Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2016

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2016 [1].

Briarcliff Farms[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article out of interest for what preceded Briarcliff Manor, New York, and what Walter William Law was so devoted to for much of his life. I was very surprised to find more information on the farm than I probably had about the village itself; the farm was incredibly well documented in its time. I found plenty of photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of the farm and its history. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fifth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19, 2014 TFA Briarcliff Manor, the next two were for the July 25, 2015 TFA Elliott Fitch Shepard. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry is this about the land or the business as its not clear, its moves around and focuses on the land then on business then on the land and back to the business again. Personally it needs a POV either business or land because as it is I got lost in the story you were trying to tell and stopped reading. On the written side this Law's farm had 500 workers, cattle, pigs, chickens, Thoroughbred horses, pheasants, peacocks and sheep at its peak.[16] - mixed capitals, really were workers in the same count as cattle pigs etc I think it needs a bit more work for FA. Gnangarra 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra: I'm sorry you feel that way; the topic is very complex, and it is difficult to arrange the information so everyone thinks it's in the proper order. I could've done it chronologically, but seeing as there were so many changes from 1890 to 1968, and many details of the farm aren't pinpointed to specific years, that would be difficult. So it's arranged with some history, but the bulk of the material is in the farm's locations and its operations. Do you recommend I move the School of Practical Agriculture information to a new article? Would it meet notability guidelines in a separate article? And yes, workers were included with the other animals in the source material; I don't think that's too weird or important enough to change. I also don't see where you're going with by saying 'mixed capitals', are you referring to 'Thoroughbred', which is always capitalized? So please give me some clearer recommendations about how you feel this article could be clearer or read better. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: sorry for the delay I spent a while considering how to address the confusion I had while reading the article, I think that the History section and Location sections could be combine into one chronological section. Gnangarra 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra: That's fine, I'm actually rather busy myself. As for merging, I can't see any possible way of doing that without making a mess of things. Both sections are pretty long as they are; why combine them to make one that'll be far too long? Plus it's probably easier to understand the farm's size, operations, and other details related to its different locations with this location section. You'd have to hunt through the history section to find that if they were to be merged. Do you have any other comments or suggestions? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - Unfortunately this has failed to attract much interest or commentary after being open for over a month. As such, I will be archiving it. --Laser brain (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2016 [2].

2012 Gatorade Duels[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 Gatorade Duels, two 60-lap qualifying races held at the Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, Florida to determine the starting lineup for the 2012 running of NASCAR's premier auto race, the Daytona 500. The races were won by Tony Stewart and Matt Kenseth respectively. The article was promoted to GA in August 2015 having received a prior copy-edit from the GOCE. This is also the first time that NASCAR qualifying races having been at FAC so this is uncharted territory for this type of auto race. All comments are welcome. Z105space (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - Unfortunately this has failed to attract any interest after being open for well over a month. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2016 [3].

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period. Having achieved GA status last August, further improvements have been made since, and I believe this article meets the FA criteria. This article has previously gone through FAC twice; unfortunately both nominations received minimal attention, and Ian Rose has waived the two-week waiting period for another nomination. Third time's the charm? DAP388 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jfhutson[edit]

I thought this was pretty good television, despite the fact that I usually find McConaughey pretty annoying. Let's take a look at the article.

  • "The season's themes are masculinity and religion." I doubt this can be stated so unequivocally.
  • "with painstaking care" doesn't seem like an appropriate use of quotation. Unclear attribution.
  • "list of the "Ten of the Best"" too many definite articles.
  • "The season incorporates gospel and blues songs, which were selected by Pizzolatto and T Bone Burnett; the pair opposed the use of Cajun music and swamp blues for the season's musical score because "it's already been done so much"." I could be wrong, but this semicolon usage sounds weird to me. Why not a period? Another unclear quote attribution.
  • "Masculinity is an established trope" I think you're using "trope" as a synonym for "theme", which it is not. Look at how the Southern Spaces article uses the word.
  • There are lots of unattributed quotes in the Themes and influenced section. See Wikipedia:Quotations#General guidelines to see what I'm talking about. If you're using quotes because you think these are non-neutral opinion, tell me whose opinion. If you're stating facts, summarize where possible and eliminate the quotes.
  • The article focuses on pop culture sources (with one exception), which is probably fine for most shows, but I see at least four papers here that look like they deal with this show in depth. Have you looked at them to see what they might add?
  • There was a plagiarism scandal related to this show covered in reliable sources. I'm not saying you need to talk about it much because it looks bogus, but you could work in into the part about Ligotti.

--JFH (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2016 [4].

Hard Justice (2008)[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article since I'm working on an FA topic. Other PPVs from this year that are FA are Lockdown and Turning Point. This article passed GA in December 2008. I redid the entire article in recent weeks. Added more material and better sources. Reads better in my opinion and has a better format. All comments welcome. I'll review a nomination of your's in return for a review here. To address some concerns now, I'll list the reason some of the sources are reliable.

  • TNA - Company hosting event, primary reference.
  • Pro Wrestling history.com - covers little information such as contest duration and attendance. Used for those non-controversial aspects. Reliable enough since it gathers information from interviews and event broadcasts, etc.
  • WrestleView - Primarily ran by Andrew Martin who has special connections in the industry and regularly interviews large names in the industry. Basically has ties to special information. Reliable in the sense that they have enough credibility to get interviews about the behind the scenes discussions.
  • PWTorch - Ran by Wade Keller who published the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter since the 80s and 90s. Also has ties to the industry.
  • Slam Sports - Canadian Online Explorer, should be obvious why it is reliable.
  • The Wrestling Observer Newsletter/Figure Four - Dave Meltzer, mainstream journalist for MMA, Wrestling, and other sports. Should be obvious to his credibility.
  • Discovery communications and About.com - Both funded and operated by Discovery channel to my understanding.

