Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2010[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:32, 28 February 2010 [1].

HMS Lion (1910)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... it recently passed a MILHIST ACR and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first impressions are:
  • A little info on the hows and whys of the ship's class would be good... why they were designed, what they were based on, how they compared to their predecessors (which I see is in the lead section...I'm not sure it should be there)
  • That's really more appropriate for the class article, IMO.
  • The "Pre-war" and "Post-Jutland" sections are quite light compared to the rest
  • Hard to avoid, she commissioned only two years before the start of WWI and didn't do anything of real interest like a foreign voyage before the war.
  • The info on the ship's fate is very light (one sentance, one and a half if you include the "put into reserve" fact in the previous sentance): Is there any info on why she was decommissioned and scrapped (i.e. although the lead mentions that the ship was scrapped because of the Washington Naval Treaty, this is never mentioned again)? Other suggested info to include would be where and/or by which company she was broken up by, and if there are any surviving relics/artifacts.
  • Good point about the Washington Treaty, lemme dig up a cite. Lion, and most of the other pre-war capital ships, took up too much of the limited tonnage available under the Treaty. I don't have a name of who she was sold to or if any artifacts survive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More when/if I think of anything. -- saberwyn 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that shoulds at least be a brief statement as to the origins of the Lion class in this article. The subject is raised because under design it says that Lion was stubstantially bigger than the battlecruisers before her.
    • OK, it's probably a function of the extra speed demanded, but lemme check.
      • It's actually a reaction to Moltke's design. The requirement to out-class Moltke drove the 70% increase in displacement over the Indefatigables. Section addressing this added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extra armour added post Jutland - is that 100 tons total?
    • Yes, and clarified.
  • Scrapping - apart from meeting the tonnage limits, any particular reason why Lion was selected instead of other ships.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Probably just age. Tiger was the oldest BC retained and even she was scrapped in '32. Everything before the Iron Duke-class BBs was scrapped as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There weren't many differences between Lion and Tiger, but Tiger had a better design (incorporating features of Japan's Kongo class), was newer, and was two knots faster. Plus, I'll bet that the Lions didn't have a good name around the Admiralty after Queen Mary blew up at Jutland. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links; alt text present and appears good. Ucucha 15:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 4 images, all public domain from Commons, due to age. All images have good captions. --PresN 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, the lead image isn't quite up to snuff copyright-wise. The statement by the source website that it believes the image to be in the public domain isn't good enough for us. We have no date of publication, so we can't establish that it meets the 1 Jan. 1923 deadline. We also don't know who took the photo; we're only assuming it was taken by a British sailor. There is a definite possibility it was taken by a private individual, in which case the image is probably still in copyright. Until we can dig up the author and/or publication date, it has to go. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Surely more than a single paragraph can be written about the flagship of the Battlecruiser Fleet's service after the Battle of Jutland - is there a biography of Admiral Pakenham you can draw on, for instance? (the ship would have gone wherever he went at sea) The claim that "Lion had an uneventful time for the rest of the war conducting patrols of the North Sea as the High Seas Fleet was forbidden to risk any more losses" doesn't take into account the anxiety caused by the danger of submarine attacks which affected the Grand Fleet's operations in the later years of the war and I imagine that a bit more can be written on her role in the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight - according the the article on the battle she was part of a force which tried to intercept several German battle cruisers. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no biography of Pakenham listed on OCLC, although apparently he was a major collector of silver as it lists the sale catalog from his collection. I added a sentence about her escort of the High Seas Fleet to Scapa. I've requested Marder's history of the RN during the war to see if there's anything of significance although I'm not hopeful. I'm not sure that there's really much to 2nd Heligoland as I don't think that any of the BCs other than Repulse actually fired their guns. And I'm not really sure that fear of submarines materially affected the operations of the RN's heavies in 1917-18 other than to necessitate lots of escorting destroyers. That's certainly not the impression I got from Massie.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for material on this ship's post-Jutland activities myself (including searches of the Imperial War Museum and British Library's online catalogues for books specifically on this ship) but haven't been able to find anything. The British official history has material on the actions of the Grant Fleet (particularly in 1918) which may be useful (this book also discusses the restrictions imposed on the Grand Fleet by the threat of submarines). That said, however, I'm not comfortable with an article which covers almost half the active service period of a major warship (including two years of wartime service in which she served as a flagship) in a single paragraph and don't think that criterion 1(b) is met at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you might want to consider is that the bulk of the career section is devoted to four single days in the ship's life with nothing, other than repairs, describing her activities between those battles. And I go on for many paragraphs describing exactly what happened. And the section describing her post-Jutland career covers 2nd Heligoland Bight, two sorties in 1918 (if Simon can kindly provide a cite for one of them) and her escort of the German ships in November 1918. Again four single days, but only a single sentence was devoted to each because Lion never fired her guns. The exact same period of time is covered, but a heck of a lot more occurred on four of the eight days and so they get a disproportionate amount of the text. Now I can expand the account of 2nd Heligoland Bight to a paragraph or so if that will help to reduce the disparity in your eyes, but I chose not to do so originally because Pakenham deliberately kept the bulk of the 1st BCS out of the action.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand how the destroyer shortage is really relevant to the history of an individual ship. It's of great import when discussing the British naval strategy and plans for the employment for the Grand Fleet post-Jutland, but not so much so at this level. I can add something along the lines that shortages of light cruisers and destroyers caused the British to decide only to commit the Grand Fleet when the situation was in the British favor, but I'm not sure how relevant that was to Lion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting on a couple of books to arrive to address Nick-D's oppose, please do not close until I've had a chance to incorporate their material into the article regardless of lack of activity in the meantime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Four days, and the FAC is approachig three weeks: how is this coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on more books. Some have arrived and I've added some info on the ship's late-war activities though I don't know if Nick-D thinks that that's enough. I'm likely to need the full 28 days as ILL isn't especially speedy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear to what "full 28 days" you're referring? If you mean a time limit at FAC, there is none; if the article is incomplete, it should be withdrawn, and returned to FAC once all sources are incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see one omission, and that's that Lion sortied with the Grand Fleet on 18 August, 1918 to try and meet the German fleet in battle on the 19th. Enough sources state six British battle cruisers participated, which means Lion was present (Indomitable being under refit). Whether she was Battle Cruiser Fleet flagship is difficult to state offhand (haven't got my copy of the Beatty Papers volume I handy, but likely. There's a possibility that Lion sortied on 24 April, 1918 in response to a German High Sea Fleet sortie, but none of my sources state which British battle cruisers went to sea on that occasion, only stating the number - four. Since there were nine British battle cruisers in commission at the time, and no sources I know of specifically mention Lion, one can't state she was there without doing some OR. So, with the exception of the August, 1916 sortie, the last paragraph looks pretty complete to me. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, if you've got a source for the August 1918 sortie and can add it I'd be grateful; it's not mentioned in Marder, just a little bit about how the RN thought that things might heat up there after Scheer's promotion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:13, 27 February 2010 [2].

Caesium[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC); Stone[reply]


There hasn't been a chemical element up for FAC in quite some time. I believe this article is complete, well organized and well referenced. There should be only a few touchups remaining which will hopefully be caught in this FAC. Nergaal (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 12:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article looks very nice; thanks for all that work! Alt text done; thanks. However, please add alt text to the images that lack it; see WP:ALT and the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. The existing alt text is OK, except that "Electron shell for caesium" doesn't convey the gist of File:Electron shell 055 Caesium.svg, and the phrase "Black-and-white image of" is one of the WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text issues fixed. The 055 Caesium.svg alt text is a tricky issue to fix as the template used there is very complex and automatically adds that text depending on the element page present. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better, except that File:Cs-137-decay.svg still lacks alt text and there are a few instances of WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid, namely "The diagram shows", "The image shows", and "An image of". As for the alt text of File:Electron shell 055 Caesium.svg, on second thought, since that image is completely illegible how about if we just remove it? I can easily modify the template to do that. Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all instances of "image of". The decay image actually has alt text, and you can see it in the actual article (not the alt checker). Feel free to make it work, as there seems to be some issue with how alt syntax works in this instance. The electron shell is standard for all of the chemical element articles. In most instances, the image is large enough for clear readability, but in the late element chases this is not achieved very well. I see no point in removing it. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standardization is not a good idea when it harms the article. At this size, the electron shell image is virtually useless, and dilutes the value of other more useful images. Ucucha 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making is that the infobox uses a complex set of commands which automatically produce such entries like this one. The template used to be wider such this type of images were fine. With a thinner template, this is somewhat of an issue for later elements. Nevertheless, this is not a quickfix and feel free to raise the issue at wp:Elem or even try to fix it yourself. I think this is well beyond the point of this FAC, and I would much rather focus on the article improvement rather that bog this down with nitpicking. Ner"In the past FAC was all about making the references look pretty; now it became cool to slow down reviews with hidden options such as alt text that way less than 5% of the users ever use"gaal
I checked other articles, and the electron shell image was unreadable everywhere, so I removed it from the template (please see Template talk:Elementbox #Electron shell image unreadable and inaccessible for details). The decay image does not have alt text: its wiki markup is merely [[File:Cs-137-decay.svg|thumb|right|250px|Decay scheme of caesium-137]] and there's no alt text there; could you please add it? It's true that most readers don't need alt text, but the people who need it really need it. Eubulides (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually add the text, but some user overwrote my edit. It should be back in now. Ner"Wikipedia also needs more users who contribute because they enjoy it, not more who get exhausted by more and more obscure MOS-ish rules"gaal (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That fixes all the alt text problems I found. Writing alt text can be both relaxing and entertaining, but (like other aspects of Wikipedia article writing) it's not for everybody. Thanks again for writing it. Eubulides (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed Nergaal (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, external links fine now. Ucucha 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, images appear to comply with policy. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Need to italicise the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in the infobox ref
  • Current ref 34 (Cesium Atoms..) lacks a publisher
  • Newspaper titles in the refs should be in italics (I noted current ref 40 and 76 but there may be others)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the italicizations for both the infobox reference and the newspaper titles. The latter was a result of some templates using the publisher parameter when they should have been using the newspaper parameter. I have not done anything with ref 34. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ref 34. Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. All sorts of problems. Here's my selection from the first quarter of the article: And I've now looked elsewhere. There appear to be significant issues with close paraphrasing and unreliable sourcing of facts. I don't think the editing work being done by nergaal can address my concerns. Please understand that I am not accusing nergaal of having introduced the plagiarism / close paraphrasing etc, but the article has problems that will need significant examination. My main concern is that this article represents plagiarism of the USGS source to an unacceptable degree. See below for some examples. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citation for "The radioactive element francium may also have lower melting point".
  • "At temperatures below 650 °C, it alloys with cobalt, iron, molybdenum, nickel, platinum, tantalum or tungsten.[3] On the other hand,..." Why is the phrase "on the other hand" used here? A dichotomy of some sort does not appear to be what is being described.
  • alloy vs intermetallic comound. Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reaction with water is explosive even at temperatures as low as −116 °C." That is not what the sources says. It indicates explosive reaction with water, and re-action (not explosive) with ice (not water) as low as -116 degrees. This makes me concerned whether other errors have crept in.
  • I looked in more detail and other sources seem to state the same thing. Now the statement should be fixed. Nergaal (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article which provides a wikilink for "liquid" but not for "borosilicate glass" is in serious need of its links being reviewed.
  • I think I have reduced the amounts of overlinking while adding links for more technical terms. There might still be some occurences, but much fewer. Nergaal (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have another look. A glance showed "Mercury (element)" linked twice, "alkali metal" linked three times and "metal" linked, which seemed to me excessive in this article. And all that was just in the first couple of sections. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let other editors comment on whether this represents plagiarism or excessively close paraphrasing of the source, but it fails in my view:
  • Source (quoting parts of 2 separate paras): "Because of this reactivity, cesium is classed as a hazardous material and must be stored and transported in isolation from possible reactants... is stored and shipped in dry mineral oil or in other dry saturated hydrocarbons or in an inert atmosphere or vacuum in sealed borosilicate glass ampoules. In quantities of more than about 100 grams (g), cesium is shipped in hermetically sealed stainless steel containers. When glass ampoules are used, they are shipped wrapped in foil and packed in an inert cushioning material, such as vermiculite, each in a metal can."
  • WP Article: "Because of its high reactivity, caesium metal is classified as a hazardous material and must be stored and transported in isolation from possible reactants. It is stored and shipped in dry mineral oil or in other dry saturated hydrocarbons, or in an inert atmosphere (such as argon or nitrogen) or vacuum, in sealed borosilicate glass ampoules which are shipped wrapped in foil and packed in an inert cushioning material, such as vermiculite, each in a metal can. In quantities above 100 grams, caesium is shipped in hermetically sealed stainless steel containers".
  • I have rephrased it; now it says: Due to its high reactivity, the metal is classified as a hazardous material. Storing and shipping is usually done in dry mineral oil, or in other dry saturated hydrocarbons, or in sealed borosilicate glass ampoules under an inert atmosphere (such as argon or nitrogen) or vacuum, and packed in an inert cushioning material such as vermiculite in a metal can. Hermetically sealed stainless steel containers are used for quantities above 100 grams Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think that was much better. the language, including key phrases, remains almost identical. The solution is simply to quote the source, and i have changed it accordingly. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source for the following: "Some small differences arise from the fact that Cs is heavier and more electropositive than other (non-radioactive) alkali metals. Caesium is the most electropositive stable chemical element, and of all the known elements, only francium may be more electropositive (as francium is highly radioactive, it cannot be isolated in observable quantities yet). Relativistic effects can lower the reactivity and raise the electronegativity of francium, as suggested by its value of the first ionization energy" Happy as long as the tag you've added stays until a source is found. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para beginning "Because of its large ionic radius, caesium is one of the incompatible elements" has just one footnote at the very end of a lot of material. I scanned the abstract and did a few searches of the journal article in question. I couldn't find any of the WP article facts in the source.
  • Those come from the USGS report. It is likely that during the rephrasing the reference not got lost. I believe the appropriate reference is used now. Nergaal (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section beginning "Acid digestion is the principal commercial method used and usually employs..." again cites the USGS paper but again looks to me like unacceptable close paraphrasing or plagiarism. Example:
  • Source: "The alum is roasted with 4 percent carbon and then leached to yield a Cs2SO4 solution; the sulfate may then be converted to CsCl."
  • WP Article: "The alum is roasted with 4% carbon and then leached to yield a Cs2SO4 solution, which may then be converted to CsCl."
  • I've tried to tweak this. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really: sometimes it's best to either just quote the source directly, or start from scratch. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried again. Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read further. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went and fixed a lot of the issues. I added several fact tags where I thought the text still needs referencing and I will find some tomorrow. Feel free to add fact tags directly into the text where you feel it is necessary. I also went through the parts of the text which may have relied too much on paraphrasing the USGS report, and I've tried to cleanup them. Let me know if there are still such instances left. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working hard on the article. I remain concerned at the level of paraphrasing of, and reliance on, the USGS source. Other fixes look sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US Geological Survey report is supposed to be a great tool for the occurrence and for the production sections, and I think should be considered as one of the most reliable sources possible here. Asides from that and the part of the uses, I think it is only rarely used in other sections. As this not-that-important element didn't receive much attention in the literature, it couldn't find other reviews on the its uses. Do you have any suggestions about finding other respectable reviews? Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to reduce the amount of dependency on the USGS source. While there are still a through z occurances, it is probably about 1/3 less than before. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break, and resuming my oppose (as it were)
I have concerns about this article - i am not saying they are with the nominator. I've started to look more closely at selected spots.

  • In the first sentence under "compounds", is this: "Caesium hydroxide (CsOH) is hygroscopic and a very strong base, and will rapidly etch the surface of glass or quartz". The citation is what i would consider a fairly obscure patent application. i would not rate it as the best of sources at FAC. But, leaving that aside, I was unable to locate this fact on two read-throughs.
    I rewrote the sentence in question and replaced the ref with two others, one for the basic characteristics and one for the etching. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next, take the second para under "compounds", which currently begins "Caesium chloride is an important source..." There is only one footnote, at the end of the para. The combination of a lack of context here, and an odd turn of phrase ("The chloride atoms lie upon the lattice points...") makes me suspicious that this has been inappropriately plagiarised or close paraphrased from the source (or from elsewhere). I would be grateful if someone with access to this book would take a look.
  • Here is one of the most telltale examples of a problem in this article. Under "History", we find this in the WP article:
"It found no significant application until it was added into radio vacuum tubes in the 1920s as a getter, a scavenger of the trace amounts of oxygen remaining in the tube after manufacture, and as a coating on the heated cathode to increase the amount of electric current that could flow through the tube. Caesium became recognized as a functional, high-performance industrial metal in electronics in the 1950s." It is footnoted to a 1957 paper.
Meanwhile, we find this in the USGS source:
"The element found no significant application until it was used in radio vacuum tubes in the 1920s as a getter, which is a scavenger of the trace amounts of oxygen remaining in the tube after manufacture, and as a coating on the heated cathode to increase ... the amount of electric current that could flow through the tube. Cesium became recognized as a functional, high-performance industrial metal in the field of electronics in the 1950s (Strod, 1957)." The quote, including a source not actually viewed by the reviewer, has been plagiarised from the USGS paper.
I have rewritten this paragraph to avoid close paraphrasing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the history section, which begins "In 1860, Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff discovered caesium in mineral water from Dürkheim, Germany". There is no cite at the end of this particular sentence. But, guess what: here's a sentence from the USGS report: "Cesium, which was the first element discovered by using emission spectroscopy, was detected in water from mineral springs in Germany by Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff in 1860".
    • We can substitute it by the sentence from the article written in mid 2002 so two years before the USGS report and one year before the EPA report: This would that be:Cesium (L. caesius meaning sky blue) was spectroscopically discovered by Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff in 1860 in mineral water from Durkheim., but for me this sentnce will always being very similar, because inthis sentence you cannot say that In 1912 Wilhelm Müller found the caesium in the mineral pollucite bay mass spectroscopy. --Stone (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "petroleum exploration" we have this: "The high density of the caesium formate brine (up to 2.3 g/cm3, or 19.2 pounds per gallon), coupled with the relatively benign nature of most caesium compounds, reduces the requirement for toxic high-density suspended solids in the drilling fluid—a significant technological, engineering and environmental advantage. Unlike the components of many other heavy liquids, caesium has minimal radioactivity because it is almost entirely composed of a stable isotope and is relatively environment-friendly". These sentences are cited to a 2006 paper, the abstract of which is online. I've looked at the abstract, and it appears to support part of the first sentence, but not the second sentence - the one after which it appears. Meanwhile, the first part of the sentence, including the density figures, appear to come from the USGS paper, which has not been footnoted in this location at all. It is not clear to me that the fact about minimal radioactivity is sourced to either of these references.
    • I moved the ref up, close to the numbers, and checked it for most of the facts, the low radioactivity is only mentioned as a low activity of the potassium-40 which is present as impurity, I look for a better source or I will remove the radioactivity bit. --Stone (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This phrase under "other uses" - "Concerns about the corrosive action of caesium on spacecraft components, have pushed development in the direction of use of inert gas propellants" - is a verbatim quote from the source (USGS), while other material is a close paraphrase. At the same time, the USGS material has been broken up with this sentence: "It used a method of ionization to strip the outer electron from the propellant by simple contact with tungsten". This fact, however, is in fact not in the USGS study at all, and is therefore completely uncited.

I haven't time to go through everything else, but i think this article has some serious problems, and I would recommend the nominator withdraw it at FAC. I will leave them an message. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • Section Compounds; 3rd paragraph, sentence starts "Noteworthy,..." sounds a little awkward. Would "Notably" or just "Note,..." mean the same thing and sound better? If not, I'd like to see it changed some way.
    • Section History; has "first element to be discovered spectroscopically" and then later in the 3rd paragraph "first element to be discovered by spectrum analysis"... assuming these mean the same thing is this an undesirable repetition?
      They do mean the same thing, and I think it ought to be reworded too. I'm outlining a logical flow below that should work, but I'm not familiar with which references are being used to verify which facts (and the computer I'm typing this on is an ungodly slow* thin client, so looking up each reference is unwieldy at best), so I don't feel comfortable implementing it just yet. (*Typing this sentence took me <10 seconds, but it took at least 15 to 20 to display on the screen. :/)
      1. Caesium was discovered in 1860 by Bunsen and Kirchhoff.
      2. Caesium was first isolated from the huge amount of mineral water by the given process
      3. Caesium was identified in the residue by spectroscopy
      4. Caesium was the first element to be so identified.
      5. Caesium was identified, and named for, the blue lines in its emission spectrum.
      {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've fixed the repetitions. Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to rearrange the history section, I hope it has a better flow now.--Stone (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section Atomic clocks; "...control and regulate information flow on the internet". That sounds interesting to me as a non-chemist layman. But no further information is given. It made me curious. Could it be expanded with a brief sentence explaining how it does this?
      • the source says: The time determined by the Master Clock is then used, through a variety of methods, to set the time for the networks that control cellular telephone transmissions and those that regulate information flow on the Internet. I am not sure how to expand this. Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm. I guess you have a few options; put a {{clarify}} tag on it and hope someone comes along and helps but I guess that will mean it will fail as Featured. You could research it yourself (I've tried a couple of Google searches to see what I can find, but haven't been able to find anything). You could ask at WP:Reference Desk or you could just leave it as it is and let it remain enigmatic :o) The other option is, of course, to remove the claim but that seems a shame as you have a reference for it and it sounds like it would be interesting to our readers once we know what it means. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps this is some help [3] or any of these results [4]. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not sure I get your point: remove it because it made you curious? Let me think; ummm, no. This article is supposed to present the element and for that it clearly explains that it is used for timing of internet devices; by going deeper and explaining how that is actually done is way besides the point of the article. When an article on caesium clocks will be submitted to FAC, I am sure it will have all those explanations, but now that is not the case. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Removal was only a mild suggestion, one that I basically wrote off as being a bad idea even as I mentioned it, so let's forget about that. What continues to bug me is that the claim apparently is not understood by you and nor has any other editor so far come out who knows what the claim means. From my personal perspective, if I had an article up for review I would be quite keen to ensure that I understood everything in it. But, as I say, it's not a deal-breaker; I wouldn't damn the article for it, so I am quite content if you leave that section as it is. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section Other uses; sentence regarding fibre optics + night vision, no citation is given. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It used the source at the end of paragraph; I've copied it anyways. Nergaal (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
  • Comment image issues resolved. Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Cs-137-decay.svg - Data presented should have a source.
    • File:Nistf1ph.jpg - Copyvio. NIST site says "Some of the photographs available through this gallery are owned by the photographer who took the pictures, not by NIST. These photographs are marked as copyrighted..." This image is copyright Geoffrey Wheeler, per this page.
      • I have added the correct author. Are images listed under this news release available for public use?If you go on the subpages you will get a text saying "To download hi-res jpeg versions Shift Left Mouse click on images." Does this imply that they may be used as long as the copyright is stated? Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not just an issue of attribution. The non-NIST images are not free per that site (they retain restrictions on use), so this image can't be used. Making available a high resolution version doesn't indicate copyright status, but the aforementioned site does state that images without a specific copyright credit are NIST works. Thus the image here might be ok (I'd have to look a bit more closely), but the images here are not ok (they credit a copyright holder). Эlcobbola talk 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Usno-mc.jpg - Source does not attribute an author. How can we confirm federal authorship? Is there a general disclaimer stating all media used on this site are PD?
    • File:Bunsen-Kirchhoff.jpg - Unsupported PD claim based on life of subject, not of author. Reasonable scenarios exist which would make this not PD (for example, 25 year old author took this image in 1885. Author thus born ca. 1860, could have died in 1941, aged 81. Image would not be PD in this circumstance). How can we confirm the author indeed died 70 or more years ago? Эlcobbola talk 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the original website; anybody willing to email them about using this image (and perhaps some other ones) on wikipedia? Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I can't conclusively say that the image is PD, I find the assertion that it's not PD highly dubious. What you're saying is that if the image was taken a mere two years before Kirchhoff's death, and the author was a rather young 25 at the time, then it will be PD only one year from now based on the death plus seventy years rule. Given that Kirchhoff and Bunsen are only middle-aged at worst in that image, I would find it quite odd if it was taken in 1885, because Bunsen would then be quite well-preserved for a 74-year-old man. I would find it much more likely that the picture was taken 1875 or earlier, in which case the hypothetical 25-year-old photographer would have to make it to 91 for the image to not yet be in the public domain now by the death-and-seventy-years rule. That's also completely ignoring the change in copyright law over time; IANAL, but there may be a case for it to be public domain either way. Yes, we should try to find more data on when the image was made and by whom, but it's highly unlikely that the image is not PD by now. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read critically. I've said the claim is unsupported, not that it's not PD. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold of inclusion. I've merely given a scenario, however unlikely, that could cause the claim to be false (i.e. to demonstrate the folly of relying on the subject's date of death). Speculation is not acceptable in establishing copyright status. Media seeking inclusion in Wikipedia's best work must have verifiable, not speculative, support. Эlcobbola talk 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The original publishers state The Annenberg Rare Book And Manuscript Library, which houses these images, does not hold copyright to them. In making them accessible through SCETI, the library acts as owner of these physical objects only. It assumes no responsibility for copyright, where applicable. To obtain letters of permission for the publication of these materials, write directly to Lynne Farrington, Curator of Printed Books, lynne@pobox.upenn.edu. If this doesn't work, is File:Kirchhoff Bunsen Roscoe.jpg ok? Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That doesn't help, unfortunately. To use an analogy: let's say you purchase a music CD. You then own that object (the CD), so you possess the physical rights. You don't, however, own the songs (they still belong to the record company and/or artist), so you don't own the copyrights. That's all the library is saying here: they own the pictures as physical objects (inked paper), but not the copyrights (creative work printed thereon). File:Kirchhoff Bunsen Roscoe.jpg, however, is just fine (I completed the source information). Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Overall I support this article as it looks well-researched and meets most of the FA criteria. I do have a few minor issues:
    • "Caesium is a very soft, very ductile..." Is there a ductility value for Caesium? Pehaps compare it to other metals as per the ductility article.
      • I had no idea that ductility can be quantified. If that is the case it may be worth adding some entry into the element infoboxes. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does Caesium really have a Mohs hardness of 0.2? That really is extraordinarily soft. Interesting.—RJH (talk)
          • Na has 0.5, K is 0.4, Rb is 0.3 and Cs is 0.2. I've tried the first two and they feel like plasticine - really fun to do it with a piece of metal. The latter two I would guess would partially melt in your hand. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some seemingly unnecessary instances of 'even', 'On the other hand', 'In contrast', 'originally' and 'in reality'. In many cases, removing these shouldn't hurt and will tighten up the text.
    • The relevance of much of the sentence that begins "Francium may be more electropositive..." is unclear to me.
      • Caesium is definitely the most electropositive element if francium is ignored. But francium may not necessarily be more electropositive. Do you have an idea how to trim/de-emphasize the francium part? Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what needs to be clarified is why relativistic effects are relevant in the discussion. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Production section mentions 'direct reduction' but doesn't appear to explain it.
      • It is covered under Albeit not commercially feasible, the ore mineral may be directly reduced by heating it with calcium, potassium, or sodium metal in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere, which yields an impure caesium metal (right after the second method is detailed) Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I missed that because it is in a paragraph that starts with a different subject.—RJH (talk)
    • Is there any information about why caesium was used for the definition of a second and also why caesium is specifically used for atomic clocks?
      • Because of it exists as a single isotope, it is easy to vaporize (the reading is done in the gas/plasma pahse), and I think because it has a heavy nucleus. I need to find some clear references about this though, as rubidium clocks (only recently created) appear to be more precise. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. I think that would be of interest to some readers.—RJH (talk)
          • This discussion looks like a good copy of a similar discussion on the German wiki for the FA status there. 1) Hydrogen similar atoms are not the only ones possible for clocks and the planned systems use other elements. 2) The used transition is not more stable than others and can be influenced by magnetic fields. 3) The low boiling point is not the good thing, because even high melting metals form atomic beams, but the fact that the atomic beam is at a low temperature and therefore has a minimal broadening. 4) Several isotopes are not a problem due to the wide distance between the lines compared to the observed transits. 5) The point which is the only valid is that the 9GHz was right at the boarder of what normal electronics could do and this was the way to go because the highest possible frequency gives the most precise results.--Stone (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per chance, is there a synopsis and a cite available for the article?—RJH (talk)
    • The article includes both em-dashes (e.g. Occurrence section) and en-dashes (E.g. Petroleum exploration) in sentences. Please be consistent and use one or the other, as per the MoS recommendation.
      • Are you referring to references or the main text? Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main text. See "...abundant than rubidium—with which it is so..." and the paragraph that begins "The largest end-use of nonradioactive...".
          • I've fixed all of the ones in the main text, though there are a couple (e.g. in external link titles) that I've left alone. Is this satisfactory? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article might mention that caesium is produced by the slow neutron capture process (S-process) in stars; primarily AGB stars.
      • You are right. Do you have any references for that as I am not sure I have any books for it? Nergaal (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks decent:

Busso, M.; Gallino, R.; Wasserburg, G. J. (1999). "Nucleosynthesis in Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars: Relevance for Galactic Enrichment and Solar System Formation" (PDF). Annula Review of stronomy and Astrophysics. 37: 239–309. Retrieved 2010-02-20.

There's an example on p. 256, a table of short-lived isotopes on p. 280, a model graph on p. 291. This ref. includes some discussion of caesium:

Lugaro, Maria. "Isotopic Compositions of Strontium, Zirconium, Molybdenum, and Barium in Single Presolar SiC Grains and Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars". Astrophysical Journal. 593: 486–508. Bibcode:2003ApJ...593..486L. doi:10.1086/376442. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Here's a ref. on isotopic evidence from the early Solar System:

Hidaka, H.; Ohta, Y.; Yoneda, S.; Delaeter, J. R. (July 2000). "Isotopic Evidence of Live Cesium-135 in the Early Solar System" (PDF). Meteoritics & Planetary Science. 35: A72. Bibcode:2000M&PSA..35Q..72H. Retrieved 2010-02-20.

