970s and early 1980s... Let me know what you think is best for the article and Ill see what I can doG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not worried about that part of the sentence, but rather the recession which interrupted the growth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Whoops, I got a bit confused. Again, I dont have the book in front of me, but the recession that is mentioned would be the Early 1980s recession that apparently started in July of 1981, I will put that date in the sentence.G755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last several paragraphs of #History gets pretty POV (sounds like promotional copy). This is particularly true of the 21st century section — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one thing that stuck out, and that I took out ...there is an air of optimism for the city's future- I can see how you might think that is promotional, but Im not seeing any others sentences that would be promotional too much of a concern, could you show me an example of what you are seeing and why you think its promotional?
What I see are examples of this 'downtown rebirth' that the article talks about and that has been happening since 1999. The 21st century section is about what has been happening over the last 15 years, pretty recent history, and I (and HistoryLink, the source for most of this section) would say reversing the deteriorating downtown is the most notable thing to talk about in Spokane today. This downtown renewal is still happening and relevant today, with the current building of a 721-room convention hotel and yet another expansion of the convention center. We can only wait and see what the events of today will have on the overarching history of Spokane, but for now, we can only report what we see.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentences such as "Although a tough period, Spokane's economy had begun to benefit from economic diversification; being the home to growing companies such as Key Tronic and having research, marketing, and assembly plants for other technology companies helped lessen Spokane's dependency on natural resources." strike me as very marketese, for lack of a better term (like what I'd see from a commercial press release). Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but I'm not too sure this and similar wordings are encyclopedic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OH, I thought you were talking about the 21st century section.
Although Im having a hard time seeing the problem, Ill see what I can do to try and fix it. It might be a matter of picking the right words, but the section doesnt use any POV and opinion describing words that are typical of things that would bring up promotional and POV flags to me. I thought that section was actually gloomy if anything (with the exception of the one sentence you brought up about diversification that you pointed out), its talking about losing family wage jobs and further down talks about scarcity of high-paying jobs, pockets of poverty, areas of high crime, and a sense of doubt regarding aspects of city government. Strikes me as very honest and NPOV for the most part.
Fixed I thinkChanged sentence to: Although this was a tough period, Spokane's economy had started to benefit from some measure of economic diversification; growing companies such as Key Tronic and other research, marketing, and assembly plants for other technology companies helped lessen Spokane's dependency on natural resources.

Thank you for reading and helping out!G755648 (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G755648 I think though that the 20th century to present has way too much on economy and general development. I think it would look better with reinforcement in the history with some actual events. Perhaps you could get hold of some books like "Early Spokane". A great place to start would be the timeline here. Try to cover as much of it as you can. I'll resume tomorrow with that if you don't make a start on it. The history section for me is the weakest now. If we can try to report more events and improve the balance from just economic development we should get there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can do a bit better on that. Ill see what else I can think of in the the coming week or so. It would make it seem a bit less mechanical and all business. The economic history is comprehensive and well covered and that is the meat and potatoes of any history section. With any settlement, history and economy go hand in hand and that is what all the books focus on so it can be tougher to find those nice little side notes that happen along the way, but Ill try to remember to look through some stuff and see if I can find something worth noting. I think you've done a good deal of addressing the issue so far. If there is any event in particular that you think is worth mentioning, let me know and Ill make a write something up about it. For the time though, I am working on the recommendations in the list above. Thanks again and glad to have ya back.G755648 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More coming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47.39 North latitude and 117.25 West longitude - Is this necessary in-text? We've got templates for putting this information at the top of the article and in the infobox. If we do keep this in-text, can we lose the latitude and longitude? It's already clear from the degrees North construction.
Done Yeah, Id agree, we can lose it.G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lowest elevation in the city of Spokane is the northernmost point of the Spokane River within city limits (in Riverside State Park) at 1,608 feet (490 m); the highest elevation is on the northeast side, near the community of Hillyard (though closer to Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir) at 2,591 feet (790 m). - I think this should be with the other information about the elevation
Done Moved the sentence so it is right after the sentence that lists the elevation of the city.G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDelinked ecoregion, basaltic, foothills and steppe..G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"winningest"? Is the Sports section a SEAOFBLUE too?G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need all this information on Spokane county?
DoneGood point, TMI. Im getting rid of the info about the nearby townsG755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate links: Oregon, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Coeur d'Alene, Palouse, Key Tronic, Expo '74, Riverside State Park, Spokane Falls, Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park, Mukogawa Women's University, Mead, Spokane Valley,
Im having a hard time trying to find some of these duplicates. Tim told me about some script to use, but I dont know how to use it and I didnt want to mess anything up. If you find a duplicate feel free to remove it and do what you want.G755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a full-power radio station that provides its service area with progressive perspectives, providing programming to diverse communities and unserved or under-served groups. - Another very POV-y sentence (marketese)
FixedGood catchG755648 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • state and county government documents or state- and county-government documents?
FixedIm not sure what the difference is so Ill just put "government documents"G755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spokane County Library District - why no further information, if you mention it?
ReasonMentioned so you know its there and it exists. Only mentioned because the Spokane County libraries are all outside the city itself and I didnt want to diverge from the main topic. I think in depth coverage of the county libraries should be mentioned in the side articles.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spokane is home to many higher education institutions. - how many?
Concern The answer to this question really depends on what you consider 'higher education'-which is a sort of a slippery slope with the many options you have nowadays-can we really definitively answer this question? I dont want to pick and choose and frame the context of discussion based on my views for the readers. Id rather name the notables and show them some of the variety that is offered.G755648 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mukogawa Fort Wright Institute - I don't think we should link to Fort Wright in the middle of an organization's name
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • winningest - I know some people stand by this term, but I'm sure there's something else that we can use, a more standard English word
Done "successful"G755648 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the information on the Spokane Indians would be better for an article on the team itself. We don't need to know about the 1946 crash, for instance. The #Sports section should be much more recent in its focus
Done Deleted sentence and reference
  • af2 - What is this?
Done arenafootball2 league.
  • Sports Travel Magazine worth a redlink? Then again, if it's a really minor or local publication, this shouldn't be mentioned.
Its OK I thinkI dont think we need a redlink here. Its not local and nobody reading this article will know much about it. The magazine is from Los Angeles.G755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the past decade, - beginning when? This is a relative time modifier, and would work better as "Since 2004" or something which does not change over time
Done I took out the text and slightly changed the sentence, its not really needed.G755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today, - which is...? See WP:PRECISELANG, as this seems to be a common issue.
DoneDeletedG755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through service is a legacy of BNSF Railway's old Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway trackage.- I've read this four times and not gotten your meaning. Is it meant to be related to Amtrak?
Fixed I think its clear now. Yes, The tracks that lead to Seattle and Portland were built by the SPS Railway, which was then bought by the Great Northern and then BNSF-which is what Amtraks uses.
  • 4,800-acre airport - give hectares too?
DoneG755648 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Felts Field is a general aviation airport serving the Spokane area and is located in east Spokane along the Spokane River. Felts Field served as Spokane's primary airport until commercial air traffic was redirected to Geiger Field after World War II. - expand a little, rather than have a two-sentence paragraph? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Ive got more than enough ideas to start making this article better thanks to you and Ill be working on this probably over the next few days or so as time permits. Thank you for the taking the time to review this Crisco!G755648 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Went into a bit more detail.
  • Still working through
  • a position which it wrested from Cheney in 1886. - if the people of Spokane were armed when doing this, "wrested" may be an understatement
ClarificationAccording to the article, it was actually the Cheney citizens who were armed. It says in 1881, after a close recount of the votes to determine the county seat, the Spokanites claimed the county seat, but then the armed Cheneyites came to take it back. It wasnt until 1886 that it was permanently transferred to Spokane, in a peaceful manner.
  • The most prominent politician in Spokane, and arguably Washington, - I'd quote someone here. This is an opinion, which means it should not be in Wikipedia's voice
Done I think it is a matter of fact when seen in terms of rank in Congress, nobody from Washington comes even close to Speaker of the House and third in line to the Presidency, but I have rephrased it.G755648 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spokane operates Washington's only waste-to-energy plant, as well as two solid waste transfer stations in the Spokane area as part of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, a collaboration between the City of Spokane and Spokane County. - Do you need "in the Spokane area"? I think it's implicit
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Monroe Street Hydroelectric Development site has the distinction of being the oldest hydroelectric generation facility in Washington. = this should have a reference that is not related to the city
Fixed Couldnt find one after a brief search so Ill just take it out.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there were 208,916 people, 87,271 households, and 49,204 families residing in the city. - sounds almost as if they were separate
Those are just relevant facts and figures from the census that most any city article has, I dont think we are really supposed to find relationships between the figures.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34.2% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. - sentences shouldn't start with numerals. Several further examples under this one
Fixed
  • Link the different religious branches/movements?
Done
  • in recent decades. - again, a more concrete term would be preferable
DoneI think someone else got to it before me, Im not finding those words in the article.
  • Russian and Ukrainian - are they combined in the source? Considering recent events, I feel wary combing them here.
Justification The source used and any other source would talk and lump them in as a single group (in this case as "Russians-Ukrainians"). I dont think we should concern ourselves with the politics and troubles between the two countries in Europe, these are just facts; they both would identify as being part of the Spokane Slavic community. I dont think the tensions in Europe spill over into the communities in Spokane anyway, the communities are pretty integrated by now.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • urban blight and the preparations leading up to Expo '74 led to its eventual demolition - the Chinatown or the Asian community? One does not demolish communities, after all
Fixed Clarified. Noticed and fixed the source link, it was going to the wrong encyclopedia article.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For newspapers, you can use the work= parameter to avoid having to force italics with single quote marks (it's formatted automatically)
Good tipCant use it in this instance because looks like it automatically creates a link to whatever is in there and we already used up our one S-R link.
  • That's odd... the template shouldn't do that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a sizable area downtown - how sizeable?

Done The article roughly describes the triangle area, I included it in the sentence.G755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again CriscoG755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for today. I'll do the remaining two sections (Culture and Cityscape) tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Victorian-era style - would the Victorian-style be simpler? Link?

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, link on first mention

Done I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Queen Anne and early Craftsman styles - Link?

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • strategically placed outside Spokane city limits to avoid "burdensome taxes." - I think this conveys the same information even if we lose "strategically"

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of the former town's houses were built to house railroad workers, many immigrant laborers working in the local yard, who gave Hillyard an independent, blue-collar character. Hillyard still caters to new arrivals, becoming a popular home for Spokane's growing Russian, Ukrainian, and Southeast Asian communities. - another case of what looks like marketese

Question Am I allowed to talk about the character of the neighborhood or are you concerned mostly with the second part of the sentence?? Im thinking you might want that sourced, so I have put the Hillyard thumbnail reference there just in case, despite my concerns of citation bombardment. Second part now reads: Hillyard has become a home for much of Spokane's growing Russian, Ukrainian, and Southeast Asian communities. Let me know if that is a still 'marketese'.G755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Built in renaissance and Spanish revival style, the Davenport Hotel cost two million dollars to complete, and was state of the art at the time of opening in September of 1914 with its opulent interior, chilled water, elevators, and air cooling. - again, the marketese is seeping through

Fixed I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also of note is the Spokane County Courthouse in West Central (the logo of Spokane County) - What about the Monroe St. Bridge?
Addressed We mention its in the City of Spokane seal when we talk about Cutters worksG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1)It used to but I delinked it because "Mount Spokane State Park" doesnt have its own article so its in the Mount Spokane article, we already used up our one link for it in the Topography section.
2)Done I dont know. Took out the elaboration for DishmanG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • including a Skyride that is a rebuilt gondola lift that carries visitors across the falls from high above the river gorge. - a skyride or a Skyride?
Done "skyride" I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most notable of which is the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails running along the Spokane River from Spokane to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. - of course the source is going to say that, as it's related to the trail. Alternative source?
Done Googlebooked itG755648 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also many natural areas where outdoors activities can be enjoyed close by. - more marketese.
DoneDeleted.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closest of these is the Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park, operated by a non-profit organization. - what does the NPO have to do with the city? It's irrelevant in an article on the city itself, except to give a positive impression of the park.
Done Deleted.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered somewhat lacking by some, - By some is not good
Done I included the organization that holds the viewpoint. Switched out archived link to the new siteG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spokane Jazz Orchestra is a non-profit organization formed in 1962 that claims to be the nation's "oldest, continually performing, professional, and community-supported 17-piece big band." - again, promotional
Done DeletedG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I think now reads: seek to generate interest in science, technology, engineering, and math among the youth in a hands-on experience
  • the Bing Crosby Memorabilia Room at the Crosby Student Center of Gonzaga University, - by all rights Crosby should be linked on first mention