This should help clear up any possibly sourcing issues.--WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by starship.paint
Alright, all my concerns addressed. Support. starship.paint ~ KO 01:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lede, I don't think remembered for the start of a storyline between veteran wrestlers and younger wrestlers in TNA is worth a mention. Do you have a source explicitly saying that? The MEM formed in October and this PPV was in August.
    • Torch reviews should cover the info. All the impact reviews discussed the storyline. The storyline started way before the Main Event Mafia formed. It was in full force heading into BFG. This event was basically the start of the feud but I could removed it. Just a way to show the significance of the event. Alot of stuff happened that led to be important in the storyline.
      • The problem is that it seems like it is you, and not the reviewers, who is claiming the significance of the event. That seems to be OR. I hope that you can point to which references can support the info.
        • I'm explaining why the event is notable outside of being just a PPV, which goes by the MoS. I am not saying it is entirely significant or saying this is a fact. I'm saying the storyline did have a starting point at the event. Which it did because Hard Justice and Victory Road directly led to Styles vs Sting, Joe vs. Sting, and the creation of the Main Event Mafia. It set up for Jarrett's return. You've taken the statement too literal to say I am making a claim of significance when all I'm doing is summarizing the storyline at the time and afterwards. To source this statement, all I have to do is cite the Impact episodes. Reviewer's opinions nor my opinion play a role. What was occurring around the event is what matters.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reading your reply, I request a simple change. Just swap "is remembered for" to "featured", and this issue will be settled. That is the problematic phrase IMO. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm fine with changing things but in previous FAs I just went along with what ever someone wanted. I plan to be more stubborn this time around. Find reasons for the change that are credible. I can agree to what you are asking now.--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title and the quote in reference [1] seems to be wrong.
    • Old reference, they must have changed the title.
  • It seems like AyAyAya was also sung by Ice-T in the music video.
    • It featured Ice-T. Information on this is covered in the event. Written sources don't discuss the theme much.
  • I don't see Melle Mel appearing in the source provided.
    • See above.
  • Each match has a match timing written but not all references have match timings.
    • Covered in the results table. Sourcing it every time to me is oversourcing.
      • I know it is in the results table ... but new readers might not know.
        • I reject that logic because new readers don't even look at the sourcing let alone will research to make sure every little detail is correct. The information is sourced in the article.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant readers new to wrestling, not necessarily readers new to Wikipedia. starship.paint ~ KO 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was referring to both. I doubt even wrestling fans will look. They'll just go by whatever the page says. Most have tried to remove the times in the past. Wrestling fans don't see to like the match times in the article. They are primarily there to seem professional.--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 1st match, can you explain Sheik Abdul Bashir's sudden interference? Like saying he walked out...?
    • Done.
  • For the 2nd match, why is Six Woman Tag Team match capitalized?
    • Cause it is a proper match type. Just used so often that people don't capitalize it. At one point it was just like Hell in a Cell.
  • Also for the 2nd match, SLAM, Torch (Keller) and Wrestleview say it was a roll up, not a straddle pin?
    • Case where the sources aren't detailed enough. They call every pin a roll up pin. It was actually a straddle pin. Borderline OR, but accuracy is better than no accuracy.
      • It's totally OR, IMO. Caldwell says it's a "roll-through pin" though. You can follow that "Wilde rolled through into a pin". It can't be a regular straddle anyway, she's facing the wrong way. Need a source saying "straddle".
        • Moved to just pinning maneuver. Can't verify it is a roll up or straddle because citing the event conflicts with the reviews. Grey area is better.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The rephrasing sounds redundant, how about "Wilde won the match for her team with a pinning maneuver on Love at at 11 minutes and 27 seconds" starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 3rd match, Torch doesn't say exactly who raps, only "the rappers"
    • Referring to the ones at the beginning of the show, somewhat obvious.
  • Is there any point in writing that turnbuckles are padded?
    • Old habits die hard, removed.
  • How was it determined that the 5th and 6th matches were also main event matches?
    • Heavily promoted matches. Covered in background section.
      • Just because a match is heavily promoted doesn't make them main event matches. There should be some announcement of co-main event or dual or triple main events.
        • TNA doesn't announce what are the main event or dual or anything. The last three matches were all connected. The Main event matches section was never just for main event matches, it was for heavily promoted matches always. It was called main event just cause it sounded better than other choices. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D match was connected to the Angle/Styles match. The Angle/Styles match connected to Booker T/Joe. The last two are main event, defacto the first would be main event as well. Each headlined the show. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D feud actually started in May so it led up to this event. Heavily promoted.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then the naming of 'main event matches' is a misnomer, honestly. It's quite WP:OR IMO to judge 'heavily promoted matches' unless you have a source explicitly saying that these matches are heavily promoted. It's all rather subjective, left to the interpretation of editors. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd challenge that it is OR. OR is research that can't be verified. These can be verified. Being a heavily promoted match would be verified by material that verifies its notability. Having a large amount of information that focuses on that one subject matches it as a heavily promoted match. The Impact episodes, the content on Hard Justice, and the follow up by TNA can verify that they are heavily promoted matches. The matches I cover in the background section tend to be the heavily promoted matches. The only issue with the section header is when a match is at the end that does not fit the case that gets placed in between ones that do. Take Owens vs. Cesaro at SummerSlam. Not even announced and just popped up. We can't really change the match order then when another main event was Cena vs. Rollins. I could retitle the section header but to what is the issue? Heavily Promoted? Uppercard? What?--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd prefer the section header be 'Heavily promoted matches' then - because 'heavily promoted' is simply not equal to 'main event'. Reading a section header called 'Main event matches' leads me to believe that every main in there is a co-main event. If you do this, Owens v Cesaro can't become a 'main event' match. starship.paint ~ KO 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 5th match, Brother Ray couldn't have gone through a table if the table didn't break, as the per source.
    • Technically the table broke, just not in the middle. Bottom part broke and it fell over. Changed to against.