Interestingly, there was also a study of Caesium in the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, where it was used to probe the atmospheric chemistry:

Griffith, Caitlin A.; Yelle, Roger V. (March 2000). "Equilibrium Chemistry in a Brown Dwarf's Atmosphere: Cesium in Gliese 229B". Bibcode:2000ApJ...532L..59G. doi:10.1086/312550. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

But that's a little off topic.—RJH (talk)

      • Would this be OK? Caesium-133 is produced in in stars by the slow neutron capture process (S-process starting from lighter elements.
Ephraim, Bernard; Pagel, Julius (1997). Nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution of galaxies. Cambridge University Press. p. 87. ISBN 9780521559584.
        • Well it's a true statement, but I think that multiple caesium isotopes are made in that manner, which decay shortly thereafter. I checked the following source and it looks like Caesium-133 is also produced by the r-process, so supernovae could also be added to the list.
          Arnett, David (1996). Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter, from the Big Bang to the Present. Princeton University Press. p. 527. ISBN 0-691-01147-8.
        There's a comparable example in the last paragraph of Xenon#Occurrence and production.—RJH (talk)
        • You should fix the URL to http://books.google.com/books?id=Gd_L9binuDsC&pg=PA87 , which will both change the interface to English (using google.com instead of google.de) and make the link show the page cited instead of the index page referring to the page cited. Otherwise, it looks great. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 21:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure what you're talking about here. The Busso et al. link doesn't have pages blocked as on the google page.—RJH (talk)
    • There is information available about the solar abundance of caesium. I believe it differs from the abundance in the Earth's crust. Abundances of the elements (data page).
    • Some of the ref. have slight irregularities. Holleman... ends with a semi-colon; Andreev... ends with a comma; Polyak... and Sovey... end with a double period; Kirchhoff... and Salbu... have double-commas; Timur... and Johnson... don't have periods after the initials
      • I tried to get all of them, but Polyak and Sovey do not follow the rules I bent the rule and hope it works.--Stone (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - COI notice: I de-stubbed this article several years ago but had nothing to do with the FA-improvement drive. Per WP:CHEMNAME, isotope labeling should be in the form of caesium-133, not 133Cs (except inside equations). Dab link to coordination needs to be fixed. External links look good. All images have alt text. Referencing looks good. Prose quality is good. Seems to cover all the major aspects of the subject. My support is conditioned on fixing the isotope labeling issue. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Articles Plutonium Uranium Helium Technetium follow the rule while Germanium Zinc Niobium Yttrium Iridium Titanium Xenon Oxygen use the isotope labeling like in the caesium article. Should we change the naming convention to allow both in a consistent way or should we change all?--Stone (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me the cited IUPAC document doesn't strictly suggest to use the expanded version. I preferred to use the symbol version here because I thought it would make the prose less repetitive, but if you guys think the opposite I would be fine with changing it. Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think it's more natural, simpler to read, etc. to use the recommended system ("caesium-133") than the short system ("133Cs") but there are times where it might be preferable to use the short system, e.g. in Germanium where there is a list of 5 naturally-occuring isotopes in prose. Saying "70Ge, 72Ge, 73Ge, 74Ge, and 76Ge" seems nicer than saying "germanium-70, germanium-72, <germanium-73, germanium-74, and germanium-76". For such lists, I think a short form might be justified, but there are plenty of places where we really ought to use the longer, clearer form. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a very good suggestion. --Stone (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is reasonable. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All FA element articles should be made consistent with the MOSCHEM guidelines. But some leeway can be given when mentioning many isotopes in the same sentence. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I changed all the instances of 13xCs to caesium-13x outside the isotopes section. Did I miss anything? Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel like there are still quite a few problems in this article. Here a couple of examples I stumbled upon skimming through the article:
  • "Mercury is the only metal with a melting point lower than caesium (the radioactive element francium may also have a lower melting point[5]).[6]" Seems like an odd sentence. Does francium's melting point vary or is it simply unknown? I think this would sound better: "Mercury, and perhaps francium, are the only metals with melting points lower than caesium".
    See reply to next point. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same goes for these sentences: "Caesium is the most electropositive stable chemical element.[6] Francium may be more electropositive, but this has not been experimentally measured due to its high radioactivity. Measurements of the first ionization energy of Francium suggest that relativistic effects may lower its reactivity and raise its electronegativity above that expected from periodic trends." Also, the last sentence doesn't seem that relevant to caesium.
    I've attempted to clarify these off-topic bits by changing them into notes, since they're mostly asides anyway. It should read more naturally now. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Using hot sulfuric acid (35% to 45%) instead yields a solution from which caesium alum (CsAl(SO4)2·12H2O) is precipitated, roasted this with 4% carbon, and then leached, to yield a Cs2SO4 solution which subsequently converted into CsCl.[3]" I don't understand this sentence.
(interjection) I think this sentence arose because I raised concerns about plagiarism / close paraphrasing of the USGS source, and an editor - i assume Nergaal has tried to modify the text to move away from the original. As i said before, sometimes it is best to quote verbatim, with quote marks or blockquotes, rather than dicking around with the text and causing comprehension problems. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "petroleum exploration" section "barrel" should probably be linked to a different article.
    Linked to Barrel_(volume)#Oil_barrel. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alkali formates are safe to handle and do not damage the producing formation or downhole metals as its corrosive alternative high-density brines (such as zinc bromide (ZnBr2 solutions) sometimes do, and they require less cleanup and disposal costs" What is the word "its" referring to?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "its" refers to the alkali formates. I've thus changed the "its" to "their" as "formates" is plural. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:56, 27 February 2010 [5].

Say Say Say[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. This article documents a duet between two of the most successful musicians of all time. It is a song from Pipes of Peace, a 1983 album by Paul McCartney, and it was written and recorded by he and Michael Jackson. I look forward to any comments or suggestions. Pyrrhus16 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "However, it had been recorded one year before" sentences shouldn't start with "However" -- it's a simple fix: just use a semi-colon instead of a full stop. Regardless, "however" is a word to avoid.
  • "It was a number one hit in the US and reached number two in the UK." These two abbreviations should be written in full on their first outing
  • "is...but" requires spaces, I think

These are at first glance, and there may be more in the rest of the article but I haven't looked yet. I don't have home internet access and I'm sitting in a Panera Bread which closes in 10 minutes, so I don't have time tonight to continue.

Also, have you looked at recent song articles that have been promoted to FA, and even GA? It appears that there is precedent for including a Composition section, giving details of instruments used, the key in which it's sung, etc etc.

Done. I added an audio sample (less than 10% of the full version of the song) into the article as well as adding information on the songs composition, such as its instruments and the key it's played in. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 05:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any chance of merging Say Say Say (Waiting 4 U) into the article under a "Cover version" section? Most cover songs do not have their own article.

Done. Seeing as though Say Say Say (Waiting 4 U) is a sample, I mentioned it in the articles "release and reception" section. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 05:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get back to the article on Saturday, which is when I think I'll be back at Panera. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on sources - Most of them look okay, but two queries:
  • What makes undercover.com.au reliable?
Done. I've removed the source and the information being sourced by the reference.
  • I'm uncomfortable with using the sheet music as a primary source for stating things about the song. For example, because someone produced sheet music for piano and guitar doesn't mean those instruments were used on the record. We got the key right, but one doesn't say "the metronome is 116 beats per minute". A metronome is a tempo-keeping device and isn't used in expressing the tempo of a song. Please find secondary sources for these items to avoid misinterpreting the sheet music.
Done. I've removed the information pertaining to the songs instruments (guitar and piano) as well as the songs metronome. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 08:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the sheet music alright for citing that the song is played in B♭ minor key, or should that be removed as well? Pyrrhus16 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that's okay, since it's explicitly stated on the music. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good now, thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The article is not comprehensive as it contains virtually no discussion about the music itself and none at all about the lyrics. Compare with FAs such as "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit". There are a few other easily fixable issues, but this is a big one for me.—indopug (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some more information on the songs composition, and I'm working on adding more information on the songs lyrics. Aside from the songs composition, are there any other things that need fixing in the article? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it appears that more information has been added by Crystal Clear from the sheet music of the song. I'm not sure if the sheet music is alright for citing what has been added, per Laser Brain's comments above. I'll ask for his input. In the meantime, does this addition of content address your concern? If not, are there any further sources you could provide about the composition of the song? Thanks, Pyrrhus16 09:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have the same concerns as Indopug. Also, I see there's a disproportionate number of Jackson-centric sources utilized compared to McCartney ones (and there are a lot available), suggesting that not all the available sources have been consulted. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the McCartney sources you feel will add extra information? Thanks, Pyrrhus16 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The imperative is upon you to find them. Try going through Google Books or searching in your nearest library catalogue. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added more McCartney sources to balance the article out. Pyrrhus16 13:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a question of balance. Given McCartney dueted on the song and it was released on his album, you really should look for information about the song in all the McCartney-centric sources available. Given there's a lot, I suggest withdrawing the nomination until you can do some additional in-depth research. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at many McCartney sources and a lot of them repeat the information that is provided by the Jackson sources. Others just mention the song in passing. If there are specific sources that I may have missed and that add extra information, then please notify me of them so I can take a look. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 15:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 27 February 2010 [6].

Nobel Prize[edit]

Nominator(s): Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article simply because I think it is good enough to go through a FA nomination. It recently passed a GAN and the reviewer encouraged me to nominate this article here. The article is well written and very neutral for this subject. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. One dab link, to Makoto Kobayashi. No dead external links. Some small errors in alt text ("an city", etcetera); please look over it and correct. Ucucha 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text good now (I made some further edits). Ucucha 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not certain this is yet quite ready. On a quick read through I came across this: "According to the statutes, the Foundation should consist of a board of five men ...". I don't see where the statutes exclude women, but what they do say is that the members must be "Swedish or Norwegian citizens", which seems like a strange omission from this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember reading "men" somewhere but I can't find any source for it. It is probably just my memory that's faltering. Changed it into Swedish or Norweigan citizens instead. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Logo of the Nobel prize.jpg - why is a non-free image being used when a free equivalent is being used in the same article (NFCC#1)?
      • Personally I feel the non-free image looks much better as it doesn't have a border. But if the other image is free perhaps it could be edited so the border disappears? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • File:NobelPrize.jpg claims that the medal design is PD in the United States because it was created before 1923. If that is true, I believe this image would also be PD; if that is not true, that image has to go (or to be claimed as fair use). Ucucha 13:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's the difference between the two: when you copy (e.g. photograph) another work, there are potentially two copyrights: the work itself and the photo thereof. When the work is 2D (like a painting), the photograph isn't eligible for copyright protection (per Bridgeman v. Corel). When the work is 3D, like this medal, the photograph does get a copyright. So yes, the medal itself is PD, but, unlike File:NobelPrize.JPG which has a free license from the photographer, File:Logo of the Nobel prize.jpg has no such license. We can't claim fair use because it unambiguously fails NFCC#1. That one subjectively looks better is irrelevant. (You can, of course, alter the free one how ever you wish; removing background/border/etc. is just fine, such as was done for File:Nobel Prize.png.) Эlcobbola talk 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, if that is the case (and I understood it correctly, I am still a beginner or licensing etc) I am just changing the picture to: File:Nobel Prize.png instead. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:AlfredNobel adjusted.jpg - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP). A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable.
      • I linked it to the correct main page now[7]. That license there also seems to be linking to an hitherto en.wiki page. Any recomendations on what to do?--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Alfred Nobels will-November 25th, 1895.jpg - derivative work; Nobel is the author, not Prolineserver. Image summary and license need to be corrected accordingly.
    • File:Ada Yonath Weizmann Institute of Science.jpg - image does not appear at the source. How can the license be verified. Copy and pasted "permission" does not state a license, only that it's "ok to use". Is commercial usage allowed? Are derivatives allowed? This permission would need an OTRS ticket.
      • Replaced the image with one of Barack Obama since that also seems relevant to have in that section. Will look more on the license for the the other picture when I have more time. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:NobelPrize.JPG - needs an additional license for the medal itself (there are two works here: the medal and the photo thereof).
    • File:Dyplom Sklodowska-Curie.jpg - needs a verifiable source (WP:IUP).
    • File:Gandhi 1929.jpg - the PD-India copyright duration is determined using publication date. Source description contains only creation date. How can we establish when this image was published? Эlcobbola talk 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any reason why Boris Pasternak's name is wikilinked on every occurence within section on constraints and refusals? Is it simply an error or some kind of policy? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The first thing that strikes me as weird are the references. Practically every reference is at the least terribly formatted or (more seriously) does not appear to be a reliable media source. Examples (currently no. 119 and following ones) According to WP:V "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the following references appears to do that

The punchline is: an article like this should cite only books by established scholars and/or news articles from respected media outlets. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also in the text, the referencing is not well-done. E.g. four(!) references are given for Skłodowska-Curie getting 2 N.prizes. The "Nominations" section lists reference no. 81 (Britannica) six times in a row, but that reference fails to back up what it is cited for ("All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of that prize."). With all due respect I suggest that somebody experienced with referencing should thoroughly brush over the article. This is nowhere near what is needed for FAC. (To get inspiration, Film noir is a shining example of good referencing techniques). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 27 February 2010 [11].

Killswitch Engage[edit]

Nominator(s): TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Article is reliably sourced and I believe exceeds FA criteria. All issues from last FAC have been resloved. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text present and good. Ucucha 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media Review

Media review: Five images:

  • License: PD-self. No reason to doubt it.
  • Quality: Good.
  • License: CC-BY-SA-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Good.
  • File:Kse-2006.jpg: Commons image of Jones and lead guitarist Adam Dutkiewicz in concert.
  • License: CC-BY-SA-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Poor. The security guard is better lit than the lead singer. The article includes two superior images of Jones and two superior images of Dutkiewicz. This is the sort of image that belongs in a Wikipedia article only if there is no comparably informative image, free or fair use, available. It should be removed from this Featured Article candidate.
  • License: CC-SA-3.0. Well evidenced.
  • Quality: Acceptable...just barely. Shows backdrop with logo and relatively spare stage setup. Image size already set--would probably be more satisfying if set larger.
  • License: CC-BY-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Good.

No audio samples. What? Really? Please provide one or two samples typical of their metalcore style so as to significantly increase readers' understanding of what the band sounds like. Perhaps one with Jones and one with original lead singer Jesse Leach.—DCGeist (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed crappy image and added media files. The only reason why I had that image was because it was the oldest image that I could find (that could be on wikipedia) where you can see the band, as opposed to the band's crowd. Can you check the media that I uploaded? It was the first time I uploaded a sound clip, and I don't think that an acceptable source would be "My music library." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work. I think the article looks much better with that image removed. And very well done with your sound samples. Yes, you do need to correct the "Source" information in the rationales. What we want there is the name of the respective source album and the name of the copyright holder (Roadrunner Records). It's also good to identify the songwriter(s)—you can add that information to the "Author" field. I'm afraid there's one other issue here, which applies to almost all sound samples: Per our rules, "Samples must be of reduced quality from the original. A Vorbis quality setting of 0 (roughly 64kbps) is usually sufficient." (In practice, the 0 setting will produce an output of anywhere from 58 to 74 kbps—that's the customary target range.) At 158 and 139 kbps, these samples are probably of too high fidelity. Can you rerecord?—DCGeist (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Given the density of the music and the style of the mix, the lower fidelity version really doesn't do a fair job of representing the sound. Vorbis quality 0 is "usually sufficient", but not always. This is such a case. Again, for the rationales: "Source"--add the title of the album, or whatever was the direct source of the sound sample. "Author"--it's good to list the band members and their instruments; it's better to name the songwriters--that's part of how songs are professionally credited. (Of course, it's possible that Killswitch Engage as a whole gets the songwriting credit. Is that the case?) Here's a couple good examples in different styles (the producer credit in the first, again, is nice but less important): File:Iwanttoholdyourhandsample.ogg, File:Ramones-Blitzkrieg Bop.ogg.—DCGeist (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I revert to the old version then? I added the producer (the guitarist in both cases). I don't know the exact songwriters for "My Curse" since I only have the CDs (no linear notes), but in their live DVD, on the cover they give credit to all the members for writing the songs. Thus, "My Last Serenade" has the 100% accurate songwriters, but "My Curse" I would have to make an educated guess for. If really necessary, I could run to a store this weekend and see if I can pick up another copy though. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you don't need to do that. You've put in a good faith effort and, at this point, your sample descriptions are already substantially more informative than those accompanying many currently Featured Articles. As for the samples themselves, I believe the old versions stretch but don't break the bounds of our policy, while the new versions are simply inadequate. I want to tell you to aim for a midpoint in between the old and new versions--high enough fidelity for a fair representation, but low enough to respect the spirit of our policy...but as this is subjective territory, it's your call.—DCGeist (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomorrow I'll set up a new version, maybe around 76kbps to see if that'll do it. If not, I'll just revert to the first version. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-fixed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Former members need a source. There is a claim of a former member Pete Cortese, but this is not referenced in the current article. If that former member is correct then I'm also surprised the article does not at least mention all the bands former members in the prose. It seems incomplete in this regards so maybe this article is vandalised or something I don't understand. SunCreator (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he was just a session guitar player on a couple albums, and can't find any songs credited to him, so I removed his name. Also added cite for Phil Labonte earlier in the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Clicking play to listen to music sample causes browser to make page wider. Can this be sorted, I'm using Firefox 3.5. SunCreator (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does this for all audio samples that are aligned on the right, a MW problem. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have amended music sample from using {{listen}} to {{listen300}}, this is browser compatibile. If this is not suitable please revert and let me know why on my talk page. Thanks. SunCreator (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

RB88 (T) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • done Removed now dead link, removed first cite. The information in the first cite was removed, it didn't have much to do with the band, just saying that a similarly named band was unrelated to this band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose. That said, I am happy to support once the prose issues are fixed, and they should be relatively easy to fix. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source check looks good.
I had a question about Blabbermouth's fairness, but not its reliability. Based on how the site is used, it looks okay.
Images
I'm okay with images based on the current review. If that review change, or new issues arise,....
Prose needs work
lead: this lead is short and says nothing about the clean style, or whatever elements make their metalcore different from other metalcore. You go into that later, so it needs at least a mention -- sentence or two -- here. Also, I think you could summarize the staffing problems in some way: The band's membership has changed in the decade since its founding as illness, changes in life-situation, and new interests have drawn the men in different directions.
First paragraph, first section: this is only 4 sentences, and they are confusing. As I understand what you've written, you're saying: In 1998, the band Overcast and Aftershock broke up. Overcast bassist Mike D'Antonio and Aftershock guitarist Adam Dutkiewicz jammed together, and Tukiewicz recruited another Aftershock guitarist, Joel Stroetzel, and the vocalist Jesse Leach of Nothing Stays Gold to join their jamming sessions.  ??? What kinds of bands were Overcst and Aftershock? Were Adam and Mike long-term friends? rivals? long-time metalcore players? Had they started professional life in other kinds of bands?
The you go directly from jamming to the naming of the band. Obviously somewhere in here they decided to formalize their jamming sessions into a band, and then name the band. Did they find their distinctive style during these sessions? We need to know something about the decision to create a new band. Then tell us about the naming.

:Confusion: signed to label, self-titled, etc. What a subheading!! The first paragraph is also confusing. How about something like:

The band released its debut album, Killswitch Engage, in 2000. Although the album was neither a financial nor critical success, it attracted the interest of Carl Severson, who worked at Roadrunner Records at the time. Severson handed Killswitch Engage to several Roadrunner representatives. Mike Gitter, a Roadrunner A&R, attended several of the band's performances and offered the band a recording contract with Roadrunner. Realizing Roadrunner had the resources to promote and distribute Killswitch Engage releases, the band accepted his offer, declining several offers from smaller labels.
...Alive or just breathing took its name from the song, Just Barely Breathing...next sentence is beautiful,probably the best-written one in the article...then the sentence with this in it: ,which was written and recorded for two guitarists,. .... what was? The album's release? I don't understand this. The we have a staff change. Then we have a review of the album.
Then you discuss another staff change. (I suggest putting the earlier one here). It's unclear what the cause of this was. He got married, so he was depressed????? Do you really mean to relate his depression to his marriage? And why was he screaming? I gather this is a metal feature, but this needs to be clearer.
overall, I think this could go through a really good copy edit, so that your text says what you mean. Right now I'm just guessing at a lot of it, and, although I know nothing about metalcore, it should be relatively clear to me what the article means, even if I'm not a follower. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made some prose changes. Thank you for taking the time to look at the prose! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fairness of blabbermouth (you didn't elaborate much), it is hosted on roadrunnerrecords servers (the band's label) but is completely fair, see Blabbermouth. Just if you were wondering. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I realized that it was connected to Roadrunner. That's why I was concerned about its potential partisanship.
what does this mean: The band's name originated from the break-up of Overcast and Aftershock, using aspects that pushed and elevated the band and putting the combination into a new category.
I've corrected a couple of grammatical and punctuation errors, and attempted to fix a flagrant jargon-ism. (the record did not chart). Keep working on the problems. Looks much better already. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add that, and it was too ambiguous for me to decode. Removed it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 27 February 2010 [12].

The Chinese Restaurant[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is now ready for FAC. The biggest concern of the previous FAC was the lack of a "Themes" section wich is now in the article (thanks to Awadewit). All previous concerns are fixed.--Music26/11 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that I recommended to Music2611 that the "Themes" section be copyedited before this article was nominated (see Talk:The Chinese Restaurant#Themes section. It still needs some work. Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's true, you shouldn't blame her if you think it isn't up to quality.--Music26/11 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links, external links and alt text okay. Ucucha 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: One image. Alt text good.

  • License: CC 2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Acceptable.
  • Usage: Inappropriate. Usage is usually not a concern with free media, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article on a television episode to be illustrated with an image of an actor who does not appear in the episode (it's a quirky idea worthy of Seinfeld, but not Wikipedia, I'm afraid). Apparently the entire episode, or virtually all of it, takes place at a Chinese restaurant—not one of the show's standard sets. It would aid the reader's understanding of the episode substantially if the article included a screenshot illustrating that set and—to the degree possible—the lead characters' primary relation to it.—DCGeist (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to second DCGeist's comment about that image. The article needs images, but this one isn't appropriate. Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the image for now, but I'm not sure if an image of the set would fit within Wikipedia's non-free image criteria, as there is barely any info regarding the set in relation to the characters or any information on the set for that matter.--Music26/11 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, great article, made me wanna re-watch the episode. I noticed that the plot sections says that Elaine approaches "an elderly couple". But there were three couples at the table (totally six persons). P. S. Burton (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I did last time and is more polished. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Due to "The Chinese Restaurant"'s lack of storyline — is that "' correct? I remember reading somewhere that one should never turn a quoted phrase or title into a possessive.
  • Is it really necessary to specify that the characters are using US dollars? I think anyone who's interested in the article would already know that Seinfeld is an American show. (And if they don't, they can click on the link to the series article.)
  • I removed the US before every $ sign, I left the link though, just in case.--Music26/11 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • George is nervous about his girlfriend Tatiana, whom he left during sexual intercourse as he felt he was "not getting enough space". — I thought he left because he had to go to the bathroom, or something like that. Is "not getting enough space" a quote from the episode?
  • Yes, that's a quote from the episode. He actually said he was going to the bathroom and escaped the house.--Music26/11 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've looked at a few Seinfeld scripts on the internet, and couldn't see that exact phrase. This is what he tells Jerry: "So, we start to fool around, and it's the first time, and it's early in the going. And I begin to perceive this impending... intestinal requirement, whose needs are going to surpass by great lengths anything in the sexual realm. So I know I'm gonna have to stop. And as this is happening I'm thinking, even if I can somehow manage to momentarily... extricate myself from the proceedings and relieve this unstoppable force, I know that that bathroom is not gonna provide me with the privacy that I know I'm going to need... So I finally stop and say, 'Tatiana, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be best if I left.'"
  • Sorry, I was sure it was a quote from the ep. Anyways, I think I misunderstood the dialogue now I read what you've posted. Do you have any suggestion as to how we could re-word it?--Music26/11 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe... "George is nervous about his girlfriend Tatiana. He left her during sexual intercourse because he needed to use a bathroom and thought hers was too close to her bedroom to provide enough privacy." Zagalejo^^^ 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed as suggested (made one sentence of it).--Music26/11 16:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seinfeld also used the replacement discussion the following year when he guest-hosted an episode of NBC's Saturday Night Live. — Do you mean that he used the joke about policemen/garbage? (If so, I would assume he used a modified version of the dialogue, unless he had the entire Seinfeld cast with him on SNL.)
  • Well, I think it could be streamlined a little bit, but I don't know enough details to do it myself. Was this part of his monologue? Zagalejo^^^ 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand your answer... but the source only states that Seinfeld used the monologue when he guest-hosted SNL. It can be removed if it causes too much confusion, as it is a bit trivial.--Music26/11 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm thinking the article could just do without it. Zagalejo^^^ 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relationship between the characters and food is another recurring theme of the series. In Seinfeld, specific food items are associated with individual characters and food itself is a "signifier of social contracts". — This needs some elaboration. How does food serve a as "signifier of social contracts"? Only a couple of specific food items are actually mentioned in the episode.
  • The sentence refers to the role of fruit during the entire series.--Music26/11 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything about fruit in this episode? And I'm still not sure exactly how food "signifies social contracts". That just sounds like English-major-speak. :) Zagalejo^^^ 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Awadewit clear things up for you.--Music26/11 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are all sorts of implied social contracts in this episode - for example, the waiting list and the etiquette that goes along with that in a restaurant. Unfortunately, the source does not expand on these details - the reader has to do it herself. Yes, it is "English-major speak", but it is necessary to include these more sophisticated ideas in TV episode articles. As more scholarship becomes available, we will slowly be able to flesh out the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. But at their core, aren't all sitcoms about implied social contracts, and the things that happen when such expectations are not met? Zagalejo^^^ 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. But what might be surprising to readers is that "the show about nothing" is not precisely about nothing. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, with all due respect, I think the last two sentences of the Themes section will just confuse most readers, rather than teach them anything new. The sentences will just come across as a bunch of buzzwords, and ultimately, I don't think this article should be featured with material like that. I understand that that's largely a result of the source, but if the source's argument is so lightly developed, then maybe that argument is not worth mentioning. Zagalejo^^^ 06:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving out material from published scholars but including material from newspapers is what gives FAs about TV episodes a bad name. For this article to meet the FA criteria regarding "high-quality" sources, it needs to include what is published by scholars. Furthermore, there is no jargon in those sentences. They simply have more sophisticated ideas than some of the other material in the article. One of the reasons this article failed last time was precisely because it was missing this sort of material. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things.
  • 1) Saying that food "signifies social contracts" without providing concrete examples is going to leave readers feeling empty. The fact that Music2611 had to wait for you to explain what the sentence means suggests that others will have difficulties with it.
  • 2) I can only read parts of the "Seinfood" essay on Google Books, but from what I can tell, "The Chinese Restaurant" is only mentioned in a list of episodes with food references in their titles. If that is all there is, then is that essay really worth citing here? The essay would be a good source for "The Couch" or "The Rye", because it does explain the significance of food in those episodes in some detail. But if it only mentions "The Chinese Restaurant" in a list, then we needn't consider it an essential source on that episode.
  • 3) I don't really think the scholars understand the episode any better than the newspaper writers. This isn't The Waste Land. Everyday people are already familiar with restaurant waiting lists. They inherently understand the social dynamics at work; they just may not use the same vocabulary as scholars to describe what is going on. Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say, however, to the above point (and wrt the scholarly works I listed below), that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic ought to inform readers that the episode has been the subject of scrutiny in the scholarly literature, regardless of whether we think their analysis surpasses or not that of your run of the mill TV critic. Eusebeus (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering, have you read all of the sources you listed below? Do any of them actually provide an in-depth analysis of this episode—even a paragraph would do—or do they merely mention the episode in passing? Zagalejo^^^ 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the sources in the article. They just mention the episode in passing, but this is usually how scholarship begins on a topic. First there is no mention in scholarship of the topic, then there are a few passing references, then essays, then books. As Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia, we will reflect those stages. Happily, it is not our job to judge the quality of the scholarship - simply to present it to readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vance Durgin of The Orange County Register praised how the show was able to "wrung" so much comedy "out of a simple premise". — The quoted text doesn't fit within the flow of the sentence: "wrung" is a past-tense verb.
  • Ah, that was simple enough. :) Zagalejo^^^ 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some other minor tweaks to be done; I'll try to make as many of those as I can. Zagalejo^^^ 21:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing I just noticed: David Lavery and Sara Lewis Dunne are presented as the authors of Seinfeld, Masters of Its Domain, but from what I can tell based on a Google Books preview, the book is a collection of essays from many authors. (Lavery and Dunne are the editors, not the only contributors.) Does someone have a copy of the book, so that we can correctly identify the authors of the cited material? Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now). First off, well done to the editors who have worked on this article. However, the article observes in the lede a larger significance for this episode, and cites a TV critic from the Sun Sentinel suggesting it expanded the lexical reach of US sitcoms. Well, that Sun Sentinel dog ain't gonna hunt, not with scholarly sources that cite this episode in particular in conjunction with that idea. Here are four:

  1. R Hurd, Taking Seinfeld Seriously: Modernism in Popular Culture. New Literary History, 2006
  2. D Lavery, SL Dunne, Seinfeld, master of its domain: revisiting television's greatest sitcom (2006)
  3. JE Rapf, Doing Nothing: Harry Langdon and the Performance of Absence, Film Quarterly, 2005.
  4. J Mittell Narrative complexity in contemporary American television, Velvet Light Trap, 2006.