Done G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • are also of note. - more POV
Done Sourced to a googlebook.G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spokane was once home to a sizable Japanese community centered in what was once Spokane's "Chinatown." - irrelevant here, as you've discussed it already above
Done Deleted sentence.G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not mean to assume bad faith, but it would be a good idea to declare if you have a conflict of interest in regards to this article. The constant positive POV suggests that this is very likely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt write most of the article. I am working to try to fix the issues just as you are-thats why I am taking your suggestions to tweak these sentences. The issue is being resolved, please be patient while I work through these edits. I will say I do live in Spokane, I am not being paid to edit this article and I am trying to use reliable NPOV sources.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now owing to the constant, sometimes glaring, positive POV in this article. The crime section is barely remembered by the time one gets to the glowing "Culture" and other sections. This POV needs to be purged before I support. For instance, Robert Lee Yates and the Death of Otto Zehm are both fairly recent and reached national prominence (there are several books about Yates), yet are not in the article. I'm not saying they should be, but there is the possibility that negative aspects of the city have been left out or downplayed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple additional points: I'm not convinced by the quality of the sourcing (several sentences were unreferenced, and many others are cited to less stellar sources), and if I'm not mistaken a previous review found issues with close paraphrasing. I'd like to be sure these are dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneCrime section has been supplemented with information about Spokane's most notorious serial killer and about recent incidents of officer involved shootings.G755648 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. I will try to dedicate as much time as I can to work on the issues above over the weekend, since I might be getting more busy next week. The bulk of the POV/marketese sentences were always most likely to be in the Culture section, and Ill comb that whole section looking specifically for those POV sentences and tweaking the language so it sounds less promotional. I see most of the POV sentences that you listed are clear, but the reasons behind others not so much..Ill elaborate on the questions I have as I go through them in the coming days.
As for the Crime section, I thought that was pretty NPOV, and gave a good overview of the overall situation. I didnt know that coverage some cases of individual crimes would be necessary. I will expand the section talking about the officer involved shootings (using Otto Zehm as the talking point) and probably mention what is being done to try to prevent them in the future (body cameras, etc). I might briefly mention some of the serial killers that have garnered attention in Spokane such as the South Hill rapist and Yates. When I looked at the Youngstown, Ohio, Providence, Rhode Island and Tulsa featured articles, I saw they dont go into that kind of detail, but I do see that the San Francisco, California article does mention some notable cases and it might not be as unusual as I think. In regard to the sourcing, I need some additional information to act on and fix the problem. If you could give me examples of what you are seeing and list some of the ones you would like re-sourced to something else with a brief reason why you think the source isnt ideal, that would be great. Some of the sentences that you tagged as 'citation needed' I thought would fall into the realm of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but I think what I saw is probably only for the good article criteria:"direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Ill grab a source and put them in there. As for the citations that were there at the start of the FAC process, I got a chance to look at many of those as I was updating the refs looking for linkrot and double checking the book pages to see if its the right one, and I havent seen many significant issues with the references so far; almost all the sources are there for all to see, so if you see one let me know. Thank you again for critiquing and helping the article!G755648 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good rule of thumb might be to avoid using local newspapers when RSes from outside Spokane are available, and I'd really like to see "History link" replaced with something a bit more solid. Still concerned about that fairly minor magazine award. Stuff like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What magazine award? The Sports event of the year?? If you are concerned with it I can take it out if you likeG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historylink seems fine to me. HistoryLink.org according to the website is an "evolving online encyclopedia of Washington state and local history. It provides a free, authoritative, and easily accessible history reference for the benefit of students, teachers, journalists, scholars, researchers, and the general public." It is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation that "With a few exceptions, HistoryLink essays are fully sourced, bylined, and dated to provide authoritative references for legal, journalistic, and scholastic use...With a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" The website originally only covered the Seattle area but was expanded state-wide and is one of the primary sources for the Seattle featured article. Each essay has their sources are listed at the bottom of each essay in great detail. You can see these above the essay's author [17]. All the text is licensed under the Creative Commons license. HistoryLink is one of the primary sources used in the Seattle featured article.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's nice, and you're right: the website isn't as bad as I thought it may be. However, it is still predominantly a local (and thus possibly COI) resource. For instance, the article you link to is by Laura Arksey, a member of the Spokane historical society, whom you appear to cite predominantly for general information, information which may be found in more traditionally reliable sources that are not related to the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note: HistoryLink has been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard twice (1, 2) but the feedback is contradictory. I'd prefer stronger sourcing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with you on the sourcing to the local history site, I always prefer solid book sources (which are available) for a lot of them. Overall now I think the coverage is getting there but as you say the tone in parts and sourcing lets it down. My gut feeling on this was to withdraw and to get a few pairs of eyes on the prose and try to overhaul the sourcing and then renominate after a peer review in which we're all fairly content with it for FA. It's achievable, but I think there is too much needing doing and overhauling to make this worth keeping open. It's definitely improved a fair bit from when it was nominated though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concerns about HistoryLink since it isnt a slick website and might look amateurish compared to other sites and since it is on that noticeboard, but that first time I dont see anybody raising too much of an issue over it and the second one shows someone not opposed to using it. I would like to you to be open minded and take a further look at it though. Also, I dont think I would consider it a "local" source, although some of the authors are local historians-Jim and Laura it looks like, not all of them are (David Wilma, Kit Oldham, Cassandra Tate are historians from Seattle [18], which is where Historylink is based), and their sources come from solid sources such as books etc are cited at the bottom of the essays they write for HistoryLink, so location isnt too relevant. Arkseys Great Fire article cites 4 books and a periodical [19]. Jim Kershner (born in Denver if that matters) is an accomplished author who has written a few books and has won national awards in journalism, and Arksey is a published author as well. The reviewers of the Seattle featured article must have determined it was a reliable and reputable source even though HistoryLink is a local to Seattle. Im not sure if being from a local organization would completely discredit that organization as having a conflict of interest, these people are professionals (they arent armchair historians from Wikipedia); for instance, if it was a California encyclopedia and staff historians from UC Berkeley were writing an article for HistoryLink on San Francisco, I dont think anyone would have a problem with that. Simply being local shouldnt mean there is a conflict of interest or discredit a person or organization or book, we are dealing with professionals here. The writers of that area are almost always going to be locally or regionally based, thats natural since the topic is relevant to them. I havent seen any POV issues with HistoryLink and that makes sense because it deals only with history (Washington state history), and doesnt make comment on things such as culture, which can naturally lends itself to some POV issues if not done by a professional. Luckily, Historylink is written by qualified and professional staff authors and historians, some which hold PhDs and for their works, All essays and features are vetted by professional staff. HistoryLink has been reviewed in the past by the people who did the Seattle FAC and FAR, and they thought it acceptable, Im not sure why its receiving so much scrutiny here.

If you have any questions about them I encourage you to contact them with the information below from their site: Research Inquiries: admin@historylink.org Education Team: education@historylink.org Office: eleanor@historylink.org

As for the tone, that has been much improved since Crisco scoured the whole article. I think I have completed every one of those suggestions Crisco recommended and I am keeping an eye out for other tone issues if there are some left. I dont think it should be too much of a problem now since Crisco did sweep through the whole article. The tone issues were for the most part easy to spot and primarily confined to the Culture section, which like I said is naturally the place its going to occur. Although a problem, those issues are by far the easiest to fix, most of them take only a second to lop off a part of a sentence or take out a word, etc. I am inclined to keep this open for the time being for us to look things over. If you see any more tone issues, tell me about them, but unless you see a lot more of these marketese sentences, I would say its sort of a non issue now-but Like I said, Im keeping an eye out for them.
Would like to again thank you both and the others who have taken the time to look at this article. Its getting better thanks to our efforts!G755648 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's starting to look better, but I'm still concerned about HistoryLink. You cite its essays 33 times, a solid 12% of your citations are to the website. It's still a local history society, and thus may have a COI for things related to the city (including their position on urban renewal). Hence why I've asked several times for more independent sources, at least for FAC. On individual features in the city, HL would probably be fine, even at the FAC, but I'm doubtful if it should be relied on as heavily in an article on the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for keeping an open mind. I really dont think HistoryLink is a bad reference though, and I think it would be a huge detriment to the article if we lose that resource needlessly so Im going to try to address as many issues with this as I can. I think you are missing the point of some of what I said up there. This seems like a straw man fallacy, everyone keeps saying its a local source like a broken record, but it isnt.
HistoryLink is not a local organization, it says where they are located at the bottom of the site: 1411 4th Ave. Suite 803, Seattle WA 98101. I was also saying that even if it was I dont think it should matter because it is unaffiliated with the community (HistoryLink lists its sponsors at the bottom of the page as well-its very transparent like that.). Not that I hold such a mistrust of this organization that I believe they are concerned with the civic pride of the communities they are writing about It also has professional historians and authors that are reputable people and would be considered in their own right a respectable source. Dr. Blofeld added one of Jim Kershners books (hes one of their staff historians) in the article, and now I see he is questioning the reliability of the source's (Jim Kershner) essay he wrote on behalf of HistoryLink. Whether he knows it or not, he has been adding references to the article that he himself has spoken against. He also sourced the Whitman Massacre section to the City of Spokane, which I definitely take issue with because it is not a reputable source for things related to history. This doesnt make sense to me.
I would also like to highlight again that although these reputable staff historians are writing these essays, they themselves are not the source of the information. They have consulted works from other historians and academics to write these essays. I will list a sample of what we can all see since I dont think anybody has really given this much of a chance and bothers to look at the links I provided before...Now, if we go to Kirtland Cutter's article titled Cutter, Kirtland Kelsey (1860-1939), Architect: HistoryLink.org Essay 115 by Kit Oldham (I looked him up, hes an attorney and historian from the Seattle area if that matters to you), go to bottom of the page, and you can see under "Sources", the materials that he has consulted to write the information that WE are going to use for the wikipedia article. This is what I see:

Sources: Henry Matthews, “Kirtland Kelsey Cutter,” in Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects ed. by Jeffrey Karl Ochsner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 78-83; Henry Matthews, “Kirtland Cutter: Spokane’s Architect,” in Spokane & the Inland Empire: An Interior Pacific Northwest Anthology ed. by David H. Stratton (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1991), 142-177; Henry Matthews, Kirtland Cutter: Architect in the Land of Promise (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998); Edward W. Nolan, A Guide to the Cutter Collection (Spokane: Eastern Washington State Historical Society, 1984); ); Larry Schoonover, email to Laura Arksey, April 4, 2009, in possession of Laura Arksey, Spokane, Washington; Tony and Suzanne Bamonte, Spokane, Our Early History (Spokane: Tornado Creek Publications, 2011), 250-251. Note: This essay replaces an earlier essay on the same subject. It was expanded slightly on October 27, 2011.

As you can see, there are several books in there. If you like traditional book sources, this essay includes information from them. Some of those books are cited in the article, Stratton in particular. Now I will say that when Blofeld asked me to try to get some of those HLs to books, I did so for the ones that I had access to-some of the HistoryLink references are actually doubled up to a book source to provide the reader the ability to learn more about the topic, which I think is important for verifiability-they can actually see it themselves. But, some of those I dont have access to and almost nobody but a historian with the resources that HistoryLink has can access them. I would say those books are solid sources, even though some of them are published locally...problem? I dont think so, were dealing with professional historians here, not a tourism board.
I would like to point out, that HistoryLink not only writes online essays, they have themselves published many books as well with UW Press if you look at their website[20]...they are writing about the community that they live in, Seattle, Washington. I will just list some here:
  • Power for the People: A History of Seattle City Light David Wilma, Walt Crowley and the HistoryLink Staff (2010 History Ink with UW Press)
  • Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition: Washington’s First World’s Fair (2009, History Ink)
  • The Fairmont: The Story of a San Francisco Landmark (2006, for Fairmont Hotels & Resorts)
  • Moving Washington Timeline: The First Century of the Washington State Department of Transportation, 1905-2005 (2005, WSDOT with UW Press)
  • Bellevue Timeline, 1863-2003 (2004, City of Bellevue with UW Press)
  • The Story of Union Station in Seattle (1999, for Sound Transit) The War Years: A Chronicle of Washington State in World War II (2000 in association with the University of Washington Press)
I think HistoryLink has been utilized to that extent that it has because it seems to be deemed by many of the people in the wikipedia community as a reliable source. It is utilized even more so on the Seattle featured article which has gone through 3 FAC/FARs and not once do I see any issue of this being brought up and it seems like an injustice in terms of consistency in the wikipedia community that one article can utilize this source as reliable for almost a decade, but here in this one instance, one reviewer deems it so inadequate it cannot be used for a FA. It has been on the noticeboard twice, but neither time did anybody say it was unacceptable and not OK.. HistoryLink as an organization is independent, hires professional staff historians from a variety of fields, has access to a wealth of information, and is verifiable, vetted and fact checked by staff, transparent, and they even have given their essays a Creative Commons license. I really dont know what there is not to like about that. Its like they made it for wikipedia. I believe it is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. Now, I have not seen any issue with HistoryLink as it pertains to POV (the main issue that you have with Historylink it seems, since you believe it is "local"), but according to what ive been looking at on wikipedia it says:

Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. and this A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.[21]

I have some other questions, if a local source is not to be trusted, why dont you arent you scrutinizing the Spokesman-Review, or Strattons book (not published in Spokane-but still in the region...Meinig is from Palouse, WA-is what he writes POV and suspect too?) These are the questions that are popping up. If you cannot use anything that is local because of a potential conflict of interest, then writing a comprehensive article for something as significant as a whole city would be almost impossible unless its maybe New York City or a place that truly has global significance. This discussion has gotten way longer than I ever expected it to go, and Im sorry for writing a book in here..but I wanted to state my case for HistoryLinks inclusion. I believe it is an excellent resource.
I would like to know how you feel about the sourcing of the rest of the article. Do you like the Crime section now? I added info about Yates and Zehm. I have also been reviewing the Culture section for POV sentences and I found a couple more, but I think it rights right now. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your input!G755648 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A local press is a bit more trustworthy than a local website, IMHO. Either way, I'll strike my "oppose" above, but I cannot in good faith support with such an (over)reliance on the source which may or may not be reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the noticeboard. One of the two discussions consisted of negative feedback; it's not like the source has never been questioned. Also, the Seattle article was promoted in 2005. Things have changed quite a bit since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I dont understand the insecurities since it is again not a local website, I respect your view on HistoryLink and I am thankful that your are not going to kill the FAC because of a single source. I still want to address your issues to the best of my ability and work with you on this; I value your opinion. I hope the HistoryLink discussion hasnt turned you off to your participation here. I am like you, I would rather cite the book that HistoryLink uses rather than HistoryLink itself, but its hard to use 100% books. I wish I had all the books available to me so I can write this whole thing with books, but I dont have the resources, time, or money to gather all those materials...but luckily the 40 staff historians at HistoryLink do. The sections that we use it for in the history section are mainly in the sections that have an extremely narrow focus and subject matter or are in fairly recent history, so recent that I dont think many books have been published about those events. Its filling the sections that we cant find a book for basically. You said you didnt mind using it in all cases, if you tell me which ones you have the most issues with, I will do my best to source them to something else.
Also, Just as a note, it is true the Seattle article was promoted in 2005, but its last of 2 featured article reviews was in 2009 and I dont think wikipedias policy that I pointed out above on using sources with a POV has ever changed. Anyway, you said you were worried about the sentence about the recent downtown renewal in particular before, I found a book through Google called 'Urban Tourism and Urban Change: Cities in a Global Economy' By Costas Spirou to source that sentence to now. I will include it. Thanks for your insight CriscoG755648 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good start (for the other thing, though, I should note five years is still quite a while in Wiki-time). If the source reviewer approves the use of HistoryLink, I'll support, but until then I'll wait on the fence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G755648, can you mention some of the actual notable houses which might be registry buildings in the residential section?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds like good idea since we talk about the Davenport in the Commercial section, it will give it some balance. I think Ill probably talk about the Campbell House, it is part of the Museum of Arts and Culture. Ill try to get working on that after I get done working on the fixes Crisco is recommending. Nice job with the edits!
Ill probably be using these sources for the section unless I find something better when I get to it. [22] and [23]