  • For the 5th match, SLAM alone does not support all the information written.
    • Slam is only meant to cover the finish. All info is from PWTorch removes. Aggregate sourcing verifies everything.
      • I get that the info is from Torch. Then the Torch should appear as a reference at the end of the source. Readers shouldn't have to search other places for verifiability. This goes for the match timings as well.
        • Again, I use the logic from above. What reader takes the time to not just read an article they have limited knowledge of but also check every single source to make sure the information is completely verifiable. The other sources cover the information as well. I can move another source to the section but really Slam is covering the finish which is the main issue at hand.
  • For the 6th match, how about mentioning that the first fall came at around 18:00 as per the source?
    • Rounding error, wasn't sure if it was accurate. Chose to not put timing of falls down.
  • Also the 6th match, it's worth mentioning the last move of the match was a DDT, and the post-match attack on Angle was a brainbuster. The source provided said so.
    • It wasn't really a brainbuster, just looked like a brainbuster. Styles literally just lifted him up and dropped him on his head like a brainbuster. Seemed reaching to me to claim it was a brainbuster when that is more the opinion of the reviewer.
      • The reference you cited, Torch's Keller, said "DDT off the top rope" and "brainbuster suplex".
        • Meanwhile the other sources conflict with saying just suplex or he landed on his head from the top rope. Citing the event, which cites the match, shows that it was a botched attempt at some sort of move. Can't be verified that it is either one.
          • I can give the benefit of the doubt on the brainbuster, but on the other hand the four sources agree that it's a DDT from the top that ended the match. By neglecting to mention this ... you will confuse wrestling fans. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like with the Wilde/Love stuff above I think it is best to be in the grey area. I could link to move from the top as a DDT but just describing what occurred is better than making a judgment call and saying it was a certain move.--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Reception section, are the "Boring", "Fire Russo" and "You screwed Bret" crowd chants worth a mention?
    • What chants are you discussing? Don't see either of those mentioned.
      • SLAM source mentioned all these chants.
        • "Canadian Online Explorer writer John Pollock reviewed the show and felt it featured the "usual assortment of wacky finishes and outside interference" but that "all in all it was a solid show." Pollock commented on the musical performance shown at the beginning of the telecast, stating the "crowd is silent in appreciation." "Crowd is very hot for this opener and the atmosphere should hopefully add to this show," stated Pollock when covering the TNA X Division Championship match. Pollock discussed the Street Fight in his review, commenting that the "crowd was really hot for this match." As for the Last Man Standing match, Pollock said it "was an outstanding match." Pollock also felt that the main event got "zero time." - Still don't see the chants in the body of the article. If you are asking if they are notable. Not really, they occurred at every TNA PPV in 2008. The fans just chant random stuff constantly.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops. There was a misunderstanding. I was arguing for the inclusion of such chants for Wikipedia's write-up of Pollock's review. As a wrestling fan reading about this article in 2015, I would still find chants like "Fire Russo" to be extremely interesting. It doesn't matter if they occurred in every other TNA PPV in 2008, that is just reflecting the state of the product. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I may be able to include it. Idk. I don't really discuss the Black Tie Brawl and Chain match in the reception or background. It is about a line or so. I'll give it a shot.--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to all @Starship.paint:--WillC 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wrestlinglover: Two problems with the storylines for Joe-Booker. First, you write that Victory Road was a no contest, yet Booker won by pinfall. Please rewrite, don't state Booker won, just write Sharmell counted an unofficial pinfall. Second problem, you missed out saying that Booker stole the belt during Victory Road after the main event.
    • Fixed the pinfall thing. I do mention that Joe does not have the belt. It is stated in the lines after VR. He did not maintain possession of the belt, chose to take it back at Hard Justice.
      • Yeah. You mentioned Joe didn't retrieve physical possession of the title belt on July 17, but you never mentioned that he lost physical possession on July 13, so there is room for confusion here. Still, there is an offending phrase a no contest after interference from Sting allowed Booker T to win - the word win is still not suitable.
        • Fixed both issues
          • Try Joe was still the TNA World Heavyweight Champion, despite Booker T having taken the physical title belt
            • Doneish
  • As for the storyline between Angle-Styles, from reading the Torch source, it seems that Styles and Karen already had something going on before February 14 (from Styles' POV, at least). Also, whatever came out of the marriage of Styles and Karen though? Was it cancelled?
    • Nothing happened, just hints at the storyline. They dropped it almost entirely. It was just there to add tension in the storyline.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it should be clarified that nothing further came of that on-air 'marriage'.
        • Addressed I think
  • Propose a rewrite of a convoluted (LOLTNA) sentence: On the February 14 episode of Impact!, at a scripted wedding vow renewal ceremony meant for real-life spouses Kurt Angle and Karen Angle, the priest mistakenly married Styles and Karen instead in the storyline.
    • Don't see how that is any better than what is already in the article.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article seems to imply that the wedding between Styles and Karen was planned (in kayfabe), in spite of Karen's real and scripted marriage to Kurt. The article also misses out that Karen and Kurt were renewing their vows.
        • The main point is the marriage between Styles and Karen. The Kurt/Karen thing just makes the whole plot convoluted and hard for someone to understand what is going on when it didn't become a large deal afterwards. It just led to this match. It was seeds for a future angle. In fact, TNA actually did have it set where Karen and the Styles wedding was legitimate. What it seems like they are doing is exactly what they were doing.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this whole Styles-Angle storyline involved Karen, I think the real-life divorce of Karen from Kurt in October 2008 is worth a one-line mention.
    • Feud was over by then. This storyline didn't play a role in the real life divorce. That probably had more to do with Jarrett vs Angle than Angle vs Styles.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word replacement: on the August 21 episode of Impact! in a ladder match for the medal, with Styles winning the medal starship.paint ~ KO 07:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • He won it the week before. Word is correct since he retains the medal that was already in his possession.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. My bad.
        • It's cool
@Starship.paint: See concerns.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: See concerns.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This seems to have stalled and has not attracted sufficient interest after being open for over two months. I will be archiving it shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2016 [5].