There are probably others, but those were turned up in a quick search. My suggestion would be to beef up the significance of this specific show and drop (or aggressively summarise) some of the more trivial TV critic & production stuff and instead situate this within the larger framework suggested by the sources above (i.e. as an example of modernism, breaking boundaries, moving beyond plot etc...). What were the antecedents for a show about nothing? For an episode that had no narrative arc? etc etc... I'm happy to do a more general evaluation and c/e when this article has garnered more substance. As it stands now, this does not do full justice to its topic. Eusebeus (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would actually be hard to do what you are suggesting in relation to this episode specifically. I spent quite a bit of time looking through the sources to see if a "Themes" section could be created and most of the sources only mention the episode in passing. Lavery and Dunne is already used in the article, but what they say about this episode in particular is very limited. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per last time. Sourcing is fine. Prose is even tighter. Not much more that can be said really. RB88 (T) 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, as I'd like to see the issues resolved before promotion. Steve T • C Edited from "Comments, leaning weak support" 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC) After my first read-through, I was going to offer that weak support, but with some suggestions. However, a more in-depth look revealed too many niggles. Few, if any, would be deal-breakers alone, but taken together they're preventing my support right now. It's not far off, but needs a little more attention. Please feel free to disagree with any of these; I'm completely open to being told I'm wrong:[reply]

Lead
  • Some mild overlinking. An argument could be made for sitcom, maybe, though readers should be expected to know what a protagonist is. I understand the potential difference between the show runner and creator, and why you've linked it, but I think it's unimportant to make the distinction here. Similarly, ask a native English speaker what someone's being the head writer entails and they should be able to tell you. No need to link.
  • "The episode revolves around protagonist Jerry (Jerry Seinfeld) and his friends ... waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant."—isn't "waiting" a gerund here? I know that will look fine to some, but reading it without the possessive on "friends" jars a lot with me (imagine if it said "The episode revolves around me waiting for"—you'd use "my" instead).
  • "Due to the episode's lack of storyline, NBC executives objected to its broadcast, thinking audiences would be uninterested."—as the statement comes before any mention of the show's "about nothing" concept, this might read oddly to some readers unfamiliar with the episode or the show. The episode clearly has a storyline, just not much of one. Then, the statement that NBC objected to the broadcast is slightly misleading. Judging by the article body, NBC initially objected while it was still at the script stage; the wording here makes it seem as if it had already been made. Taking both these issues, the sentence might be better rendered as, "NBC objected to the episode's production, believing its slender storyline would not interest viewers."
  • Is it standard practice in TV episode infoboxes for the episode no. parameter to give the season and the overall episode number? As it stands, going by the infobox alone gives the impression that this episode is the sixteenth of season two, not the eleventh.
Plot
  • Seinfeld and chums are all linked again here; is there any need for it so soon after the links in the lead? At most, perhaps render the opening sentence, sans links, as: "Jerry (Seinfeld), George (Alexander) and Elaine (Louis-Dreyfus) ..." Same goes for the second link to Plan 9.
Production
  • "In an interview for the Seinfeld first and second season DVD box set, [Richards] commented ..."—is there any need to say where Richards said it? We don’t usually have to, unless the information is contentious in some way. I understand you might want to indicate the comments came after the episode's production, but simply saying, "He later commented . .." would probably do it.
  • "David argued that each character had a storyline; Jerry's story was he recognized a woman but did not know from where, Elaine's story was that she was very hungry and George's story was that he was unable to use the phone."—very clumsily rendered, especially "was he recognized". That these are descriptions of the characters' storylines is implicit after the first mention, so it could read, "David argued that each character had a storyline: Jerry recognized a woman but did not know from where, Elaine was very hungry and George was unable to use the phone."
  • " ... Larry Charles suggested Jerry's storyline to be on his way to Plan 9 from Outer Space, and thus placing the episode in 'real time'"—again, that "Jerry's storyline to be on his way" is very jarring. And what does "placing the episode in 'real time'" mean here? That it provided some kind of mild narrative drive? Could be clearer.
  • "When the NBC executives still objected, David threatened to quit the show if the network would force any major changes upon the script."—clumsy. Try, "NBC executives still objected, but David threatened to quit the show if the network forced major changes to the script."
  • "The Chinese Restaurant" was first read by its cast on December 5, 1990."—if you mean "read through" say it; it has a specific meaning, and "first read by its cast" is non-idiomatic for that purpose. Readers could take it to mean (if they don't follow the link) that this was the first time the cast had even seen the script (which would be odd, as one of them co-wrote it).
  • " ... it took roughly half of the time it usually took for an episode to be filmed. Cast members have remarked that the filming was shorter than on any other episode."—I'm not sure the second setence is needed; it basically repeats what the first is saying.
  • "In the original draft, the three friends also discussed how to spend the long waiting period in the future, with George suggesting they bring a deck of cards and that Jerry bring a jigsaw puzzle with nothing but penguins."—"[comma] with [noun]-ing" reads clumsily, and "that Jerry bring a jigsaw puzzle with nothing but penguins" feels disconnected from the rest of the sentence. Does George suggest that Jerry bring the jigsaw? If so, it might read better as, "In the original draft, the three friends discuss how to spend the long waiting period in the future; George suggests they bring a deck of cards, and says Jerry could bring a jigsaw puzzle featuring penguins."
  • "The scene was later included on the Seinfeld seasons one and two DVD boxset"—ambiguous; does it mean that the episode was re-edited to include the scene, or (most likely, I admit) that the DVD included it independently, as an extra?
  • "receives a table without reservation"—implies something different to your intent, I think. Should be "a reservation" or similar, else it's acting as a qualification rather than something booked in advance.
  • "he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at when George, Jerry and Elaine enter"—stray "at".
Themes
  • "The episode is widely considered to encapsulate Seinfeld's "show about nothing" concept, with The Tampa Tribune critic Walt Belcher calling it ..."—again, it feels clumsy to me to use what Tony1 often refers to as "noun-ing", especially when it comes after the "[comma] with", an often ungainly connector. Try, "The episode is widely considered to encapsulate Seinfeld's "show about nothing" concept; The Tampa Tribune critic Walt Belcher called it ..."
Reception
  • "[the episode] expanded the lexicon of the '90s."—I don't know what this means. Well, I know what the words mean, but the quote is presented without context; there's nothing that tells us how the episode did so. Does the source expand on this at all?
  • " ... referring to it 'the very epitome of ...'"—referring to it as?
  • I wouldn't link to Academic grading in the United States; entertainment publications that use similar grading aren't basing it on any strict academic merits; they're doing so because of the familiarity of the concept to most of their readers. If you want to give it context, perhaps instead say they graded it A− on an A+ to F scale (or whatever it is that Entertainment Weekly uses).

And that's all the weather! This might be a long list, but as I say, none of these problems are major, and I'm sure they can be tackled (or successfully rebutted!) in short order. Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Edited 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Can you start the plot section with a sentence that gives a brief overview about the premise of the show? As in, Seinfeld was a popular television situation comedy from 1991 to 1997 (I guessed at those dates) that was initially pitched as "a show about nothing", centering on four friends in New York City and their self-absorbed lives and dysfunctional relationships...or something to that effect.

  • Why did NBC object to the original script?
  • I don't understand this: Vincent Brook, as part of his analysis regarding the influence of Jewish culture on Seinfeld, has said that the episode also conveys the theme of entrapment and confinement in a small space, a recurring theme on the show What does this have to do with being Jewish? How do the writers connect Jewish culture with entrapment and confinement?
  • Watch repetition: Various critics and news sources have praised how the episode defines the show's "show about nothing" concept. This appeared in the preceding section.
  • broke new sitcom ground and expanded the lexicon of the '90s What does this mean? What words or phrases from this show entered our vocabulary?
  • Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 27 February 2010 [13].

Twin Spica[edit]

Nominator(s): Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on a recently licensed Japanese manga series. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article but may warrant further improvements by a larger group of reviewers to meet the brilliant prose criterion. Thanks in advance for your comments. Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB links - no dab links found
ALT text - present and detailed enough
External links - no problems or redirects
--PresN 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As the GA reviewer for this article I can confirm that it meets all the style and layout requirements of WP:MOS-AM. This is well researched and fully referenced. Images all have the proper rationale attached to them. Article doesn't appear excessively bogged down in minor details, but has an appropriate length to cover the topic properly. Only one thing sticks out here, is the red links in the intro and music sections, as well as one in the references, otherwise this looks like a FA to me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments One left for editors.What makes these reliable?

RB88 (T) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICv2is a industry news site used as a source by multiple international publications.[14] Comics reporter is a site by Tom Spurgeon, an industry expert and reviewer for Publishers Weekly, another industry publication/news/review site. The editor for THEM was on G4TV as a guest talking about anime.[15] I can't speak for animealmanac, but the other 3 should satisfy any criteria for expert/reliable sources. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ICv2 page is its own, so less inclined to believe those assertions unless shown in the actual third party sources. The articles in Comic Reporter or THEM are not by the respective editors, but from other writers. The actual websites need to be shown to reliable in this case or an editorial process detailed. RB88 (T) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Here are some materials for your consideration on these sources:
  • I think what he's getting at here is not that this source should be accepted because it's recieved WP:ANIME's "blessing"; but that there's several discussions in the archives of both WP:ANIME and WP:COMICS about this source that we can refer to here. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. I do realize that this is supposed to be an external assessment though, so we shouldn't rely on any particular wikiproject's conventions, rather the FAC and Wikipedia as a whole. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information cited from Anime Almanac are statements by Ed Chavez, an editor and translator of manga and the current marketing director of publishing company Vertical, which licensed the manga that is the subject of this Wikipedia article. No information was included that are opinions of the website's author.
  • I'm leaving this out for editors to decide for themselves. RB88 (T) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the WikiProject's list of online sources again for previous comments on THEM Anime Reviews. The website had also passed review in the successful FA candidacy of Tokyo Mew Mew.
  • We don't tend to proceed by WikiProject source guidelines here. The criteria are much more stringent. I also checked the FAC you mentioned and I don't see the source explicitly being declared reliable by Ealdgyth. Also, people can have differing implicit opinions about it (or even miss it sometimes). A third party reliable source will solve this or a show of its editorial process.
Arsonal (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In January 2005 THEM Anime was described by the defunct Anime Fringe publication as "A great low-frills and old anime review site. Reviews run from light to dark anime titles, and the site contains a separate adult section. T.H.E.M. Anime is a frequent stop for me to get honest and to-the-point opinions."
  • More recent Ain't It Cool News anime/manga related column mentions from time to time a T.H.E.M. Anime review among its "worth checking out" [16][17][18][19].
I think the question isn't whatever the THEM Anime is reliable but why should we give weight to their review in the reception section. --KrebMarkt 08:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they had the most to say about this anime? I don't know though. You're right that it seems a little off to have the first paragraph with 3 sources with 2 sentences each, whereas the second has two sources, THEM getting 4 sentences and Sony getting 1. It would be good to get one more source in the second paragraph and/or reduce the time given to THEM. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to no reliable source critical reception on the anime adaptation of Twin Spica. This is partly due to the fact that it has not been picked up by any major licensors, much to the dismay of fans. The only English dub was done by Animax Asia and ran only once in 2005. There are several recent reviews made, but they have not been deemed as reliable sources. It is, however, getting increasing coverage after Vertical picked up the manga'a license. I have tried my best searching for Japanese language reviews, but none have been substantial enough to really add anything to the section. Arsonal (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the last minute additions and revisions. The 3 newly found references (one from the Mainichi Shimbun and two from the Yomiuri Shimbun) should not be of any doubt whether they meet the guidelines on reliable sources. They also provide more domestic coverage of the subject. Arsonal (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 02:12, 27 February 2010 [20].

Milbanke Sound Group[edit]

Nominator(s): BT (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the text in complete. BT (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work. It should cover the main points of the image, for example where the important islands are located in the first image. The alt text of the second image appears wrong, as the land mass is not entirely surrounded by water. Ucucha 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I made the alt texts clearer. BT (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better now. Thanks! Ucucha 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the prose could use some looking over. After reading the lead, I think parts are a bit wordy. I'd provide more examples but I need to get off the computer. If you could try and use the edits I made as a guide that would probably be helpful. Best, ceranthor 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images appear to comply with policy. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Awickert (talk)

General

  • General: I usually see that articles like this have an ecology section, and this article doesn't. But if there is no info (or people who know more about process think that there is no need), then ignore me here. Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's any human history here, that should be mentioned as well (unless irrelevant to the scope, as per my ecology caveat). Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about the ecology other than what is in the article and there is not much about human history. BT (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then you can probably ignore me on that. Awickert (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tectonic background is probably necessary for sufficient background to be a FA. These volcanoes lie at an interesting spot, around the North end of the Juan de Fuca Plate, so I imagine that there's an interesting tectonic history. The "origins" section approximates this, but could use some more broad-brush information for the interested novice. If you've exhausted your resources, email me and I'll see what I can find. Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A regional map would be nice. Folks like me from the mid-continent can't identify the location based on the zoomed-in images alone. Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a number of things that weren't supported by sources on a brief look-through. The major points seem to be supported, but everything will need to be for this to become a FA. Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is sourced. A lava flow lying on beach deposits would obviously have some kind of interaction with water; when there is a beach there is water. BT (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • Can you specify what type of mature forest? Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The source only uses mature forest. BT (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoes

  • "...basaltic tuff breccia was sent throughout the surrounding landscape that deposited on glaciated granitic rock and unconsolidated beach gravel near the volcano...": I am thoroughly confused here. (1) Tuff is volcanic ash, and is not a breccia unless it later becomes one through sedimentary or deformational processes. (2) "was sent throughout the surrounding landscape" --> would deposited on the surrounding landscape be better? (3) "landscape that deposited" --> you mean the tuff was deposited, clearly. (4) Back to the beginning, tuff usually is rhyolitic in composition; are you sure it was basaltic? I don't currently have access to the source, and don't have time to check it out from the library :-(. If you're not in a hurry, I will have time when I get back in town at the end of the month. But the clock ticks at FAC... Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blocks of basement granodiorite, some up to 2 m (6.6 ft) wide, are randomly suspended within the breccia": this makes sense for a deformational breccia (or a really riproaring sedimentary one), but not for a tuff. So this needs to be clarified. Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

  • The first paragraph is wordy, but the science is good. Thanks to you, I'm learning about this hot spot!
  • As mentioned above, a basic tectonic background (perhaps for another section, touched on in the 2nd paragraph here) is probably necessary to educate those who don't know the regional tectonics or geology. This can be short and heavily wikilinked, but should be here IMO.
Wouldn't a tectonic background be a bit questionable since the origin and relationship of the Milbanke Sound Cones are uncertain? BT (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring

  • This is currently a bit of a smorgasbord and needs to be refined, perhaps into one or two focused paragraphs. These could be (1) local monitoring, and (2) volcanic hazards and broader impacts. Then the section would need to be renamed to "Monitoring and hazards". Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the info in the article is pretty solid (with the tuff/breccia confusion as an exception), but I feel that it needs stylistic work and content expansion (biology/ecology, regional setting, any human history). I'm sorry that I won't be around to help and have to comment and run like this. I will be in touch roughly through Tuesday morning (Americas time). Awickert (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


BT: You just made the age of the Holocene wrong again, and the source for the "erosion" says nothing I can see about it. Please fix. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with it. I gave the wrong source: [21]. In that source it says: Minimal erosion indicates all five volcanoes formed after the last glaciation, so they are probably less than 10,000 years old. BT (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That is not the source that was there; thanks for fixing the reference. Yep - you're right. Awickert (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources look okay. We do rely rather heavily on a handful of references; are there no papers available in volcanology journals, etc? --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't too many volcanological journals. I'll look through Nature and some others for references. ceranthor 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've found only a Science Direct article called "Body-wave tomography of western Canada", but it looks useful. It can be found on Google Scholar, at least an abstract. Perhaps, in addition to the aforementioned suggestions, you should add information about Milbanke Sound? ceranthor 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on sourcing for now. I await response on my query above (and Ceranthor's helpful follow-up remarks) but I'm also troubled by other anomalies:
  • Your first two references are different, but they are represented the same in the References section.
  • I did a random fact check and the source does not support what you've written: "Although not related, the Milbanke Sound Group is close to the remains of a much older magmatic feature that was formed during the Tertiary period." You have that sourced to the Smithsonian page that reads "may be as old as Tertiary". As such, you can't state "was formed during the Tertiary" because your source doesn't definitively state that. More fact-checking should be done to ensure sources have been used properly.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look at the first two references. They are not the same. One is for the subfeatures in the volcanic group and other is the main page about the volcanic group. There are no volcanological sources for these volcanoes because of their poor knowledge and 13 million years ago is the Tertiary period. I'm also done with this candidate anyway so I don't care if it fails or not. BT (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You might inform us that you're withdrawing the article so additional reviewers don't waste their time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:00, 21 February 2010 [22].

Christ myth theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Eugene (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the article has recently been greatly improved in terms of content, formatting, and sourcing, having emerged about a month ago from a nasty edit war. It's stability has been established, it recently obtained GA status, and I feel it can further qualify for FA status. Eugene (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1(d), problems with neutrality. The writers are presenting a POV as fact, and this idea as fringe when it may simply be a minority position. There are two main problems:

    (a) The lead suggests that no one reputable holds that Jesus didn't exist, and this is presented as unassailable without in-text attribution. I checked Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006), and he suggests that a case can in fact be made that he didn't, and has been made, reputably, though it's a minority view. Dawkins is Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, so his views can't be dismissed or ignored, though I realize it's a general-readership book, not an academic work, but even so. He writes: "Much of what they [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testatment, because the gospel-markers were devoutly convinced that the life of Jesus must fulfil Old Testament prophesies. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G.A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist?", p. 97.

    (b) The article needs to make clear, including in the lead, that asserting Jesus existed does not in any sense confirm that the stories told about him are accurate (and I'm not even including the son of god issue; I'm just referring to the various claims about who he and his family were, and the things he did). In other words, the lead seems to set up "he was real" versus "he wasn't real," which is a false dichotomy, or at least a simplistic one, then dismisses the latter without exploring the idea that, even if he existed, it's not clear that any of the claims made about him are true. That is, it's not clear that he existed in any form we would recognize, or that any historians are making that kind of claim. I'll be happy to take another look if these issues can be ironed out, but I think they would involve quite a bit of rewriting to sort out. I'm sorry, I don't like opposing and don't want to be discouraging, but I can't support it in its current form. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the rationale for this oppose vote. Yes, Dawkins (a biologist, who believes Jesus existed) refers to Wells' (a professor of German) work. But so what? The article mentions this, Wells later recanted, and the lead states that specifically "biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive"--which neither of these men are. Considering that you question the WP:FRINGE status of the subject I'm even more shocked. Given your enormous collection of barnstars, SlimVirgin, I hesitate to ask this, but have you even read the footnotes these statements connect to? The fringe nature of the topic is thunderously affirmed by literally dozens of authorities. Please, please reconsider your oppose vote, at least until we can discuss this further. Eugene (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the talk page of the article and there are several people, including editors I respect, saying similar things, and suggesting the page be merged into another one whose name I've forgotten; that is, they seem to be saying it's essentially a POV fork as written. Others are saying you criticize or demolish the ideas before you've fully explained them. I have read the footnotes, yes, but you are allowing these people to be representative of the entirety of academia. And comparing a failure to believe that Jesus existed to flat-earthism or Holocaust denial really is a very extreme position. It needs in-text attribution because Wikipedia needs to distance itself from it. In other words, I think you need to step back and write this from a completely disinterested perspective.

Because I know so little about this, I've asked an editor who I know does have some background in this area to take a look at the article, but he's been busy lately, so I don't know whether he'll have time. I'd certainly be willing to be persuaded by him if I've got it wrong. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering just how many awards you have amassed I've got to believe you are a very competent editor. But when you can look at a list of dozens of quotes establishing the scholarly consensus and outting the Christ myth theory as fringe, but still think the theory isn't really fringe, it raises eyebrows. Considering this, and the fact that your initial "go-to" fact checking source for this article was an atheist polemic written by someone with no background in historical Jesus research, I have to wonder if it is really I that needs to adopt a "disinterested perspective". Sure, Dawkins alludes to the theory (though he himself doesn't believe it); the article already says that in the Pop culture section. He refers to G. A. Wells; the article quotes his work at length and dedicates a lot of space to him personally, despite the fact that he's renounced the theory. Calling the comparisons "extremist" is odd; on what basis have you made this determination? Mark Allen Powell, the chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature's Historical Jesus Division, makes the comparison. Is the SBL "extremist"? Eugene (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly checked the Dawkins as the only book I had to hand that might say whether this is a fringe theory. He seems to think not. You appear to be right that it's a minority theory, but to compare it to Holocaust denial and moon-landing conspiracy theories is quite a leap without careful in-text attribution. That's my concern. This is just one of the issues, by the way. There are some prose and layout issues too, but they'd be easier to fix. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard back from the Wikipedian who I believe knows quite a bit about this. He agrees with you that the idea is fringe, but he won't have time to look at the article for a few days unfortunately. It could be that it just needs to be presented a little differently to make it appear more disinterested. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The last paragraph of the lead seems somewhat sweeping and provocative. "The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it,[51] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship.[42] Some of these specialists have even gone so far as to compare the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism.[55]"

    I think it needs in-text attribution—who is saying it has no supporters, who is highly dismissive, who has called it pseudo-scholarship, who has compared it to flat-earthism etc. As it stands, there's no indication of how eminent or representative these academics are, or whether they're disinterested. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those claims are all supported by citations. Given that this is a WP:FRINGE article we've avoided in-line citations so as to avoid implying that broadly held views are only held by the person mentioned, per the policy guideline. As with the provocative and sweeping statements, the citations included in the footnotes indicate these views are rather widespread. Does this change anything? Eugene (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right; I know nothing about it, and I take your point about not wanting to name the sources in case it sounds as though there aren't many of them. But my reaction as an uninvolved and uninformed editor to that last paragraph is whoa, this can't be compared to flat-earthism. So if someone is making that strong a claim, I think they need to be named. Perhaps you could pick the most eminent of the historians (and the most disinterested i.e. not a Christian), and say "Professor Eminent of Harvard University writes that no mainstream scholar today questions that Jesus, the son of Joseph, lived," or words to that effect, and then if there is such a scholar, name him too and tell us what he says. SlimVirgin TALK contribs
  • The bibliography: is that a list of the books you used as references, or is it a list of recommended further reading?
  • Some image problems:
  • File:Bruno Bauer.jpg, do we have a source showing how old it is?
  • File:Arthur Drews.jpg, that the Library of Congress says no known restrictions doesn't mean there aren't any. We need to know how old, and if after 1923, whether it has been released, or whether the author has been dead long enough.
  • File:Mystery of Christ.jpg, an image being PD in the Ukraine isn't enough, I'm afraid; it must be PD in the U.S., or released in some other way. Or you can claim fair use perhaps.
  • File:Robert M Price headshot.jpg is being used with permission, which isn't allowed. You could write to the author to ask if he agrees to its release under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.
SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography contains all and only those books refered to or cited in the article. Someone is tracking down a more formal permission regarding the Price pic right now. As the US conforms to the "rule of the shorter term", the Ukranian tag would seem to be sufficient for the agitprop. Drews' picture was taken of him as a middle-aged man, which would put the photo prior to 1923, the photographer (Oscar Suck) was referred to as "distinguished" in publications from the late 1880s so he likely didn't make it to 1923, and the Libraby of Congress says it's unaware of copyright restrictions, this doesn't cut it? Bruno Bauer's non-photo graphic portrait depicts him as a young man and thus likely originates in the mid 19th century, that's as close as I can pin it down. Eugene (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. hasn't adopted the rule of the shorter term according to our PD policy: see Wikipedia:PD#Rule_of_the_shorter_term. For Drew and Bauer, you need a publication date. For Price, you need to find out who took the image and ask that person to release it. The person who took the image may not be either of the people who are in it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my regarding the rule of the shorter term. I've cut the agitprop picture pending a better tag. As for the Price photo, I know who owns it and she's given written permission to include it in Wikipedia. Another editor is also currently obtaining more formal Wikipedia style consent at the time. I've added a date to the Drews photo found at a reprint company. And as for Bauer, come on, that picture is so old and has been on Wikimedia Commons for so long I don't see how this is a serious issue. Eugene (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to give a source for the date of the Drews image. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fixed these issues. Eugene (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ucucha 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just noticed this nomination. Eugene is to be highly commended for the immense amount of labor he's put into this article. However, I feel that the article isn't ready for FA status yet (I'm commenting, not "voting", because I've edited the article also). One reason is that the article does not yet give sufficient coverage to some of the theory's proponents--the sections on Bauer and Drews in particular need rewriting and some expansion.

The other issue, which I've complained about some on the article's talk page, is the state of the footnotes. Again, Eugene has put in a lot of work cleaning these up, which is good. But there are an immense number of footnotes, most of which contain extensive quotations, and I think this makes for an article that reads poorly. In the current version, the very first footnote in the article is number 10, which cites footnotes 1-9. So that's 9 citations for the very first sentence. In contrast, footnote no. 11 cites a single source (without quotation) for a single point. The next footnote mark in the article text is number 51, which in turn cites footnotes 12–50. So that's, what, 39 citations for one part of a sentence ("biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it..."). At the end of the same sentence (the last sentence of the lead), we have footnote no. 55, which cites 13 other footnotes. So I think there are at least three issues with the footnotes: 1) overuse of quotations, which can even give the impression that the footnotes are being used as a quotefarm; 2) overcitation for individual claims within the article--surely 39 citations for a single point are excessive; 3) many footnotes are not cited directly but only cited by other footnotes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely sympathetic to your concerns about the number of footnotes. But when an editor as amazingly accomplished as SlimVirgin can read the quotes and come away still uncertain as to the fringiness of the subject, what's the solution? Would fewer notes really help? Or, another possibility, could we submit the article to some higher Wiki authority for an official ruling that the subject qualifies as WP:FRINGE? Eugene (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notes are not the issue. It's the way you've presented the information in the article and in particular in the lead, as I've said several times now. It's the lack of in-text attribution for one thing. Some careful writing might take care of my concerns. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The notes are not the issue." Really? Whatever happened to, "I have read the footnotes, yes, but you are allowing these people to be representative of the entirety of academia." As for in-text attribution, as I've said, special guidelines exist for WP:FRINGE articles which specifically discourage this sort of thing. But I'm flexible, what do you have in mind as an example of "careful writing"? Eugene (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many spelling errors in the quotes: plasible, independant, crucifiction, exicuted, farfetched, historyical. Please correct or mark with "sic". Ucucha 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the spelling error you noted. Eugene (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 20 February 2010 [23].

The Rookie (1990 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... the article has been through a complete redo, and I believe it currently conforms to all the criterea for FA Status. The article contains the following merits:

  • Introduction is strong.
  • Main Image includes WP:ALT text.
  • Plot is in correct format and composition; while being concisely detailed by including all the main characters, but not being too overly detailed.
  • Production and Release sections feature thorough referenced content.
  • Article in general, is well-written. Its readable size is well within kb WP:SIZE requirements. It is grammatically correct with engaging content.
  • The References section is correctly punctuated with Dated info and No dead external links.
  • It has all the necessary External Links without going overboard turning it into a WP:LINKFARM.
  • It is completely Categorized correctly for Police Detective, Buddy Cop, and Los Angeles setting films etc...Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. One dab link, to At the Movies. No dead external links. Please review WP:ALT#Verifiability; alt text should be verifiable for a non-expert who only looks at the image itself, so details that cannot be verified from the image alone should be omitted. Ucucha 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would like to say I'm aware of that dab link. I already tried to fix it, and it doesn't work. The disambiguation page and the actual page to the film have the same internet address. I tried to fix it without success. That external website does not differentiate those links.Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are talking about; there is a link to At the Movies in the article (in the second reference under "Critical reception", to be precise), and you can edit that link. I don't know which of the options on the disambiguation page is correct; you presumably do. Ucucha 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, I believe your mistaken. I think I understand what your saying, but it cannot be done. When you click on the At the Movies link, a page pops up that brings up two movies called the rookie. One from 2002 with dennis quaid and the other from 1990, which is this film. Now what I'm trying to say is, the internet address link for the correct film from 1990, is the same internet address link as that previous page with the two films. I already tried to see if it could be fixed, but it won't work. The website does not provide two seperate links to each of those movies. Oh by the way, as far as the ALT|Text is concerned, do you mean I'm supposed to delete the text which mentions the film credits and Starts December 7th etc... because its not entirely visible? I agree with you its a little hard to see. But if you look closely, you can see it. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about an internal link, aren't we? No, I am referring to the names of the names of the two people whose portraits are in the image (Pulovski and Ackerman, according to the image), and to text like "the title of the film" and "the names of the two lead actors". None of this can be verified from the image alone. Ucucha 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab fixed, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other comments. Significant portions of the article are uncited. References are oddly, though consistently, formatted. Many refs cite IMDb, which is probably not a high-quality reliable source as required by the FA criteria. Ucucha 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best to get this resolved. Thanks for being patient. Ok, yes. On the first issue, we ARE talking about an internal link. This is the external dab link: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=the+rookie

Now, when you click on the link, the disambiguation page pops up. Now, WITHIN that page, if you click on the 'The Rookie 1990' film, check out your address bar. The internet link will not change. It will remain as the following: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=the+rookie

Now, issue number 2, I'm going to need your assistance on fixing that text....lOl....Because I don't want to mess it up. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 fixed the dab issue with this edit. I'll have a look at the alt text. Ucucha 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate it. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 0:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Response Thanks for the Alt|Text. By the way, I'm sorry for the confusion. I understand now what you meant before when you said; internal link. You meant internally within WIKIPEDIA. Before I thought you meant internally with the AT THE MOVIES external website. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 0:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that may have been ambiguous. Alt text should be good now. But please note the other issues I mentioned above. This article is different in many respects from another film article currently at FAC, American Beauty (film), and that one probably rather has what is expected at FAC. Perhaps a peer review would be more appropriate at this time. Ucucha 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I will take that into account; but just commenting on one thing, as far as the IMDb references are concerned, there's only like maybe 5 links out of 32 references. And one of those I also partially referenced with a novel. So it's like 4 IMDb links out of 32. I realize its not the best source, but I worked with what I had. I included many books and a magazine plus external websites as part of my sources. And for instance, in the opening paragraph, I didn't reference the Box Office total, because its already done in the Release section. The Critical Reception and large portions of the Production sections are sourced. But I'll look over the article and see if I can make any minor improvements. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 0:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on 1a. Needs a copyedit. Here are some examples of prose issues that exist throughout the article: Sasata (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Eastwood plays a veteran police officer teamed up with a younger detective played by Sheen (otherwise known as the 'rookie' ), who is intent on taking down a German crime lord in downtown Los Angeles, after his original partner is killed in a shoot-out with a company of sophisticated criminals who collectively specialize in the theft of rare and exotic automobiles." These long run-on sentences are sprinkled throughout and need to be split into more digestible fragments.
  • "During an encounter with Strom and his men, who are loading a semi-trailer truck with stolen cars from a valet parking service, Powell is murdered, and Pulovski, despite efforts to catch the criminals on the highway, which results in multiple car crashes and pile-ups, loses them." Two clauses are sandwiched in between "... and Pulovski ... loses them." leading to temporal and spatial disconnect.
  • "However, Ackerman later notices Loco's car outside their door; a bizarre, light green-colored Lotus which he and Pulovski spotted earlier at a warehouse in which one of Strom's mechanics, Max (David Sherrill), was working on." Another disconnect, and improper semicolon usage.
  • "Strom falls onto a conveyor belt, as Pulovski climbs on, and to avenge Powell and end the homicide spree there, kills him." Per above.
  • "Coordination of the lighting aspects along with the capturing of all other photographic elements in the film were achieved by cinematographer Jack N. Green." "the capturing of" not grammatical. Why "lighting aspects" and not "lighting"? There must be a better way to say "were achieved".
  • quotes should not be introduced by semicolons
Response A portion of what your saying appears to be opinionated and the rest contradictory. There's no english rule that says you can't have a long sentence. I don't believe there is anything incorrect about that. If I was able to break up that first sentence as an example, I might. But I don't think thats possible or necessary. If you want, I can take out the word "aspects". But finding another word for "achieved"? Maybe there is a different word I could use, but what's the difference? There's nothing incorrect about using the word "achieved" to begin with. Oh and by the way, I just did a rough check and there is only somewhere between 4 to 7 sentences in the entire article that are slightly long. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

additional response I did end up fixing some of those long sentences to make it more readable; and did a cleanup of the semicolons. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Hey, nice first effort! I've been sort of following the development of this article as you researched and asked questions; I commend the amount of time you put into figuring out the "rules" here and getting this thing in motion. It ain't easy. Here are some general comments through the "Plot" section; I'll have to come back tomorrow to go through the rest of it.
  • Regarding the number of red links in the article: Are they likely to become articles? For some of them, like a stunt coordinator, I would say no. Those should probably be de-linked.
  • Some items are linked multiple times—as a general rule, you should link the first mention only. For example, Clint Eastwood is linked at least five times.
  • I feel that it's a bit overlinked overall, but this is subjective. Certain common terms like "casino" and "valet parking" really ought not be linked. See WP:LINK for some general advice on the subject.
  • From the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, it's unclear whether Eastwood or Sheen is trying to take down the drug lord. Could you revise the sentence to make it clear? I could find out by reading the Plot section, but why force that exercise?
  • "commanding theatrics" Unsure what this alludes to.
  • "despite efforts to catch the criminals on the highway, which results in multiple car crashes and pile-ups" This seems ungrammatical... it's the "efforts" that "result", correct? So it should be "result" I think.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hello Andy. Thanks for your interest and help. All the corrections have been made. A few notes though; The "commading theatrics" generally refers to the high profile stunts, like when the mercedes flys out the window of the building. Or when the tractor trailer flips over with its automotive cargo on the highway. I could be more precise with that, but those details are already in the Production section. I don't want to add redundant info. As far as taking down the "crime lord", the movie itself doesn't even really clearly state the reason for them doing so. They basically just throw these characters in there to do it. I don't want to delve to deep into that one, making the Intro section oversized. I'm trying to keep it as concise as possible. Originally, there were also many other details that I included such as the deaths of Strom's operatives within the Plot section. But I later edited them out to keep that shorter in length too. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on prose, punctuation, clarity.... But I'm willing to support once the prose is fixed.