G755648 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "known at the time as "Spokan [sic] Falls".": Drop the [sic]. Per the article, "the "e" was added in 1883". [I got that one - Dank (push to talk)]
The [sic] was put in because people reading it often see that its missing the 'e' and think that its a typo. Hopefully that doesnt keep happening..G755648 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spokane tribe": Spokane People uses the word "tribe" exactly once in the text, preferring "the Spokanes". We don't have to walk on eggshells over the name, but if the Spokanes prefer not to be called a tribe, then they aren't a tribe. The word can be ambiguous, because many readers think of a "tribe" as a group of not more than around 150 people, but even so, I have no problem with the word if the Spokanes want to be known that way.
DoneWhatever the reason, if they use 'the Spokanes', I will use that terminology to. It may not have much significance, but I want the article to be agreeable to the most people as possible and its an easy fix. Ill try to switch the language to 'The Spokanes' wherever possible.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "white people": Some think the phrase isn't idiomatic. White men is, but that is seen by some as sexist, and sometimes it's just wrong. You use "Europeans" in this sense ... but is a person whose family has been in North America for 300 years a European? How about a white person whose family was never in Europe? I don't know. I'll throw this into the pile of things I don't know to handle, yet.
Lol, definitely some questions I dont know how to answer. It used to read just "whites", but that didnt seem clear enough to me some how...change it to whatever you think is best.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1883 to the late 19th century": 1883 is the late 19th century, so this could mean anything from a month to 17 years.
Done Good catch. He lists the year when most of the rushes stopped by, 1892.G755648 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subject to mass migration by blacks": This wouldn't be my choice of language. Was it primarily black men or black families, at that time?
DoneHmm. The book says 'black settlers' came from Roslyn. They were miners, but Im sure they brought families. The book talks about the women during the time too so it must be both. Ill put "African-American"G755648 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made it down to 20th century 21st century, so far. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at the article Dank. Ill probably wait until youre done to do the fixes for most of these, its easier that way.Glad to have your help!G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. You have dealt with my comments so far. "a sense of doubt regarding aspects of city government": Per WP:WORDS, either leave it out or say something specific. A specific problem should illustrate the general problem.
  • "it will blend residential and retail space with plazas and walking trails": WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kendall Yards is cited to ref 67, retrieved 2008, but a search on that page gives no hits for Kendall. Assuming the cited source supported this sentence back in 2008 ... okay, did those things happen?
FixedI will take out the sentence on city government since, Im not exactly sure what its referring to-I think it might be a loss of confidence in the police but I cant say for sure. I found a different reference that supports the Kendall Yards sentence, a 2010 Journal of Business article. The Kendall Yards project is still happening and I think it will take decades before its fully complete.G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which, 59.25 square miles": I changed it to of which 59.25 square miles
  • I got down to Crime. There was a lot to do, so I'm not going to have time to finish, I hope someone else can pick it up from there. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: the general rule at FAC on expandable collapsed boxes and scrollboxes in the main text is: don't do it. I know that climate data tables are sometimes hidden in articles, but I just had a look at some other geography articles that are FAs (I stopped after Ann Arbor, Michigan, Antarctica, Australia, Bath, Somerset, Belgrade, and Biscayne National Park), and none of them hide any table in the text by default, including the climate data table. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Well, if it is allowed, I would like to keep the table. It has useful info on it that many people would be interested in. I will definitely expand it like the Ann Arbor article. Thanks for your time Dank!G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it looks fine, and the other edits are fine too ... as long as the Kendall Yards sentence is accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. The cite to the 2012 figure in Crime was "retrieved in 2011". (Also, check my edit there, I guessed that the date on the first sentence was also 2012, and I guessed a date of 2010 after that.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you did looks great. The American Community Survey was for 2008-2012, you guessed right for the Crime section figures. Ill just change that real quick and its good.G755648 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This time I got down to Economy. I don't get the sense that anyone read the text closely before this was submitted to FAC (there were a lot of mistakes), which is one of the FAC requirements. I won't oppose, but this nomination will probably fail this time around without some help by reviewers. Look over my edits to make sure they're right, and try proofreading the text starting at Economy. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Nominating the article was sort of an impulse, I originally registered just to nominate a featured picture, and that all. Thought doing the article might be worth a shot and my effort and I dont really plan on using this account after this FAC closes. If it passes, thats fantastic, if it doesnt then maybe someone else will finish it some day down the road.
The prose is probably the toughest and most common issue in the FACs and if the article can use a more thorough copy edit, maybe I will tap someone to look into it. I dont think I have the expertise to do it well enough, Im not a grammar and punctuation whiz. There has been some new content that has sort of been hastily integrated in the article. Ill do what I can though. Thanks again DankG755648 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. I haven't checked the sources, but the last paragraph in Economy feels tacked on and promotional, and it restates (and to some extent contradicts) earlier material.
Fixed I thinkTook out the information about the two companies that relocated to the area (one isnt even operating anymore) and the info about the 'Terabyte Triangle'. Kept the info about what industries are trying to be developed and about the business incubator.G755648 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rated by Forbes as one of "10 Transformed Neighborhoods" of note in the U.S.": When?
Fixed Deleted. Forbes doesnt have a date for it that I could find, its just one of those lists that they always do. I Dont know why thats there, it sort of stops the flow and distracts from the purpose of the sentence. I dont like using Forbes for much, the website is poorly designed, slow, and is chock full of ads.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Hillyard neighborhood came about due to James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway yard": it replaced the rail yard? It sprang up next to it? When?
Done 1892. Clarified; the railyard he created was Hillyard, it was a sort of a company town.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West Central (the seal of Spokane County)": I'm thinking that should be "seat", but better would be to delete it since you've already said that.
DoneActually its supposed to read 'seal'. The section focuses on landmarks and architecture and the distinctive building is the symbol of Spokane County.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "the building on the seal of Spokane County". - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Restaurants of note in Spokane include the Asian Ming Wah Restaurant, Ginger Asian Bistro and Sushi.Com, Atilano's Mexican Food, the Italia Trattoria, The Elk Public House and the Palm Court Grill Restaurant at the Davenport, which serves "North-West inspired cuisine".": What makes any of these restaurants "of note"?
FixedI suppose because they were mentioned in a book; I took them out.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six neighborhood aquatic centers": I moved that up one sentence, so please check that the ref covers it. I couldn't combine refs myself because ... there's no ref at the end of that paragraph, which is usually a problem at FAC.
Done Added another ref to the specific Parks and Rec page that deals with the info on the aquatic centers.G755648 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Spokane Pride Parade held each June draws gays, lesbians, and others in celebration of the value of diversity.": I went with: The gay and lesbian Spokane Pride Parade is held each June. I'm as pro-diversity as you're likely to get in a copyeditor, but there are several things wrong here from a copyeditor's viewpoint, including the tone. Since I'm axing the occasional promotional tone above, I need to be consistent and do it here, too. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks good.G755648 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the vicinity of the Thor/Freya interchange": Almost all external links go in one of the end sections, not in the main text.
Done Removed external link.G755648 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting and the time youve put in here Dank!G755648 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WELL! Hi there. User:G755648 asked me to give the article a look-see and pick up where User:Dank had left off— I suppose because I'm in the Guild of Copy Editors— so I did that. But I forgot to look at this page till just now, when I finished my editing.
Though I've gone beyond simple copy-editing, in looking for some better references and so on, I haven't tried to clear everything up. In particular, there's an apparent contradiction that I've written up on the talk page, and asked WikiProject Washington and the Eastern Washington Task Force to help with.
Anyhow, please take a look at the article now. Here's the cumulative diff. --Thnidu (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thnidu, I noticed that contradiction too and was going to look into that before I took a little break. Im glad you mentioned it because I might have forgotten. I saw Blofeld added that in by replacing a Schmeltzer citation that said the economy stagnated in the 1910s and and improved very little in the 20s (which the Demographics chart seems to indicate-10.6% growth from 1920 to 1930), I checked out that page that its referenced to (Creighton p 83) to see what to make of it and I think it is talking about construction specifically since the book is titled 'Bridges of Spokane' and less about economic growth in the town. Ill put the original sentence and reference back in so its consistent. Might be able to find another reference in Stratton for that information too.G755648 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneOk, I looked at it and I think it looks fixed now. It was actually a Stratton citation, so I just put it back and I added a bit more content just for FYI I guess to explain the situation at the time.
@G755648 and Dank: One more thing. I'm a linguist (language scientist), and this sentence in the lede section ran up a red flag for me:
(Spokane means "children of the sun" in [[Salishan languages|Salishan]].)
As I wrote to an old grad school friend from U.C.Berkeley:
The link is to the "Salishan languages" article, so this is like saying "Gare du Nord means "north station" in Romance" [instead of specifying French], if not even "... Indo-European". No source was cited. I found two and added one of them, https://beta.spokanecity.org/about/history/; the other is http://spokanetribalenterprises.com/history/  .
Neither was particularly specific or scholarly. So I figured I'd ask somebody more likely to know.
... that "somebody" being my friend, who lives in Vancouver, Washington, and did his graduate work on Salishan languages. And he wrote back:
I'm in Panama right now. 
But every single so-called meaning of a Salish place name, every single one that I've heard or seen, is total fabrication on the part of some white man who was quoted because he was there before the quoter. 
I'm forwarding your message to a friend of mine in Seattle who's done a lot of research on place names. 
I haven't heard from the Seattle friend yet, but I expect far more reliable information on "Children of the Sun" than anything we can find on the Net. (Although the fact that spokanetribalenterprises.com/history/ is one of the sources I found for the name is rather encouraging.) --Thnidu (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats interesting stuff, let us know what you find out about the placenames. I will link the 'Salishan languages' to Montana Salish language, the specific dialect I think. Do whatever you think is best with those sentences on 'children of the sun', youre in your element there. Right now the sentence that we have is this in the History section:

The [[Spokane people|Spokane]] tribe, after which the city is named (the name meaning "children of the sun" or "sun people" in [[Salishan languages|Salishan]]),<ref name="Phillips">

If you or your friend can point us to a better resource for that sentence, thats great. I am going to move the reference that you put in the Lead so it is next to the Phillips reference though. The Margin of Style says that youre not supposed to have any references in the Lead since its just meant to be an executive summary of the entire article. Thanks Thnidu!G755648 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I've looked through all your edits, and you did really great work, I've just made a few tweaks, with explanations in the edit summaries and on your talk page. I've started up copyediting again where I left off, at Economy. I won't be long. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took a little break for the holidays but Im back and Ill be trying to work on the issues you guys have been looking into. Thank you the help you guys and thanks for joining us, Thnidu.G755648 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thnidu, about the 3 Jewish congregations: there probably are only 3, but the 3 refs you give (on their main pages, at least) only establish that 3 congregations exist, not that others don't, so I added "at least". I also added "2014", since readers would be likely to think the information comes from 2010 otherwise, and per one of our guidelines, WP:DATED. Thanks for looking that up and adding it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

A FAC running for two months? I am loathe to get drawn in to extensive reviewing on such a long FAC, but there are clear problems. One sample:

  • Spokane is still trying to make the transition to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector.[1]

We have "still" with no as of date, and the source is a 2005 article, last accessed in 2008. So, that information has been in the article for six years? Another as of date missing on dated info:

  • The top five employers in Spokane ...

Another sample, from a 2008 source:

  • Economic development in the Spokane area primarily focuses on promoting six industries: manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing, health sciences, information technology, clean technology, and digital media.

That is six years old. Another 2009 source:

  • Spokane Public Schools (District 81) is the largest public school system in Spokane and the second largest in the state, serving roughly 30,000 students in six high schools, six middle schools, and thirty-four elementary schools.

No "as of date", and an old source already.

The problem with city, state and country FAs is how fast they become outdated, so this sort of thing should be carefully checked before promotion. These are samples only. I suggest withdrawing the FAC, and carefully reworking everything to update, is the fastest way forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article Sandy. I would like to say I did carefully look over and updated all the references and checked for dead links, and verified that the source still backs up what is written in the article in the beginning of the review process, feel free to look them over yourself and let me know if you see one that I may have somehow missed or something. Id imagine the references have been gone over by many of the reviewers here and I think its pretty safe to say that all the references to these sites in the article should be active and not dead and are that the information is still there to back up the sentences. For instance, Spokane Public Schools/District 81 is still the largest district in Spokane and the second largest in the state according to the website and the sites "old" accessdate may be 2009, but the information is still valid in 2014 and I will put an "as of date" on it. I have to say that I didnt really update the accessdates when I was going over the refs, I will work on updating those so it wont confuse people. Also, I would like to say that in an ideal world we would all mostly likely love to see a 2014 current source for every citation, but it isnt always possible for everything and we have to make do with what we have available on some occasions, as long as it is consistent with what the rest of the article is telling us and it is again, still relevant, I personally dont see a problem with that. In the big scheme of things, this is still very recent history and updated history books on the topic of a mid-sized city like Spokane dont come by as often as they would a place like Los Angeles, Atlanta, or Denver, etc. This situation would be the case for the Spokane is still trying to make the transition to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector. sentence. Although that article was written in 2005 (although this one looks like it hasnt, HistoryLink does update its articles as new information becomes available-see the Kirtland Cutter one for example -> it shows in the sources section "Note: This essay replaces an earlier essay on the same subject. It was expanded slightly on October 27, 2011."[24]-if Spokane developed a modern, 21st century economy or if Microsofts HQ relocated to Spokane-they would update that article), the information still rings true to this day. Everything leading up to that sentence sort of points to that being the case and I would like to point out and mention that Spokane isnt a fast developing, cosmopolitan, dynamic place like Atlanta or Denver, etc. In Strattons book (the Meinig piece of the anthology), I was reading that Meinig mentioned another historian described the city as "warmed over 1930s" in the 1970s...things develop much more slowly in smaller cities like Spokane. The economy is still sort of flat. I think I might be able to find a Stratton citation that can back that statement up, but it would also be from 2005...I will try to find an updated reference if possible though. In regard to the The top five employers in Spokane ..., that may have been accessed in 2011, but the information as I said looks still valid, the site says that the information came from the "Journal of Business - 2013 Market Fact Book". If you still believe this to be a biggie, could you please work with me and show me the specific sentences that you would really like to see with a more updated source so I can get one, only you can tell me what youre seeing.
I agree though that it is a long FAC, but still not the oldest lol. Its a long article and we had to do a bit of copyediting since I was never really preparing or expecting to take a big project like this on. This article is now over 150,000k with 263 citations and 27 or so book sources. City articles are often some of the longest articles out there and they cover a whole range of topics and everybody has their specific thing that they want to see in the article-its so hard to satisfy everyone, but were trying. I will start updating the references so it looks up to date. Again, thanks for looking at the article and for your insights!G755648 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated reference accessdates I have updated the accessdates for all the sites that I thought were a bit too old. As I said, above, I already combed the references for deadlinks, page redirects, accuracy, etc at the beginning of this whole process and everything else that wasnt there at the beginning was obviously added and accessed recently. Let me know if there is a straggler, and feel free to edit the article yourself too. Thanks Sandy!G755648 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the second nomination; the first one was closed due to a lack of responses/feedback. The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheQ Editor[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I did a quick look through and this is what I found. More may come: ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement.
    The article uses the "Convert" template so nothing can be done about this.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dom497: In the article, there is "105 tons" and "519 tons" that doesn't have a non-breaking space and doesn't use the Convert template.
    @TheQ Editor: Sorry that it took so long to reply. I have added conversions for those units.--Dom497 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could use a little more images. There's some images on commons. See this link.
    None of those pictures are any good (but I'll put in one). There used to be two really good ones that I got permission to use but the OTRS person decided that I was lying (even when I had proof).--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox states that the G-force is 3.5, but the article doesn't say anything about it.
    Yes it does: "After the pre-brake the gondola enters the main magnetic-brake run, where riders experience approximately 3.5 Gs as the gondola slows." --Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The height restriction needs a citation too
    I cannot do this as it will create an error in the infobox. Instead, it is referenced in the "Ride experience" section.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink Gondola
    There isn't really an appropriate article I could find to link to.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TheQ Editor: I have addressed your comments. Thanks for reviewing!--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - sadly, this FAC has stagnated and I have archived it. Please wait until two weeks have passed should you wish to renominate. Graham Beards (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Taiko[edit]