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe. After a thorough copyedit and two peer reviews, I hope it may be promoted. Thank you for your reviews and comments in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Solid prose. Detailed and comprehensive as far as I can tell (though I'm by no means an expert on Hungarian history). I've tweaked a few lines of prose, but otherwise I feel it meets the criteria. 23 editor (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your edits, and also for your support. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps
  • File:Ladislaus_(left)_Cuman_(right).jpg: the uploader does not hold the copyright here - this is a reproduction of a 2D work, no new copyright is generated
  • File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review has become moribund so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2016 [6].

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

Nominator(s): starship.paint ~ KO 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2015 Japanese professional wrestling show, the premier annual event of NJPW, and was praised by critics. Jointly worked on by Ribbon Salminen and myself, we've started, DYK-ed, GA-ed and peer reviewed this article. This is the second attempt at FAC - the previous one had relatively few comments.

To encourage activity, I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to! starship.paint ~ KO 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wrestlinglover
Addressed
  • Lead
    • Make the above sentence and the rest its own paragraph. Lead is so small for this type of article and event. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, anything above 15000 characters should have 2 or 3 paragraphs. This has 24204 characters. It leaves me unsatisfied to the overview.
    • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was a professional wrestling event produced by New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW) which took place on January 4, 2015, at the Tokyo Dome in Tokyo, Japan." - Remove the coma. Was the event only called Wrestle Kingdom 9, because I know previous events add extra to it? Was this not a pay per view as well? Might as well include that in this section. Might as well follow the format on some of the TNA articles I do. Put promotion after NJPW to inform a reader it is a promotion/company and not a large organization or governing body like NWA, etc.
    • "It was the 24th January 4 Dome Show. The event featured 10 professional wrestling matches, with an additional match on the pre-show." - Change to "It was the 24th January 4 Dome Show and first event on the 2015 NJPW event schedule. The event featured ten professional wrestling matches and one pre-show match, six of which were for championships."
    • "The event, attended by 36,000 fans, received positive reviews from critics." - Might as well include something regarding these critics. I've always disliked saying it received positive reviews from critics. It seems like a judgment call from the editor which I don't feel is very encyclopedia.
  • Background
    • "of WWE's WrestleMania." - Change to "of WWE's WrestleMania pay-per-view event" since readers have no idea what that may exactly is.
    • "Wrestle Kingdom 9, promoted as the "largest wrestling show in the world outside of the United States", was the 24th January 4 Dome Show[3] (although some previous shows have had other names).[4]" - Move reference to end and remove the parenthesis. Change to "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was promoted as the "largest wrestling show in the world outside of the United States" and was the 24th January 4 Dome Show, although previous events were held under different titles/names (your choice)."
    • Something I learned in a previous FAC, all dates should feature a specific code in them. I'm not sure why but some policy on the way the article is shown on devices and for special readers. The code is "& nbsp ;. See Bound for Glory IV on how it is used properly.
    • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014" - Sorry it seems like I'm hitting every single statement. I try to do indepth reviews to make the articles better. I know the issue of working on something so long and so much it gets old. Here I'm thinking the date and venue should be attached. Why? Because the lead mentions it and the previous link to the dome show is nice, but not enough. What I'm saying is readers might not really know what Dome means and if you have to state what the venue is might as well just say the date. Change to "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014 to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015."
    • "GFW Presents New Japan Pro Wrestling's Wrestle Kingdom 9" - Not sure why this is italicized. It was a PPV not a TV show. I don't believe it should be.
    • "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA)." → "the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) promotion."
    • "Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One (three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application)." → "Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One; three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application).
    • "the Wrestling Observer Newsletter" → "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter" - per WP:THE
      • ummm actually I'm disagree with this. As per f4wonline.com - their name doesn't include The. Compare [7] and [8]. starship.paint ~ KO 09:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:THE summarized basically says that anything that you would normally have to say The before should have it included in the title. We don't says wrestling observer newsletter, we say the wrestling observer newsletter. It is better for flow. Plus the is before it in the article which goes to show that WP:THE is suitable for this situation. While the official name may not be that way, it still connects to this issue at hand.--WillC 21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also disagree. Everything I'm reading on WP:THE to me says not to have it capitalized. This doesn't meet either of the conditions on the top of the page and in fact we have examples of "the" not being capitalized in front of "Wrestling Observer Newsletter" in running text (here, here and here). Also, it is not in the official name as Starship noted. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Similar examples would be the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Post. starship.paint ~ KO 02:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still disagree because it is a proper name and you proved my point on the by automatically putting it before your examples. If The wasn't needed then you wouldn't have put it, thus meeting the requirements positioned by WP:THE. But since y'all expanded it, I'll concede the point this time.--WillC 07:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storylines
    • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 featured professional wrestling matches including wrestlers from preexisting scripted feuds and other storylines. The wrestlers, playing faces (heroes) or heels (villains), followed a series of events culminating in a match (or match series)." → "Wrestle Kingdom 9 featured ten professional wrestling matches and one pre-show match that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed heels (villains), faces (heroes), or less distinguishable characters in the scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."
    • "his" - possession of title again. Company owners, wrestlers don't. The days of wrestlers having to put down deposits on the belts are over.
    • "number-one" - Never really liked this hyphenated. Change sentence to "Okada became the number one contender to the title on August 10, 2014 by winning the G1 Climax."
    • Add NJPW before Power Struggle.
    • "performed a German suplex on him and challenged him" - Just say he attacked him. The move adds nothing to the statement. Not like he broke his arm or powerbombed him through a flaming table. It is a suplex. "assaulted Nakamura and challenged him for the title;"
    • "A previous singles match between Nakamura and Ibushi during the 2013 G1 Climax was ranked the "Best Bout of the Year" by Tokyo Sports." - Why is this important? This is storylines. Better suited for the production section. Even then I'm unsure why quality is important unless it was part of the promotion. Taker/HBK had the quality as an important factor so quality is not unheard of, is this a cultural thing? I'm rusty on my puroresu. Also, is the IC belt not contested by all wrestlers cause I'm curious regarding the heavyweight sentence prior.
      • Changed the first part. Umm @Ribbon Salminen: do you know more about the heavyweight thingy? starship.paint ~ KO 07:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Intercontinental title is a heavyweight title, no junior heavyweights ever make challenges for it. Sombra was technically a junior heavyweight, but was also an international talent intended to put over the "intercontinental" aspect of the title. Here Tokyo Sports lists the Heavyweight, Tag Team, Intercontinental and NEVER titles as NJPW's four heavyweight titles. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Previous IWGP Heavyweight Champion A.J. Styles (of the Bullet Club group) and fellow top contender Tetsuya Naito were booked together at Wrestle Kingdom 9. During the 2014 G1 Climax (when Styles was IWGP heavyweight champion), Naito pinned him in a non-title tournament match but did not have a title shot before Styles lost to Tanahashi.[22] Since Styles did not receive a rematch with Tanahashi, it was theorized that the Wrestle Kingdom 9 winner would be the top contender." - Remove Bullet Club stuff, mention that in later paragraph. Remove Styles as champion note, change to "Naito pinned then IWGP Heavyweight Champion Styles" Theorized? Part of storyline or is this media based?
    • " by defeating the Bullet Club's Anderson and Gallows (the champions) in a non-title match at NJPW's 42nd-anniversary event." → "by defeating the Bullet Club's IWGP Tag Team Champions Anderson and Gallows in a non-title match at NJPW's 42nd-anniversary event." - Add NJPW before Invasion Attack and Wrestle Kingdom 8.
    • "where Anderson and Gallows defended their title" → "where Anderson and Gallows retained the title" - Explain what the tag team league is also. If it is a tournament, place tournament after it. Simple fix.
    • "Suzuki-gun stable" - jargon, change to group. Spell out KES.
    • Stable again in Bullet Club paragraph.
    • Mention Styles is a member in this paragraph. It covers the subject, best to have it here.
    • "during a Bullet Club post-match beatdown involving popular underdog Tomoaki Honma, NJPW veteran tag team Tencozy (Hiroyoshi Tenzan and Satoshi Kojima) stormed into the ring and drove the Bullet Club away." - Bordering on in universe. I'd change it to "during a Bullet Club post-match assault on Tomoaki Honma, NJPW veteran tag team Tencozy (Hiroyoshi Tenzan and Satoshi Kojima) stormed into the ring to the aid of Honma, driving the Bullet Club away."
    • "Bullet Club would be represented in the match by Bad Luck Fale, Yujiro Takahashi and Jeff Jarrett, making his NJPW ring debut." → "Bad Luck Fale, Yujiro Takahashi and Jeff Jarrett—making his NJPW ring debut—were scheduled to represent the Bullet Club at the event."
    • I'd drop the Junior Tag Title match from the storylines. It is rather pointless. Isn't alot of information.
    • "Hiroshi Tanahashi, who withdrew from the IWGP Heavyweight Championship picture after losing to Okada on October 14, 2013, re-entered the picture on September 21, 2014 by challenging A.J. Styles." - Very odd sentence here. At first I understood it and was about to ignore it but I had questions. If I have questions, I'm expecting other editors/readers to have questions. I say remove the whole information about him having left the picture. Unless you desire to explain the entire history there. That would include Okada defeating him for the title, then losing it to him, then defeating him for it, losing to Styles, then Tanahashi beating Styles. I'd change it to "Hiroshi Tanahashi and Okada have an extensive history of matches for the IWGP Heavyweight Championship. The path that led to this match started on September 21, 2014 when Tanahashi challenged the then IWGP Heavyweight Champion A.J. Styles to a title defense. Tanahashi defeated Styles on October 13 at the NJPW King of Pro-Wrestling event to become the IWGP Heavyweight Champion. As a result, this slated the Wrestle Kingdom 9 main event to be the seventh match between Okada and Tanahashi since February 2012 and their second January 4 Dome Show main event after Wrestle Kingdom 7 on January 4, 2013." This helps clear up the paragraph.