CommentsThis is a very good effort to engagingly present an action movie. It is undeniably difficult to do justice in words to the sequences of an action movie, to convey the sheer spectacle of crashes and fights, and not lose the reader in the process. You've made a good start here, and I encourage you to keep working with this article!
It is also an impressive first article, especially on a difficult assignment, so good job! A couple of points: While there is, to be sure, no rule against long sentences in English (I read the above comments), there is a fundamental practical matter of making sure what we write is intelligible. Thus, breaking sentences into digestible portions is important, as is making sure that you've actually said what you mean. I will put some examples on the article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE Hi Ms. Auntieruth55. I've read what you've wrote here and what you posted on the talk page. Here is my response.
  • First of all, with the long sentences, I've made a great effort to clean it up. I broke down a whole bunch of them so as to make it easier to read through.
  • Now as far as what you've written on the talk page is concerned, I can't say that I entirely agree with almost anything you've posted up there. When you mentioned that initial part of the plot; I would say ok, maybe I can take out the term "willingly". Obviously, criminals to bad things willingly. But the rest of what your trying to do is reword a paragraph saying the same exact thing in a different way. Your new version of that paragraph sounds almost entirely as whats already printed there. Its as if you have a thesaurus by your side figuring out ways to say the same things using different words. And by the way, contradicting what you said, you mention Strom loads a trailer "with stolen cars". Well obviously, what else would a chop-shop operator fill a tractor trailer with? Brand new cars that he legally purchased? I'd also like to point out, the new wording you used is also incorrect for this section. The point of that sentence is not to inform the reader that Strom littered a highway with wrecked luxury vehicles. Thats completely unecessary detail. The point is to tell the reader that after a criminal pursuit, Strom got away. What your trying to do, makes little sense.
  • Next up, critical reception. The way I have it, is organized and the way you want it. The paragraph deals with the negative feedback and the next one deals with the positive reviews. Its very orderly. I don't see what the issue is.
  • As far as the stunts category, the beginning paragraphs deal with identifying the film crew and interviews with the actors. The last paragraphs deal with the hardware (namely the automobiles). I can look into consolidating it, but there's really no need.
  • As far as the Eastwood deal, when its written under his instruction; its meant to convey his directing of the film in relation to the actors working with him. I don't see any confusion.
  • Now as far as the details in the Plot are concerned, you appear to be way off. Its not necessary for me to list every minute iota detail in the film for this section. I left out numerous details on purpose, because its meant to be not overly detailed and concise as possible. I know there are a million other details in the film which are not printed here. I left them out intentionally. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 3:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Mike, thanks for your response. This article, while better than the January submission, is still in need of major work. I suggest you take it back to the project and get some assistance, especially since you don't apparently see any way of incorporating my comments, and those made by Andy. If you don't wish to ask for help at the Film Project, there are many well-done film articles and they can offer you a model. While this is a good start, it's not ready for FA yet, even if you have done a lot of work on it. An example might be Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, which is presently also an FA candidate.

Oppose reiterated based on (1) punctuation, (2) grammar and (3) prose issues, specifically, clarity and readability.
Withdraw based on readiness. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some content issues.
  1. the female-on-male rape scene, which attracted a lot of comment, is mentioned in the lead, briefly in the critical reception, but not in the plot summary, and it deserves greater coverage in the critique section.
  2. the release is mentioned in the lead, and there is a section called release, but it focuses on critical reception and the release of the DVD/video, not the movie itself.
  3. critical reception organization. I also think the critical reception section needs a better organization beyond listing the reviewers who were for and against, even if they are organized into two paragraphs. Most of the negative reception cited the lack of plot, and the sketchy character development, and most of the positive reception focused on the stunts and action sequences.
The article is considerably better than the previous version brought to FAC in January 2010. I've brought up the questions I have, some here, and the specific ones on the talk page, and the editor does not wish to address them. This needs to go back to the project for work; I might assess this as a B, but it is not ready for FA yet. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be withdrawn until you've resolved the issues with the article. I do realize you've dealt with some of the comments, but there are many problems with this article that should prevent it from reaching FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NEW RESPONSE Hello. Well, I'd like to say "on the contrary". I instituted all of the corrections recommended by Andy, Mr Sasata and "One" of your corrections which you suggested. Perhaps you missed some of my previous responses in relation to Andy's comments. Now here is my response to your most recent comment.
  • I disagree with you 100% on the rape scene. It does not need to be mentioned. Its a detail that the reader need not be aware of to understand the storyline of the film. Same thing goes for the party scene for David's mother, and the burning down of the bar scene. They just make the plot Overly Detailed. If you never saw this film, everything you need to know about the plot is correctly inserted there in that paragraph.
  • The release part in the lead section of the first paragraph is just meant to enhance the content of that particular paragraph. Its inserted figuratively. Its not meant as a detailed play by play box office performance chart. That complaint is trivial at best. Now as far as the actual Release Section; whats the problem? There are 2 separate sub-sections. One that deals with the Box office performance and one that deals with the DVD and home video release. I failed to understand what that nitpick is about.
  • As far as the critical reception is concerned, take my word for it; there are not too many positive reviews surrounding the character development, acting or plot greatness. I researched dozens of sources, but most of the positive reviews Do seem to center around the production values of the film. I can't help out on that merit.
  • I do appreciate your comments and opinions. I didn't mean to be rude by implying that you don't know what your talking about. You have certain opinions, and I respect them completely. But I've seen countless FA Film articles that conform to similar standards. (Especially for the Plot section). The Plot section is complete, concise, precise and to the point. All irrelevant details should be omitted. The rape scene is not an integral part of the story. Its a minor detail of the story. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on comprehensiveness - the article does not have sections on the film's themes or style. See American Beauty (film) for the kinds of sections that are missing. While there might not be the same amount of material published on this film, you can use the film reviews to create these sections. Film reviewers discuss themes and style. Awadewit (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Well I'm not sure if every FA Film article has those two sections. As far as being comprehensive, please be aware as you mentioned, the film does not have readily available information on the same level as Avatar or The Dark Night. Remember, this film came out almost 20 years ago. The internet didn't even exist at that time. I tried to reference as many books and other types of references like that to make the page complete. The critical reception section is fairly comprehensive. Also, a large article is always in need of trimming as you pointed out with American Beauty. Please view the following two examples of FA Articles which are similar in content to this article: Dog Day Afternoon, November...............Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if other film FAs don't have those sections - they should. You will not convince me that this article is adequate by pointing to inadequate articles. Whether or not the internet existed, film reviews existed (I was alive, I read them) and those reviews covered central elements of film, like themes. An article on a film must cover the themes of the film to be comprehensive. Awadewit (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Newer Response Ok, well I have a few of things to say on that. First, if you notice the theme on this film, its what you would call a typical hollywood style no-brainer. There's a bunch of bad guys who do bad things and kill people and then, the good guys come in kill the bad guys. Numerous notable critics have basically alluded to this film in such a way. Roger Ebert in a sense almost called the film basically dumb. I don't believe this film warrants such an thought comprehensive section. Perhaps a more complex emotional movie like American Beauty does, but not this one. Now as far as taking some of it from the Reviews Section, I could, but maybe it would be sort of redundant in nature. The article is essentially neatly consolidated. And lastly, when you say Inadequate Articles, those two articles are FA Status. I didn't give you two amateur failure articles. Give this article a chance on its merits. Even a newer FA Article like Alien vs Predator is not that far off from this one. The opening paragraph, Plot section and Reviews are similar to this article. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All films have themes, even if those themes are boring or hackneyed in the eyes of the reviewer. That does not mean we should avoid talking about that in the article. I am not asking the article to be redundant - I am asking you to carefully sort out what the reviewers said about themes and style and place it in different sections, as is appropriate for a piece of art. Furthermore, just because something is featured does not mean it cannot be improved. Finally, I would like to point out that academics and film scholars have long ago dispensed with the distinction between "complex" and "simplistic" or "high culture" and "low culture" movies that you are espousing here. If we want Wikipedia to reflect how film is discussed in the best sources, we need to adopt their attitude. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE lOl......Ok, I'll see what I can do. I'll try to tweak it. Can I just ask you one quick question? .......I worked hard on this article. What do you really think of it? Is it close to being a winner? Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 1 image, marked as Fair-use. It has all of the standard template jargon that is used wiki-wide for movie posters in the main infobox, so it's fine. --PresN 05:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I copy-edited the lead a little, but couldn't work out what this sentence was saying: "The film ... is also the last motion picture thus far, in which Eastwood plays the character of a police officer following the completion of the Dirty Harry film series during the 1980s." SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response for SlimVirgin I ended up fixing that sentence. I took out the words thus far. I admit, it didn't sound correct earlier. It should be good now. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm still not entirely sure what it says. Does it mean he hasn't played a cop since this one? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Answer Yes, thats exactly what it means. This was the last film in which he played the character of a police officer. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: The problem with this nomination is that the nominator has, it seems, too great an emotional commitment to his creation. This is evident from the overblown nom statement, but most particularly from the responses to reviewers (generally, outright rejection followed by grudging concessions). Instead of treating reviewers as enemies, why not harness their obvious goodwill as expressed on this page, and work with them to produce a quality featured article? Frankly, I don't think the article is close at this stage (I concur with AuntieRuth - at best a B). Its most obvious faults, still, are prose quality and lack of comprehensiveness. I don't believe that these can, or should, be remedied during the timescale of a FAC candidature, and I strongly advise withdrawal, followed by a detailed peer review before any subsequent renomination. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Haha haha Hah HA Hah HA...............Well, Mr. Boulton, thanks for being pro-active with the criticism. Let me give you my side of the story. This article is not My Creation in any way. Somebody else created it a long time ago. I just perfected it. I am a fan of the movie, but nothing more. I also never treated any of the reviewers as enemies. I applauded their comments and made all of their corrections willingly. Now as far as Auntieruth is concerned, I didn't agree with almost any of those suggestions and thoroughly explained my reasons. And as far as my overblown statement, it was proper. I felt it necessary to emphasize the article on its merits. Yeah, perhaps I could have just written down, "I'm nominating this article because it's good". But then I would have a whole bunch of people on my case for that statement alone. I think no matter how hard I try to improve this article, it'll never be satisfactory. You guys nitpick on everything under the sun. So I'll reiterate my Support for this article. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian is right, though, Mike, that the writing needs to be improved. I agree with you about long sentences. I like them too. But the longer a sentence is, the greater the chance you'll lose the structure of it, and thereby lose your reader, so you need to be especially careful that the grammar is good and clear. I'd like to copy edit it, but I haven't seen the film and some of the sentences are not clear enough on their own. Just to take one example, "Pulovski tracks down a man working for Strom named Morales (Tony Plana), whom he forces to cooperate. Morales, under Pulovski's instructions, manages to plant a two-way radio inside Strom's house, but is murdered in the process due to Strom feeling pressured by the actions of one of his operatives named Little Felix (Paul Ben-Victor), who is also secretly working as an informant for Pulovski." Morales is murdered while planting the device because Strom feels pressured by the actions of someone else. He's not murdered because he's bugging the house. So why is he murdered? Is he murdered by Strom? And how does Little Felix fit in?

My advice is that you go through the article and try to read it as though (a) you've never read it before, and (b) you've never see the film. It's hard to do that, because it means you have to think yourself out of your own context (out of your own mind, as it were), but if you can manage it, you should end up with a clearer text. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Hey.... Ok, let me explain. First, with the long sentences; you might have missed my earlier comments, but I corrected almost all of them. I broke down a whole bunch of sentences that were deemed too long. If I missed one, please let me know. Now as far as a copy-edit is concerned, that would sound great if you'd like to do that. I encourage you to rent the film for two reasons. Number one, to do the copy-edit; and Number 2, because its a good movie.....lOl......Now getting to the Plot section, believe it or not, I thoroughly explained that piece of information with Little Felix in the past. However, at some point I believe I deleted the info because I thought the Plot section was getting a little too Over-detailed. Since you bring this issue up, I will re-insert those details to help you and other readers understand how that sentence fits in with the rest of the story. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawal. Mike, your enthusiasm for improving this article is a pleasure to see (I'm sorry if that comes across as patronising—it's sincerely meant). However, I concur with other reviewers who believe it isn't ready. I think the problem you're seeing with comprehensiveness can be traced back to your comment that "The internet didn't even exist [when the film was made]". For this article, most of your sources have been retrieved through online searches. The sources that would make this article are almost certainly not going to be retrieved online; many will be newspaper articles, journal articles and maybe books that haven't been archived online at places like Google Books. Even for a 10-year-old film like the aforementioned American Beauty, I couldn't rely on Internet sources; in one case, I even had to write to the author of one of the articles I'm citing to see if he'd send me a copy (he did). If you're lucky, the DVD might have useful information, such as making-of featurettes, actor interviews, production notes or director commentary. If those exist, they wouldn't be enough for a comprehensive treatment, but might give you enough to take the article to GA (don't quote me on this; I'm less familiar with the GA criteria). In the meantime, I'm going to reiterate my previous advice: once you've expanded the article further, rather than bring it right back to FAC, it would be a good idea to go to the lower-pressure zone of Peer Review; if you drop a note at WT:FILM at the same time, inviting comments, I'm sure you'll get some constructive feedback. Should The Rookie instead appear again at FAC—which by design is more confrontational—you may land on different reviewers who might be less likely to offer as much support and advice as you've seen this time around. And I really don't want to see you become disenchanted with editing because of it. This is a fine first effort, but I wouldn't be doing the authors of the other potential-FAs here any justice if I lent my support. All the best, Steve T • C 11:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response .........lOl.....Hello Steve. I see you've picked the opportune time to make your comment. Well, first let me say that I don't think you would be doing an injustice by supporting this article. In its current state, its stands up pretty well on its own two legs. I made numerous changes cleaning it up and improving it in the last few days. I'm not sure if I have the resources or time to do more comprehensive research at a library. I'll need a collaborator to help me with that. I mentioned a different film before that I was looking at which achieved FA status not too long ago called Alien vs Predator. It was certified FA about 6 months ago and seems close to in composition and content to this article. And guess what, the Main Image for that film doesn't even include alt text! Did you support that article for FA Status? And if you did, do you regret it? Judging by the amount of time this article has been in the FA queue without getting deleted, says alot. This article even got a Grade B from a few experts that made comments here. .....lOl....We'll see what happens. I'm almost out of gas, but I think I have enough to make it to the station. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike. No, I didn't review Alien vs. Predator at the time. Alt text wasn't an FA requirement back then, but it shouldn't be too difficult to add it if you want to make the suggestion on the article's talk page. Looking at that article, it is light, only longer than this one by about 1000 words. However, although your reaction and box office bits cover the bases, AvP does give a more ... rounded treatment of the film's production than we see here—development, casting, design, etc. The production information for The Rookie consists of two paragraphs—one of which is uncited. You'll also note that even for AvP, a film released in 2004, the authors didn't rely on web sources alone. Still, it doesn't look like I'm going to dissuade you, so all I can do at this stage is wish you luck. All the best, Steve T • C 16:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Thanks for the encouragement Steve. If this one is headed for the so-called woodshed, I guess I can't do much about. At least not in the appropriate time frame. But thanks for heads-up with the uncited section. Later tonight, I'll go over the DVD to produce a reference list for those sentences. By the way, the DVD does not contain any commentary or production stills as additions to the movie. I tried looking for that before. I just forgot to mention it in the previous response. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NEW CHANGES I made some major changes on the page. I added some more references, and did a cleanup on the format of the links. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 20 February 2010 [24].

Hong Kong[edit]

Nominator(s): Toutvientapoint (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria.Toutvientapoint (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The instructions of the featured article candidates process require that major contributors to an article be consulted before the article is nominated here. In this case, have major contributors such as Ohconfucius and HongQiGong (as listed here) been consulted? Ucucha 11:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the links to the right, the article has several links to disambiguation pages, dead external links, and images without alt text. Ucucha 11:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose on images. Pretty sure File:Japanese troops enter Hong Kong.jpg isn't PD (for these reasons). Fairly safe to assume File:Kellet Island and Victoria City.jpg is old enough, images of art and buildings are fine because Hong Kong has freedom of panorama and the others seem okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offending image has been removed.[25] But I can't guarantee that somebody else will not insist on adding it back during this FAC. A lot of people edit this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on alt text and HTML:

Eubulides (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Oppose re clarity and coverage, particularly in the early sections.

(BTW, Template (or whatever) There is something hinky about the templates etc for this, because the article page doesn't include a link to here. I don't know why that happened or how to fix it.)
Fixed. There was no {{FAC}} template on the talk page. Ucucha 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of my problems with the articles are in the initial sections on history, and early British rule, mainly that its coverage is slanted and spotty. I realize that there is another article on the history of Hong Kong.
  • Missing content? "Hong Kong began as a coastal island geographically located in southern China.
Well, if it's geographically located in China, it's not an island. Perhaps it is an island in the South China Sea? From your map it looks like it is not an island, but a peninsula. This needs explanation. Is the entire thing separated from the mainland? Although you answer this later, under geography, perhaps this section should go here, or at least part of it. OR, perhaps include a geography summary in your lead, so that you at least establish that it is an Island in the South China Sea.
clarity While pockets of settlements had taken place in the Hong Kong region, with archaeological findings dating back thousands of years, regularly written records were not made until the engagement of Imperial China and the British colony in the territory. "
I have no idea what this means, and what I do gather from it raises POV issues. What are pockets of settlements? Do you mean small settlements? Localized settlements? Small settlements with localized influence and trading? What is a regularly written record? Does a territory acquire a regularly written record only after British rule? (NPOV?) Or did the written record appear with Imperial Chinese rule? What is the engagement of Imperial China and the British colony in the territory? Were there people there before the British? (sounds like yes). Is the engagement of Imperial China and the British colony the relationship between Imperial China and the British colony? Do we know what the Portuguese found there? What were they doing there anyway? How did the region become incorporated into the world wide trading network? (because this is why it became so important...)

This content also relates with this in the following section:

"Human settlement in the area now known as Hong Kong dates back to the late Paleolithic and early Neolithic era,[24] but the name Hong Kong (香港) did not appear on written record until the Treaty of Nanking of 1842.[25] That is a loonnnnnggggg time between the Nelithic and 1842. Don't we know anything, even in summary, about what happened in between? You refer to it in the previous section, but perhaps it should be better explained there, and omitted in this section.
incomplete coverage It became a colony after the Opium War. You have a single sentence on this, and it deserves some more.
clarity There are several bits of prose I don't understand. The British introduced an education system based on their own model, while the local Chinese population had little contact with the European community of wealthy tai-pans settled near Victoria Peak.[28] Was the Brit education system only for Brits, or did it include everyone. Did it further isolate the Brits from the local population? what is a tai pan? do I have to click on the link to find out, or could you just add a word or two?
Awkward Hong Kong Island became occupied by British forces in 1841, and was formally ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Nanking at the end of the war.  :: The British occupied Hong Kong Island in 1841, Imperial China formally ceded the Island in 1841, under the Treaty of Nanking.

Etc. Later sections of the article are better, but I find the coverage in the early sections very scanty and slanted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 20 February 2010 [26].

Tillson Harrison[edit]

Nominator(s): JulieSpaulding 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been expanded to the extent of the information available on this person - well, at least what Wikipedia editors have access to, anyway! The article is an interesting read, so even if you don't want to contribute to the discussion here, it's worthwhile taking a look for your own interest. It is well-written, and the text has gone through two sets of meticulous copy-editing from two different editors, at GA nominations and peer review. The article's subject has had little written about him, so research has been difficult, and all sources have been exhausted to the point that not much more information can be garnered from them! I would say that this article is as comprehensive as it could ever be with the sources available to us. Of course, if some big discovery occurs to change this, well, that's a different matter :) JulieSpaulding 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image and technical review No dabs, all links live, alt text present, the sole image is appropriately licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Great read so far.

  • "After World War I, Harrison traveled throughout the Middle East, treating venereal disease and operating an X-ray facility in Lod, Israel." Some of the links in this sentence are of low value; is there anything in the World War I or Middle East that readers don't already know and need to know to aid their understanding of this article? This is especially important because there are two "good" links in there: venereal disease and Lod, Israel. Personally, I would remove the link to X-ray too but I'll leave it up to you. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War Two" "Two" is usually in Roman numerals here, isn't it? Anyway, it's inconsistent with the rest of the article. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the penultimate sentence of the lead; the matter-of-factness of it adds a bit of humor that really lightens up the article. One niggling issue, though: "six different languages"—is "different" necessary? Consider that the opposite doesn't make sense (six identical languages?), I think you can do away with that word. I notice the same issue earlier in the lead ("fifteen different countries"). JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His daughter Rosalind considered his life to be the model for the film character Indiana Jones." I couldn't figure out why this was worth mentioning in the lead until I read the last paragraph: "This, she claims, became the inspiration..." "considers" and "claims" have different connotations; the former is soft, like a pipe dream, while the former is much bolder. I think if you could add a mention of Rosalind's contact with Lucas and Spielberg to the lead and explain the link between her father's life and the movie a little more, this factoid would seem much less trivial. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bit of overlinking of common terms throughout the article: lawyer, postmaster, World War I, France, Mexico, prostitutes, frostbite, etc. Do a careful link audit of the article. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Never content" I found this phrase a bit vague; with what was was he discontented (job, himself, family)? JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "titled Cesarean Section Under Difficulties" I think article titles are in quotes, not italics. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without divorcing his first wife Sybil" We've already been told his first wife's name. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was from the lead and first section. There are a few rough edges that could benefit from a proficient (read: not me) copy-editor, but this article seems pretty good so far. The subject is definitely not your average physician! Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Dabomb. I have implemented them, and the article looks even better! Of course, I would welcome any further suggestions. JulieSpaulding 11:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I'll try to return with more later in the week. One note: please don't strike my comments; per WP:FAC instructions, "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary." Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies! I think my idea from that was from the FAC instruction to not include templates such as 'done' or 'not done' on this page due to a template limit. Maybe I misread it, but I thought the solution was to strike comments - at first I thought that there was conflict between that instruction and the talk page guidelines. No matter... I must have misread something somewhere along the line! Sorry about that! JulieSpaulding 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During their honeymoon, the couple's train was " Dangling modifier problem; I don't think the train was on a honeymoon.
  • Inconsistencies in writing numbers over ten; sometimes you spell them out ("twenty stations") and other times you write it in figures (fifty tonnes).
  • "sent a letter to the Chinese ambassador with Harrison as the subject to mark the centenary of his birth" A bit awkward; not sure what "with Harrison as the subject" means.
  • "successful Indiana Jones film series" Shouldn't "Indiana Jones" be capitalized?
  • "However, at that time, it was not made clear that Harrison had falsified his age when enlisting in the UNRRA, and the celebrations took place seven years after the actual centenary." I don't see this fact in the source.
  • In the references, "The Canadian Encyclopedia" needs to be italicized because it is a publication. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done except for the second last one (about the centenary fact in the source). The fact is indeed in the source: "Interestingly enough, owing to Harrison's previous misrepresentation of his date of birth, the centenary was celebrated seven years after the proper date." Arctic Night 10:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with COI - I did the GA for this. A good first attempt at FA. I'd normally wait for other comments before supporting, but wikibreak coming up, so off the fence (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for your comment. I would say that this source is reliable because the publisher is the local government. Considering the same local government (Oxford County, Ontario, just in case you didn't know) is one of the overseers of Annandale National Historic Site, the original source of information for most of the other sources cited in the Tillson Harrison article, I would say that it is pretty reliable. I know I didn't explain that very well: to make it clearer, I think the source is reliable because the publisher is: a) a government, and b) oversees the Annandale National Historic Site, the premier source of information on Harrison and his family. JulieSpaulding 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this source is acceptable per Julie's reasoning; in any case, most of the facts this source references is supported by other sources as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. That alt text "Young man in suit and tie" is pretty generic. Can you modify it to describe a bit of the man's appearance for the benefit of the user who can't see the picture? See WP:ALT#Portraits for advice and examples. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the alt text and it should appear better now. JulieSpaulding 10:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have resolved this. After much searching, I realised that PD-1996 applied: the work was out of copyright in Canada in 1996, and thus copyright was not restored by the URAA. Arctic Night 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a lot of repetition of his name. I've removed some of it, but there's a fair bit left e.g. "After his graduation from medical school in 1907, Harrison gained employment with the Hudson's Bay Company and began treating the Cree community of Alberta and acting as the local postmaster.[3] Soon after, Harrison again moved his family to Washington, Idaho and finally Drewsey, Oregon, where he became a doctor, pharmacist, mayor, developer and rancher. In 1909, Harrison fathered a daughter, Rosalind, with his wife Sybil. In 1912, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article written by Harrison, titled "Cesarean Section Under Difficulties", which documented a caesarean section he performed in a remote ranch-house lit by an oil lamp.[6] Because of his restless nature, Harrison left his family in Oregon and traveled to London in 1913 to undergo postgraduate work in gynecology and obstetrics. When World War I began in 1914, Harrison assisted in the war effort in Belgium. While there, he met a Turkish woman named Eva, and married her without divorcing his first wife. In 1915, Harrison and his new wife traveled to El Paso, Texas, to settle down."
The article needs a copy edit for flow. A lot of the sentences seem a little disconnected, and taken too directly from the sources. The bit about him locking his grandmother in a room and trying to get to Cuba, for example: one incident or two? Not clear in the source either, but instead of not mentioning it, or making clear that it's not clear, it's just repeated with the same lack of clarity. The writer needs to step back, see it from the readers' perspective, and do an extensive copy edit that turns this into a story where each sentence, and each thought, flows into the next. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. I will do a copyedit of the article. Arctic Night 10:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 20 February 2010 [27].