Nominator(s): I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the set of Japanese percussion instruments called taiko. They have an ill-defined history in terms of their exact origins in addition to a mythological origin story. The usage of the instrument changed greatly through Japan's history, particularly just after WWII with the work of percussionist Daihachi Oguchi, who created a performance style involving several types of taiko and multiple players. This style is now very much the norm in taiko performance as popularized by groups such as Kodo. Construction of the drums and components of taiko performance are explored in-depth. The article also goes into detail about taiko outside of Japan (such as in Brazil) in addition to its relation to specific social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.

As a note, when I started working on this article, someone left a long list of sources at the end in a further reading list which I have been paring down due to concerns about reliability of those sources, their accessibility (having checked worldcat.org), and relevance in an encylopedic context. There are many sources left, some of which I will be exploring at my library this month, but I believe the article is sufficiently comprehensive in its current state. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Short refs #39, 43, 91, 109, 116, 122 and 124 in "Citations" do not match their full reference entries in "Bibliography" (author's last name and year must be exactly the same). Consider installing Ucucha's script to check for errors in Harvard references, it'll highlight such problems in red - makes searching and fixing them a lot easier.
  • Formatting of pseudo-headers with ;header is discouraged due to accessibility problems (but I don't know how to avoid bloating the ToC here, maybe another reviewer has a good idea).
  • Duplicate header titles (got "history" twice) within one article should be avoided. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Short refs #39, 43, 91, 109, 116, 122 and 124 - Done, thanks for pointing me to the script.
Formatting of pseudo-headers - Done These psuedo-headers under the "Further reading" section will be removed, along with most of the section, in the coming week after I've made a visit to the library to check out and incorporate material into the article that is useful.
Duplicate header titles - Done, header under the Hachijo section has been changed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, give me a ping, once the additions and structure cleanup are done and I'll do a more thorough read-through. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanJoe: OK, all finished. I don't think an extensive "further reading" list is necessary on the article because the range of sources directly cited is fairly broad as it is, so I've removed it with the understanding that I've tried to access as many of these sources as possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • The "Zero" caption could be clearer - it's a bit hard to follow
  • File:Adolfo_Farsari_-_Dancing_Girl_Playing_Taiko.JPG should be life+100 not life+70
  • File:02_Taiko2.ogg: on what basis can the uploader release this file? What is the copyright status of the performance and of the composition being performed? That's a living composer and a fairly recent composition, so unless it's been explicitly released this is likely a copyright violation. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria::
Captions that aren't complete sentences - Done
The "Zero" caption could be clearer - Done
File:Adolfo_Farsari_-_Dancing_Girl_Playing_Taiko.JPG should be life+100 not life+70 - Done
File:02_Taiko2.ogg - The uploader, Teohui may have some affiliation with the group (see the infobox in this version of the ensemble's article). Scott Harding is the composer, though. I'll see if I can get in touch with the ensemble directly to verify its copyright status and if they indeed intended this to be released to the public domain. For now, I'll be removing it from the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've contacted them, and am awaiting a reply... I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (part 1, lead)
The lead looks fine in general, but could use a bit of polishing:

  • "The process of constructing taiko varies between manufacturers, [but must include the making and shaping of a drum body, choosing a skin for the drum head, and carefully stretching the skin over the drum head to create appropriate tension.]" - this info doesn't look important enough for the first lead para (isn't it true for most drums with skins anyway?). Personally, I'd find a brief mention of the traditional lengthy skin preparation more interesting (for example).
Done, but I decided to depart from your suggestion to focus more on the length involved in the entire process rather than the skin specifically. (I'll be commenting in-line for my own convenience; if this is problematic, let me know.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... suggests ... influence" occurs twice in close proximity (not sure about a good synonym though).
Done. It seems fine to drop it the second time in relation to the Indian instruments and just describe them as similar (with an example) in the lead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "historical evidence suggests that taiko ..." and "Archaeological evidence demonstrates that ..." - seem to refer to the same period, why are those periods mentioned twice? What is meant with "historical" evidence here, contrary to "archaeological"?
Done. I can understand the confusion here; my intention was for one to based on written accounts (i.e. historical evidence), the other based on actual found objects (i.e. archaeological evidence). That said, you are correct that "Historical evidence" could be either of these though, so I've changed the wording to "historical records." With regard to the periods being mentioned twice, I've rephrased this to say that archaeological evidence supports the notion that taiko were used in Japan as early as the 6th century CE. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contemporary times, taiko have served [as the basis] for certain social movements ..." - confusing without more detail, how can an instrument be the basis for a movement? Or is "taiko" referring to "taiko performances" here? Also a bit vague.
Done. It is about performance, but only for the sansei and gender conventions sections. The burakumin section is more relevant to the nature of the construction process (because they work with leather). I've rephrased this to say that "taiko have played a central role" in social movements. If it would be helpful, I can provide examples of these in the lead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...can be traced back to 1951..." - odd phrasing, events merely 60 years ago do not need to be "traced". His article simply states, he "invented" that style (source needed).
Done. Agreed, and I've changed the wording. There are lots of sources that say Oguchi invented it, and they are in the body. If you think this would be particularly contentious (it doesn't appear to be, based on my reading of the sources) I can source this if you'd prefer it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...world-renowned ..." - a bit peacock-ish, probably better with an immediate source.
Done. It's not really necessary to qualify the group in the lead now that you've mentioned it, so I've just removed it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other performance styles have also emerged from specific communities in Japan." - unclear, are those the same communities as the previous "social movements"? Also, could you name 1-2 notable examples here to give the reader a better idea of those differing styles?
Done. I've provided the examples. And no, the performance styles and social movements are not the same. Performance styles refers to the Hachijo-daiko and Miyake-daiko sections of the article, where as the social movements relate to the sansei, gender conventions, and burakumins sections. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider de-linking well-known countries (WP:OVERLINK), and linking Japan to "Japanese music" would be more relevant for the given topic. (Done)

Two quick non-lead points:

  • "Notable groups", "Notable performers" - lists with unclear inclusion criteria are discouraged. Suggestion: Merge both sections in one section "Notable groups and performers" with 1 paragraph for each. Try to mention only the most notable (atleast Japan-wide) entries or performances with a distinctive own style. Convert the list to prose and add 1 brief detail for each mention.
Done.
  • "Further reading" - completely optional (I know, it can be hard to pick), but maybe keep a shortened further reading section including only 1-2 of the most significant, helpful literature for each former sub-topic in one list. If it's not possible to have a fair selection of specialist books, maybe a few general standard books could be listed.
@GermanJoe: I'll need some a few days for the above two points. FYI, some of the groups currently listed there are not going to make the cut based on available sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use graphical templates like {{done}} (see FAC-instructions) - hope you don't mind, that I fixed them. I'll need some more time to read through the main text - it's a really interesting, but somewhat foreign topic. GermanJoe (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't realize it would be a problem. And yes, this is definitely a more esoteric topic, please take your time. I'll be pretty available for the foreseeable future, so I can quickly follow-up on your comments whenever you are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (part 2, up to categorization)

  • Infobox - suggest removal of the list of musicians. Without detail this is just another arbitrary list (and the huge whitespace looks ugly). The section "Notable groups and performers" should offer this kind of information as prose.
Done, and agreed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider using {{TOC limit|3}} to hide level 4 headers from the relatively long ToC.
Done. I've also combined a number of sections that could reasonably go together to reduce the length of the TOC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mythology "[One] mythological story ..." - are there other differing myths about this?
Done. There are not after some exhaustive searching for alternative interpretations or origin stories, so I've rephrased this accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In [one] interpretation" - again, any other notable interpretations?
Done. See above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second and third paragraph need a final citation for the narrative.
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statues show one player beating one head of the drum with the stick, and the other using their hand to beat the other head." - nitpicking, but ref #13 mentions only one of the statues. Could you double-check refs #11, #12 and #13 and clarify the number and posture of those statues?
Source #13 (transcript of a museum curator's talk at a conference) only mentions one, but #11 (from the book Drum: A History) and #12 (from the Tokyo National Museum) clearly discuss two figures. Based on the description in #13 (He is beating the device with a drumstick in his right hand. Judging from this figure, the drum appears to be a hip hand drum), she is probably talking about the figure on the left here in this image from the Tokyo National Museum. In any case, there do appear to be two figures relevant to the topic, one which is playing the drum with their hand, and the other with a stick. The current prose could use some clarity, so I'll fix that up. I'll wait for your response on this one in case there is anything else. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I try to copyedit a bit during reading. But it would be good, if a native English-speaker would go through the whole text aswell - my "German English" is limited and I have very likely missed some minor prose issues.

Your editor seems to add a lot of unnecessary whitespace, or it was already in an old article version. I removed most of it (afaik, such whitespace is against some obscure MOS guideline). I'll try to read a few more sections soonish. GermanJoe (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (part 3, remaining sections)

  • Drum makers " ... stating that their tradition of construction has remained the same for the past 400 years." - Is an independent source for this claim available? Unless the claim is absolutely uncontroversial, we really shouldn't use the company's own PR slogans.
Done. I've changed this to reflect that the company has been making taiko for 400 years; can't find another that states that their method is the same. I've added an additional source from the Chicago Tribune. There are several such sources for the former claim, so it seems solid. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Form "Some have argued ..." - Better to name 1 specific source here or specify the group with more detail.
Done. I've specified as needed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brazil "... some have estimated ..." - See above - if possible, a specific source for this estimate should be named.
Done. Specified as needed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple notes at one spot should be in ascending order (fixed all, just as info).
Done. Thanks for taking care of many of these. I only caught one other instance of this after reviewing it myself. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems with the fixes for the previous comment sections, all Done except the open point about the statues' description.
I think I've clarified the whole issue with the statues. Some sources talk about two of the statues (both have drums), one just talks about one of them (the statue of the drummer holding the stick), so that's why there appeared to be a discrepancy at first. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited several minor problems with formatting, ref order and the occasional odd phrasing. However, several sections still read a bit clunky and would benefit from more "professional" copyediting (aka not my skill level). The article contains a lot of interesting and well-researched content, but the prose needs a bit more work. GermanJoe (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • All above points have been addressed (Done).

I'll be glad to give the article another read, after more reviewers have taken a look for the mentioned prose improvements. @I JethroBT: - if you haven't done so already, you could try and notify some interested WikiProjects or reviewers with a neutral request for review. Unfortunately the article hasn't drawn much attention yet. GermanJoe (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Will do. Are there any sentences that strike you as potentially needing attention? I can take a look at these, even if you're not entirely sure how best to fix them. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Looks like this part "The Template:Nihongo is the lead instrument of the ensemble." has been broken in some previous edit. Could you check that please? You probably know best, where to fix it.
  • Curly Turkey already improved several of the minor prose points. Such spots are really hard to find for a non-native English speaker, except for some vague gut-feeling :). The many necessary drum-related and Japanese terms certainly make it difficult in some sections to keep the prose accessible and fluent. I am sure, the remaining reviews will further polish other miniscule flaws.
  • I'll keep this on my watchlist - feel free to nudge me, if I don't update after the remaining reviews are done. GermanJoe (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (margin1522)
I will have more later, but a few quick ones.

  • After using {{nihongo}} once, could you use the {{nihongo4}} template? The little question marks seem a bit distracting.
Done. Thanks, I think you're right about the distraction element. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually we don't include the kanji for terms that have their own articles and have the kanji in the articles. Overall my impression is too many kanji.
Done, I've really reduced the number of kanji in the article based on this guideline. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mythology section seems too long. We have two articles on this story -- Ame-no-Uzume-no-Mikoto and Amano-Iwato. I think the details could be moved there, and here it could be shortened to a couple of sentences about the goddess who danced on a barrel. That way it would fit comfortably into the next section, Origins. Also the first cite for this story (to the jazz musician) seems kind of casual. Would only the second cite be enough? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had two citations there because mythology just seems like a general area where more citations of the same interpretation are better, but I've gotten rid of the first citation there. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Gunji Yoshu. Maybe this should be unlinked. Recently I read this article (without knowing it was up for FA review) and spent over an hour looking for the Japanese title. I looked everywhere and couldn't find anything except in Turnbull, who doesn't give the kanji. The quotes in Turnbull give the impression that it might be not a chronicle but a commentary on a chronicle. Anyway I don't know what this is, and would like to confirm it before using it. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done at least, unlinked. Margin1522, this war chronicle seems to be referenced in a few other places ([27], [28]). The kanji　for it are probably 軍事予習 or　possibly 軍事豫習, but I think it is definitely a war chronicle, not a commentary. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

While I do speak & read Japanese and live in Japan, my knowledge of taiko is extremely casual—I'm checking prose and formatting rather than comprehensiveness or whatever.