  • Results
    • "Singles match which could only end by knockout, submission or referee stoppage" - Use English coma. knockout, submission, or referee stoppage.
    • This table is fine. No redirects. Only issue is the match titles but that is editor preference. You know, I created the section for multiple man teamed matches. It did not exist and everyone was just linking to the article with no section to explain. I created it for the hell of it and now everyone links to it. I had no idea how much that would be used and now looking back on it, it is a very odd feeling.
    • What is with the random references in the New Japan rumble. They are just sitting there. Place them in the table.
    • Are Tanaka and Komatsu notable? If they aren't anytime soon, no need for the links. Per WP:RED. Kabuki is a redirect.
      • They are automatically linked because of the sortnames function in the table. starship.paint ~ KO 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make mdashes in the table: ;mdash
    • Table is done well. Like its ability and function.
  • See also
  • References
    • Move all mid-sentence references to the end of the sentence. It disrupts the flow of the article.
    • Look fine. Accepting. May look into them more later.
  • Background
    • "Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling, which it approached about bringing the event to a new market." → "Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling promotion to bringing the event to a new market." - move ref to the end
      • This has not been addressed.--WillC 21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "That day NJPW announced a partnership with Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling promotion to bringing the event to a new market" doesn't sound right to me. Am I missing something here? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is clearer and you are removing words and getting to the point faster. Instead of adding "which it approached" you are just cutting it out and saying a partnership to bring the product to a new market. The other is going around the point in an unnecessary fashion.--WillC 07:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Event
    • "The pre-show featured one match, the New Japan Rumble. Tiger Mask and Yuji Nagata began the match, with new wrestlers each minute." - List all participants in the first sentence. "The New Japan Rumble took place on the pre-show featuring...." "with new wrestlers entering each minute" Explain the rules of this match before you go in-depth on what is happening. Make the order more simple. This is an overview, not a play-by-play. I don't need to know Tonga entered 11th to eliminate someone. Makes me wonder when the others were and then it becomes a clusterfuck. Say Tonga got the first elimination and Kabuki got DQed.
    • "Yoshi-Hashi threw Tonga over the top rope to leave himself and Nagata in the match, won by Nagata with a bridging belly-to-back suplex at 26 minutes and 9 seconds" - Poorly structured resulting in poor flow. Change to "Yoshi-Hashi threw Tonga over the top rope to leave himself and Nagata in the match. Nagata won the match by slamming Hashi against the mat with bridging belly-to-back suplex and covering for the pinfall at 26 minutes and 9 seconds." - Let the reader know what is going on. It is a trait that comes with having to think of the article as a non-wrestling fan. We know what is going on. Someone who is reading this to learn has absolutely no idea what is happening. This was on the pre-show, so why is it included in the undercard section if it is not part of the event?
  • Undercard
    • I'll come back to this section. I want to cover the rest of the article. This seems like a bit of work for me to covering everything indepth.
  • Main event matches
    • Same as above
  • Reception
    • Something I had to learn the hardway. Get ready for people to ask "who" in regards to "reportedly." So here it is, who has reported these figures?
    • Why is the number of subscribers important to this event? 20,000 is nice but doesn't mean that many watched the show. That sentence is better for the Background section because it builds the streaming site.
    • Just say four out of five stars.
    • The Wrestling Observer Newsletter
    • Guessing Meltzer did the review of the show. Note that Meltzer is stating this stuff.
    • "wrestleview.com" → "WrestleView.com" - Normally I'd say this isn't important but since the review is of the Japanese stream it has some significance.
    • I'd question Pro Wrestling Dot Net being noted but Jason Powell writes for various sites and is becoming a name so I'm fine with it. Plus he is discussing Ross and Striker. Consider removing it though. I guess it is supposed to be a reliable source now but still that large of a name.
    • State that Paste is a magazine.
    • "The event, ending with "a broken Kazuchika Okada shambling tearfully back towards the locker room ... made the moment feel real, confirming that Okada isn't just a great athlete but a better actor than most who step into the ring, and elevating the entire scripted, choreographed display into something beyond a sport"." → "Martin commented on the ending of the show, stating that a "broken Kazuchika Okada shambling tearfully back towards the locker room made the "moment feel real" which displayed that "Okada isn't just a great athlete but a better actor than most who step into the ring, and elevating the entire scripted, choreographed display into something beyond a sport."
    • "In his review, Vaughn Johnson of philly.com wrote:" "In his review, Vaughn Johnson of the Philadelphia Media Network through philly.com wrote:"
    • Periods go within quotation marks.
  • Aftermath
    • The Ross comments would be better in reception. He is discussing the quality of their performance.
    • Where did Styles pin Tanahashi at?