Magdalena Neuner[edit]

Nominator(s): EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all featured article criteria. The article has been nominated before (here). I slightly restructured the page recently and made some improvements. With the Winter Olympics coming up, I think it would be nice to have a FA of an athlete competing in Vancouver. EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work: see WP:ALT. Alt text needs to be verifiable from the image itself to the average reader, but the average reader cannot see from any of the images that it is Neuner who is photographed, nor that the photo was taken during a World Cup. Ucucha 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed Neuner to female biathlete and World Cup race to biathlon race. EnemyOfTheState|talk 14:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that alt text can be verified from looking at the image itself by a non-expert reader. I cannot see from the first image that this is a biathlete during a biathlon, and there are similar problems in the other images. Ucucha 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed the text again. EnemyOfTheState|talk
          • Looks good now. I don't think the flags should have alt text, but that appears to be a problem with the templates. Ucucha 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not a "problem" with {{flagicon}}; it is designed to work that way. If you don't want alt text, then don't use {{flagicon}} near the wikilink to Germany (i.e. duplicating the link). Use {{flag}} to render the country link and flag together. But please don't bypass the standard flag templates to do something differently. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know any way to use the standard flag templates to do what was wanted here, namely something like this: " Oberhof, Germany", where the flag is purely decorative (as it repeats the "Germany" in the text) but the desired wikilink is to part of Germany, not to Germany as a whole. Rather than wrestle with the templates I think it's better in this case to drop the flags, as they're not appropriate in that list. Also, the wikilinks to the countries aren't appropriate either. (It's a list of ski competition locations, not a list of national teams or anything directly relevant to flags.) I made this change accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's probably the most sensible solution. Flag icons are greatly over-used on this project, and this page certainly doesn't need them for that purpose. There is no additional navigational improvement by putting flags in front of World Cup locations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – One of the primary criticisms of the article in the first FAC was that there was an overreliance on statistics sites as sources. Has anything been done to address this concern? On a quick glance, it appears that stat databases still make up the vast majority of the references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do make up the majority of the sources, mostly because I put a reference with a link to the official results page behind all mentioned races in the career section (50 or so). English language sources for biathlon are difficult to find, so I gladly took those, thinking what could be a more reliable source than the sport's official governing body? I don't believe these statistics are used to source any controversial statements, they are pretty much exclusively used to confirm race results. I suppose I could replace some of the references with German sources, but I don't see how this would really be helpful. Generally, I don't think I can find enough adequate sources (particularly in English), if I can't use these official statistics. EnemyOfTheState|talk 02:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's one thing you don't need a stats site to source, and that is Olympics results. Considering that she has won a silver medal already, an update would be useful. Speaking of the Olympics, I happened to find this article, which calls her "Germany's biathlon pin-up". Has she done any modeling work in Germany that would cause her to be thought of this way? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • She hasn't done any professional model work (other than advertising or promotional shoots), not sure what earned her the description pin-up there, but as you can see with that 29 picture gallery, she is often photographed, and in general is a 'media darling' in Germany. I have updated the result of the first Olympic race. EnemyOfTheState|talk 11:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm concerned that not much substantive work has been done to address my objection from last time. It's been updated, for sure, but it's still just a narrative of event results, largely sourced to primary sources. I don't think it's sufficient to meet 1b or 1c. "[B]ut she is also noted for her volatile shooting performances in the standing position" is extremely tantalizing, as it hints at some actual discussion about her strengths, weaknesses, training strategies, and so on. But, we're only rewarded with 2-3 sentences on the matter, interrupted by a seemingly unrelated sentence about the gun she uses. I do not see the connection. EnemyOfTheState, what can we do to work on this? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure more could be included about her shooting, but like I said above, I don't think I can find better sources for most race results than the sports governing body. I'm also unsure how to rewrite the career section, making it more 'interesting' by possibly shortening it, but still satisfying the criteria comprehensiveness. EnemyOfTheState|talk 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we don't need better sources for race results. We need the better sources so we can introduce more text that's not strictly about race results. Make sense? --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added more text (changes) to offer some perspective, and there no longer is a paragraph with only statistics sources. But I honestly couldn't come up with too much that wouldn't be total fluff. I still have to include something about her shooting problems. I have also included 4 more sentences regarding her shooting difficulties. Not sure if you wanted even more text, but the length of the skiing and shooting section would get pretty disproportionate that way. EnemyOfTheState|talk 13:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:38, 16 February 2010 [28].

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

Nominator(s): Anonymous Dissident, G.W.


I am nominating this for featured article because recent restructuring, copyediting, and referencing leave me confident it's ready. This is G.W.'s baby, but he's given me the go ahead to sail it in. Thanks for comments and criticism (and a support, if you're feeling charitable). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The message from G.W. that you linked indicates he should be listed as a co-nom; is that no longer correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is, unless I've done it incorrectly. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it working now? G.W. (Talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment <ref>Images from rockpapershotgun.com at [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-limbo.jpg] and [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-oblivion.jpg]</ref> - doesn't use a citation template, unlike every other citation. Also, there is a ref name called TVG that appears to have been duplicated. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both fixed. (The links were not really necessary, and arguably not appropriate.) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Hey, I remember this article! I GA'd it back in the day, before G.W. completely rewrote it and took it to A-class. Anyways, please check that external link checker up in the right corner there- you've got a bunch of redirects happening on links in references, as well as a few dead ones. For the dead ones, go to web.archive.org and find the latest version of them if you can't find a replacement- I know you'll have to do that for the music4games one, as the site has completely died. You're also going to need to add alt text to all of the images- it's a bit difficult, so just ask me if you need any help. --PresN 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added alt text to all images but one. (I'm not sure the last one deserves to be in the article. I have left it for the moment to see if Dissident wants to keep it.) This is the first time I've done this for an FAC, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Thanks! G.W. (Talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Made a copy-edit of the article. I placed a couple of {fact} tags that people might like to look at. Cheers.  HWV258.  23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Changed to support.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose—Reluctantly, I find myself opposing an FA because I don't think this article is quite ready, based on criteria 1b: Comprehensiveness. There is a lot of good material, but there are also some holes. Here's a list of my concerns:
    • The lead doesn't summarize some of the sections. In particular, the Development, Audio and parts of the Gameplay sections. See WP:LEAD for clarification.
    • The Gameplay section needs to approach the subject by assuming the reader knows little about computer games in general. It discusses skills in reference to the Morrowind system, but it instead should stand by itself. It needs to explain what skills are in the context of the game. It also needs to explain that combat is real-time and mouse-driven. Part of this is somewhat mixed into the third paragraph when it mentions blocking, but that really should be in a separate paragraph on player interaction. Finally, I think it should also briefly describe character creation, since this is a fundamental aspect of the game.
    • The third last paragraph of the Gameplay section starts off about the stealth and combat skills set. At somewhat random points it adds in comments about the magic skills (see below). These are a different subject and should be in a separate paragraph, along with some brief discussion of the magic skill system.
      • The ability to "forget" spells was also not included. (This statement also needs to be clarified.)
      • Enchantment as a skill, by which items are endowed with special powers, was not carried over from Morrowind to Oblivion; instead, items are enchanted via plot-specific processes.
        • Anything more specific is not apposite, if you ask me. "a skill by which items are imbued with special powers" is sufficiently clear and descriptive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure you read my original statement. The language isn't the problem; it's the placement. I.e. changing the subject of the paragraph in mid stream.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • A new paragraph would be a poor structuring choice – everything discussed in the current paragraph relates to changes made from Morrowind to Oblivion. Instead, I've made the topic sentence of the fourth paragraph more general, and I've lumped discussion of magic-based changes in one place. How now? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That works.—RJH (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "leading to the expedited creation of more complex and realistic landscapes present in past titles..." Is a "than was" missing here? Is this saying the landscape are as complex as in past titles, but were build more rapidly? Please fix the ambiguity.
    • "...uses more multi-level environments than previous games..." This statement is unclear, even with the appended remark about the topology. By multi-level, I assume you mean allowing movement between different levels of buildings and dungeons without necessarily requiring a transition screen. But this is not clear from the text.
      • I actually fixed this, but forgot to save at the time. I've added an example to make things clearer. I didn't write the sentence, but my interpretation is that it means to refer only to a more varied topology, and not to fewer load screens (which are discussed later). If you think about it, multi-story buildings and the like are much scarcer in Morrowind than Oblivion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appears to be very little discussion about the Radiant AI system, which gives the NPCs full lives of their own, independent of the player's activities. I thought this was a highlight of the game, and it really brought the world to life. This issue proved a show-stopper for me.
    • "quest NPCs" is unexplained.
    • There are some cites that have what appear to be anonymous author names. In particular, APY, Finger, KingSix, Maeyanie and Polybren. How do we know that these individuals are reliable sources?
      • The "Featured article criteria" part 1c says, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Thus I'm not clear that these anonymous articles would satisfy the criteria. Can the author's credentials be clarified or additional reliable sources be provided?—RJH (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replaced or removed all but APY and Polybren. While these authors are operating under a pseudonym, their pages are catalogued at GameSpy and GameSpot, respectively, two well-respected online gaming publications. Do you think their reliability is still questionable? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I did a little googling and it looks like APY is actually Abram Wagenaar; he is on the staff at GameSpy. Polybren is Brendan Sinclair and he is a journalist on the news staff at GameSpot. So I think they're both respectable sources. But you might want to use their fill names instead. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed this article having played and enjoyed the game, but I tried to take the perspective of somebody who was unfamiliar with the release or computer gaming in general. Sorry to have to oppose at this point.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fair comments. I'm sure these are resolvable, and I'll get to work immediately. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I'll check back later then. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I'm not mistaken, all your concerns have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Mmm, nope. One more... Yep.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if all the images meet the non-free content criteria, particularly File:Oblivion.jpg and File:Ssmartinwallpaperiw8.png, which appear to just be decorative. I confess that I haven't read the article carefully, but in my skim I didn't see any critical commentary about those images themselves. File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg is also questionable (the horse armor package is mentioned briefly in the text, but nothing is really said about its visuals in particular). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be entirely willing to scrap the images. Dissident? G.W. (Talk) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two are probably okay to remove. However, the horse armor picture provides the reader with a valuable visual understanding of what consumers were paying for, if you ask me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps there's some way we could emphasize that "the contents of this image represent the entirety of the DLC". G.W. (Talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Overall, a very good article its contributors should be proud of, but I've got several issues, big and small.
    • Prose: You need to add non-breaking spaces to many areas (WP:NBSP), and there's inconsistent formatting approaches—in some cases game-specific terms are emphasized, while others are "quoted". To me the prose is a tad too wordy, when phrases could be simplified and shorted, and relies a bit too heavily on wikilinking, not explaining technical terms when it really should (the readers should be able to get the bare minimum without having to link away and thus probably never come back to your page.)
      • True about non-breaking spaces. False about game-specific terminology. If you look closely, you'll see that key terminology is italicised when introduced (Major Skills, Attributes), while particular cases of those concepts are in quotes (the "Heavy Armor" skill, the "Strength" attribute). Tell me if you think that doesn't cut the mustard. Saying that the prose is a tad too wordy is quite a vague comment; can you recall which part you were reading when you thought that? For the last point, I'll re-read the article and attempt to fix overly technical wording and lazy wikilinking. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also concerned about what I feel is improper synthesis. The reception section is very short, and reads, for example: "...1UP.com and several other publications criticized the repetitive and occasionally absurd nature of conversations between in-game NPCs: "...when an NPC greets you with a custom piece of dialogue (such as a guard's warning) and then reverts to the standard options (like a guard's cheerful directions just after that warning) it's more jarring than the canned dialogue by itself." ". What other publications? Why is 1UP's opinion the only one worth quoting, let alone sourcing? Why is only Metacritic quoted in the lead (or was, I removed it as overly specific) while Game Rankings is only quoted in the reception section? Why are scores mentioned when they are listed in the table? I don't think you should source a general summary that "Oblivion was well-recieved" to Bethesda's own awards page (COI issue much?) I also agree with RJH's issues about accessibility (some of which would be solved by explaining the bluelinks as I suggested above.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Begun working on the source and synthesis concerns. Removed the scores from the prose. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments I am deferring to the comprehensiveness and synthesis concerns (and their fulfillment) before doing a full review of what's been used. RB88 (T) 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:38, 16 February 2010 [29].

Ben Paschal[edit]

Nominator(s): Secret account 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Self-nom. Backup outfielder for the 1927 Yankees, based on the current Bob Meusel FA. His rather lack of playing time keeps me from expanding this article further (can't find nothing on his life after 1934, nor does he has much of a legacy). Thanks for NatureBoyMD for a copyedit, it may need further copyediting, but I'm dylexsic and can't really help on that. One of many articles on that team I'm bringing to featured status. I feel the article is good enough to skip the GA process. Thanks Secret account 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
    • Surely there are book sources that cover him?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the first part, as for book sources, it's mostly passing mentions, as he wasn't considered an important part of the Great New York Yankees teams of the era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs)
      • Note there are more book sourcing now. Thanks Secret account 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to the images; see WP:ALT, particularly WP:ALT#Portraits. Also, the article needs more images. I suggest at least File:Ben-Paschal-1925.jpeg, and quite possibly you can find other free images. Eubulides (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added your picture thank you so much, also added alternative text to the image. Thanks Secret account 13:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome, but I'm afraid both images still lack alt text. Please click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Also, please look for more images, as the article needs them. They don't have to have Paschal in them; they can be about his environment. For example, it would help to have a picture of Sanford, Alabama, about the time he was growing up there. More generally, there's almost nothing in the article about Paschal as a person; more coverage of him outside baseball is sorely needed. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I which I could find information about him as a person, the only thing I found was that he was a quiet, soft-spoken fellow who was in the Yankees movie crowd. That was one sentence in a book. He doesn't have a famous personaly Ruth had. I'm still confused about alt text, so I need your help, but I'll fine alternative images. Secret account 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok now I understood the alt text, fixed Secret account 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, much better, but it still needs some work. First, alt text generally should not contain proper names (see WP:ALT#Proper names) such as "Ruth", "Paschal", "1926 New York Yankees", "Hargrave"; this is due to WP:ALT#Verifiability concerns. Second, please omit the phrase "black and white photo" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Third, alt text should not repeat the caption's phrases such as "fourth person on the left side", as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Finally, the alt text for the lead image should convey to the visually impaired reader what Paschal looks like in that image, as opposed to what other baseball players looked like or as opposed to Paschal in other moods, etc.: this info is obvious from the image itself but is not obvious to someone who can't see it (see WP:ALT#Essence). Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice and examples about how to do alt text for that lead portrait. Eubulides (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a good interpeter of images, I tried my hardest with the alt images, I tried to fix your concerns. Thanks Secret account 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put some information about Paschal personality, about a couple of setences. Thanks Secret account 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It concerns me a bit that none of the references have page numbers. Even for ones you could barely preview I'd have to think that information would at least be there for a few of them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to add page numbers, but several of the sources I can't seem to find it. Secret account 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added page numbers to every article I could. Several were online only and couldn't find a page number, but most did. Thanks Secret account 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article needs a good copy-edit:

  • "Considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees, sportswriters constantly wrote how Paschal would start in most other teams in the American League." This is known as a dangling modifier. Right now, the phrase "Considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees" is modifying the noun "sportswriters" when it should be modifying "Paschal". Also, "start in" is not correct, I don't think; try "start for".
  • Grating repetition of words: "Paschal became known ... Paschal is best known"; the word "considered" is used in three of the four sentences of the second paragraph of the lead.
  • "Paschal was born in Enterprise, Alabama but grew up as the son of farmers in Sanford, Alabama." False contrast, "but" is used for opposing ideas, but is it so surprising that he grew up away from his place of birth?
  • "Dothan of the Georgia–Alabama League." I don't suppose Dothan or Georgia–Alabama League have articles?
  • "His ability started to attract area scouts" No, too weak. "His ability attracted area scouts..."
  • "19 year old" Hyphens needed.
  • MOS issue: image captions that are complete sentences need periods at the end. Example: "Paschal was considered Babe Ruth's understudy when he first arrived in the American League" You have the opposite problem with the infobox image; "Paschal before a game during the 1925 New York Yankees season." is a sentence fragment and therefore should not have sentence-ending punctuation.

I'm there are plenty of active editors at WP:BASEBALL who can pitch in. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed some of it, but I'm a awful copyeditor, I'm asking around. Thanks Secret account 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Secret asked me to copy-edit this article, and I just couldn't turn down a request to work on a Yankee-related page. I gave it some attention, but it still needs quite a bit more. Here are a few quick suggestions before I call it quits for the night:
  • I added a cite tag regarding the 1926 World Series, since it wasn't clear what was citing that part.
  • His role on the Murderers' Row teams is mentioned in the lead, but is not expanded on at all later in the article; in fact, the term is never used again. Just leaving this in the lead with no explanation is not only going to confuse readers, but it is a violation of WP:LEAD, which says that everything in the lead should be in the body of an article.
  • One of my main issues with the article is that there is no consistent description of how his teams did. To give only the most glaring example, there is not even a mention that the 1927 Yankees won the World Series, let alone that the team is considered one of the best ever by most historians. His role, albeit minor, on the Yankees teams of this era is a critical part of what legacy he has, and I was very surprised at the lack of much information on this in the body.
  • Paschal apparently had contract disputes in 1926 and 1927. Do the sources have anything on how he came around to re-sign for the Yankees?
  • "His season ended on September 12 against the Philadelphia Athletics when he was hit on the leg with a pitch." What injury did he sustain that caused him to not play again that year?
  • The disambiguation link checker is showing one dab link (Washington Senators), but I fixed one like it during my copy-edits, and I don't see another one. That might have been it, though a check in the future will be the best way to know for sure. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I just saw: "After a two year break from baseball because of World War I, Paschal moved on to the Charlotte Hornets of the Southern Atlantic League, where he played in 1916 and from 1920 to 1923." The non-chronological organization of this part is odd. Why not move the 1916 stint to earlier in the section? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't find the exact injury other than Paschal being carried away in a streacher, nor the sources mentioned how he came about resigning with the Yankees, I'll presume he was offered some extra money, but I can't place a guess on an FA. I don't like to discuss content that doesn't really belong in the article, like how the teams did, but I could write a paragraph or so on his role in those Murder's Row teams (he did almost nothing in 1927 btw other than pinch hit and that one amazing game i mentioned). Fixed the cite. Thanks Secret account 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed that 1916 stint, only found one source that he played a few games for them, but I lost the source, anyways too minor to be mentioned. Secret account 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:38, 16 February 2010 [30].

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)[edit]

Nominator(s): –MuZemike 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know if much else can be done here, but here goes. I'm hoping this meets the FA criteria in that it's comprehensive, well-written, neutral, and stable. In a nutshell, this article is about one of the best video games released on the Nintendo Entertainment System (coincidentally, of all the numerous video game-related FAs, none of them are NES games) as well as one of the best games of all time. It's already been through three peer reviews (actually two and one-half as one of them wasn't much of one), a successful GAN, and very recently a successful A-Class assessment. –MuZemike 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dabs or dead external links—good.
  • Alt text looks great and detailed (and not too detailed).
  • Dates appear to be consistent Month Day, Year in prose, and ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial) in refs. OK to me.
  • For citations:
    • Shouldn't ref 48's book title use italics? Check the other ref titles to be sure.
    • "May-December 1989" (in ref 43) and similar date ranges should use the en (–).

I'd have sit this one out entirely due to another game that now robs my time, but this is Ninja Gaiden dammit. --an odd name 04:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the endashes (also changed a couple of emdashes I forgot in my last copyedit sweep) [31] and [32]. Hopefully I got the rest of the non-italicized occurrences of the title [33]. I also didn't realize that the {{cite book}} automatically italicized the title :) –MuZemike 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comments
    • All images are low-res, have proper licenses and fair use rationales. I'm a bit iffy on File:Ninja Gaiden NES Duel.png but since there's a source that specifically comments on it, I suppose it meets WP:NFCC.
    • On an unrelated note, "They and called the version in Ninja Gaiden Trilogy"→missing a word here.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David, for noting that extra "and" in there; I removed it [34]. –MuZemike 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Fine. What makes these reliable?

RB88 (T) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for the minor corrections. For the first source, I actually found a much more reliable one from IGN (a review of the arcade version) which says the same thing as the HG101 interview, which I just replaced ([35]). As far as OCremix is concerned, can you clarify a bit more there? Basically, OverClocked ReMix is a directory of remixes of video game music. I was under the impression that it would meet #4 on WP:ELMAYBE. It's no big deal to me if it stays or not, however. –MuZemike 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think there's enough reception material from the time of its release and there's no feedback from Japan. - hahnchen 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Video games didn't use to garner anywhere near the critical response they do today. For example, the articles for Super Mario Bros. and the original The Legend of Zelda don't really show any reviews from the time. It's difficult to find non-retroactive reviews for games this old. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it's difficult. This is FAC. - hahnchen 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sorry for the "11th hour expansion", but I was able to dig up some copies of Electronic Gaming Monthly and Nintendo Power, with a treasure trove of extensive coverage in the latter. I've done some expanding to include coverage seen in those magazines ([36] and [37]). –MuZemike 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by DrKiernan 17:46, 9 February 2010 [38].

Montague Druitt[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Was he a Dastardly Doer of Evil Deeds, or just a cranky cricketer? DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are not mutually exclusive. I am reading to discover the truth. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical review: no dab links or dead external links, alt text seems OK. A quick check of the images doesn't reveal anything obvious. JulieSpaulding 12:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that alt text is good; images also look good. Ucucha 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton (see below for support statement)

  • Images
    • Licencing information on File:Montague Druiit 2.jpg looks suspect. If we don't know who took the photograph, how can we assert "author's death plus 70 years" as a basis for non-copyright use? A 25-year-old photographer in 1888 would have been 77 in 1940 - by no means infeasible. The statement This image is in the public domain in the United States because it is an anonymous work created over 120 years ago that was published without a copyright notice and without a subsequent copyright registration and was in the public domain in its country of origin at the time of first publication is not reflected in the license, and seems more based on assumption than fact. I believe that a fair use rationale would be fully justified, if PD cannot be established.
    • Much the same can be said of the second Druitt image which also carries a "death + 70 years" licence, though fair use could only be justified for one of the images.
    • Both Druitt images carry the same caption: "M.J. Druitt". In view of the lack of information about these images—dates, circumstances etc—is it necessary to have both in the article?
  • Other issues
    • Career section: it would help the reader if there was a brief mention in this section of the alleged reasons for Druitt's dismissal from Valentine's. Although this is dealt with later in the article, the reader is left rather hanging, at this point, by the unexplained "until he was dismissed on 30 November 1888."
    • Cricket section: It should be pointed out—lest Druitt's prowess as a cricketer be exaggerated—that Dorset was not (and still isn't) a first-class county in cricketing terms. Also, a brief explanation of the Incogniti Club would be helpful (some information here). Finally, he played for, not with, the Gentlemen of Bournemouth, and the phrasing "and bowled 5 out of the 10 wickets in the first innings" is inauthentic cricket reporting. I would suggest: "and took five wickets in the visitors' first innings."
    • Death section
      • New section should not start with "His"
      • "Stones placed in Druitt's pockets..." suggests involvement of a third party. "Placed" should be removed.
      • Having established that Druitt received little by way of a legacy from his father, and was forced to supplement his barrister's earnings by schoolmastering, it is curious that his personal estate was as large as reported. Has any explanation for this been offered?
    • Jack the Ripper suspect: "There are, however, serious problems with theorising on such circumstantial evidence." This needs to be presented in a more neutral manner, e.g. "Whitehead and Rivett, in their history of the Ripper murders, have pointed out serious problems with theorising on such circumstantial evidence."

An interesting, low-key addition to this grisly Whitechapel series. I will have no difficulty in supporting when the above issues are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already made an extensive search for details of the image. I don't feel as if there's anything further I can add or do, within the bounds of a volunteer project. I've changed the license tag to accord with the position in the United Kingdom, where copyright on the image, as an unpublished anonymous work, expired in 1959 at the latest. I'm assuming that as I cannot find a registration in the States and it was first published when in the public domain in its source country that it is also public domain in the States. If it isn't then I'll remove it. I don't think strict image reviewers will accept that it can be used in fair use as it isn't necessary to see a picture of him to understand his life, so it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8.
  • I'm not expert enough on US copyright law to know if you are assuming the US position correctly, so we must await more expert advice. However, I think in a biographical article on a long-dead person where no free images are available, a fair use rationale would normally be acceptable. In understanding a subject's life it helps a lot to know what he/she looked like. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the close-up.
  • Dismissal moved.
  • Not a Dorset fan then? I'm only to happy to admit my ignorance of cricket. Dreadful game. Changed the cricket report as suggested. Thanks. What do you have in mind with regard to Dorset and the Incogniti?
  • Well, we don't want to alienate the Dorset readership by describing their county as second-class, so we could let that one go. As for Icogniti, a short descriptive phrase, e.g. "a gentlemen's touring team" should suffice.
  • Changed by moving the dismissal.
  • Removed "placed".
  • No, but one minority view I read on the internet (so not included in the article) is that he was not as unsuccessful a lawyer as people make out.
  • Changed to "Other Ripper authors, however, point out..." [39] DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: On the basis that the image question will be sorted out one way or another, and seeing that my other (pretty minor) concerns have been addressed, I'm ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for the review and suggestions. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Current ref 22 (Blackheath Cricket Club..) needs a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I enjoyed reading this a lot. Just a few quibbles:
  1. We need a publication date for File:Montague Druiit 2.jpg to show that it was published long enough ago that it's now PD.
  2. Would be nice to see some of the images a little larger than thumb size (e.g. Winchester is very small on my screen).
  3. I'm not keen on the lead. It seems hesitant, a little jerky. I'd like to see it fleshed out just a little with better flow.
  4. :I edited the lead a little to show what I mean, but if you don't like it for whatever reason, please feel free to revert. [40]
  5. "He played cricket and rugby for the college team, and was the winner of both double and single fives at the University of Oxford in 1877." We know he was at the university. Just "for the university in 1877" would do.
  6. Do pounds needs to be converted to dollars? I'm never sure of which things need conversion and which don't.
  7. "it seemed bound to create discontent": you need to say who you're quoting.
  8. "the total of the legacies in his will exceeded the value of the estate" and "In a codicil, Druitt senior had instructed his executors to deduct any money he had advanced to his son from the legacy of £500" -- what does that mean exactly?
  9. You have the dismissal and disappearance in the Cricket section, where it comes as something of a surprise.
  10. "One theory speculates": theories don't speculate.
  11. Looking at Google, there seem to be quite a few sources out there that aren't used e.g. Ripper Suspect: The Secret Lives of Montague Druitt by D.J. Leighton. [41] And I saw a claim that he was associated with the Cambridge Apostles, which sounds unlikely given that he went to Oxford but it's possible, I suppose. Are these sources unreliable?
  12. According to Robin Odell, Ripperology: a study of the world's first serial killer and a literary phenomenon, p. 90, Druitt's gravestone in Wimborne says he died on December 4. Is that a mistake? Actually, thinking about it, no one could know, except perhaps for the December 1 train ticket issue that a few sources allude to, which I don't think you mention. I'm getting the impression that there's a fair bit of detail out there that you haven't included.
  13. Some problems with flow e.g. repeating Druitt's name in successive sentences instead of "he". "On 30 November 1888, Druitt was dismissed ... One newspaper reported that Druitt "had got into serious trouble" ... In early December 1888, Druitt disappeared ... On 31 December 1888, Druitt's body was found ... Stones in Druitt's pockets ..."

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The argument for PD is on the file page. I have no further information.
  2. For people using other screens, the images might then be too large. I prefer to stick to the default parameters which are judged to be the best for most viewers. I have removed the "upright" parameter though.
  3. Fine.
  4. Changed.
  5. Conversion to dollars is not necessary in this instance.
  6. They are Tom Cullen's words. No-one else's. Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Druitt senior advanced money to Montague during his legal training. This money was to be deducted from the legacy. I have re-phrased.
  8. Moved.
  9. Fixed.
  10. Leighton and Stephen are included.
  11. Death date changed; footnote added. Contents of his pockets added. DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses:
  • I think you need a publication date if you want to use that image. Images on WP must be in the public domain in the U.S. There are a number of ways to show that, e.g. published before 1923, or not copyrighted in the country of origin on January 1, 1996. But I believe they all involve knowing when it was published. Does the licensing information in the books you cite on the image page not say something? There is usually a page at the beginning or end that lists permissions. Alternatively you could write to the authors.
  • Actually, that may not be right. From WP:PD: "Works having seen their original U.S. publication on or after March 1, 1989 (with or without copyright notice or registration) are protected until 70 years after the author's death (70 years p.m.a.); anonymous works, works made for hire, works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation." So if this is an unknown author, it would be PD from 2008 at the latest. But if the author is known, that would change. I'll strike the objection.
  • Could you address the issue of comprehensiveness? I get the impression that there is a fair bit of material out there about him that you didn't include. If this were a long article I could understand that, but it's short so it would seem sensible to include anything significant that reliable sources have published. Do they all agree, for example, that he is not a serious suspect?
  • I think the train ticket belongs in the text, not a footnote, and it needs a source.
  • "seemed bound to create discontent" needs in-text attribution of some kind; otherwise it's just a dangling phrase with no clear reason for being in quotation marks. Same with "no evidence whatever," "outrageous fantasies," and any others.
  • "was the winner of both double and single fives at the university in 1877" -- did he play for the university? "At" is not clear. People generally play within the university for their colleges, or for the university against other universities, and the difference tends to be a stark one at Oxbridge in terms of quality, which is why it's worth pinning down.SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not state that all sources agree that he is not a serious suspect. It says most do. Both pro- and anti-sources are used throughout the article and I have attempted to balance them with due weight. I believe the only additional factual material is of a trivial nature such as he came third in a cricket-ball throwing contest at Winchester College. I'm not sure what else you want to add, but I get the impression that the material you want is the details of the conspiracy theories. There is a danger that by adding more and more detail of the theories the article will become unbalanced as POV-fringe views are given more weight than the majority view that these theories are groundless. His connection to the Cambridge Apostles comes through James Kenneth Stephen. I have already mentioned the Druitt-Stephen hypothesis and it's rejection. The links touted by Wilding are of the order: they were both homosexual (not proven in either case); they both went to public school (though not the same one); they were both barristers (though not at the same Inn, in the same chambers, on the same circuit, at the same assizes or sessions, or involved in the same cases or trials). His case is built on these coincidences, which is why it is so easily dismissed. Anyhow, I shall examine the possibility of adding further information to the last two paragraphs, unless it is the trivial details of his life that you want expanded.
  • I'll try to address the attribution of quotes while looking at the possibility of additional material.
  • The direct quote from McDonald is "In 1877 he won the University double and single fives." I was unable to track down further info. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At FA, an article should cover all the major issues put forward by reliable sources. A Google search shows that there are lots of interesting stories about Druitt out there that you haven't covered. If the theories are groundless in the view of reliable sources, you can make that clear -- X wrote that A, though Y and Z argue that A is groundless because ..." But the article can't simply leave out the material, or deal with it in a mealy-mouthed way. The reader has to be told what you and the sources know, believe, argue, suggest, and dismiss. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has major problems. I don't have time to go through them all right now, but for starters:

  • The article is lacking sufficient general info about the Ripper to understand the context of this person being a suspect. Most of the general information that is included is slanted and/or misleading in its brevity. For example, yes, five women were murdered. So were lots of others. Some people think only those five were linked, but just as many sources believe it was more or less than that. Any time any reference is made to "the last murder" in the article is wholly misleading, as nobody knows who the Ripper's last victim was. Some people think it was Mary Jane Kelly -- and it was apparently belief that it was and the suicide relatively around the same time period that brought Druitt up as a suspect -- but many people think there were others after her by the Ripper (invalidating the dead Druitt as a suspect) and some even think Mary Kelly was killed by someone other than the Ripper. In fact, lots of people think the sole reason Macnaghten thought Kelly was the last Ripper victim was specifically because otherwise his favorite suspect wouldn't work, and if it weren't for a lot of books releasing the information about Druitt around the same time and when there was a lack of police information being published the "canonical five" or "Macnaghten Five" victims probably never would have become as influential of an ideas as it did. Police and medical opinion was all over the map on which victims were linked together and which were not.
  • A lot of claims made in books are presented as if they were facts citing only a footnote to a book to back it up. Much in Ripperology is disputed. Sources for any claims should be cited in the body to present those claims as the beliefs of those particular authors, not to be presented as facts. Some of the sources used are pretty fringe. Some solid, dependable authors are not cited. As a particular notable example, footnoting some book by some not very well known or respected authors to try to back up the claim that m"most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect" is pretty POV-y. Woods and Baddeley do not speak for the entire field, and most authors and researchers do not consider them anywhere near the top writers in the field. That's not to say that they are wildly out of touch on this particular statement, necessarily, but any sort of presentation about what a majority of anyone says in this field needs very solid sourcing, and that does not cut it.
  • Another example: "Consequently, it is easier for writers to concoct solutions based on a wealthy culprit rather than one based on a Whitechapel resident.[64]" That's an opinion touted as fact. This doesn't have much point in an article and is actually the opposite of reality. It's actually more difficult to concoct solutions based upon wealthy people because the more wealthy someone is the more likely they are to have been mentioned in papers or other documents in a manner that should rule them out as suspects. Nobody knows what random tramp on the street was doing day to day, but we know Druitt was far out of London not too many hours after some very important indisputable Ripper victims were killed.
  • One of the most well respected modern researchers on Druitt is conspicuously absent. Andrew J. Spallek's articles in the Ripper periodicals should be used as a source above about half of the books being cited. Spallek uncovered evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect and passed the name along to Macnaghten, for example.
  • And there's just so much trivia thrown out, often just strung together in a choppy way, that people reading this just don't get the overall picture.
  • That said, the article itself isn't horrible (worst transgressions are acting like we know how the last victim is for sure and presenting a lot of weak sources very strongly), but it could be a lot better.

DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd rather just give a brief outline here. The detail of the murders is in the main article: Jack the Ripper.
    • Most authorities today do not consider him a likely suspect. How is that not factual? We have Spallek, Cullen, Farson, Howells, Skinner and Wilding saying he is. We have Vanderlinden, Rumbelow, Woods, Baddeley, Whitehead, Rivett, Frayling, Bennett, Marriott, Knight, Whittington-Egan, Leighton and McDonald saying he isn't. We also have 100 other suspects, so that's at least 100 other authorities saying that Druitt isn't the Ripper in addition to those listed. That is a majority.
    • Sir Christopher Frayling is obviously a reliable source. I see no reason to qualify his opinions when they appear to be representative of the field as a whole and are not disputed in a reliable source.
    • I've read Spallek's articles. I don't consider them reliable. His articles are in a non-peer-reviewed magazine and are not the subject of academic discourse. They are suffused with snippets hauled from the internet. His "evidence strongly suggesting who first thought up Druitt as a suspect" is the notorious Albert Bachert story told by "Dr Dutton". If I recall correctly, Evans, Skinner and Rumbelow, among others, suspect that the story was either made up by Donald McCormick for his 1959 book when he constructed his false "Dr Dutton" source or made up by "Dr Dutton" when he fooled McCormick into believing his fictions. These sources are no longer reliable and are rejected by the field at large. It might I suppose be used in the article in that context: explaining why the accusations about Druitt gained hold after 1959 and why they are now rejected. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 9 February 2010 [42].

The Avery Coonley School[edit]

Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on an interesting school which is notable for its place on the National Register of Historic Places, historic importance in the progressive education movement, association with important architects and landscape artists, patented educational innovation, and academic accomplishments on the state and national level. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. Substantial work has been done post-GA to further improve the references and prose. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article, as well. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Comments. Needs a little more work IMO. Just a few comments on the lead:

  • I think you need to give a little more explanation for those of us not in the colonies who may be unsure what "eighth grade" means. Can you not just give an age range, as in from X-Y? I understand from The Beverly Hillbillies that a student can be in the first grade forever.
  • "The school been located on an 11-acre ...". Is this typical of the rest of the article?
  • "... with grounds designed by the famous landscape architect Jens Jensen ...". I've never heard of him, so probably best to drop the peacockery.
  • The claim is well-supported by the references in the article and the association is a notable feature of the school. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The curriculum preserves the school's founding philosophy and traditions but is accelerated and enriched ...". How do you "accelerate" a curriculum?]
  • Fair enough. I see similar errors and peacockery throughout this article and no desire to fix them, therefore I must oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry you feel that way. I would be happy to address any alleged "peacockery," which I think would likely be also supported by the references, if you were inclined to point them out. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My responses were meant to be explanatory, not recalcitrant, and with additional direction from Ucucha I now better understand your comments. It's my first time through this. I'm slow, but I do get there. Accordingly, I have done the following:
  • Confirmed that the first appearance of US grade names (and other obviously US-centric school terms) are wikilinked, which seems to be the approach at WP:WPSCH/AG and in other FA school articles. There seems to be no solution that does not confuse at least one side of the pond.
  • Reviewed superlative claims throughout and "neutralized" where appropriate. The sources might support the stronger claims, but nothing is lost by dialing them back. So I did.
  • Removed terms from the lead that are not fully explained until later (like "accelerate").
  • I believe this will resolve your specific concerns and hopefully your opposition to the nomination. I appreciate your comments and would welcome additional feedback. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll take another look through either later tonight or more likely tomorrow. I do understand that the FAC experience can be a little intidating, even for those of us who've been through it before. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Oppose (see below). No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work. You don't need to tell people that something is a photo, just what is on it. Give some sense of the locale in the alt text: what does the background look like? To readers who see the images, they tell a lot about the kind of place the school is in; this information should not be lost to those who do not see them. Ucucha 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All alt text now revised accordingly. Thanks for the comments. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, much improved. Please check the one for the auditorium, which reads mangled at the moment. Ucucha 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demangled now. Thank you. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might still want to mention the empty seats.
  • From a cursory reading, I do see Malleus's points. "Student scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills have been in the top one percent in the nation", you say. Good to see that the Iowa Tests are so popular. Ucucha 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Iowa Tests are administered in schools across the US, as the referenced article states. I've changed the sentence to quote that fact directly from the source to clarify for readers who might not be familiar. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the first paragraph of the "Curriculum" section sounds quite promotional. It is sourced to the school's mission statement, which would be questionable anyway, but this mission statement does not even contain much of the information. Similarly, the claim that "ACS refers to grade levels as "groups", a practice which dates back to the early days of the school." is not supported by the source. With such problems found on a cursory check, I do not believe this article is likely to meet the FA criteria. Ucucha 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph is intended to link the modern day curriculum to the extensive discussion of the history and explain what all of that has to do with what goes on there today. These are also some of features that make the school interesting and different. I don't read it as particularly promotional, but will try to revise it if current reviewers disagree. The source is not actually the mission statement, but the "At a Glance" page with spells out the basic facts and figures of the school, which I think would be reliable for such things. I did not think that the claim about the term "group" was likely to be challenged. I will find a reference for it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have revised the explanation of groups and quoted directly from a source that explains why the term is used.Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also revised the Curriculum section per your comments and I believe it will read more neutrally now. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not implying that the mission statement was sourcing the claim that the practice of calling grades "groups" dates back to the early days of the school. But the "At a glance" page does not contain that claim. Neither, for that matter, does it say that classes have 32 students, that there are four divisions, or that the EC program is for three-year-olds, all claims in the paragraph it references in the article. The same source also cites the sentence about tablet computers, much of which it does not support either. Further down, several sentences were lifted directly from the source. I deleted them.
  • I thought you meant to say the curriculum was sourced to the mission, which I agree would not be a reliable source. I was merely pointing out that the mission is not referenced in the article at all, for the reason you mention. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a reference which specifically supports the class size and EC claims. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a better source for the technology section that supports all the claims made. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have revised the sentences in question to avoid repeating the source. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you give something as a reference for a paragraph, it means, to me at least, that all information in that paragraph can be verified in that source. This article repeatedly does not do that. Ucucha 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the comment. I have worked towards WP:V by citing quotations and anything likely to be challenged. The sources are not meant to support each fact in the paragraph, in the belief that many of those facts are in the not likely to be challenged bucket. But I have taken your comments to heart and added the appropriate references where indicated. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your efforts in improving the article to address my and Malleus's concerns are commendable. Whether it will be enough to get the article to FA status, I don't know, but I'll review further later on. Ucucha 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all of your comments. I will make additional efforts along those lines in the next day or two and look forward to your further review. Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of general interest, which of the FA criteria make reference to valid html? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is caused by a section that has a perfectly valid and sensible name. When that results in invalid HTML, that is a bug in MediaWiki, not something that should be fixed in this article. Ucucha 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I don't like to mention this often, but I have a degree in gifted education and I will assist in helping you improve the article as I can. I find the writing descriptive, but not compelling. There are ways to fix this if you will allow some thorough copy-editing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Archived by Karanacs [43]. Ucucha 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 9 February 2010 [44].

Wildfire[edit]

Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. It has been some time since the previous nomination and I believe that all of the concerns have been addressed. I just updated all the dead links and figured it was time for some additional feedback. MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a random comment: I'm surprised that there are no print sources at all. While I see a good number of online journal articles, print sources are usually far more thorough, and a topic like this is bound to have them. Any particular reason you didn't include any? NW (Talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Print sources as in books? I have access to books on the topic, but I was under the impression that WP:Verify was essential, and most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet. Is this not the case? MrBell (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet". Not the case. Definitely not the case. • Ling.Nut 04:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other things being equal, freely-readable online sources are better than non-free, because the free sources are easier to verify. However, Wikipedia articles should cite the best sources, even if they're not freely-readable. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added both - your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. You're in for some dissapointment. An important subject (like this one) should be sourced (almost exclusively) to books and scientific journal articles. You may have to rewrite the whole thing for FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment is a bit strong, as many of the sources cited are quite high quality, e.g., Bowman et al. 2009 (doi:10.1126/science.1163886). Anyway, here are some recent sources, some all freely readable, that seem worthwhile looking into, and perhaps cited:
I've tried to access this article on several occasions, but it doesn't appear to be available without subscription. Do you have a direct link to it? MrBell (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search found one, which I added to the above citation. Eubulides (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much - I'll start reading it today. MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the resources. I'll check them out and add them over the next few days. MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing over sources. Personally I like web sources, since they can be checked easily. Another editor and I took Jackie Robinson through FA, and had to ad maybe 100 book sources so that it didn't rely on web sources. It depends on who the reviewers are. Not everyone is a stickler for book sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article took about 25 seconds to load, which is far too long to edit comfortably. The HTML took 21.614 seconds to generate on the server, a sign that it's using slow citation templates. I suggest switching from {{citation}} (which is the biggest, slowest, and hoggiest citation template) to faster templates (I like {{vcite journal}}, but I'm biased) or simply doing the citations by hand, without templates. Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them from citation to other templates - is it faster now? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. With the switched templates the page took 22.837 seconds of server time in my test. I was thinking of the vancite templates; with them, the page took 12.051 seconds in my test; much better. Also, the current version generates 300 kB of HTML, whereas the vancite version generates only 205 kB, so there's a significant savings in download time too. The vancite templates switch to Vancouver system style, which you may not want, so I reverted my edit to try them out. If you don't like the Vancouver system, other options would be to do the citations by hand, or to lessen the number of citations (does the article really need 200 citations)? Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vancite sounds like a good idea - could you revert back to your revision? MrBell (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with the corresponding change to {{Origin of fire}} to handle the citations there. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Current ref 2 isn't published by Cambridge University Press, it's a book that Cambridge is hosting online. Should cite like a book, not a webpage
Done - better? MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes, I noted NOVA, VOA, but there may be others.
I spelled out VOA and others, but I think NOVA doesn't have an abbreviation (it's the title of the TV show). Your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a multi-national organization - http://www.ewatercrc.com.au/about/partnerdetails.html MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - text and citation was removed. MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love it if the images were bigger. They're so educational and visually appealing at full resolution, it's a shame they're so tiny in the article itself. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Juliancolton for all the non-panoramas (except maybe the lead image), and especially for the model near the prose end (I had to squint to read the labels). Give 'em an upsize, perhaps with upright for a percentage increase. --an odd name 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mildly. This is not a major oppose, but rather a keen request for another prose copyedit. The prose is mostly professional, but there are some infelicities and grammar glitches that an independent copyeditor would surely catch. Some examples, all from the first third of the article:
  • The ability of a wildfire's burning front to change direction
How about A wildfire's burning front may also change direction unexpectedly and jump across fire breaks.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Growth and behavior are unique to each fire due to many complex variables, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics. The intention is presumably to claim they all exhibit the same basic characteristics. It would be clearer to say so.
How about These factors produce fires that are always unique, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1949 the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, USA, thirteen smokejumpers died. "In" or similar needs to come twice, since it happened both in 1949, and in the Mann Gulch fire. Or in the 1949 Mann Gulch fire would work, I suppose.
Changed to In the 1949 Mann Gulch fire.... MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunlight warms the ground during the day and causes air currents to travel uphill, and downhill during the night as the land cools. Uncomfortable sentence structure.
How about Sunlight warms the ground during the day which creates air currents that travel uphill. At night the land cools, creating air currents that travel downhill.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Caption)A tree struck by a lightning
How about A tree that was stuck by a lightning on Mount Erymanthos in Greece.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (And yes, bigger images! Down with postage stamps, especially for attractive images like these!) Bishonen | talk 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm no copy-editor, but I can change whatever you notice. Several editors have gone through the article, but I guess a few things were missed. MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the examples I gave are *examples only*, by no means a complete collection. I'm reviewing, not editing, and unfortunately I don't have time to note all minor and/or stylistic problems for you. I do understand that people miss stuff, but I think that simply means you need to get more eyes on the text. Responding to your fixes:

  • "A wildfire's burning front": Yes, ok.
  • "These factors produce": Well, no, you're not addressing what I'm after. My question was, are these characteristics the same as the characteristics of other wildfires? If they're not, it's a self-evident statement. Pretty much everything in the world "exhibits basic characteristics"!
Ahh, now I see it. How about "Wildfire behavior is often complex and variably dependent on factors such as fuel type, moisture content in the fuel, humidity, wind speed, topography, geographic location, and ambient temperature. While these factors produce fires that are always unique, wildfires can be described by the following characteristics:"? MrBell (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by "the following characteristics", do you mean the entirety of the rest of the section, with its five subheaders? That doesn't work. Really not. You have to finish the sentence "While these factors produce fires that are always unique, wildfires can be described by the following characteristics:". Right now it ends with a colon. And the few lines under "Characteristics" just aren't a suitable way of introducing the subsections, which I take to be the job those lines are there for. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding introductory/summary paragraphs, can I write one myself based on the material that follows, or does the exact wording have to be linked to refs? I could group 4-5 references together to create a summary paragraph, but I've been told previously that 4-5 refs after a block of text is too much. MrBell (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1949": Yes, ok.
  • "Sunlight warms": Yes, fine.
  • "A tree that": No, the problem was "a lightning". Lightning is an uncountable noun. Change to "struck by lightning". Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oops - changed to "struck by lightning". MrBell (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, it turns out that those images were downsized from the default. I just now removed all specifications of sizes smaller than 300px: this noticeably grew the images and addresses some of the objections noted above. As logged-in users can specify a preference for 300px thumbnails, articles typically shouldn't specify sizes smaller than that. If some images are still too small, "upright=1.1" etc. could be used to tweak them a bit but I wouldn't go overboard as the default size is scheduled to increase from 180px to 220px soon. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to upright=1.1 - is that too small? MrBell (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.1 should be fine for now (gives you 200px). We may want to revisit this once the default is changed to 220px, as 1.1 will turn into 240px, which is a tad large for typical readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this point. I have only looked at a single section / issue, "Human involvement". I don't think an article on the subject of wildfire can comprehensively examine the literature without drawing on Pyne's massive study Cycle of Fire:

  • "World fire: the culture of fire on earth" (1997)
  • "Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire" (1997)
  • "Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told Through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World" (2000)

Until this work is cited, the article cannot meet 1(c) (in my view).

Is this something I can check these out from my local library? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try following the ISBN links in the following citations. Follow the WorldCat links in the resulting pages. They should tell you about local libraries.
  • Pyne SJ. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. Holt; 1995. ISBN 0805032479.
  • Pyne SJ. Fire in America: A Cultural History of WIldland and Rural Fire. Princeton University Press; 1982. ISBN 0691083002.
  • Pyne SJ. Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World. University of Washington Press; 1997. ISBN 0295975962.
Although these are important sources, please don't take them as gospel. See, for example, Pausas & Keeley 2009 (the source I mentioned previously), which is careful to label one of Pyne's hypothesis as a hypothesis. Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. I'm not sure how much time it takes for an FA review, but I'll try to get those books sometime. MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting they be taken as gospel, but the article cannot be comprehensive and "a thorough and representative survey" of the lit without looking at, and using as appropriate, this major study. As for "careful to label one of Pyne's hypothesis as a hypothesis" - well, if Pyne says it is a hypothesis, then what else would one label it when agreeing with the author? Sounds like scientific community weasel-speak for "I don't think i agree, but i can't explain why." Either way, i am not suggesting Pyne's "hypotheses" be included, just the scholarship. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section: reference is made to "University of Oregon. Climate change, human activity and wildfires" (currently note 111). This is the uni's media release about a major study scheduled two years ago for publication in Nature Geoscience. The study should be being cited, not this media release.

Link to journal added. MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<frowns>Well, sure, but it wasn't just a change in the ref that i meant, i meant actually reading the ref to see if it says what the media release says. Just looking at the Nature abstract, for example, i see the abstract refers to "sedimentary charcoal records spanning six continents", whereas the WP article refers to "Charcoal evidence from the Americas". This discrepancy concerns me, which is why the actual refereed article should be the basis for the WP content. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section: prose problems. First sentence says "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history, from minor allusions in the Bible to classical writers such as Homer, although less focus was placed on uncultivated lands where wildfires occurred". Early human history perhaps - the range from the Bible to Homer isn't much of a range! Less than what? And the "from" "to" thing doesn't scan right either.

How about: "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history, including minor allusions in the Bible and classical writers such as Homer. However, while ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Roman writers were aware of fires, they were not very interested in the uncultivated lands where wildfires occurred."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history" is a very daggy phrase, and doesn't focus on the time period involved. There's really room for a lot more work here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next sentence: "Wildfires were also used in battles" But we have not been told about any uses yet, so they cannot then be "also used".

How about "Wildfires were used in battles throughout human history as early thermal weapons."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Thermal weapons" makes it sound like something the Klingons would wield, along with "ray guns". What about an expression from the literature explaining how they were used in combat? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later that para: "Charcoal sedimentary data off the Pacific coast of Central America also suggests that more burning occurred in the 50 years before the Spanish colonization of the Americas". I assume what is meant is "Charcoal found in sedimentary deposits" - "Charcoal sedimentary data" is not going to fly as a compound noun. Then "more burning occurred in the 50 years before..." more than when?

How about: "Charcoal found in sedimentary deposits off the Pacific coast of Central America suggests that more burning occurred in the 50 years before the Spanish colonization of the Americas than compared to periods after the colonization."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half way there, but the expression "compared to periods" needs to be deleted from your revised version, otherwise it doesn't make sense. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this was just one para. I haven't read the rest (may get to it sometime), but from this section (which is closest to my own expertise), the article needs work. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I wait until you have a chance to read the rest to start making edits? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • minor PS - There are two van Wagtendonk refs in the end list, but no discrimination between them in the notes. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They differ in page numbers, but I agree that it's hard to differentiate between the two. Any suggestions? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, use years, as in standard Harvard referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to that point - controlled burning is a major subject in any discussion of wildfire. In Australia at least, there is a substantial debate - and significant research effort - relating to the merits and management of controlled burning, or hazard reduction burning (the prevailing term now). I would suggest the article is going to need more than the say-so of a single researcher (van Wagtendonk) to have text such as this: "burns are reportedly "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread,..." " Quoting this one researcher won't be enough at FA i would suggest. This is too big an issue.
  • Similarly, the article has "Building codes in fire-prone areas typically require that..." but the two cites for this sentence are Californian - no mention of whether this is the case in other states, Australia, African countries, Spain or other areas where wildfire is a significant human settlement hazard. See for example this global overview paper which covers the US and Australia and some other countries (unfortunately omits Meditterranean states), and in fact some countries don't have national bushfire codes (p. 5). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 9 February 2010 [45].

Petlyakov Pe-8[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a Milhist ACR and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auntieruth55 has been kind enough to clean up the text; I ask reviewers to reread the article to see if their objections have been met.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (and who has looked at earlier images and can be presumed to know what a Petlyakov Pe-8 looks like). Problematic phrases include "Soviet", "ruble", "from 1945", and "CPA #989". Please remove these phrases or move them to the caption, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Perhaps you could transcribe the text in that stamp instead, as per WP:ALT#Text? Phrases that could be transcribed include "ПОЧТА СССР" "1 РУБ", "Петляков-8", and "тяжелый бомбардировщик". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the phrases are Mail USSR, 1 Ruble, Petlyakov-8 and something bomber (Google won't translate the first word). So the verifiability issues are 1945 and CPA #989? I suppose I can always delete them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that we can't assume that the reader of the Wikipedia article knows Russian, so the alt text should give the Russian, and the caption can give the English translation as needed. The caption is available to both visually impaired and sighted readers, and it should contain any English translation so that both sets of readers can see the translation. (Please see WP:ALT#Goal for alt text vs captions.) Yes, it's probably best to delete the 1945 and the CPA #989. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would help you translate Russian words or sentences into English if you explain to me what you want (I didn't meet with ALT before this). For example, "ПОЧТА СССР" means "Post of USSR" or "USSR Post" just like "Почта России" means "Russian Post"; "1 РУБ" means "1 Ruble", the Russian currency; "тяжелый бомбадировщик" means "heavy bomber". CPA is the Soviet Union stamp catalogue. Tell me what you want and I'll help you. --RoadTrain (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind offer. I guess that what I need now is a citation for the catalog # and the date of release. If you happen to have access to one and can furnish the necessary information that would be most excellent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the translations, but the point is that the alt text should report only the original text, and any translations should be put into the caption so that both sighted and visually impaired readers get the translations. See, for example, the image in July 2009 Ürümqi riots #Arrests and trials: its alt text says the banner reads "维护法律尊严，严惩犯罪分子" and its caption translates this to "Uphold the sanctity of the law, and severely punish the criminals". Eubulides (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think that I did understand what you need. You can't use the detailed description text giving at commons: "Почтовая марка СССР 1945 года: тяжёлый бомбардировщик Пе-8. ЦФА #989, 1 рубль, гашёная." as you must cite the only text on the image, right? Then it will be: "Тяжелый бомбардировщик Пе-8, ПОЧТА СССР, 1 РУБ". It's equal to "The heavy bomber Pe-8, USSR Post, 1 Rub".--RoadTrain (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) How's this now?

There was a typo that messed up the formatting. I fixed it, and while I was at it, transcribed the text more accurately, removed a bit of confusion in the caption, and used "upright" to avoid having the picture be smaller than the 300px that some users prefer. That should do it for alt text; thanks again for your help. Eubulides (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 'Comments. A very informative article, but the prose still needs some work. A few examples:
    • "... a bomber that could carry 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs 4,500 km (2,800 mi) at a speed greater than 440 km/h (270 mph) from an altitude of 10,000 metres ...". From an altitude?
Fixed
    • "The engine cooling system was revised to alleviate the problem with the aerodynamics of the outer engine nacelles ...". What problems with the aerodynamics? This is the first we're told of any problems.
Do you think I should spell out all of the issues encountered by the prototype and then list the changes made to fix them?
No, I think that you ought to have explained earlier that there were problems with the aerodynamics instead of introducing this non sequitor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The control system revised, an autopilot fitted and the electrical system was redesigned." Should that be "was revised"?
It should indeed.
    • "Other changes included the deletion of the 'beard' ...". Deletion seems a strange choice of word in this context.
What do you suggest? Dropped, discarded. Deleted seemed OK to me.
    • "The exhaust arrangements of the ASh-82 were not compatible with the guns in the rear of the engine nacelles and they were deleted." Which were deleted? The exhaust arrangements or the guns?
Yeah, unclear antecedent there.
    • "When Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941 only the 2nd Squadron of the 14th Heavy Bomber Regiment (TBAP—Tyazholy Bombardirovochnyy Avia Polk), based at Borispol[15] was equipped with nine TB-7s ...". So other squadrons were equipped with either more or less than nine?
OK, rewritten
    • "... the others landing elsewhere or crash-landing in Finland and Estonia." So they managed to crash twice, once in Finland and then again in Estonia?
Multiple planes, multiple landing sites.
    • "He was forced to turn around after a fuel tank was punctured and crash-landed in southern Estonia." So his fuel tank crash-landed, but what about the rest of the plane?
OK
    • "By the eve of the Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad, Operation Uranus on 8 November the regiments had fourteen Pe-8s on hand ...". Is there a comma missing here?
Yep
    • "During the early part of the battle, the long-range aviation units continued to strike targets in the German rear areas during the night ...". Awkward repetition.
Fixed, thanks for your comments, they've been very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the whole thing looked at again, as I just gave a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comments. I'm no image expert, in fact some days I can hardly even bother to open my eyes, so feel free to ignore my comments, but I do have a few concerns about the copyright status of some of the images used in this article. For instance, the image in the infobox is claimed to be in the public domain, but I see no justification for that claim. Which of the Russian PD rules apply in this case? Similarly with this one. If the author is unknown, then how can the PD claim under Armenian law be supported? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me. The Russian revision to their copyright law appears to reassert copyright over almost all WW2-era images which had previously been out of copyright. And I don't know what to do about the Armenian image. I guess I'll have to ask on the Village pump for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to address this question, you do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Really? I hadn't known.</sarcasm>Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any point in this. I don't think the article meets the FA criteria, and I'm not about to argue with you about that. If the issues I've raised aren't addressed then I will be opposing this article's promotion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I'm still waiting for a response at the Village Pump on the image issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comments at the Village pump I've dropped one image and loaded the other here to change the license to FU.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola can be consulted on Russian image concerns; he knows that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you replace the nonfree infobox image with the free stamp image? What does the infobox image show (that the stamp image doesn't) that justifies using a non-free image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe that a photo is always preferable to a drawing. The stamp is kinda neat, but doesn't come close to replacing a photo, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough according to WP:NFCC, esp #8. I think the photo should be replaced. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back, because even the copyright status of the stamp is dubious. There are hundreds of Soviet stamps like this at commons, but I think they'll all be deleted eventually. The template used has nothing to do with stamps. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comments to mav below; how is a stamp not equivalent to a banknote which is explicitly permitted under Russian copyright?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • I assume that the Air International ref is the "Pe-8" article in the bibliography? Best to list the footnote closer to the style in the bibliography
Hard to do since no authors are given for the article. Should I stay with journal title or switch to article title?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do "article title" Journal title myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not review the russian language refs for reliablity.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Post-war use" section seems rather thin. In particular, are any of these aircraft known to still be around? --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, no survivors. Info on Cold-War era use for any Soviet aircraft is a bit thin on the ground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question can you explain what the ilpilots and allaces cites are? I couldn't read the main page, but the website does look amateurish YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ilpilots is the Statistical Digest of the VVS during WW2 while allaces are regimental histories with citations. Be advised Google translate may show ilpilots as an attack site, but it isn't. Just use one of the other translation sites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Support. Support This is an informative and well done article. Storm's reputation in the Military History Project is a solid one, and although I know little about this area of military history, I've reviewed some of the sources, and they look good to me. These are consistently sources that show up in other Soviet aircraft articles (although he/she does those as well). This article is well-written, with a few minor stumbles, and interesting to read. I'd recommend a couple of tweaks to it, which I have listed on the talk page of the article, rather than to clutter this space and check back here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm has addressed the points I brought up on the article page, or is addressing them to my satisfaction. I've read the comments below about passive voice, and although I agree that usually the passive voice is bad, in the Soviet structure, it would be extremely difficult to put a specific name on a set of orders, unless it was Stalin's. The collective ideology transformed all decisions into the decisions of the people. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support pending addressing/resolving these points:

  • "The decision was made to proceed without it" has passive voice. Please tell us who made the decision or revise.
    • My source doesn't identify who made that decision: "It was decided to build the TB-7 without this vital component, although without it the machine lost its major advantage of high speed at high altitude."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody more familiar with image copyright needs to do a review of File:Pe-8.jpg and File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg. Pe-8.jpg was at first claimed to be PD but now has a fair use rationale, yet has no mention of original source or author. It is also not clear to me that USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg is covered by the Russian PD law.
    • Source and author of Pe-8.jpg are unknown and probably unknowable at this stage since the original uploader didn't put either on the original image. Here's the discussion at the [Pump]. As for the stamp, it would seem to fall under {{PD-RU-exempt}} because a stamp is functionally equivalent to a banknote as a symbol of the state. And that's how it's licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. Interesting, but not well-written. Please get an experienced copyeditor to go through this. It needs more than light attention—a lot of the sentences need to be completely rewritten. Examples just from the top:
    • The very first sentence is clumsy, owing to its lack of parallel structure: "The Petlyakov Pe-8 was ... a <noun phrase> <passive verb>" and then "the <noun phrase> <subject> <active verb>"
      • I don't agree.
    • "it was used to bomb Berlin in August 1941" since you wedged the time here, does it not apply to the other qualifiers? When did it bomb other cities?
      • It bombed Berlin that one time, at a time when the Soviets were retreating like mad during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa, and scored major propaganda points for the Soviets. Something that it continued to do for the next several years even though these raids were militarily ineffective. But I did clarify the timeline.
    • The last sentence in that para: Why cram the whole bit about Molotov into the same sentence as the main mission? The resulting sentence is so long that we've forgotten the point we started with, "primary mission"
      • Umm, because it's a contrast to its normal duties? And how about easing up on the hyperbole; you're not helping your case with it.
    • "The loss rate to all causes doubled" Jargon requires linking or explanation. Most readers will not connect with "loss rate to all causes".
      • Everybody else seems to have understood it just fine. Don't think loss rate is jargon. Pretty self-explanatory, IMO.
        • FAC reviewers are definitely not representative of our general audience. They tend to have college degrees and be familiar with jargon owing to the number of FA candidates reviewed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sources disagree when exactly this happened" Confusing double entendre.
      • Double entendre? Explicate, please. But I have rephrased this regardless.
        • Could be read: "The sources disagreed at the time "exactly this" happened. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remaining lead: How were they removed to service but also being using in transportation, testing, and Arctic missions? That sounds like service to me. True, but not service with combat units which I've clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make it out of the lead, but hopefully I've illustrated the need for more work. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:29, 6 February 2010 [46].