General[edit]
  • What WP:ENGVAR is this in? I see "archaeology" and "colored". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. American English, and I honestly thought the term was always spelled with an ae. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some sandwiching of images in "Categorization"—you'll want to move some of those images to other sections, or create a gallery. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. @Curly Turkey: I added another image here I came across for an okedo, and have added it to the gallery. Thanks for shuffling things around so the images wouldn't interfere with each other. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a good idea to set the sizes of images; logged-in users can set image size in the preferences, but this is overridden when the image sizes are set in the article. Everyone has different screen sizes and dimensions, so it's not a good idea to judge from your own screen.
    Done, these have been removed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text for images would improve accessibility
    Done. Some captions seem to fit well for alt text, so I have noted that where appropriate. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you know that if you formatted your refs as {{sfn|Turnbull|2008|p=37}} instead of {{sfn|Turnbull 2008|p=37}} you could do "| ref=harv" instead of "| ref={{sfnRef|Turnbull 2012}}" and let the software format it all for you? I'm not suggesting you bother with this article---just pointing it out to save you work in the future.
    I was aware of this, and it was giving me trouble for some reason; I kept getting broken links using the author and year in some cases piped separately. No doubt the problem was my own fault, I just wanted it to work. But I'll keep this in mind. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar topic, bundling your sources is much more reader-friendly; since you're using {{sfn}}s anyways, it's particularly easy to do with {{sfnm}}.
    Now this I wasn't aware of, and I will also endeavor to use this in future articles. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • often used to refer to any of the various Japanese drums: "often" and not almost always? I doubt an English speaker would refer to non-Japanese drums as taiko
    Done. We can probably drop the qualifier altogether and just say "it is used to refer to to." I've made this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • during the 6th century in the Kofun period: the Kofun period article says the period ended in 538; "during the 6th century"; do the sources specifically say the Kofun period?
    Yes "Kofun period" is specified in the the Tokyo National Museum article in reference to the statues, and from the Dean reference, p.: Two haniwa statues at the Tokyo National Museum exist from the Kofun period, a time of increased contact with China and Korea.. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the wording a bit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and both festival and professional performances: I can imagine professionals performing at festivals; would "concert performances" be appropriate?
    Done. Yeah, I think that's more precise language and have changed it accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contemporary times, taiko have played a central role in social movements for minorities both within and outside Japan.: has this been a big enough deal (a big enough part of these movements) to make it lead-worthy?
    I do think this point is lead worthy, as there are a number of regular and academic publications that focus on the instrument in the context of social movements (not all are used in the article at this time due to access issues):
We could consider reframing these ideas in terms of ethnomusicology rather than the much broader idea of social movements. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access issues with any sources, you should put in a request at the Resource Exchange—I've had surprising good luck there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These have been appropriately integrated. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Body[edit]
  • The Nihon Shoki contains a mythological story: should probably let the reader know what the Nihon Shoki is
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her performance is considered to be the creation of taiko music.: considered so in the myth, or considered so by 21st-century Japanese?
Done. Appears to be considered so by present-day Japanese historians, and have noted this as such. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Sengoku period, specific drum calls: what's the "Sengoku period", and when was it? Most English speakers aren't familiar with Japanese history. You could do something simple like "During the 16th-century [[Sengoku period|Warring States period]]" (while technically it was c. 1467 – c. 1603 I don't think you need to get that hairsplitting for the purposes of this article---we just need to orient the reader)
Done I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Gunji Yoshu: do you know the kanji for "Gunji Yoshu"? I'm not asking for it to be put in the article, I just want to know---though you should probably describe what this was
Done. I've described it as a war chronicle per sources. Margin1522 mentioned this same question above— I can't find a source that specifies the kanji, but it's probably 「軍事予習」. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's important-ish—if it's those kanji, then it needs a macron on "Yoshu". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folklore on Emperor Keitai offers a story during his reign: meaning the story was written during his reign, or takes place during it?
Done. Written during the 16th century, well after his reign (est. 507–531 CE) apparently. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tweaked the wording a bit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One school of drumming for Noh theater: can we name the school?
Done. Malm described it as the Komparu school, no kanji given. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose 金春流? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all necessary, but I like to use the {{ill}} template in these situations to (a) direct readers to an existing interwiki article; and (b) encourage somehwat to translate that article by providing a redlink. If someone does create teh en.wp article, the interwiki link automagically disappears. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it doesn't take an undue amount of space, it would be good to give a brief description of gagaku, kagura, and the bon odori, and how taiko are used in them
@Curly Turkey: You have a good point here, but I am little worried about getting out of scope. Suggestions on where these sections might best placed? One the one hand, they might fit under the history section before the section on kumi-daiko, but they might also better fit under the "In traditional settings" where I can keep the short. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of anything particularly in-depth, just brief one-sentence-ish descriptions to orient the reader—the reader should only have to click through if they're interested in learning about the subject of the link in-depth, no to find out what it means. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checking... Gagaku is contextualized decently well, I think. For the others, checking sources... I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • took them to Sado Island for training: is there any special significance to the choice of this island?
Checking... I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There's a ton of detail that could go into this, about his travels through Japan and meeting other groups. His experience on the island appears to be most relevant though; additional details is more appropriate for a bio of Den Tagayasu. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their first performance occurred just after the group finished running the Boston Marathon while wearing their traditional uniforms.: meaning they ran the marathon in their uniforms?
Correct. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kodo is the most recognized taiko group worldwide: is there a better source than a New York Times article from 1986 to back this claim up?
Checking... I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh ... this is exactly where I'd like to see some WP:BUNDLING. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bundled. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm going to sound shitsukoi, but I really think doing this throughout will improve readability (though not a condition for FA). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some classic pieces that have emerged: "classic" might be POV
Done. This has been removed.
  • Many taiko are not tunable, and a drum with high head tension would counteract the slacking effects of humidity.: this is uncited
Done. I've removed this statement as I cannot find a source for the latter part; I've replaced it with a general statement that some taiko are tunable and other are not. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many taiko are not tunable, and a drum with high head tension would counteract the slacking effects of humidity.: "would" makes it sound like conjecture in this case
See above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • that are stave constructed: is there something good to link to here? I have no idea what "stave construction" is
Not really— the difference is that some taiko are shaped from an tree trunk, and others are built using lengths of wood (i.e. staves). I've looked at the article on woodworking and related topics, but couldn't find anything sensible to link to. I guess we could just link to Stave (wood), but the article is not in a good way. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still link to stave---who knows, it could encourage someone to expand it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am astounded that {{convert}} handles shaku; the folk who work on that template deserve a round of applause---I have yet to find an edge case that thing couldn't handle
Yeah, I remember being pretty astounded at this, too. :P I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • numbered 1 to 5 with names: "namitsuke", "nichō-gakke", "sanchō-gakke", "yonchō-gakke", and "gochō-gakke": most won't realize that most of the names are based on numbers
@Curly Turkey: Would something like namitsuke (1), nichō-gakke (2)... be an improvement? I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would, though it would be ideal to explicate that the names themselves include the numbers (I suppose "nami" implies "one", but only in the context of the others being explicitly numbered). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okedō are played using the same or similar bachi: bachi have not yet been introduced, so this will set heads a-scratch
Done. Eep, thanks. I've changed it to "sticks." I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could just introduce "bachi" (say, the drumsticks, called "bachi", or somesuch). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • They are placed on a tall pedestal: one tall pedastal, or on a tall pedastal each?
Uh, I'm not sure I understand the question here? A single tsuri-daiko is placed on a single pedestal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is typically played for bugaku performances.: a brief explanation of bugaku would be helpful
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tsuri-daiko (釣太鼓) is a smaller drum: no translation of "tusri-daiko"? (perhaps "suspended drum"?) I assume it's called that because of the way it's hung in a frame, but the text says "when the drum is suspended on a stand", which seems to suggest it sometimes isn't suspended---is that the case?
Done. This was a misread of the source text on my part when I wrote this some time ago; the instrument is always suspended, and the player is sitting down while it is being played. The source text from Miki reads that In gagaku, the performer sits to play the tsuri-daiko which I thought meant the instrument was played flat to the ground. After checking out some images of the instrument being played, like this one, it's clear the player is still sitting while performing. I've rephrased this accordingly. I also learned that 釣 can apparently refer to trolling? I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hip to Japanese Internet lingo, but it sounds plausible: "釣" also means fishing, so I suppose it means something like "angling for a reaction"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other taiko used in gagaku such as the san-no-tsuzumi (三の鼓): no description?
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been removed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a break here (gotta see the doctor about a pain in my chest). Ping me if I forget to return within a few days (something I'm prone to). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hope you feel better. Chest pains are no good. :( I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's lasted more than a month and hasn't gotten in the least better, but the doctor thinks it's just a pinched nerve or something and not to worry about. I've been reviewing the pancreatic cancer FAC, so guess what was going through my head? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Body (cont'd)[edit]
  • something needs to be done about italicization—many unassimilated foreign terms are unitalicized, and some terms ("kumi-daiko") are sometimes italicized and sometimes not
Done. I've standardized italics throughout the article for Japanese terms lacking an article. I've avoided italicizing proper nouns, like the names of people and companies. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more examples of, for example, the differences in rhythm alluded to
Checking... I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice addition, but it doesn't illustrate any "differences", does it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taiko construction has several components: are these "components" a sequence? Would it be better described as "stages"?
Done. Agreed, this is a better description. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to precisely tension the skin to the drumhead: this sounds strange to me, but I'm not sure how best to reword it
How about to precisely apply tension across the drumhead ? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. I've made the change. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fixed to "has been making" as they are still around and continue to produce high-quality taiko. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It bears similarity to the same term in martial arts: well, no, it is the same term, applied in a different context
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording, but I still feel like it could be better. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is often accomplished by keeping a wide, low stance with the legs: how often? Is it usual?
Checking... I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The source refers to one group, San Jose Taiko, so I'll simply say here that stabilization can be accomplished through this low stance rather than refer to how often it is used. I've also added the Varian (2013) source that suggests this stance, but does not indicate how frequently it is used. IMO, it is a pretty common stance in my experience performing and watching other groups, but I can't find a source specifying how common it is. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you perform? I guess the wording's acceptable, but something more specific would be ideal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've added a few more points on form with regard to the shoulders and hips of the player. And yes, I've been performing for about 4 years; we have a ragtag group here in Chicago called Kaiju Daiko （怪獣太鼓） that's somewhere between amateur and semi-professional. Japanese folks are a bit taken aback by the name, but they get it once we start playing— we try to play big. We've played at some decent venues in the city, but we're nowhere near as disciplined or skilled as many groups. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • which refers to very specific kinds of movement while performing: "iki" itself "refers to very specific kinds of movement while performing"? I know how difficult it is to sum up terms from Japanese aesthetics, but a bit more elaboration would be helpful
Checking... I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... this description doesn't jive well with the one at Iki (aesthetics) ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: It may not, but that's because the article needs work. See [29], [30], [31] "Japanese at that time valued iki (urbanity), which was characterized by...a vivacious lifestyle.". I don't think Bender is off in his interpretation of the term. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll buy that (I've tightened the wording). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as the shime grip: which is? Also, I wonder if a pronunciation guide would be helpful—even I read this as /ʃaɪm/ before I realized it was a Japanese word (thus the importance of italicizing unfamiliar foreign words). Rather than cluttering up the body, perhaps a table of pronunciations could be thrown in?
Checking... Perhaps the pronunciation table could be integrated into the glossary you mentioned below? I actually don't really know IPA that well, so I may need some help with this one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you go with that, I could provide the pronunciations (we could go with both IPA and whatever-they-call-non-IPA-pronunciation-guides). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way the bachi are held is also significant in the context of Buddhism. For some groups, bachi represent a spiritual link between the body and the sky.: can this be elaborated?
Done. Not this point specifically, but the more general point can be made that physical objects like the taiko body, skin, and byo all are symbolically significant in Buddhism. There's a bit more about taiko and Buddhism in another source that I've added as well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • called kakegoe or kiai: this could be interpreted as "kakegoe" and "kiai" being synonyms
Done. I've changed this to kakegoe and kiai. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there has been literature published on taiko performance based on Japanese standards: based on Japanese standards of performance, standards of criticism, standards of...?
Done. Yeah, this could use a rephrase. I've changed this to, ...Japanese publications have emerged in an attempt to standardize taiko performance. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsections of the "Hachijō-daiko" section are brief enough that I don't they they warrant being subsections
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • typically improvised musical composition: are "improvised" and "composition" not contradictory?
Done. Changed from "musical composition" to "rhythms."
  • Are there really only two regionally styles worth mentioning?
Checking... Kumi-daiko dominates the literature because of its popularity; there was precious little I've found on regional varieties. These are folk traditions, and as such, do not get much in the way of coverage. I'll give another look around to see what I can dig up, though. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's a paucity of literature, perhaps the "Regional styles" section could begin with a brief section giving an overview of what little you can find as examples, and then introduce the subsections. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another break to respond to your responses above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the "lit." and "trans." from the translations---"literally" almost never means quite what people think it does, and "trans." is just redundant. Another issue with it I've just found is 三の鼓 trans. "hourglass drum"---it may be called an "hourglass drum" in English, but that sure ain't a translation of "三".
"Third hand drum" is probably best here, if the goal is literal translations from the kanji. I don't always think literal translations are the best though-- "third hand drum" seems disorienting to me as a reader, and leaves me asking, "what about the other two?" The problem is that there are other drums, but precious little is written about them (in part because they have long been abandoned) and are pretty much out of scope for this article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pushing for a literal translation, just a "good enough" gloss. Where does the "hand" come from, by the way? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that translation was taken from Jim Breen's WWWJDIC. My Casio XD ST4500 has this entry for 鼓: a kind of small shoulder drum which they tap with the finger tips. It seems like this is generally the case, with the exception of the 三の鼓. I'm thinking it might be better just to use a different example here, probably the 小鼓　since we have an image of it now. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see---the problem with that gloss is that it reads as "three hand drum" rather than three "hand drum". Maybe it is best to drop it---it doesn't seem too important to the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the content on the san-no-tsuzumi and added in a new section on Noh instruments as I neglected to mention them at all in prose (yet it's on the table). I think this fits pretty well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Tangue Setsuko Taiko Dojo is the official name. We could change this to Tangue Setsuko founded an eponymous taiko dojo. Just trying to avoid the whole Tangue Setsuko founded the Tangue Setsuko Taiko Doko redundancy because it doesn't read well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain peoples have used taiko as a means: while there's nothing incorrect with the wording, keeping in mind that Wikipedia serves a general, international audience, I might choose a clearer term than "peoples" here
I remember mulling over this; the groups in the article are a gender, a social class in Japan, and an immigrant racial group in North America. I considered "societies," but that sounded too organized to me. These are such broad groups, "peoples" seemed apt in the sense that these are broad groups of people. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the social movement by third-generation: which social movement? I know it's explained, but the sentence seems unfinished somehow
To be more specific, I've rephrased this to "cultural development" rather than having to summarize the entire social movement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • social scientist Hideyo Konogaya remarks: just double-checking: this is "Hideyo" and not "Hideo"? And it's "Konogaya" and not "Konagaya"?
Done. Confound it all, I've messed up both the first and last name of this author while working on this. The actual name is Hideyo Konagaya ([32], [33]). Fixed up the refs and name in prose. Sheesh. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • while in the United States it was meant to be an explicit representation of masculinity and power in Japanese-Americans: despite the fact of high female participation?
Checking... I'll have to reread the Bronner source, but he focuses a bit more on the male experience of being Japanese in the U.S., particularly how they responded to perceptions that Japanese-American men were physically weak and soft-spoken (i.e. stereotypically feminine), and that taiko was a vehicle by which to combat those perceptions. I'll have to see if he discusses female particiption. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related terms: I'm not sure about this section---it's very short, when it's obvious there are many more terms in the taiko vocabulary. Here's an idea: include all the pertinent terms throughout the article in a "Taiko glossary" section---even better, move all the kanji to this section, which'll free up the flow of the straight prose.
  • Taiko no Tatsujin: an entire section on this? That seems a bit WP:UNDUE and over-detailed---yes, I'm aware of what a phenomenon the game is. Perhaps a "Cultural legacy" section? I'm sure taiko has shown up elsewere---is there taiko manga, for instance, or movies, TV shows, TV themes, do groups release CDs?
Checking... It's not in the GA nomination, but I seem to recall ChrisGualtieri asking to add this section during the GA process (but I could be mistaken). I'll look into other cultural phenomena involving taiko, but this will take some time. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taiko no Tatsujin is much more of a hit in Japan than in North America with more than 30 different games and some tie in manga, and little anime shorts. Taiko do show up in other cultural works, just not as the focus. It is a good argument you make, unless something comes to balance the whole in sufficient detail - it is probably best to do an "in culture" section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a phenomenon and should be mentioned of course, but the level of detail is inappropriate for the taiko article (what consoles it was released on, etc). It really needs no more detail than a brief description of the gameplay and the fact that it's popular and has had numerous sequels.
I've hunted around and I'm surprised how little other media I could find. I've found the odd thing like this, but not in third-party sources. I assumed I'd find a film in the vein of Sumo Do, Sumo Don't, but I've found zip. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [34].[reply]

FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most important club competition internationally. The quality of the article was an inspiration to start updating football articles in relation to Costa Rica's and I believe it is long overdue for a FA status. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Have the article's main editors been contacted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To be fair to the nominator, of the three editors ahead of him in the article's edit count, two are permanently blocked and the other hasn't edited this article for five years – or Wikipedia at all since May. So I think the nomination is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This article has not had any improvement from its previous nomination (and reaffirm my opinion about it at the time). Furthermore, most of this article is based on a crazy conspiracy theory categorically rejected by all who read it outside Wikipedia, except this user, its author, who himself claims having wrote this article. Finally, all "history" section is biased and an original "research" gives the impression that the tournament had over 100 years old when the organizer gives it the right dimension: a young competition with just 11 editions Including Maroc 2014. Having said that, this article must be completely rewritten with a NPOV tone before being evaluated.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to start reviewing this article but I would really like to get more information about this oppose. Dantetheperuvian, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim that "most of this article is based on a crazy conspiracy theory" or indeed that the article isn't written from an NPOV? I'm interested in the nominator's response as well, but I'm not too optimistic considering they have barely edited in the last month. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A serious article presents this competition as what it really is: a youth tournament with just 14 years of existence (11 of effective life due to a turbulent past ignored by the article's most active editors) that explains seriously why not was disputed in 2001 altrough it was scheduled by FIFA and why was scrapped until 2005, when FIFA decides to program it in the way it does the organiser in the link before published (sorry, but "due to a combination of factors, most importantly the collapse of FIFA's marketing partner International Sport and Leisure" is not enough). Mention the remote past is irrelevant for purposes of article and becomes unnecessarily heavy for the reader.
The article is biased due in it is exposed a—excuse me, utterly stupid—conspiracy theory, the own author publishes it also in this link and summarized in this: FIFA always wanted to create a World Club Cup but the "evil" UEFA/CONMEBOL axis rejected it, so the author decides to downgrade the tournament organized by both confederations to level of "friendly" (see the tone and the quotes used in this section), editing insistent and periodically also that article, here, here and here to impose his theory (to cite the most recent editions), altrough be an official competition for FIFA (cf. p. 60) and here, UEFA (p. 99) and CONMEBOL (pp. 99; 107) and, at the same time overestimate the new competition as the holy grail for any football side. For that reason I wrote than this article—or, at least, that sections—must be rewritten with a NPOV style limited to the facts and not on assumptions have no echo in any decent publication.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Joxe Azurmendi[edit]

Nominator(s): Ketxus (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a philosopher Ketxus (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This was only transcluded to the FAC list today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest withdrawal and submittal to WP:PR. Overquoting, incomplete citations, MOS house-style issues; more work needed to prepare for FAC standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think you're more likely to get the right feedback for this article at WP:PR or WP:GAN. If you can find a wikiproject that's both experienced at FAC and interested in this article, that may help you get this through FAC in the long run. There's a lot to work on here; just picking out one part of the lead: "Azurmendi is an intellectual who studies the problem more than the solution. Azurmendi's essays cover modern European topics in great depth and knowledge. He has incorporated the philosophy and thinking of European thinkers, especially German ones." What's an intellectual ... someone who's smart? What problem? What solution? What are modern European topics? What's the philosophy of European thinkers? These words don't communicate much to someone not already familiar with the man. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC) [36].[reply]

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel[edit]

Nominator(s): QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, a motion picture. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mark miller[edit]

Image review

All have the proper license and rationales for non free content, however, File:Participant Media logo.jpg does not pass NFCC# 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. The non free logo is certainly not needed to increase the readers understanding an its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The company is mentioned in passing in a short section. I see no justification for use of the non free image in this section.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I have switched out the image. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Participant Media logo.jpg is free use, but also out of date. - hahnchen 17:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1b/1c. There is no discussion in the article about the themes of the film, and relevant scholarly literature has not been cited. See for example:

  • Brown, Laura Hess. "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel: A Film About Aging and Adventure". Journal of Intergenerational Relationships. 11 (3): 343–345. doi:10.1080/15350770.2013.810495. ISSN 1535-0770.
I feel as that although this certainly merits inclusion within the article, its absence does should not doom its FA chances. The Mummy (1999 film) is an FA; no such section. The same with Casino Royale (2006 film), Transformers (film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), or, in addition to others not mentioned here, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles having or not having a section is not generally a rationale unless it's an established style. The Film WikiProject definitely recommends a Themes section if warranted. From a brief search of scholarly journals, it seems that this film has been written about and examined in such publications. Therefore, this article is not comprehensive without using those sources. --Laser brain (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think "Themes" is a required section if you work the information in elsewhere (per WP:MOSFILM) but the information is definitely out there and should be used. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there not a restriction of pay-to-access sources being used as references? I'm merely asking as I don't really know. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no restriction on pay-to-access sources. In fact, most scholarly journals are pay-to-access and any topic which is covered in academia will need those sources to be comprehensive. However, it is pretty easy to get access to databases which index these journals for free. Do you have access to a university or public library? If not, there is also Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. --Laser brain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and other criteria not reviewed. This is not ready. --Laser brain (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean not reviewed by way of peer review? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just mean I didn't do a detailed prose review because of the 1b/1c issue. --Laser brain (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the absence of a "Themes" section or subsection, I share the opinion that the article is unready. Such a section should be in place, and I will work to install one as I continue to try and promote this article. In the meantime, this nomination has run its course I feel. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks guys. I'll treat that was a withdrawal, Qatar, and close this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [37].[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic[edit]

Nominator(s): Sherlock Boy

I am nominating this article because it meets the Wikipedia criteria of a good article, and it is a subject that has created a push for social and gender equality and non-discrimination about what people can or cannot like. This article is about a show that has attracted an unusual and semi-controversial audience and promotes positive messages about life and friendship. The show also carries with it a demographic of fans who defy the social constructs of what older men "should" like. The show has become an internet phenomenon, spawning memes and creative fan works. Officially-licensed comic books,[2] movies, books, video games, a collectable card game,[3] charitable organizations,[4][5] and even vinyl records [6] related to the show have been produced as a result of the show's overwhelming success.[7]

  1. ^ Arksey, Laura (September 4, 2005). "Spokane – Thumbnail History". Essay 7462. HistoryLink. Retrieved December 16, 2008.
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_%28comic_book%29
  3. ^ http://enter-play.com/products/mlpccg.html
  4. ^ http://broniesforgood.org/
  5. ^ http://boingboing.net/2013/05/14/my-little-pony-fans-successful.html
  6. ^ http://www.equestriadaily.com/2014/09/my-little-pony-vinyl-records-appear.html
  7. ^ http://archive.wired.com/geekdad/2011/09/could-my-little-pony-be-raising-the-next-generation-of-geeks/

Note -- This was only transcluded to the FAC list today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend procedural close. The nominator has never even edited this article (and has made only four edits in the last two years) and has not consulted with the main editors about its readiness. From a casual glance it doesn't appear to be leagues away from a possible FA candidacy, but there are still basic problems with source quality that were present last year. I would also prefer an informed preparation process in consultation with the article's main editors. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Andy, I'll archive this shortly. BTW I notice quite a bit of material is uncited, and that will also need to be rectified before any future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Gloria Steinem[edit]

Nominator(s): Maranjosie (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gloria Steinem, an influential American feminist. I believe it should be nominated because its subject is important and because it is well-written and referenced.Maranjosie (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 6 sentence lead isn't nearly long enough. The rest of the article looks more like a GA (which it is) than an FA, in terms of length and depth of analysis. The only books mentioned seem to be the two biographies in Further reading. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Johnbod. Moreover, the GA review was cursory and looks a bit suspicious, being by a new user with only eight edits ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I will try improving the article with better analysis and more of a lead when I get a chance and then maybe re-submit it. Maranjosie (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at the moment. While this is an article on an important topic about which a great deal must be written and it's certainly not a "bad" article overall, its organization is mediocre: lots of short paragraphs, widespread "on such and such a date, such and such happened" pararaph starting, some short sections that could probably be merged into others (if not expanded), and too high a reliance on lists. There are also some sources of questionable reliability (e.g. The Phrase Finder, Rhrealitycheck) and, less importantly, the titles of the various online works should be written out longhand, not simply as "Site.org". I'd suggest looking a bit further for sources about her personal life and the other short sections, finding a way to turn Awards and honors and In media into prose-focused sections, and getting a copyedit. Tezero (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and recommend withdrawal -- Recusing again from coordinator duties, sorry to do this once more because I can see improvements over the previous version, but the Political activism section is still very list-like, and Involvement in political campaigns and Feminist positions also remain choppy. Agree with Johnbod that the lead needs work, and you shouldn't need all those citations in the infobox if the data is mentioned/cited in the main body -- those two points might be fixed relatively quickly but I don't believe the rest can. As Tezero indicates, you should work with a good copyeditor to get this into shape, and once that's done I'd again recommend trying for a Peer Review before re-nominating for FAC. Good luck with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [39].[reply]