      • It's the "Raw after WrestleMania", a house show named "New Year Dash!!", but is that really important? Also, the current source calls it "New Year's Dash", so we would have to get another primary source to get the correct name. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anymore about Okada? Three losses and that is it? He is champion now. Must be more.
    • " (in which Ishii defeated Tomoaki Honma for the now-vacant title)." → ",in which Ishii defeated Tomoaki Honma for the now-vacant title."
    • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 broke Yuji Nagata's streak of consecutive January 4 Dome Show main cards at 21." → "Wrestle Kingdom 9 broke Yuji Nagata's streak of consecutive January 4 Dome Show appearances at 21 by being featured on the pre-show instead of the main card."
    • Split this paragraph. It covers multiple subjects that shouldn't be connected. One for Nagata and one for the rest.
      • I disagree. The subjects are all interlinked. Nakamura's aftermath requires Nagata and Goto. Goto's aftermath requires Ibushi, who was Nakamura's original opponent anyway. starship.paint ~ KO 13:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the Japan Cup?
    • Who is Goto? There was no mention of him and then suddenly there he is. He lost the Cup and then suddenly gets a title shot. Explain how that came to be.
      • The ex-tag champion. He made it to the tournament finals, which is mentioned. starship.paint ~ KO 13:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add NJPW prior to event names and event after event names. Lets the reader know they are events and not just shows.
    • " its takeover of the promotion" - What is this the NWO?
    • Why is there a hyphen in tag team?
    • Drop last paragraph. It is trivia information for the most part. Why is Koslov's next to last appearance important to this event? It is not. Them winning the titles has nothing to do with this event. Might as well say the weather was sunny the next day.
  • External links
    • Not connected to this article but just a request. Can someone update the template to include links to ALL Dome shows. Only 2 listed is very odd. Like the job was only half done.
    • Any other links like to site covering this specific event or in demand links? GFW website would be nice as well and anything they have.
    • Categories look fine.
    • Hidden categories look good too.
  • Images
    • Poster's fair use is alright. Could be a bit better. I had an featured image editor look over a couple posters in the past. Gave me a really good image rationale for posters. I use it in all of my posters if it is for a GA or an FA. See File:Bound for Glory IV.jpg to use it.
    • Alt text in poster is wrong.
    • Alt text for Jarrett is close but you don't have to go that indepth. Just say what you see. "Jarrett in a pink shirt standing outside of an event."
    • Not sure Jarrett is the best image for that section. You got an image of the event like the entrance ramp? How about the image of Ross and Striker being used here instead? Connects to the information.
    • Okada image is fine. Alt text could be shorted to just "Okada wearing a golden garland in wrestling gear standing in a wrestling ring."
    • Drop the Honma image. Not needed and not enough room since it is conflicting with the sections. Doesn't provide a clear, cut, concise, and nice article. Formatting is important.
    • Redragon image is fine. Alt text will do. Captain could use some cutting. Just say they defended the title at the event. Put front and back in brackets instead [front] and [back].
    • Nakamura image is fine. Just say he defended the title at Wrestle Kingdom. Distinguishing which main event is pointless. Alt text could use some cutting on description of title and what he is wearing.
    • Move the Ross/Striker image to Background. Caption being "Jim Ross (left) and Matt Striker (right) were chosen to commentate the event by Global Force Wrestling.
    • Can either enlarge the Tanahasi image or replace it with File:Hiroshi tanahashi NJPW.JPG. Both work and both have benefits. One has a clear view of his face. Other involves the belt.
    • Ibushi image is unneeded. Too many images hurt articles. Enlarge the bullet club picture. Alt is fine, the caption should be changed to them just winning titles at the next event.
I said I'd review this last time and never got to it. I plan to review it this time around. I'll complete this sometime during this next week. I'm in the middle of finals right now so time is constrained.--WillC 01:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much! It can wait until after your finals, really. starship.paint ~ KO 11:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: Alright, here is most of the review. I did not cover the event section. I will once this stuff is fixed. Now that I've covered almost everything I want to do a few disclaimers. When I review articles, I go in-depth. I look at every word, every sentence, every image, and some times the source code. The article isn't bad. It is very good. I'm just making sure it is as close to perfect as possible. It takes time and patience to do it. One reason I don't review as much anymore. Also, you reviewed Hard Justice (2008) for me not long ago. We had alot of back and forth on changing stuff there. I'm expecting the samething here. I want that. I feel reviewing should be a discussion, not a dictation. I did not review this differently than anything based on any disagreements on that article. I state this because I did not expect to find this many issues as I did and I don't want it to seem like I'm being a dick. I wish to help get these issues fixed. Once we cover everything I've listed, I'll cover the event. The main reason is because just skimming the event I'm going to have questions and I don't want to double what I already have.--WillC 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but we still seem a long way from consensus to promote after some six weeks so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I was not expecting this. I figured since this was basic discussion and most of the issues were resolved we still had time. Then again, I was the only one reviewing. I'll finish the review on the next nomination, if there is one.--WillC 12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 [9].