Parks and Recreation (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've been working on Parks and Recreation-related articles for months now, and I believe this article is a comprehensive as can be. This article has already passed GAN and gone through a PR, and it's the main article of a currently ongoing GT nom that appears to have wide support. I think it's ready for featured status. — Hunter Kahn 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that several sections contain long lists of citations, when referring to "many critics", or "several [things]". Would it not perhaps be tidier—and a little more useful—to create a notes section in the references, and add a short quote from each critic into that notes section, together with a citation? That way, the reader can see briefly what each critic says, and they also don't have to look at a line of 5 citations interrupting the prose as instead of [1][2][5][22] you'd just have [nb1]? Just an idea. Parrot of Doom 12:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certainly not opposed to that, but I've never done that before. I wonder if you wouldn't mind doing one of these so I can see what it looks like? Then I'll do the rest? — Hunter Kahn 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a look at Dick Turpin. The code for each [nb] is {{#tag:ref|Film reviewer Joe Bloggs:— "blah blah blah"<ref>Citation for <--- that line, in here</ref>, TV reviewer Frank Smith:— "etc etc etc"<ref>frank smith, publisher, date etc</ref>|group="nb"}}. You can put all your individual quotes inside those tag brackets, together with each citation. Then, to get them to appear in their own references section, just use {{reflist|group="nb"}} wherever in the article you want them to appear (usually near the standard list of sources).. Basically those tag brackets mean that anything inside them, references, text, the lot - gets moved down into the footnotes section. Parrot of Doom 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I took a shot at this. It seems like a good idea to me, but I'm still not sure I did it right. Specifically, I'm not sure if I'm going into too much detail in the footnote or not. I tried it on one first, so please let me know what you think. If this is correct, I'll add it for other areas with multiple cite tags. — Hunter Kahn 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spot on. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Excellent. I will finish the rest either tonight or tomorrow. Alright, I've added one everywhere that I thought it was necessary. If I've missed one that you feel should be added, let me know and I'll do it straight away. And thanks for this guidance; it was educational for me! :) — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Two images. Alt text good.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good. Though the rationale for any image illustrating people would ideally identify them.
  • Usage: Borderline. This image seems as if it would be more appropriate to the article on the series, unless there were substantial cast changes between seasons 1 and 2 (it appears there were not). The substantial overlap between this image and the infobox image raises NFCC 3a concerns ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"). We currently have two FAs devoted to individual seasons of TV series: Supernatural (season 1) and Smallville (season 1). They both include main text images that are much more specific to the particular season in question, and I believe, of greater benefit to readers.
  • Rationale: Decent, but rationales (or lead summary descriptions) for stills of people must identify them when possible. DCGeist (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the names of the cast members to the lead summary description. You've identified this second image as borderline. Do you feel the image is problematic enough to prevent you from supporting the FAC? — Hunter Kahn 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In most cases—and in this one—when I provide a media review, I don't go further to support or oppose the nomination itself, which I believe requires a comprehensive assessment. The media review is provided as a service to you, the nominator, and to the FA delegates. When I identify a problem, I try to be as detailed and explanatory as possible. If you're asking me if I think that the issue I've identified would be a FAC-killer if it was the single, solitary question mark in the article—no, I don't think it would be. On the other hand, as I tried to make clear, there is room for improvement here (and in the main series article, where—again—I believe this image would be more appropriately placed for the overlapping reasons of both informational value and fair use policy).—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, thanks for the review. I think you've brought up some good points here, so I've removed the image from this article and moved it to the main Parks and Recreation article (where I will later address some of the other rationale concerns you've raised). I've replaced it in this season 1 article with an image of Amy Poehler, for which a free license is available. — Hunter Kahn 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, in the future, please do not put up a second nomination until your first has garnered sufficient support. Since both FACs are well underway now, I'll let this run, but the FAC page is seriously backlogged, so multiple noms are a hindrance. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that, won't happen again. — Hunter Kahn 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The plot summaries need to be heavily expanded. Per MOSTV, they should be ~100-200 words, and should give the episode's resolution. Ωphois 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I've never done a season article before, so I didn't know the MOSTV item regarding the summaries. I was using articles like The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2 as more of a guide. I will work on expanding the plot summaries this weekend! — Hunter Kahn 19:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've expanded them. I tried to keep them on the short side, but they are all slightly over 100 words, and they all have the episode's resolution. — Hunter Kahn 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the pilot episode, it would be good to list why she is trying to help. If I remember correctly, the nurse's boyfriend fell into the pit, and his injury is a plot element throughout the season.
    • For the second episode, what are some of Tom's questionable tactics? Ωphois 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third episode implies that Leslie got in trouble for opening the basket, but the article for the episode says she is in trouble because April was drinking underage. Ωphois 01:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added the information to address these questions. I didn't include the April bit under "Boys' Club" at first because I thought it was cumbersome to explain, but let me know if it works. — Hunter Kahn 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is very close—it's comprehensive, well sourced, and well structured—but I'm seeing some problems with the prose. I copyedited the lede, but it looks like there are issues throughout. Just from the first couple of episode summaries, for instance:

  • "Ann Perkins (Rashida Jones) attends a town meeting asking for a construction pit to be filled in". It sounds like the town meeting is doing the "asking". You mean "to ask that a construction pit be filled in", right?
  • "In order to create support for her park project and gain members for an upcoming town meeting". Confusing. Do you mean something like "enroll new members to attend an upcoming town meeting"?
  • "However, although supporters of the park do not attend, opponents to the proposal come out in large numbers to voice their disapproval". Problems with verbosity and grammar here. Something like this: "However, the park's supporters do not attend and opponents of the proposal turn out in large numbers to voice their disapproval".

The sort of things I'm seeing are by no means major, but it looks like this could use one more pass from a good copyeditor.—DCGeist (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've fixed the specific items you cited. However, I think it's very important to note that this article has already gone through a formal peer review focused on grammatical issues. The examples you provided were very recently added by me in response to an above request in this FAC that the episode summaries be expanded. Since those were so recently added, they were not part of the PR, so citing these prose problems are not indicative of the grammar in the rest of the article. That being said, I'm not saying this article couldn't do with another copy editing pass, but since we've had a PR and a GAN review, I'm very confident any prose remaining can be addressed within this FAC review, and won't require a separate WP:Peer Review. — Hunter Kahn 02:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. Yes, the rest of the article looks stronger prose-wise, but I'm still catching obvious stuff like this, in a quotebox: "I love the pace of the show. Since I started doing that single-camera stuff, it takes forever. But (on Parks and Recreation) and you guys just light and we go. It's so much fun." That simply doesn't make sense. (And if the parenthetical clause is an editorial interpolation, it should be in square brackets.) Please revisit the original quotation and make this work.—DCGeist (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed the quote. And please don't get me wrong, I'm sure another copy edit would be appropriate, and I'm more than willing to address anything that arises from it. I'm just hopeful it's not so insurmountable that we can't handle it here in the FAC. — Hunter Kahn 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • http://www.officetally.com/parks-and-recreation-set-visit/2
  • I sorted out the italics on non-print publishers. Make sure they're not in italics in the main text as well.
    • Thanks for addressing the italics issue. As far as the OfficeTally source, it's a fansite, but I have argued in the past that it can be considered a reliable source for certain bits of information because the person who runs the site (Jennie Tan) has been running the site so long and so efficiently that she has been given an unprecedented amount of access to the producers and to show information, to the extent that she has been given behind-the-scenes access to The Office and Parks and Recreation sets. I've made this argument at GAs where her site has been accepted as a reliable source, such as New Boss, Two Weeks and Company Picnic. Additionally, I've only used her as a source in this article for one piece of information (that the pit was guarded 24 hours a day) where I could not find another source to replace it. But, with all that being said, if you still feel it should be removed as a source, I'll remove it... — Hunter Kahn 02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FA directives are much tougher than GA. I would still say remove it as it is a fansite. RB88 (T) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The info flow seems a bit to me. I would say go for a logical Production-Crew-Cast-Episodes-Reception-DVD. Reads better, although you might have to sort out the introductory sentences in each section. RB88 (T) 00:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to hear from other editors their thoughts and whether they agree before I make such a major structural reorganizing. I'm not opposed to what you're saying, and I'll certainly do it if the consensus goes that way, but I personally like the current structure, which is similar to the FA article Smallville (season 1). — Hunter Kahn 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine if you feel that way, but if we waited for consensus on every bullet point a reviewer says we would never get anything done. RB88 (T) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • lol I agree with that, but this is a major structural change, not simply a grammatical item or source question, so I just want to give it a little time. — Hunter Kahn 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:29, 6 February 2010 [47].

July 2009 Ürümqi riots[edit]

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for FAC because it has been worked on carefully by numerous respected editors since July, and has had many eyes on it to try to maintain a balanced POV on a difficult and divisive topic. We've been careful about POV, weight, referencing, and the reliability of sources; we also recently got some images and even video from an editor who was in Urumqi during the riots. With all the people who have been involved in this article, we have a small army of spot-checkers to keep watch over the article and catch vandalism, POV-pushing, and silly errors (like me accidentally using American English :P). Ultimately I'm hoping to get this to FA status on time to make TFA on July 5, 2010 (the first anniversary of the riots).

The other editors involved heavily in this article include Colipon, Seb az86556, Jim101, Ohconfucius, and Benlisquare. Wasn't sure if I'm supposed list them as co-nominators or not; feel free to add yourselves if you like.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images need alt text, there is one dab link (Han (ethnicity) which redirects to the dab Han people). Multiple (8) broken external links. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, alt text and dablinks should be fixed by now. Will look at the deadlinks (with the number of news articles cited here, the article tends to undergo linkrot rather quickly). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've corrected the broken links; the link checker tool returns some false positives (this is not the first time I've seen it do that).
    • The rest of the actually dead links are fixed now. Two were irretrievable (the Malaysian Insider one and the MSN "Uighur leader's family 'blame her'" one), so I just removed the links and kept the rest of the citation info. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
      • Looks better now. I'll go through the prose now, but it seems like the first one still is giving me a 404. If it isn't giving you a 404 it may just be my (crappy) internet connection. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, now that's strange. It worked for me just a few minutes ago, and now the exact same URL is not working. Interestingly, the external link checker now says it does work (I guess because of its lag, it's reporting whatever was going on when the link was working for me earlier). This particular link seems to be turning on and off. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone ahead and removed that link, it seems too unstable to take a chance with. The title, work, date, etc. is still there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, great alt text on the video. It portrays the violence well.
  • "The number rose sharply, though, after the first night's rioting; at midday on Monday, 6 July (China standard time)". You mention time throughout the section before without indicating the time zone. Why mention it now?
  • I don't like the "as for property" in "As for property, Xinhua reported that 627 vehicles and 633 constructions were damaged."
  • "Despite many blocks and censorship, Internet watchers monitored continued attempts by netizens to publish their own thoughts on the causes of the incident or vent their anger about it." Is the "it" at the end talking about he censorship or the violence?
  • Also a lot of references need publishers.
TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good prose suggestions, I have made the changes. As for publishers, I believe a lot of the news refs have |agency= and |work= (with work being used in place of publisher in the cases of things like, for example, an AP article found on the Los Angeles Times website, and agency being used in place of publisher in the case of, for example, a Xinhua article found on the Xinhua website). I'm not aware of any references that have none of the above. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose looks good (for me at least). However a lot of the refs need accessdates, and the xinhuanet.com refs are missing work/publisher or whatever you wish to use there. aa.com.tr ref is also using a bare URL. Other than the refs, I think the article is FA quality, though just me saying this isn't much of a consensus TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, think it's all done now (boy, editing like that will put some hair on your chest, let me tell you what). The first edit in that bunch explains the scheme I used to [hopefully] standardize the reference format. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks great now. That was a ton of work! It looks great to me, so Endorse/Support/List, whichever you wish to do. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Thanks for adding all that alt text; it greatly improves the article's accessibility. However, there is still an accessibility problem with all those flags in the text. For example, the article currently uses the Wiki markup "{{flagicon|European Union}} The [[European Union]]", which generates "European Union The European Union", which a screen reader will read aloud to a visually disabled person as something like "link European Union the link European Union"; this is not good. These flags are purely decorative in the W3C accessibility sense, and so should be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. If you want to keep the flags, the wiki markup "[[File:Flag of Europe.svg|22x20px|link=|alt=]] The [[European Union]]" generates " The European Union" which a screen reader will render as "The link European Union"; this is much better. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) #Do not use icons in general article prose suggests that this sort of usage should be avoided altogether, and certainly it'd be simpler just to remove the flags. Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with any of the above solution (although, just my two cents, I think the flags make it a bit more easily legible—but perhaps they could be replaced by bolded country names); to be honest, I've barely been involved at all in the editing of that Reactions section. I'll leave a message with User:Midway, who did most of the work in that part of the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think bolding would be the best idea. You probably want the country name to stick out. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that bolding has been used and this fixes the remaining alt text problem; thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Admirable effort, but the section beginning with "All parties in the dispute..." leans effectively towards the conclusion that the protests were organized, giving amply room to the PRC position but it fails to investigate the possibility of a spontaneous eruption of violence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where you get that reading; I personally believe the opposite (that violence was spontaneous) and have been criticized in the past for not putting enough in about how the protests were organized—over the past few months we've fielded criticism for not have enough of the Chinese view (Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots/Archive5#Pro-Uyghur/Anti-Uyghur, User talk:Rjanag/Archive7#Xinjiang Riots update, User talk:Rjanag#July 2009 Ürümqi riots info for Chinese views). It seems that no matter which way I go, people on each side are upset. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the paragraph you are pointing to is only one paragraph of a two-paragraph section. The whole point of that paragraph is to present the Chinese view. The previous paragraph presents the other view. (And later paragraphs in the article also return to this controversy; specifically, the third paragraph of "Initial demonstrations" addresses the turn to violence.) Of course the paragraph presenting the Chinese view is going to give more weight to that view; that's what the paragraph is about. You only get the balanced view by reading the whole thing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why don't you mark the paragraph as a summary of the Chinese position? "Immediate causes" is hardly the right section title for that. And the Uyghur counterposition should follow immediately, and not the reader to be forced to piece it together from the rest of the article. Right now, the paragraph starts with whether the violence was planned or spontaneous, winds through several government allegations, each getting stronger, and ends with a supposed terrorist connection to Al Qaida without ever representing the view of the opposition. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, "Causes" is the right section title. The Uyghur position is that the cause was the Shaoguan riots; the Chinese position is that the cause was terrorist intervention. We can all agree that that's a load of BS, but that view has been widely published and it's not Wikipedia's place to post an opinion on it. Besides, every time one of the Chinese views is mentioned, it's tempered with something along the lines of "X claims that..." to distance the Wikipedia article itself from that opinion.

          As for the Uyghur counterposition/view, it is located right before the Chinese position, in the preceding paragraph. To be honest, this is probably one of the first times I've heard someone call this article too pro-Chinese. Usually the criticism is the opposite. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • I think people won't stop complaining about this point until someone tag every non-Uyghur viewpoints with a template like {{Warning Chinese Propaganda}}, but that would just give excuses to all the pro-Han POV pushers to invoke terrorism on every pro-Uyghur viewpoints...I would say move on until there are more substantial concerns with this issue. Jim101 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In any case, I have now moved some things around and made some additions ([48]) to make the structure and message of this section clearer. It should be pretty clear that the purpose of the section is to present 1) the Uyghur story of what caused the riots; 2) the Chinese story; 3) a brief summary of what differs about them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • "it fails to investigate the possibility of a spontaneous eruption of violence" Yes it does fail on that count. It's a typical situation in China, and we must accept that there will never be an investigation. Even if we do, it will never be independent, will almost certainly point to a separatist plot. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to reaffirm my oppose. Two times I tried to add "Chinese" analysts and both times I was immediately reverted. I looked the cited references up and actually the two of us were wrong: it is only a single expert, Mr. Rohan Gunaratna, who makes the allegations of an Al-Qaida or ETIM connection! Two references for one source, while the third, China Daily, can be considered a propaganda instrument and does not actually cite a single 'expert'. So the line should actually run: "According to a single terrorist analyst, ...." I am sorry, but I have no patience nor understanding for people who are quicker on the reverse button than looking into what they actually quote. In other words: I am now lacking faith in the way the article deals with citing references, and trust is obviously the most important capital with such sensitive topics. Good article status is already quite an achievement, let's keep it at that level. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that China Daily is a government mouthpiece and much of its stuff is propaganda, but unfortunately it's still a widely-disseminated source that has had a huge impact on the perceptions of this event, especially in the minds of Chinese citizens. We may all think that it's a load of crap (I know I do), but we're in no position to sit here saying which sources are allowed to stay and which should be whitewashed out of the article based simply on our beliefs. It is sad that we live in a world where people believe this crap, but unfortunately they do, and to exclude it from the article would be an injustice and make this article just as much a propaganda piece as China Daily is (which is essentially what User:David Straub pointed out to me at my talkpage when he persuaded me to add this material). You are welcome to oppose if you wish, but for the sake of maintaining a well-balanced article (which means allowing room for opinions we dislike or even hate) I will have to disagree with you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And, for what it's worth, good article status is not that much of an achievement, especially when it does nothing to get this article closer to what we're ultimately hoping for, which is main page exposure on 5 July 2010.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, if you haven't noticed yet: Ohconfucious already edited that section of the article to name Gunaratna specifically (instead of saying "several experts") and to reflect that China Daily made this claim without citing anyone. If nothing else, that should address all your concerns. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It all started well and now I realise that the assembled editors of the article were being damned by Gunpowder's faint praise. Please refrain from falsifying a text without adding a reference or looking at the source already supplied. The sources clearly named at least one foreign 'expert', although he writes very circumspectly about a terrorist plot on the part of the WUC. I don't think anyone can object to the neutrality of the text as it is now, exactly as source, and adequately attributed. Whether it's relevant or not is another matter. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second is a press release from the state news agency of Turkey (Anatolian Agency). The first one is a bit more of a stretch; it's a blog, but one of the only sources available from within Urumqi, and one of the few to have long-term perspective (most of the sources are news articles that came out when the events were going on and are prone to errors and hearsay; these posts were written several months after the events, since the writer didn't have internet access for a while). Also, the one place it is used in an article is with a statement that is already confirmed in another reliable source (Shanghai Daily) and gives some more information on pretty much the same thing. Overall, I thought it was safe to IAR here since it's a useful source, and it's not like the whole account of the riots is based on a blog (indeed, this source was only referenced once, and for a quite uncontroversial point). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the first one, how about you use the blog as an external link instead? Our requirements for those are much less strict, and as you say, it's already backed up by another source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if putting it in the EL section would be helpful. It would distance that source from the particular spot where it's relevant, and I think it would attract POV issues (people might, rightly, ask "If this guy's blog is good enough to be listed as an external link, why not this other one?"). Plus, although external links have looser requirements, I actually believe putting a source in the EL section gives it more weight than using it as an inline reference: it seems to send the message "if you want further information, check this Wikipedia-approved external source, we've specifically chosen it for you". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But by using it as a source, we're saying the same thing. It does not meet the FAC "high quality" sources requirement, unfortunately. I don't think it even meets the basic requirements for a reliable source, but it's more of a gray area there. Personally, I'd just delete it, as it only barely comes close to meeting WP:RS and definitely does not meet the higher bar of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I think it was nice, but its inclusion is not going to make or break the article so it's not a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP is not a dictionary. Why are items such as "riots", "excessive force" and "armed police" linked? Can you please audit the whole article for overlinking? "Central Asia" is next to more specific links: why is the sentence crowded out with three links? Plus much more. Tony (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for commenting. OhConfucius has now removed a good deal of links, and I have just gone through as well. But there are also some specific links that I believe are important to keep, even though they might normally be considered overlinky:
      • Uyghur and Han in the beginning of the Background section: yes, they are linked in lede as well, but it's easy to miss links there, and here those terms are used in closer context with what's important about them (i.e., they're used right next to a discussion of ethnic identities and stuff). Since these terms pop up a hundred more times through the course of the article, I think that it's good to make sure they're made easily available to readers, and that one extra link is a drop in the bucket.
      • "an incident" in "Immediate causes" section: pretty much the same thing.
      • Xinhua News Agency in same section: The article relies very heavily on Xinhua material, and often has to temper that with language such as "Xinhua claimed..." or "According to Xinhua...". I think in this case a link gives readers an opportunity to better understand why we're so hesitant to trust Xinhua (referring to it as "the official government news agency" also helps, but its own article is much more explicit about those issues). Although, I'm not sure if links to other publications, such as The Australian and New York Times are as necessary, so if anyone wants them removed I'd be fine with it.
      • separatist at the end of that section: looks like a dicdef, but this is a major concept throughout the whole article so I think it's good to present the reader with an easy way to clarify what it refers to if they want, rather than being confused for the entire article.
      • People's Armed Police in "Media coverage" section: technically this was also linked in the lede, but that was a long way away and in a different context (reference to a different incident). It's entirely possible that someone wouldn't have clicked on it back there but then wonder what it means when it pops up here, so a link shouldn't hurt.
      • Human Rights Watch in "Media coverage" section: linked in the "International reactions" section as well, but that section (a long list) is one that people tend to skip—few people sit down and read it, just like few people sit down and read the dictionary. I think it's fair to duplicate links in this situation.
    • Finally, I should probably point out that the reason the article looks so blue in many places is the relatively high density of refs (this being a controversial article, it has a ton of refs—there's 40,000 characters of references, as opposed to just 30,000 of actual prose). If I were to, as an experiment, remove all the references, I wouldn't be surprised if people said the article didn't look blue enough and asked for more links. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment — Why is their no cite for the last para of the Background sub-section (well it's not really but you get what I mean)? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't get what you mean, I don't see any paragraphs in that subsection without citations. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"These disagreements have sometimes led to violence and ethnic clashes, such as the 1997 Ghulja Incident and the 2008 Kashgar attack, as well as the more widespread 2008 Uyghur unrest preceding the Olympic Games in Beijing." This statement I presume. And I believe the reviewer is trying to ask for a reference to see if other "violence and ethnic clashes" are within context and on topic. Jim101 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. (Aaroncrick left me a message saying essentially the same thing.) I guess the issue, then, is whether there's a source saying that those three incidents are connected to/caused by the underlying ethnic tensions that are described above them. Personally I thought that was pretty much a no-brainer, but I can look around to see if there's an external source as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should address Aaroncrick's concern. I reworded the sentence so it's not really controversial (just saying that, for example, "the Ghulja Incident happened" doesn't really need a reference), and added a reference anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose
firstly the background section, if possible, would benefit from sources from scholarly journals, as the Uighur/Han thing there has been going on a for a while, and some expert analysis is better than a random journo. I see only 1 out of about 10 cites are from journals/textbooks and not newspapers.
The international reaction is rather undue weight. I know it's customary for every current event bombing/natural disaster etc for every govt to make an obligatory condolence to the dead, condemn violence, etc, but it does get a bit repetitive, eg, every news outlet will report on the major bits, eg, the brawl in Guangdown, counter-riots in Urumqi, martial law, trial of rioters etc all the time, but they will only give a selection of responses by other worldl leaders, which are usually clones of each other. At the moment, the list of generic quotes are about 5 times longer than the brawl in Guangdong. I mean, the Micronesian response is the same weight as the Uighurs claiming the PRC covered up the Guangdong brawl. The international reaction section has to be summarised to say what the consensus is, it's uunsustainable to have endlessquotes like that
Fallout needs stuff on China trying to intimidate Australia, and maybe some other countries to not give KAdeer a visa. There was a filme festival in Melbourne with a doco about her, and after the directors wouldn't censor the film, Chinese hackers attacked the website and there was a uighur v han demonstration outside the festival. This type of thing might have been repeated in other countries YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I will look around for more sources for the background section, but to be honest it was only meant to be a brief summary (which is why it contains links to some other articles) rather than an in-depth analysis. As for the international reaction section, I agree that most of the quotations are 'sweet nothings' (and, in fact, I myself have in the past suggested they be removed), but it was discussed here and the consensus that time was to keep it. I don't think it can really be considered "undue weight" since I doubt anyone will really read through the whole thing; it's more like a big long table that people more or less skip over, or maybe look up one or two places that are of interest to them and skip the rest. As for the Australian film festival, I remember that as well and it is covered in Rebiya Kadeer#The 10 Conditions of Love. I chose not to bring it up in this article (and no one else ever asked us to) because I thought the connection to these riots in particular, while it certainly exists, is somewhat tangential. At some point we need to draw a line, otherwise this article could just include everything that ever happens to Kadeer (and Wang Lequan, Li Zhi, Ilham Toxti, etc.) for the rest of her life, under the excuse that "well, the riots influenced that". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the assembled editors all agreed that a tight scope would be desirable. It seems that all the diplomatic pressure from China is targeted at marginalising Kadeer, and yes, people probably would expect to see this stuff mentioned here. Therefore, I have put in a small paragraph. However, it does not go into great detail about the film festival or the computer hacking - all that can be found in the Kadeer article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten it into more streamlined prose, removing much repetition and redundancy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linking on newspapers and channels in teh refs is inconsistent YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed some of the links. I believe the agreement some time ago was to remove links to common names or names already used in the prose, such as NYT and Xinhua, but to keep links to relatively unknown news outlets (especially in the international reaction section, there are lots of names that would be unfamiliar to most readers). You're right that there were some stray links there, so I've removed them, but I did leave many links in using the standard just described, If you think all links should be removed, I would have to discuss that with the other editors. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added some scholarly sources to the Background section. Also, I'm not sure if you were counting the "immediate causes" subsection in your above comments, but I just wanted to point out that there's no problem for now with having a large number of news sources in that section, as it's all recent stuff. The first half of the background section is what I tried to add some more sources to just now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I meant scholarly sources for the long term stuff, not the punchup YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right; now that I look at your numbers again, there was no reason for me to think otherwise. Striking that part of my comment. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I looked only at the first bit. It does need cleaning up a little.

  • Lead: communication was "curtailed" or there was a "blackout"? One or the other. "have faced criminal charges for their actions during the riots"—this says these charges are ongoing, still being dealt with, unresolved (the "have").
    • Changed "communication blackout" to "communication limitations" [49]. As for the "have", yes, they're still ongoing (new trials are happening periodically, I believe the most recent was just a few days ago). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) addendum: I've updated the article to reflect the most recent death sentences, which were on 26 January. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 10% are of other ethnic groups"—remove "of".
    • Really? I think it sounds better with "of"—people aren't ethnic groups, people are "of" or "from" ethnic groups. (The reason it's not parallel to the elements earlier in the sentence is that people are Han or Uyghur.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the area" and "in the region" in the same sentence?
  • "Uyghurs believe that they are gradually being"—they is unclear. "Uyghurs believe that their ancient culture is ..." might be clearer.
  • This strikes me as rather forced POV: "Some say that their culture and traditions are being suppressed under the influx of Han migrants,[20][21] and that they are denied the rights to worship and to travel.[22] On the other hand, some Han people are dissatisfied by government policies which they believe favour Uyghurs,[23] and believe laws are more lenient towards Uyghurs than towards Han people." It's not parallel.
    • I'm not sure I see the problem. Are you saying that the Han complaints are presented as more petty/less concerning than the Uyghur complaints? These are what the sources say, though, and as far as I know these points pretty much summarize each side's view in the dispute. (And, for what it's worth, someone taking the opposite perspective could say that the article is currently presenting the Uyghur's complaints as more radical/blown-out-of-proportion, therefore giving more credibility to the Han ones). But I have added a bit more to the Han side to be safe. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mostly-Han government"—no hyphen, please.
  • "manpower shortages;"—see Gender-neutral language. "labour"? Tony (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works, changed to "labour" [52]. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I've left responses directly under each bullet point; I know some people don't like this format, so please feel free to move them to the bottom if you want. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OMG - 'manpower shortages' is no longer considered gender neutral language? Political correctness has come a long way since I left university! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that as well, but since "labour" doesn't really sound any worse I figured there's no harm in making the trade-off, and if the language was grating for Tony then who knows how many other readers it would have been grating for. Better safe than sorry, I guess. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:29, 6 February 2010 [53].

Braid (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Braid has gone through two FACs before; the second one failed mostly due to the lack of discussion about interpretations of the game's plot (which has been purposeless left vague). Since that time, two additional ports for the game have come out and I have watched to see if any further statements about the game's plot (and any other details) have been made by reliable sources, but there really hasn't been any change. Nevertheless I was able to find some sourced missed the first time through that explore the plot a bit more, as well as addressing comments on the two ports. MASEM (t) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grrr, GameCulture's done this to me before; they recently remapped their URLs and lost a lot of older content. I think it may be at archive.org [54] but presently getting a data retrival failure. If this fails to resolve, I can rewrite to take out one direct quote and will have to rewrite the last section. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can take 6-18 months before results appear on the Wayback Machine. You can also try contacting GameCulture to restore the URL or turning into a dead tree reference (with their help). If you suspect something like this to happen in the future you can preemptively archive it using WebCite (this can be semi-easily done through Checklinks). — Dispenser 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had little success retrieving the original article, but found enough interview material elsewhere that all I needed to do was remove a quote paraphrase it; the GameCulture cite is no longer needed or in the article. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources What makes these reliable?