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Metallica's third album, widely considered the best album the heavy metal genre has to offer. I followed a similar writing pattern to ...And Justice for All, featuring sections about the recording, music & lyrics, etc. I believe the sentences are concisely structured, without much unnecessary statements and closely follow the topic.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on comprehensiveness issues. I'm sorry to do this to you Vic, but there are enough of these that I'd suggest withdrawing and bringing back to FAC after they're dealt with:
    • This is one of the key albums in early thrash history, but we're given no context as to where it fits in—it needs a brief band history, a brief history of thrash (where it came from and how it had developed by 1986), and most shocking of all, no mention of 1986 as the magic year that thrash came into its own—the year of Reign in Blood and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying?. "1986" is one of the key memes in thrash mythology—check out how it's handled in both the Reign and Peace articles.
    • No information on equipment used—what brand of guitars were they playing? This obviously isn't a RS, but it shows the info's out there. Here's a tiny bit lifted from a 1992 issue of Guitar Player. Info here from Rasmussen himself, unfortunately I don't think it'd be accepted as a RS. This appears to be a RS. Probably the best sources would be old guitar magazines. I'd try asking on the talk pages of the rock and metal WikiProjects for people who might have this stuff.
    • The musical analysis is extremely thin: nothing about the odd time signatures or the acoustic intro to "Battery", etc. There's lots out there—I'd be surprised if there wasn't enough to give each song a paragraph at least.
    • Sources that should be mined:
    • There's plenty of good stuff to mine even from the sources you've already used—for instance, from Popoff's Metallica: The Complete Illustrated History there's this: "...the record received no airplay. None. In fact, it received no mainstream promotion of any kind. It sold a half-million copies by word of mouth and by the band busting their asses on the road. In fact, the music industry embraced Metallica because the sheer number of units the band shifted without their help meant they had to." This kind of thing is just to significant to ignore. Also stuff like alcohol and Alcoholica.
    • Ulrich gave a story at Sabbath's induction into the R&R HAll of Fame about playing on the Ozzy tour, and Ozzy was pissed off because he thought Metallica was trying to "take the piss" out of Sabbath with their music. I don't see even a mention of Sabbath in the article.
  • No mention of Diamond Head, Venom, Thin Lizzy, NWOBHM, Misfits?
  • Sorry again. The article's fine for GA, but it's still much too far away from FA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comments at the unofficial peer review. I couldn't find a source about the comparison of the title track with Sabbath's "War Pigs", which seems limited to forum discussions. Couldn't find a thing about the Ninja Turtles either, because I only have the CD. I'll take a look at the links you've offered and see where can I expand the prose. I'm afraid that I can not extract much from the books above, because I don't own a printed copy, and Google Books only shows scarce previews. Thanks for the ideas on what needs to be improved by the way.--Retrohead (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can expand the background of the band, but mentioning Reign in Blood and Peace Sells there won't fit because they were released afterwards. I assume they would be more adequate in the commercial performance? Speaking about the Popoff quote, isn't the same information already mentioned→"Despite virtually no radio airplay and no music videos, the album sold more than 500,000 copies in its first year"?
Sorry, I missed that "500,000 copies in its first year" thing. As for Reign in Blood and Peace Sells, I imagine there should be something like a "Legacy" section discussing its place in music history---its influence, its relation to other recordings, the direction the band followed after its release, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Misfits link–the book is discussing The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited and the fifth track there, but doesn't mention this record. I can do a song-by-song analysis, which I agree, it should and will be expanded. The only thing you misunderstood me was using the books above. Is there something significant there that isn't featured in the books available on Google Books? Music analysis is accessible, also the band's experience with Ozzy on tour.
    • If there are entire books out there on the band that simply haven't been consulted, then it's hard to believe the article is really comprehensive: that's WP:WIAFA 1b and 1c. If the books were consulted and nothing interesting were found, then it's not an issue. Again, you can get away with that at GA, but not FA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recording equipment–is this indispensable? I've passed six or seven biographies, but none of them seem to give any weight on what guitars were used. Is it obligatory for featured albums to have detailed description on the equipment? And lastly, can you do daily check to see if the a added sentences are properly structured?--Retrohead (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no information on equipment, then it obviously can't be included, but I think it's unlikely---guitar magazines can be pretty obsessive with these details. Master of Puppets is a prominent recording noted for the technicality of its music---it's highly unlikely these details can't be found. There's no reason you should be expected have access to all the appropriate sources yourself---ask around and people can help you. Somebody out there must have access to a stash of old guitar magazines. At the very least we should have the players' main guitars and amps, and hopefully basic info on their touring setup. I've put in a request at a few WikiProjects. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much media attention Metallica received back in the day, but my pick would be 1986 issues of Total Guitar or Guitar Player. I've been buying these stuff and they deal pretty much with guitar tabs and gear, so they might be the thing we need. As for the suggested books, I'm not sure if a book by Chris Crocker is a wise choice. The most interesting information in Halfin's photobook was Hetfield performing on a guitar with a sticker "Kill Bon Jovi" during 1985 Monsters of Rock, but I think that would be considered trivia.--Retrohead (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure the guitar magazines would have given much detailed attention to Metallica in 1986, but I hadn't stated reading guitar magazines then yet. There was definitely a pile of stuff in the nineties after the black album hit, including retrospectives and all-Metallica specials. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've begun expanding the music description. Is it done in the manner you expected ("The Thing That Should Not Be" or "Damage, Inc." for example)? I've got yet to fill half of the tracks, but I think you required concise and comprehensive sentences.
    • You definitely want "concise and comprehensive sentences", but you could certainly go into more detail with the songs. "Master of Puppets" and "Sanitarium" in particular have interesting song structures and dynamics that should be covered. Also, is the middle section to "Master of Puppets" really "melodic"? It drops into a clean, arpeggiated riff with a melodic solo over it, and then gradually adds in crunch until it becomes Sabbath-heavy with the "Master, Master, where's the dreams that I've been after"---that's definitely part of the "middle section", and is hardly what you'd call "melodic", and I'm not sure the arpeggiated riff which is the key part of that section is what you'd technically call "melodic" either. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the background done properly? I've tried to put the thrash origins and the band's background into the same context, in order to stay on the topic.
    • It's much better, but I think you should throw in a bit about the emerging thrash scene as well, to provide context for why this album would be considered so important. The bits about Metallica could use a few more details: foudning year of the band, release year for Kill 'Em All, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Ozzy's anecdote and the "Alcoholica" stuff well explained? These are not much represented in the books, but I tried to extract the most important aspect.
    • The Ozzy bit's good. Weren't there "Alcoholica" t-shirts at this time? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, added the t-shirts. Guess we're done with this note.--Retrohead (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding bands such as Diamond Head, Venom, Misfits, I assume you mentioned them as part of Metallica's influences or thrash metal predecessors. I think they are more appropriate in the thrash metal article. They are given no value in encyclopedias that elaborate on this album, nor in the Reign in Blood and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? articles, which are FA and GA respectively.--Retrohead (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could through the influences into the "Background" section. I'm surprised at how short and thin on details the Reign in Blood article is---there isn't even any discussion about what the music sounds like! we're told "the song 'Angel of Death' 'smokes the asses of any band playing fast and/or heavy today'" without being told what it sounds like! You should aim for a higher standard than that. You have sources---use them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, I've got a question about the latest additions I'm about to do. What do you mean by some tracks being retired and then revived for concerts in 1998/1999? As far as I know, "Battery" and "Sanitarium" were frequently performed in the early 1990s, as well as "Master of Puppets" (check setlist.fm for more details). And by revived you mean with modified arrangements, or something else?--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source says they had "not been played consistently in at least ten years". I guess that means they were played here and there, but in '98–'99 they were on the setlist? I guess perhaps "retired" is the wrong word. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- per Retrohead's request, I'll archive this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2013[edit]

Nominator(s): Wes Mouse | T@lk 05:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, which is currently at GA status. The article has since been expanded further, and also includes information on the official album release for that particular contest. Wes Mouse | T@lk 05:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Have you read the FAC instructions? In particular where it says: "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator". Your previous FAC was archived yesterday. Graham Beards (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: sorry for the confusion. All this FAC thing is rather new to me. The previous FAC which is now archived also confused me somewhat, as all the issues that were raised, got addressed; yet nothing else came of it. Not sure if it became lost and forgotten. If this needs to be withdrawn, or postponed for 2 weeks, then I am fine with that. Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wes, the two-week period between nominations is not to punish people whose noms have just been archived; rather we want the nominator to spend time addressing concerns with the archived nom, or addressing possibly similar concerns with any other article they might nominate. As Graham points out, the FAC coordinators can grant leave to nominate the same or another article in less than two weeks, but that's generally if there's been little or no feedback for the recently archived nom. You previous nom did have feedback, and in fact the last comment suggested a copyedit. So I will pull this one for now, and encourage you to pursue a couple of possibilities for the article over the next couple of weeks, such as a copyedit from the GOCE, and/or a Peer Review, before considering re-nominating for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC) [41].[reply]

Antananarivo[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Antananarivo, the capital and largest city of Madagascar. This is a Level 4 Vital Article, and one of only three Madagascar related vital articles, with the other two - Madagascar and Rainilaiarivony - already at FA level. It reached GA and underwent a copy edit in September. Thanking you in advance for your feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (just a few minor nitpicks and questions)

Comment - (only a few quick points, not a full source review)

  • town website in infobox seems to be down - is the address correct?
  • ref #8 - wrong dash
  • ref #21 - range 76-[66] typo?
  • some links are probably dead - see checklink listing at [[42]]

I'll try to take a closer look on the article later (when the first comments are done). Nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source for "By the late 1990s the population had reached 1.4 million, and had grown to almost 2.1 million in 2013" does not contain either of those numbers or those dates. It does give "1,613,375" as an estimate for the population in 2005... Mattximus (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I'll try to review this section by section over the next day or week.

  • Economy:
    • The entire first paragraph is fed off one reference, that is currently a deadlink. I have found an archive version of this at https://web.archive.org/web/20130615000000*/http://unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=3371&alt=1 but this is a very long document, in French, and I don't know how to link specific facts in the paragraph back to this.
    • "Business owners are drivers of growth for the city" - no reference provided for this.
    • "in 2010, 60 percent of all new buildings in the country were located in Antananarivo, most of which were built for commercial purposes" - again, no reference. Also it might benefit from a rewording, the sentence as given doesn't directly imply that there is a lot of business growth, because perhaps there are almost no buildings built in the country anyway, for all we know.
    • "Under Ravalomanana, construction in the capital increased sharply; twelve new supermarkets were constructed in two years" - this sentence seems a bit out of place. Presumably it refers to a period before 2009 - it is worth clarifying which two year period is referred to - and seems odd, following on from commentary on post 2009 developments.
    • Some other questions:
      • Are the manufactured products exported nationally only, or internationally as well?
      • Do we have any idea of the city's gross product, or GDP growth rate? And also what percentage that is of the national GDP?
      • Who are the city's biggest companies and employers?
      • Is there a stock exchange, or other financial companies, banks etc?

Thanks. More later!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive ? - After pinging Lemurbaby a while ago, it seems like he has little time at the moment for Wiki-related activity. He hasn't edited the article for over a month. It's a pity to close this nomination, but maybe it would be best - and fair towards other nominators waiting for reviews - to archive it for now and restart a new nomination, when the nominator has more time for editing. I'll be glad to help with another review, if needed then. GermanJoe (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [43].[reply]

Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014[edit]

Nominator(s): Pine✉ 07:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This is my first Featured article nomination. This article, Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014, describes an important situation in United States politics and health care administration that came to widespread public attention earlier in 2014. The scandal has been widely reported in the United States national press, and has been the subject of numerous investigations including those of the Veterans Affairs Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Congress, and the White House; some of those investigations are ongoing. There continue to be press reports about the status of the Veterans Health Administration, its parent organization (the Department of Veterans Affairs), and the ongoing legal and medical system developments related to the scandal. The article has just passed a Good article quality review, and I hope that it can become a featured article. I take pride in noting that Google displays this article at the top of search results for the subject "VA scandal". I look forward to discussing the article here at FAC. Regards, --Pine✉ 07:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pine, welcome to FAC. I'm afraid I'm going to oppose this nomination at this time, as I think the article still needs some significant work. Since it just passed GA yesterday, you might consider running through peer review to get some further suggestions. There are a few things that GAN doesn't check that FAC does - in particular, MOS compliance and citation formatting consistency. On both of these the article needs more work. Also, the lead is hard to follow as written, and having so many super-short paragraphs is stylistically not a good choice. In regards to the article's prose, I'm seeing a number of grammatical errors ("began collecting patients waiting times data"), some weasel wording ("experts said..."), and just some general lack of clarity and flow. Finally, with new sources appearing as recently as four days ago[44], this article is already out of date, and it might be better to hold off on nominating it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support I agree with much of what Nikki mentioned, perhaps we can work together on cleaning up the minor changes as this process evolves. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, in order to fix problems I need specifics about where the problems are.

  1. Citation formatting inconsistencies: where? Please be bold in making improvements. Peaceray said that he's an expert on citations, so I hope that he caught and fixed the vast majority of issues with citations.
  2. MoS compliance: please let me know where the errors are, or be bold in making improvements.
  3. Grammatical errors: please let me know where the errors are, or be bold in making improvements.
  4. "General lack of clarity and flow": please be specific.
  5. "This article is already out of date": information about subjects on Wikipedia evolves constantly. For example, despite Barack Obama being an ongoing newsmaker and producing information that is notable on a frequency of multiple times in a day or even an hour, the Wikipedia article about him achieved FA status. Where is the line drawn between being comprehensive (as required in the FAC criteria) and being constantly updated? The latter is unrealistic.
  6. "The lead is hard to follow as written": what improvements do you suggest?

Thank you, --Pine✉ 04:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pine. I opposed rather than simply commenting because a lot of the heavy nitty-gritty work necessary should be done away from FAC (perhaps at PR, which has historically been the venue for that kind of thing). I will provide you with some quick examples of problems, but these should not be considered comprehensive:
  1. Va.gov vs va.gov vs www.va.gov; missing italics in FN69 and FN53; extra italics in FN48...
  2. Missing comma after 2014 in first sentence; odd line break in Agency executives infobox parameter; inconsistent capitalization of terms, as in "lack of data at the Federal level"...
  3. VA funding section is a good example, as it alone includes multiple errors
Additionally, while re-examining the article, I noted some instances where the phrasing appears to be uncomfortably close to that of the cited sources. For example, compare "The United States Office of Special Counsel is investigating reports that two schedulers at the Ft. Collins facility were reassigned to Wyoming after they refused to comply with instructions to falsify information" with "The OSC is also investigating two schedulers at the facility who were reassigned to Wyoming after refusing to comply with instructions to hide true wait times". This and other such problems should be addressed, and I would suggest you withdraw this nomination until that is done and a comprehensive paraphrasing check performed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ok, thanks for those bullet points, I will study them sometime. Regarding paraphrasing, the rule is "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason". Paraphrasing without sourcing is plagiarism. I believe that I was careful to cite my sources, and I would have hoped that Peaceray would have flagged anything that he found to be problematic. Also, there are only so many ways to state information, and I'm not sure how someone would cite facts provided in an article without quoting or paraphrasing the article. If there is some important principle that I'm misunderstanding here, please let me know. --Pine✉ 07:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm pinging Peaceray over here specifically to ask his opinion on the paraphrasing issue. This is not because I want to instigate a fight here; I want to understand what is considered appropriate paraphrasing and sourcing, vs. what is considered to be inappropriate paraphrasing. --Pine✉ 07:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing my research here. Quoting Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing: "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using titles and technical term, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact." The section that I linked here seems to cover a similar situation to the quotes that you mentioned here, and seems to describe this type of paraphrasing as being within the bounds of acceptability. Also, Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? says, "Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."
If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. --Pine✉ 07:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I also agree that this article isn't currently at FA status, and would need a substantial amount of work to get there. After the article has been developed further, I would suggest nominating it for an A-class review through the Military History Wikiproject before starting another FAC. Some comments to help with the process of improving the article are:

  • I agree that it's probably too early for an article on this topic to be nominated given that it's subject to considerable change
  • The topic of the article is unclear - is this about the problems in Phoenix, or a whole bunch of issues? The article doesn't have a clear narrative structure to help readers.
  • The lead should be formed paragraphs, not choppy sentences
  • Also, watch for straightforward claims cited to an exessive number of citations (eg: "As of early June 2014, several other VA medical centers around the nation have been identified with the same problems as the Phoenix facility, and the investigations by the VA Inspector General, the Congress and others are widening.[5][12][13][14][15][16][17]"
  • Also be more precise - in regards to "several other VA medical centers", how many are we talking about here? Lots? A few?
  • "The Veterans Health Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, is responsible for providing health care to U.S. military veterans, and is one of the largest healthcare operations in the United States, with dozens of hospitals and medical facilities across the nation. It has had a long and troubled history" - wow, talk about non-neutral. The VA has certainly had problems in the past, but this wording makes it sound like its always been a disaster given it's how the article introduces the agency.
  • The article would benefit from more context and analysis of what went wrong
  • The statistics in the background section are difficult to follow, and appear inconsistent - did the VA's caseload increase from "63 million in 2007 to 92 million in 2013", or did the "number of individual patients increased by 18% from 5.5 million in 2007[28] 6.5 million in 2013", or is it the case that "the number of veterans of these wars who went to VA for care increasing 200% from 2007[28] to 2013"? The statistical story is important here, but the article really doesn't explain it.
  • "As of April 2014, the VA had paid approximately "$200 million for nearly 1,000 veterans’ wrongful deaths"" - what timeframe does this refer to?
  • The "examples" section is really problematic. While it's good to include individual cases in the article, no context is provided to help readers understand the purpose of this section, and there's a real risk of cherry picking here (eg, for every stuff up, there would have been lots of success stories - why should readers only be presented the stuff ups without any explanation of the incidence of problems?)
  • The responses section seems over-long, and isn't well structured
  • Watch out for tabloid material and beat ups - eg, "The official in charge of the Phoenix VA facility, who had been on administrative leave for almost seven months, was fired. While on administrative leave, she was paid over $90,000. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz, said that the payments were "a completely unacceptable use of taxpayer dollars that should instead go to providing care for veterans." " - if the woman had been placed on administrative leave while the issues were investigated, I imagine that the VA was legally required to continue paying her salary.
  • "Dr. Robert Roswell, a previous VA Undersecretary of Health and now Professor of Medicine at the University of Oklahoma, said that an appropriate measure of VHA performance was not patient wait times, which were largely outside the control of the staff because VHA employees do not control the number of patients seeking care, but instead a measure of the efficient use of VHA resources such the number of no-show appointments." - Dr Roswell's views are useful, but it seems odd that this section doesn't note anyone suggesting that the focus should be on outcomes for veterans rather than administrative milestones. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About those citations...[edit]

As the good article reviewer, I was relying upon the good article criteria. The featured article criteria are as of necessity more stringent. My first objective was to ensure that all there were no dead URLs, then I set about putting the non-template versions into {{cite web}} templates. Along the way I improved some of the citations by adding more parameters were necessary. In many cases I switched to the original source, AP, because AP lists the author whereas many other news sources running the AP story do not. The last thing that I did was to convert all DMY & YMD dates to MDY dates to match what was used in the article.

However, many of the citations lack publication dates, & when I used Dab solver, it transformed many of the pages {{cite web}} templates into {{cite news}} templates. I had not done a close read to determine if that had any unintended side effects, but it looks like the news template italicizes the publisher whereas the web template does not.

I can tell you that any citation that I touched got the publication date when available, the access date, author last & first names, the website. I may not have always added the location & publisher as is my usually practice (unless I am using Reflinks), but then I working my way through a lot of citations & GA did nor require that.

Improvements upon which I would be willing to work are to assure that there are both access dates &, where available, publication dates. That said, or rather written, we (incl. Nikkimaria) may need a discussion about web v.s. news templates. WP:FACR 2.c indicates "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required." , My reading of that is that it is referring to consistency of either footnotes or Harvard referencing and not both. I believe the criteria does not forbid using diverse citation templates that may display different textual formats, such as whether or not the publisher is italicized.

Peaceray (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Per comments above, I think the article has been nominated prematurely, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Peer Review and/or MilHist ACR would indeed be the next logical step after addressing outstanding points, prior to considering another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [45].[reply]

Sinclair C5[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this as a featured article candidate in advance of the 30th anniversary of the C5's launch (coming up on 10 January). This article has fairly recently gained GA status; it covers a famously unsuccessful example of British automotive technology which has become something of a symbols of the 1980s in the UK. I'm pretty sure it will meet the FAC criteria, perhaps with a little tweaking. Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

I reviewed this article for GA, and have the following initial comments:

  • There are one or two action points from the GA review that weren't resolved, which I think were related to specific page numbers in newspaper citations. I took the view that these weren't required to pass GA, but they might need to be revisited for FA.
  • There is an outstanding Did you know? nomination here that has not been closed and listed, to do with potential synthesis in the article hook. That will need to be looked at further.
  • In the GA review, I gave a cursory mention of Crash, one of the biggest selling computer magazines of the mid to late 1980s, that had several features on the C5, including (IIRC) a retrospective towards the end of 1985. I'll have to dig out the specifics, but I dare say there's further information that could be mined from those sources, that may also merit inclusion here.
  • To meet the "thorough and complete" part of the FA criteria, I think we may need to go a bit more in depth into its post 1985 history, including the refurbished models, custom improvements and later media appearances (Brainiac: Science Abuse featured one racing a Segway and a fire-extinguisher powered wheelchair).

Other than that, I suspect the FAC stalwarts will have comments to make on tidying up the prose. I think getting it to TFA for 10 January is a tight deadline, but hopefully with some concerted effort all round, we'll be able to get there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Don't know why this has attracted so little commentary but it's plainly dead in the water this time round; feel free to re-nom without waiting the usual two weeks if you desire. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [46].[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2012[edit]

Nominator(s): Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, which is currently at GA status. The article has since been expanded further, and also includes information on the official album release for that particular contest. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first on the draw is me. I was closely following this one-of-a-kind contest (not because of the political issues but because of the very location) and I have the following to say:

  • Lead citations are actually discouraged on FAs as the lead gives an overview of the facts and not the facts themselves. I am the one who promoted another article fluorine to FA status and I have a neat knowledge on what an FA looks like.
  • Ell & Nikki should have NBSPs surrounding the ampersand everywhere they appear as a musical act name.
  • The controversies section's placement is controversial, at least to me: it breaks up article flow from pre-event to event to post-event and therefore should be placed after the other countries section. Otherwise it is neutral, stable, complete and concise enough for an FA.
  • The participating countries section could use some layout improvements: only the participation map needs showing. Having two pictures "clamping" text on both left and right is usually frowned upon here. Parcly Taxel 08:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit freaky, I was just at the article and thinking to myself if there's anything else that can be done to improve it further, and then bob along here to find just what I need to aid me. I'll address those points and come back here once they are implemented. Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parcly Taxel: Surrounding the ampersand with NBSP in regards to Ell & Nikki might be a bit of a problem, as the article itself for the act doesn't use "NBSP", it is simply Ell & Nikki. Any suggestions? Also, moving the controversies section so that is it after the "other countries" section would make it out of chronological sync. Those controversies occurred pre-event, with some news sources mentioned within the section that were still covering the topic post-event, even though the demonstrations had died down post-event.Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wesley Mouse: I meant non-breaking spaces around the &, not "NBSPs". It is yet another of my common shortenings – please think laterally! I think, however, that the controversies should be moved downstream as they are peripheral to the main event and therefore should not be covered so early on in the article. Parcly Taxel 09:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parcly Taxel: Forgive me, as I have never heard of the term "NBSP" before, and I am still somewhat confused by them too. Would you mind providing an example, so that I can clear my confusion? In regards to the controversies section, I have moved it anyway, and I must say it does look better in its new location. Based on your suggestions, I have also done the same to Eurovision Song Contest 2013, ready for a potential FA nom. This is the first time I've gone down the FA route, and hope that I can learn a thing or two, as I am one who likes to aim for high standards, and learning things from FA reviews will help me to be able to contribute towards Eurovision-related articles with an extremely high standard of input. Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may have just figured it out myself, you mean to input Ell&nbsp;&&nbsp;Nikki, so that it produces Ell & Nikki? Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, put non-breaking spaces around the ampersand in Ell & Nikki. I think this is part of the MOS. Parcly Taxel 09:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jonas Vinther

I will leave some comments later today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With no offence, as much as I would like to assume good faith here, but I oppose to Jonas casting a review on this FAC - mainly due to the fact he is still in an on-going dispute over his reviewing procedures at the GA discussion page. As there have been concerns raised into his ability to carry out reviewing procedures correctly, then I don't hold much faith in procedures being carried out properly here too. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check the whole article for tense, some sections and footnotes are written in the present or future tense. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimbus227: I've modified the article's tense accordingly. If there are some sections that I have missed, would you be so kind as to point them out. Thank you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, some changes have introduced grammar problems, a 'showed' was changed to 'shown' when it didn't need to be. I would get a good copy editor to have a thorough check through.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [47].[reply]

Typhoon Chanchu[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a powerful typhoon in 2006. Not so long ago that it's forgotten in meteorology circles, but not so recent that its legacy can't be properly assessed. It was the first of several powerful, deadly storms in that year. The article, I am sure, is a better account on the storm than anywhere else online, which is my main personal criteria for nominating something for FAC. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The caption given for File:Affected_Philippine_provinces_by_typhoon_Chanchu_2006.PNG doesn't seem to make sense as written
  • File:Typhoon_Chanchu16-05-06.jpg, File:Typhoon_Chanchu_17_may_2006_0315Z.jpg: source link returns error message
  • File:Affected_Philippine_provinces_by_typhoon_Chanchu_2006.PNG: sources for base map and data shown?
  • File:Typhoon_Pearl_in_Shantou.jpg: that summary seems a little sketchy...Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "₫26 million": Most readers won't know that's drachmas, so writing it out and giving a link would be better.

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

I'm not an expert, so feel free to laugh at any silly thing I may have to say.

  • You might consider alt text for images
  • in the month of May according to the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO):
    • I'm surprised the year of the storm isn't mentioned in the opening line.
    • "the month of May" 2006, or for Mays in general?
    • For us non-experts, why is the Hong Kong Observatory singled out, and is it necessary to do so in the opening sentence?
  • , according to the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA): again, why is the JMA being singled out, and is it necessary to state this in the lead? This just comes across as noise to me at this stage of the article.
  • any reason "of 175 km/h (110 mph)" is plain text but {{convert|190000|ha|acre|abbr=on}} uses a template? I see a mix of both styles throughout.
  • "near Shantou, Guangdong on May 17 as a severe tropical storm" are you committed to the no-comma-after-the-state style? I know there are those who prefer this style, but it's the kind of thing that others like to come along and "fix". This is especially so because it is superficially inconsistent with "In Legazpi, Albay, strong waves" later.
    • Just a few comments in response, Curly, if that's okay. This is a tough problem for copyeditors ... every style guide says to put the trailing commas in, but few writers do that on their own these days, and few writers are consistent. I've surrendered on this point. - Dank (push to talk)
  • dissipating west of Kyushu.: many will assume Kyushu is another part of China
  • ₱117.57 million (PHP: are ₱ and PHP not redundant? You use this pattern throughout the paragraph—is it common? I don't recall seeing this style before.
    • I believe WP:$ requires identifying most currencies at first occurrence. I don't have any preference how people do that. - Dank (push to talk)
  • An area of convection, or thunderstorms: is this saying that "convection" means "thunderstorms"?
    • This is a common convention, but you make a good point about possible ambiguity. Would you prefer parens? - Dank (push to talk)
      • I asked because, clicking through, the article seems to say that convection can lead to thinderstorms, but doesn't seem to equate convection with thunderstorms, which this phrasing does seem to do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM): "FSM" doesn't appear in the rest of the article---I'd drop it
  • although a circulation: in most people's vocab "circulation" is a non-count noun. If that's not the case here, is there a synonym that could be used?
    • It's going to be pretty hard to get weather people to give up this usage, and it doesn't sound that odd to me, but YMMV. Linguists would say it "needs testing", and I think they're right. - Dank (push to talk)
  • moved to the west-southwest: would this have an inappropriate meaning if cut to "moved west-southwest"?
    • No opinion. - Dank (push to talk)
      • It seems ambiguous to me as "to the" can imply either a direction or a destination. I assume a direction was intended, in which case doing the "to the" is both unambiguous and more concise. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its tracked shifted more: should this be "track"?
  • 1 minute winds of: normally "1 minute" would be hyphenated if functioning as an adjective (noun adjunct); is this a special case?
    • I curse the person who first thought of this diacritical mark, they cause more headaches ... - Dank (push to talk)
      • It amazes me that people have such trouble with this---people wouldn't dream of stressing "one year old" and "one-year-old" the same way in conversation. Normally I'd just fix it, but I'm not confident I should with specialized terminology. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the former province: this leaves me scratching my head
  • flights to offshore islands: are there islands that aren't offshore?
    • What do you prefer, Curly? - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, airlines canceled 12 flights in Japan due to the storm.: meaning Taiwanese airlines canceled flights in Japan?
  • largest oceanic rescue at the time: meaning up until that time?
  • remained missing as of May 23: is that when they gave up looking?
  • after dispersing a Ceratium bloom: clicking through to Ceratium isn't enlightening me here---what happened?
  • Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment: worth a redlink?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this one is progressing too slowly for me to see any hope of consensus to promote being achieved any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [48].[reply]

Trey Burke[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional basketball player who was recently in the national spotlight as the 2013 National player of the year. The article covers the subject well.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Moisejp, the GA reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:MICHIGAN, WP:NBA, WP:CBBALL, WP:WPBIO and WP:BBALL as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified the discussants of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1 (Giants2008, Toa Nidhiki05, MarshalN20, Skotywa, Yellow Evan, and Elcid.ruderico)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Utah Jazz editor Charlesaaronthompson as well as 2013–14 Utah Jazz season editors Sirex98, AmazingGamer 91, and Thebrainthinker--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The 3rd graph of the lead, which covers his collegiate year needs quite a bit of trimming. We do not need to list every award here, especially 2nd team awards. The reader should get the feel he was well regarded as a player, but not so much they stop reading this paragraph and move on to the next.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this one has well and truly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2014&oldid=639444611"