RB88 (T) 13:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Penny Arcade link replaced with statement from J. Blow's own website on release date.
    • The "North County Notes" is an article by Jason Rohrer who is also an established name in the independent gaming development area; it is his expertise that is the source of reliability for this point.
      • Please provide sourcing that confirms Jason Rohrer is indeed jcr13. RB88 (T) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Play.tm's is on the edge of reliability (formal web content publishing company with editorial staff), but the point here they are used for is to establish the name of the constellation for the meta game. (I have another source to establish there's a meta-game of collecting hidden stars, that's fine) Surprisingly, this is established well in the source from forums and blogs, but not main lit.
      • If the other source is reliable, then definitely use it. Otherwise, I'm leaving it for editors to decide for themselves. RB88 (T) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Magnatune links are both from the music clearinghouse that J. Blow used to get music for the game and where players could purchase the music themselves if they wanted; they would be the primary expert source about the soundtrack availability.
    • The Steam Powered forum post is a direct source from J. Blow himself (confirmed identity on the forums) for the game's level editor, which the Rock, Paper, Shotgun link reiterates. I can replace the RPS link with something more reliable, but all reliable sources that talk about the level editor point back to that forum post to describe its features. Which is why I'd prefer to keep that forum post and back it with at least one more reliable source to assert it. (RPS itself can be considered a reliable source due to their editorial process and staff, but I've replaced this with a more established RS )
      • I'm not convinced about this without hard evidence. Again if you have a reliable source use it instead. RB88 (T) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remaining two sources (presspausetoreflect and tisource) are admittedly not normally reliable sources, but both are straight up interviews with J. Blow. 90% of the information of these interviews agree with other data points he's stated in interviews with other, more reliable sources (suggesting that these aren't faked), but the bits that I use from these interviews are unique to them. I can't offer any more than that for these sources.
      • I'm leaving these for editors to decide for themselves. RB88 (T) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also point to the past FACs discussions for more review of the sources if there's still questions. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Support

  • I went through and performed some copyedits, you might want to check and see if I inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Mostly it was cutting down redundancies and changing some parts to active voice where possible. I had a few questions, below.
    • " "Oracle Billiards", in which the result of a billiards shot would be shown to the player before he made the shot. Blow came to realize the result was informative, but did not work well as an entertaining game mechanic." What exactly does this mean? Where is there a billiards game in Braid? It's not mentioned before.
    • I was bold and removed the legacy subheading, because talking about the character being used elsewhere doesn't exactly strike me as "strong" enough for its own heading. Thoughts?
    • The third "paragraph" of the release section isn't really a paragraph, which by definition need at least three sentences. You need to merge it or expand it.
    • Methinks that File:Braid-art-1.jpg and File:Braid-art-2.jpg could be shrunk slightly to, say, 475 x 267 pixels (about .11 megapixels) from their current .19 megapixel resolutions without damaging the ability to see the small details (the key, Tim, etc.) They would also probably scale better if they were PNGs, and it would be nice to have stronger FURs. In the article, it talks about time moving back to Blow's original designs for the levels, is that something like the art-1 file? If so that could be added.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reordered the first point to be clear where the billards doesn't come into play. Expanded a statement about how Hothead is seeking to port additional games but strted with Braids. Images reduced, I don't know exactly if -1.jpg is what you can rewind time to, but it is certainly part of his concept during dev. I'll make the image furs a bit tighter. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall, the article is in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me.

  • Minor style points that could probably be ignored based on personal preference.
    • Jason Rohrer's commentary in the gameplay section seems out of place to me. I understand what it's doing there, but it almost seems like it belongs in the "Reception" section.
    • In the "Plot" section, the sentences about the final stage use "reverse" twice. The second time made me re-read things again, even though the gameplay section properly explained things.
    • A caption for the artwork in the infobox would be nice.
  • Maybe I've been staring at the screen too long, but "...to show the player the expected result of an action they work take;" in the second paragraph of the "Development" section doesn't make sense to me. I underlined the part that confuses me.
  • The "Reception" section uses a lot of partial quotes. I understand the use of most of them, but it still seems like too much. I know this is also personal taste, but I found the some of the sentences' flow to be disjointed because of the constant switching between quoted and regular content.
  • I know you've probably defended the sources ad nauseam, but there are some I feel need to be questioned.
    • Ref 75 NowGamer
    • Ref 84 AtomicGamer
  • Most of the citations that use the official website credit "Braid-game.com" as the publisher and Blow as the author, but ref 8 and 33 list Blow as the publisher and author. One format should be used.
  • Computer and Video Games is a magazine and should be italicized in ref 57 and 95.

Other than that, the articles looks good. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

      • NowGamer is linking to a podcast where the details of the interview (again) can be confirmed; itself NowGamer does appear to be part of a larger editoral network on the UK side, so may not have the impact of IGN but seems several steps above a standard blog. AtomicGamer is providing one of the few reviews of the PC version that I could find, and thus is reliable for their opinion (And they too are several steps above a standard blog). I believe I've addressed the other points listed. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support: The recent changes really tightened up the article.
  • Sorry, I didn't really inspect Now Gamer before. It is part of Imagine Publishing's network. However, rather than use the Now Gamer page, why not use the Total PC Gaming (also by Imagine Publishing) page for the podcast?
  • I'm on the fence about the Atomic Gamer. Is the content essential to the article? There isn't much mentioned in the way of the PS3 and Mac ports.
  • The excessive quoting still bugs me, but not enough to oppose. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments
    • The lede doesn't seem to express just how big a motif the passage of time is in this game. From reading the lede I had the impression that it was just like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (you can press a button to mess with time when you need to), but after reading the gameplay section I see that it's a much more complex and pervasive feature than that. I think the time-related aspects of gameplay deserve a bit more explanation in the lede.
    • "to deconstruct traditional gameplay concepts, such as several borrowed from Super Mario Bros., and rebuild them in the game..." What concepts are borrowed from Super Mario? Jumping on bad guys? This is what I assumed, but it's not clear. (I just noticed "the princess is in another castle", but that's not mentioned until later in the text.)
    • The plot section seems pretty vague...it says some general things about how the game progresses but little about what happens other than the ending. But you can take this comment with a grain of salt because, not having played the game, I don't know exactly how much or little detail is warranted here.
    • "Blow wanted to include consequences of rewinding time, features not found in games such as Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Blinx: the Time Sweeper, and Timeshift." This is also a bit unclear—what "consequences" are being referred to? Stuff like undoing switches that were pressed, etc.?
    • Do the 6 worlds need to be played in a specific order? This isn't stated explicitly in the gameplay section, and the stuff in the Development section talking about skipping puzzles made it hard for me to tell.
    • How do boss fights work? The Development section mentions that there are bosses, but it's not clear how big a deal they are (when reading the Gameplay section I had been under the impression that there were no bosses, like in Ico). Are there any special gameplay mechanics or puzzle elements to the bosses?
    • The bit about Invisible Cities and its homage to Einstein's Dreams fell a bit flat with me, as I don't know what those books are and no explanation is given in the text. Sure, a reader could click through the links, but ideally the article should be more or less self-contained. Perhaps a brief appositive or extra sentence explaining what these are and how they influenced the game (as well as what it meant for Blow "not to take the story in that direction") would help.
    • In the Artwork section, what world is this image from? Since the text mentions different moods that the art created for each world, we might as well take advantage of this image to illustrate that.
    • "Both Kammen and Sieber received positive comments about their music as a result of their inclusion in Braid." – not exactly sure what this is intended to mean. That Braid brought attention to them?
    • "These ports represented the start of similar platform ports for other smaller independent games, such as a Windows port of the Xbox Live Arcade game, The Maw." – not sure why this is included, as it doesn't seem particularly important or relevant. Judging by the wording in the source, Braid just happened to be the first one of several games that were ported, but wasn't necessarily particularly important or influential in that respect.
    • There do seem to be a lot of references to Braid's website. The only one that particularly caught my eye was the Braid blog being used to reference the fact that it was the "most highly-rated Xbox Live game". I assume that can be verified by checking Metacritic itself (although, of course, scores might change), but I'm not even sure if this is a meaningful metric. Do other, independent, sources make as big a deal out of this as Blow himself does?
    • This is not really an actionable comment, just a curiosity...a lot of the descriptions of gameplay, plot, and stuff reminded me of Shadow of the Colossus and Ico. Have any of the published reviews or commentary drawn any comparisons with either of those games?
    • The "Reception" section might benefit from some subsection headers.
  • rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I've addressed the points above with a few necessary workds or more. Just FYI, while blogs will put Ico/Shadow in the same sentence as Braid, it's not otherwise reliably stated. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support. I think there are still things that could be tweaked here and there (as there always will be—the perfect article is unattainable!) but this article certainly meets the FA criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a (still). I don't think it's entirely accurate to say the last FAC was archived "mostly due to the lack of discussion about interpretations of the game's plot". You had two significant opposes on prose, and other comments on prose from Steve. Shouldn't you have gone to Peer Review or at least sought an independent copyeditor before bringing it back here? Pardon me if you did, but I don't see significant progress on the quality of prose since the last FAC. It's not elegantly written, and almost every sentence needs some kind of attention. Please get a strong copyeditor to go through all of it. Examples just from the "Release" section:
    • First sentence is a highly unwieldy amalgamation where you manage at least four prepositional phrases before finally getting to the point.
    • "Several other developers followed suit and later withdrew their games" What is "later" adding to the sentence? You already said they followed.
    • "Braid was originally developed as a Windows title with possible console versions" Accessibility: Imagine reading this as a non-gamer.
    • "Blow signed up with Microsoft to release the game on Xbox Live in mid-2007, with that version officially announced at the 2007 Tokyo Game Show." Do you mean signed a contract with Microsoft? The clumsy "with" connector confuses the sentence further.
    • "he believed the effort to meet all the requirements could have been better spent on polishing the game" You don't spend an effort "on" doing something, you spend it doing something.
    • "At the same time, the certification team allowed him to retain certain aspects of his vision for the game that were otherwise contrary to the process, including giving the player immediate control of the game instead of requiring a start-up title screen." This is a training wreck... by time we get to "giving" and "requiring", we've lost all sight of the original subject of the sentence, which was "the certification team".
    • "The Windows version was originally slated for a late 2008 release but slipped to at least October 2008" How is October 2008 "slipping" from "late 2008"? If anything, it sounds earlier.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 22:41, 4 February 2010 [55].

Bubbles (chimpanzee)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on this rather unusual article for several months and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you, Pyrrhus16 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Please fix the dab link to Encino.
    • All external links appear functional.
    • Alt text is present and seems good, except for one point which I fixed.
  • Ucucha 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dab link was fixed before I came here; there must be a delay with the tool. Thank you for your tweak to the alt text. :) Pyrrhus16 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, must be toolserver lag or something. Ucucha 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a better fair use claim, I think we should use a promotional photo or album photo (if one exists) of the chimp rather than a news agency photo. Would something like one of these[56][57][58] work? I don't know for sure that these are promotional (but the poses look like it) so more research would be needed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you tried emailing the center for great apes to see if they'd release one of their many photos of bubbles under a free license? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first photograph that you link to is from Kenny Rogers' book, Your Friends and Mine. The photo is discussed in the article, which might give it a more solid claim of fair use than the one already there. I'm no expert with images though, so I'm not quite sure. In regard to the center, I sent them two emails asking if they would release an image of Bubbles, but they never responded. Pyrrhus16 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. It's not well-written, and it clearly suffers from too much attention from a single editor who is close to the prose. It desperately needs an independent copyedit. Some of the basic theme statements of the article are problematic: "The pair enjoyed a close relationship". What is the meaning? Clearly Jackson enjoyed it, but are we surmising what the chimp enjoyed, and what makes a "close relationship" to a chimp? The lead still sets a mocking/critical tone.I reviewed the last FAC and I'm not at all convinced that SlimVirgin's concerns have been addressed. The article glosses over items for which sources haven't been found; rather, the article should be withdrawn until the sources are found through rigorous library research. The early history of the chimp is unacceptably scarce. Changing the language about the suicide to "alleged suicide" doesn't change the lack of good sources. We need to go beyond newspapers in this case. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded the "enjoyed a close relationship" parts. What sentences in the lead do you find to be mocking? I feel that there is no mocking/critical tone; it just states the facts in a neutral manner. The information might seem a bit unusual or strange, but I don't feel that can be helped. It is what happened. In regard to the last FAC, I believe SlimVirgin wanted sources on animal suicide. I'm just after adding a footnote on animal suicide, and it uses recent scientific scholars as sources. I've puffed up the early life section for you, but there is very limited information about Bubbles before he was with Jackson. There was no real need to document what the chimpanzee got up to, as he was just another animal. Now that I have made these changes, is there any specific information that you still feel is missing from the article? Pyrrhus16 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, you've glossed over pieces of information because you've stuck to only what's available on Google. You'll have to hit the library and start with a thorough search, probably in Newsbank/Access World News, to find out everything that's been filed away on this topic but not indexed in web search engines. You'll typically find a treasure-trove of information published in magazines and newspapers around the times of the major events. Regarding the mocking tone: Owing to the sources you've used, the lead is made up almost entirely of the items pointed out by the media as bizarre. Go through the lead with a highlighter and identify the key terms: "attachment", "mocked", "bizarre eccentric", "obsessed", "Wacko Jacko", etc. So to summarize, I advise you withdraw this and endeavor to complete two phases of work: library research via scholarly databases, and then copyediting (not just light dusting) with an independent editor. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a search of a news database as suggested and was able to add a few more bits. Do you know of any good copy-editors that I could perhaps draft in? Pyrrhus16 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask what database you are using? I am finding lots of information in Access World News that you haven't represented, much of it in reference to Bubbles' mental and physical condition. This would help the balance between information about Bubbles himself and Jackson's behavior, which is receiving too much attention in the article. After this phase is complete, you could ping editors listed at WP:PRV that express interest in your topic area. These things cannot be accomplished within the time frame of this nomination; please withdraw it and come back when thorough research and copyediting is complete. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used newsbank.com for the search. And yes, I may as well withdraw the article for now, until it gets a good copy-edit, etc. Pyrrhus16 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Basically, on the grounds of prose and,but mostly on focus. Okay, so I have a history with this article. It was, I think, the first I ever reviewed in the FAC category, and I didn't approach it as critically as I might have (or certainly as I've done since). That said, I still enjoyed reading it, although it isn't ready for prime time yet. First, it's still more about Jackson than Bubbles, and since the world is less interested in Bubbles and more in Jackson, it's probably hard to keep the focus on him. Who watches the side show when the center ring is so mesmerizing? Second, although the prose isn't bad, Jackson is the subject of many/most sentences, not Bubbles, and it's Jackson this and Jackson that. And not just the prose: the section entitled the Center for Great Apes and the Death of Jackson also exemplifies this approach. What does the death of MJ have to do with the center? Bubbles' Life at the Center and a subcategory of his alleged suicide. Why is the note so long? How about incorporating that into text? Is there scientific evidence of suicidal tendencies in the great apes? How does Bubbles fit into this? How do we know that apes remember humans? They react to them? So do my dogs! (and they aren't the brightest bulbs on the canine family tree.) I think, instead of focusing on this chimp as an associate of MJ as much, perhaps fit it into the larger issue of chimps as family pets. Britney and her designer dog, and Michael and his chimp. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles isn't known for anything other than being Jackson's pet, so it is only natural that Jackson is mentioned as frequently as he is. The article should be thought of as a subarticle to the main Michael Jackson biography. It would be different if I were writing about Janet or Randy, but this is about a chimpanzee whose notable actions were made in the prescence of his owner the majority of the time. It's not as if he was allowed to go out and do his own thing. In regard to your other comments, I have altered and switched some of the section headings, trimmed and summarised the long note, and added a note on the possibility of chimpanzees attempting suicide. I'm awaiting a book by Jane Goodall to try and find an answer to the question of how we know that apes remember humans. I disagree that we should focus the article more towards the issue of chimps as pets, as there is already an article on that (pet monkey). Pyrrhus16 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there are still ways to focus the text so that Bubbles is the subject, rather than Jackson. For example, the paragraph that starts with this sentence

Jackson enjoyed his relationship with the chimpanzee, though many media sources mocked their association.

  • Bubbles became a focal point of media mockery, which helped to shape a widely held view of Jackson's eccentricities. Journalist Steve Huey wrote that the public's perception of Jackson was that of a "bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood."[8] Jackson clearly enjoyed his relationship with the chimp, and "the weirdness began to reach mythic proportions", scribed Robert Thompson, a professor of popular culture at Syracuse University.[9] Their relationship, and the entertainer's other eccentricities, contributed to the media nickname "Wacko Jacko", a nickname Jackson would eventually come to despise.[7]
  • Media frenzy focused on Bubbles, rather than on Jackson's music. News organizations began to report on the many falsehoods that circulated about Jackson and his chimp, including an allegation that Bubbles was not a single ape, but one of several,[10][11] and even that Bubbles had died. Commenting on this, Jackson's press agent Lee Solters quipped to the media that "when Bubbles heard about his demise he went bananas". Solters added, "Like Mark Twain, his death is grossly exaggerated and he's alive and doing well."[12][13] Another story, reported in The National Enquirer, claimed that Prince, Jackson's longtime rival, had driven Bubbles crazy using extra sensory perception. "What kind of sicko would mess with a monkey?", Jackson was reported to have asked. "This is the final straw. Poor, poor Bubbles." Jackson found the story hilarious, and his staff reported they had never seen the singer laugh so much.[14]
do you see what I mean about changing the subject? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what your saying now. I'll implement some of these alterations and then get the article polished off with a copy-edit. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: From what I've seen in other FA nominations, I think that the articles references/citations should have publishers in their cite web text. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that they are a requirement, but I'll get cracking with the rest, seeing as you very helpfully did some of them. Thanks :) Pyrrhus16 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:43, 2 February 2010 [59].

Cyclone Gwenda[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA requirements. I've thoroughly researched the storm and have found no additional information for it. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Please point File:STC Gwenda 06 apr 1999 0832Z.jpg to the page the image is displayed, not to the image itself. Jappalang (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the source Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; the final paragraph of the met. history section seems extremely technical (even for me!) and confusion. Could it perhaps be condensed and made more accessible? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to make it any more simple than it currently is. This paragraph has never had an issue with other nominations before. If you have any suggestions for improving it, please share them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Problems & concerns:

#^ Staff Writer (2009). "Tropical Cyclone Names". Australian Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/cyclone/about/cyclone-names.shtml. Retrieved 1 January 2010. <-- Citation check, please

  1. What are you asking for here? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#I have a numerous amount of problems with the fact that the ONLY newspaper cited is the Australian Associated Press. Also, every single one is written as "Staff Writer", which is not really a correct author in theory. This relates to the next problem.

  1. I've been under the impression that if there is no author listed, "staff writer" is used. Also, the reason why the AAP is the only newspaper cited is because that's the only one that had archived info on the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed Staff Writer from the author field Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#You have one paragraph of impact in a three paragraph section, partially because of the use on 1 paper. Try looking for more papers and citations where possible, as its kind of dull. Yes lack of damage is a problem, but sometimes you find unusual things looking around.

  1. It's a three part section, with three paragraphs corresponding to the three things listed (Preps, Impact, Records). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the building damage stats? Was anything damged? Were there any injuries? If we don't even have a number amount, it really shouldn't even be featured.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All that has been documented was minor structural damage in Port Hedland. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After futher research, what's in the article in terms of damage is all that's known. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#It gets boring reading this article over, and over, because there's no imagery outside of the infobox (and storm path)! Images are needed, badly.

  1. I don't know of any images that are available and useful to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look though sattilite imagery.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)
    I've added one of the storm nearing landfall. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#"The Australian Bureau of Meteorology uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses one-minute sustained winds.[6] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[7] The Bureau of Meteorology's peak intensity for Gwenda was 225 km/h (140 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 260 km/h (160 mph) one-minute sustained.[2][7] The JTWC's peak intensity for Gwenda was 240 km/h (150 mph) one-minute sustained, or 220 km/h (130 mph) 10-minute sustained.[4][7]" - get this out of here. This is better prepared for a separated records section.

  1. This blurb has always been at the end of the Met. history, no need to change it if there's never been complaints before. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is really no better place to put this bit of info, it's meant to define what ten-minute and one-minute sustained winds are and the difference between them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#"The conversion factor between the two is 1.14." - Not specific enough 1.14x? 1.14 divided? what?

  1. Fixed this myself, it was 1.14x.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#Second paragraph of meteorological history: We go from April 5 to April 7 without describing much but intensification, no movement, no nothing. This needs to be fixed.

  1. There was nothing useful in the advisories during that period that could be added, it would just lead to redundancies. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Movement is more what I meant, and there has to be something interesting on April 6.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the storm's movement during the intensification phase. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes are needed here, and for good reason. I get bored trying to read it.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the ones I am content with, just help get some kind of improvement in.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 14:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck all but one, I still don't feel content with the impact.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but not comfortable with promotion - Yes now that we know we're talking a dud storm that did little damage, I will not oppose promotion, but I don't feel this should be promoted, being it did little to be actually interesting.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Why not mention the year straight up instead of doing so in the following sentence? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just going through the lead was painful; the article hasn't been thoroughly prepared and checked against standards. The prose is far from 1a—basic errors are present, just in the lead. My one random source check came up red, indicating the need for a full source audit. Please withdraw and go through a peer review process (either at formal peer review or with peers in the storms WikiProject) to check sources, copyedit, and correct basic grammar and MoS issues. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "30 hour span" (no hyphen) and then "10-minute sustained winds" (hyphen)?
    • That same sentence is lacking parallel structure; we're told that the winds increased from x to y, but then that the pressure changed by x to y.
    • "At the same time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center assessed" At the same time as what? The 30 hours you just mentioned?
    • "assessed the storm to have peaked" No...
    • "Shortly after reaching this intensity" What intensity? You've not mentioned the term yet, and the reader will not know how intensity is measured.
    • "the name Gwenda was retired at the end of the season." The source doesn't say that. It gives a list of names that doesn't include Gwenda, but that doesn't really tell us anything. You need a source stating that it was retired and, more important, why.
      • Ive changed the reference, they dont tell us why they retired the name though no WMO committee does.Jason Rees (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, per above I am withdrawing this nomination from FAC. Thanks for the comments, I'll get to them when I have time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, hold it. I'll go through with a fine-tooth comb and see if we can't save it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a bit smoother around the edges now. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do a ce. This article is only 7kb in prose, it can be ce'd in an hour YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the US English? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the US so that's the only style of writing I'm used to. I'm trying to gather Australian English over time but it's rather hard for someone not from the country. You're more than welcome to change it to Aus. English since that's the preferred style for this type of article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone pinged Laser to look in after the ce? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments It's looking much better. A couple other things I encourage you to address:
    • The note about Gwenda still won't work. By phrasing it as "despite the minimal damage", you are making a claim that is not backed up by sources. All you have support for is " the name was retired from the circulating lists of tropical cyclone names for the Australian Region".
Reworded to avoid the unsourced claim Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check for overlinking—there are some terms or place names linked multiple times.
I think I've gotten them all Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on comprehensive concerns. I've added a bit myself from Lexis, but I think that there's more information out there on this storm waiting to be found. I'd also like to see the article do a better job of situating the context of the storm. Contemporary news account make frequent reference to the unprecedented number of cyclone in the same area in a period of just weeks, and the fact that 3 Category 5 cyclones hit northwestern Australia in the same season. Cool three (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of any more sources, please do share them. The source finder you have is one I do not have access to, thus I didn't know of those articles existing. I'm a bit short on time at the moment but, when I have some free time, I'll work on encorporating the unusual number of intense storms in the region into the article. Also, thanks for the added information Cool three. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found where the error is located, it's within Template:1998–99 Australian region cyclone season buttons. However, I have very little experience with this coding and I'm not sure where to add or remove what's being marked as an error. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - The coding was telling the template to close a table, which hadn't been opened.Jason Rees (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose based on prose and readibility, which is not ready for prime time. See my comments on article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:50, 2 February 2010 [60].

Marriott School of Management[edit]

Nominator(s): —Eustress talk 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am (re)nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all FA criteria. Please take a moment to evaluate whether or not you agree. Thank you! [As of this timestamp, there are no issues with dabs, ELs, or alt text.] —Eustress talk 01:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe all comments from the last nomination were resolved, but no reviewers came by afterwards to support (or oppose). Wrad (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present and seems reasonably good. Ucucha 13:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I am new at reviewing so feel free to make suggestions on my user talk page.
  • Consider formatting the article so there is not a 10 cm white gap at the top before the article.
  • Tweak the first sentence to reflect that the school is one of the schools and colleges of the university instead of being only "at BYU". The lead is not an accurate summary of the article nor does it thrill the reader. Someone advised me to have the lead summarize the article when I was writing a GA.
  • The lead currently states that this is the business school at a university. Is that unclear or insufficient? I don't think so, but if you would prefer an alternate wording, can you please offer a suggested iteration of the first sentence that conveys the current content (university and church affiliations, location)? —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history seems written organized by dean. I'm not sure this is the best way. Also is changes in endowment important or not important?
  • This might just be personal preference. The endowments are listed because it helps signal the school's growth (and because it was requested in a previous FAC attempt). —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help me answer the question, what is good prose? One random example (certainly not the best example) is the Tanner Building opened by George Hinckley. Is the George part important to be in the article?
  • Guidelines for prose are outlined in the MoS. This article has undergone a peer review and copy edit in order to address any salient prose issues, but if you have any particular concerns, then let's address them here. You mentioned the Tanner Building and Gordon B. Hinckley. I feel it is important to note Hinckley at the groundbreaking, as he was President of the Board of Trustees of BYU at the time. This can be elaborated upon if desired, but going into too much detail could violate WP:UNDUE. —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the business curriculum different from non-LDS schools?
  • The only difference appears to be that undergraduates are required to complete coursework in religion, which is noted in the article. —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sentences, like "However, research productivity is hampered by the fact that the MSM has no doctoral programs, and therefore, no doctoral students focused on research" which seem awkward to me and are puzzling as to what the author is trying to convey.
  • Doctoral students are integral to the research activities of most business schools, since they must publish in order to land a good job post-graduation. Since BYU does not have a doctoral program, its research program does not have that push. Perhaps you can suggest text that would make this more clear? —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these suggestions may be impossible to meet but they are made in good faith and to stimulate thinking. I am not opposing FA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating here. I hope you will see these comments through until they are resolved to a point where you feel comfortable either supporting or opposing the article. —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns that I've raised have been sufficiently answered. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This article continues to exhibit fundamental problems indicating the need for something beyond a peer review or copyedit; it really needs a rewrite in many places from neutral, secondary sources. Every single source needs to be checked by an outside editor, because each source I've checked has either ambiguously supported the claim it's attached to, or not at all. Sample issues:
    • 2a (lead): "Consequently, the Marriott School sponsors high-proficiency business language courses in 11 languages." This statement is neither sourced nor reflected anywhere in the body.
    • 1c (research): "Nearly 75 percent of the students are bilingual and about 30 percent speak a third language, most having lived abroad while serving a mission for the LDS Church." Highly problematic. Your first source claims "nearly two-thirds" are bilingual, which is a far cry from 75%. Your second source states "Many students know how to speak a second or third language fluently" which tells us nothing. Where does anyone say 75%? Next, the trilingual statement is not supported by either source, other than the anecdotal and non-specifc mention in the second source. Additionally, you've used self-published, primary sources in both cases, whose claims should be considered marketing fluff unless they are sourced to a published student survey result representing hard data.
    • 1c (research): "However, research productivity is hampered by the fact that the MSM has no doctoral programs, and therefore, no doctoral students focused on research." This source is nothing more than a collection of comments from anonymous graduates. None of them even mention what you've used it to support, and even if they did, it is not a properly vetted article. I'm troubled. Ironically, one of them claims "70%" of students are bilingual.
    • 1d (neutral): The above issues actually illustrate the fundamental problem with using primary sources for anything but the most basic claims (ie, year established, name of president, location). These others stats and figures are all written in promotional materials by the school, and clearly many of them don't bother to fact check against each other, let alone against reality. Most of the sources need to be ripped out and replaced by secondary sources (meaning fact-checked articles, not profile sheets produced by the school and reprinted in magazines) while our own fact-checking is conducted.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose.The article suffers from fundamental problems of original research and the overuse of self-published sources. I selected a random paragraph for an example:
"There is also a strong contingency of Marriott School alumni who pursue a career in academia, with BYU being ranked #8 nationally for the number of students who go on to earn Ph.Ds.[87] This is due in part to the MAcc Ph.D. Prep Track and the BYU Honors Program.[88]"
What does footnote 88 say? It is a mis-link. It sems it should go to this page. Nothing on the page provides any support for the statement. In any case, a statement to the effec that "the School's success in x is due to the School's programs in y" can only be made on the basis of a reliable secondary source. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

→I agree with your objections and would like to withdraw this FAC. It's just frustrating to go through multiple FAC attempts and a copy edit and a peer review and still run into fundamental problems. C'est la vie...thank you guys. —Eustress talk 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good decision - I was about to oppose on the sourcing problem too. It's tough at FAC to put in so much work and still find problems with the sources you have used in good faith Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:06, 1 February 2010 [61].

Early Norwegian black metal scene[edit]

Nominator(s): PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because this article is on a supremely signficant and oft-overlooked topic, the Early Norwegian black metal milieu of the 1980's and early 90's. I came to this article expecting a short forgettable stub but was instead greeted with a cornucopia of compelling information. Wikipedia would be foolish not to recognise this article as a veritable masterpiece. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB links: You have one dab link to Aske
  • External Links: There are 4 dead links, and 4 redirects. Check the external link checker on this subpage to see what they are, and if the website is permanently dead, use web.archive.org and the archivelink= and archivedate= parameters in the citation template to fix the reference
  • ALT text: The one image needs alt text, please see WP:ALT for how this should be done.
  • --PresN 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? You're nominating an article that has a reference template at the top? Oh, I see. DRIVE-BY NOMINATION: the nominator has done little to no work on the article. (0 edits, to be precise) This article can be quick-failed by the FAC administrator. --PresN 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready I agree with PresN; the [citation needed] tags are tell-tale quick-fail signs. Featured articles are well-written and well-sourced, and are not necessarily on important or overlooked subjects; discuss the article at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles if you think it is one of those. (I am not quite convinced it measures up to their vitality either, though.) --an odd name 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Apart from the citation issues there are internal lists, weasel prose, unformatted references, dead links, no alt text, etc etc. Nominator should read FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unformatted, unreliable references, too many lists, lack of context. Suggest Peer Review at the least. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and speedy close - obviously not of FA standard, unlikely it could be fixed within the scope of a FAC (even if anyone showed the inclination to do so, which I suspect would not be the case) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2010 (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/February_2010&oldid=346935320"