Walter Whitehead[edit]

Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a surgeon and President of the British Medical Association who invented a new surgical procedure when he turned up for work with a hangover. I've done extensive research of both secondary and primary sources and feel confident that there isn't anything of significance omitted that would be acceptable under our various policies and guidelines. The prose might need some tightening up but my regular GA/FA copyeditor is no longer with us, sorry. I've not bothered with the GA stepping-stone: excuse my arrogance but I feel this article is at worst very close to FA standard. I'm hoping that others feel the same. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Walter_Whitehead.png needs a US PD tag

Also, a general comment on references: rather than repeating the publication title in place of the author for unattributed news articles, I suggest omitting it and sorting by article title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will sort out the US PD tag. While I think aesthetics are inherently subjective, I'm not actually aware of how to usefully implement {{sfnp}} using article titles, especially given the length of some of those titles. I think somewhere - William Beach Thomas, perhaps - I used "Anon" for the author name but when there are so many newspaper articles listed that is just going to make things even more difficult for the reader. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a sample of how this can be done without changing the inline citations at all - just add the harvid you're already using to the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you. I've often wondered about the harvid thing. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm not at all well and have not got round to this yet. I will do. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I have just converted the "B"s per your suggestion. I'm going to think about this: while the things would appear to work ok in a linked environment, it seems very clumsy should someone print the thing - they would be struggling to find the correct citation, especially if the list is re-jigged to restore the alphabetised order. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could also use a shortened form of the title for the inline citation - that would just take a bit more immediate work in coding and organizing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with a fair amount of fudging, but it still seems somehow "unnatural" to me. I expect citations to begin with the name of the author and, yes, it is probably pretty rare to have so many anonymous citations in a WP article. Is it a situation that is more common than I realise? Is there anything inherently wrong with repeating the publication title, rather than merely some aesthetic issue? Does anyone else have thoughts regarding this? - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting per request on my talk page. In my FAs on films, I have often had to cite anonymous works. The Harv set-up works best if you use it from the beginning. Personally, I agree that repeating the publication title is not particularly attractive, but it has been done. Usually, however, I see it as "X staff writer" or the like. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was me who asked, and I did ping Nikkimaria at the time because I'm wary of canvassing but aware that Crisco, like NM, has considerable experience of FAC. Thanks for the response, Crisco 1492. Could you perhaps link me to a couple of examples of relevant film FAs? I'm not averse to changing the cites, just cautious that this is primarily an aesthetic issue and that it might impact in non-hypertext situations. Maybe I need to get with the modern world, where everything is hypertext! - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hitler Diaries, Great Stink etc are mine with no writer—they start with the article title; I don't see it as a problem, and the aesthetic isn't one that's struck me before. I know Tim Riley adds the words "staff writer", but that's in hidden text inside the article (certainly on the articles we've worked together on). Hope this helps! – SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to all of you. I'm going to take a look at those examples now and then I'm going to change the format here per your suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Citations are now in the style used at, for example, Hitler Diaries. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has sat here a fair while. Here's a review

  • Lead strikes me as overly verbose. The article is relatively short; I don't see why the lead should take up nearly 15% of its length.
  • Third paragraph of the lead: too many sentences starting with the pronoun "he" or a variant
  • Both agree that he met with medical students in Manchester while attending chemistry lectures intended to give him more knowledge of the workings of the family business; later, he also met with them while attending the market in Manchester on behalf of the business. - Also looks like it could bear some massaging. A bit verbose.
  • Drs. Harris and Bennett - first names?
  • , when his address was given as 16 Union Square, Bury = is this necessary?
  • LM and LFPS - Care to gloss these?
  • Having all of his titles in caps strikes me as odd. "Honorary Assistant Surgeon", for instance, is used here as a general noun; we would say "a president" but "the President of the United States", not "a President". "an Honorary Consulting Surgeon" is particularly problematic for me.
  • new Skin Hospital - Same issue: is this the proper name of the institution, or the general type of institution? The capitalization suggests the former.
  • Whitehead's Varnish - What's with the italics?
  • I don't see how the famous patients fits with the rest of that section.
  • for the endowment - Repeated twice in close succession.
  • Overall, the prose strikes me as being very "list-y", especially when you discuss his numerous appointments. I'm not sure this meets the prose criterion. Also, the thematic organization doesn't strike me as having been pulled off well; the article feels disjointed in places. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that despite the duration of the review this hasn't garnered enough commentary to determine consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 [10].

The Fairly OddParents[edit]

Nominator(s): Happypillsjr (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Timmy Turner, a 10-year-old boy who is neglected by his parents and tortured by his babysitter Vicky. One day, he is granted two fairy godparents, Cosmo and Wanda, who grant his every wish to improve his miserable life. However, these wishes are guaranteed to inadvertently cause a series of technical problems that Timmy must fix. In the beginning of the series, Timmy's babysitter Vicky became the main antagonist. As the series progressed, more villains were included. For example, his teacher, Mr. Crocker, firmly believes in fairy godparents and has been searching for them a very long time, correctly suspecting that Timmy has fairy godparents. He is dangerous to Timmy because, according to "Da Rules", a large rulebook which is capable of defining what children can and cannot wish for and how fairy godparents must behave, no one else can know about a his fairy godparents, because otherwise, they will be taken away from him (although he doesn't remember, Cosmo and Wanda once used to be Crocker's fairy godparents, as one of the rules does not apply to people who currently have their own or once had fairy godparents). Happypillsjr ✉

Oppose and suggest withdrawal – Upon a quick glance of the article, I have spotted several uncited statements within the article and the nominator appears not to have made edits to the article. I suggest immediate withdrawal. Z105space (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2016 [11].

World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): CatcherStorm talk 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article, World War II, meets FA criteria. It is well written, full and vital, as well as there being plenty of images. The semiprotection of the article further bolsters its neutrality and stability. Loads of citations as well, 391 of them. CatcherStorm talk 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest speedy closure While good faith, this hasn't been discussed on the article's talk page and the nominator doesn't have a significant history of involvement in the article. As a regular editor/commenter on the article I agree that it's in fairly good shape and could be brought to A-class standard with some work, but it's not of FA quality at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nick-D's comment here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 [12].

Early history of American football[edit]

Nominator(s): ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the early history of the sport of American football (before 1933). This article was created as part of a split of History of American football, which is itself a featured article already. Since the split this article has been significantly improved upon and meets all the criteria for FA nomination.. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose - Per the instructions, you are only allowed to have one individual nomination open at a time. Please select one, and withdraw the other. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a well-researched article, and certainly good for Wikipedia, but I feel there are too many issues that I am opposing at this time.

  • "Among these important changes were the introduction of the line of scrimmage, of down-and-distance rules and of the legalization of interference." - this would be the first instance of the oxford comma, but I notice later you don't use it (as when you mention early coaches). Makes sure you're consistent with comma usage before the last item in a series.
  • The first three paragraphs of the lead use "century" as a basemark, but the 4th paragraph uses specific years. I'm not sure if this was delineate, but is there a reason you don't use "1700s" instead of "18th century"?
  • Much of the first few paragraphs of the "History of American football before 1869" section is unsourced, such as Dane's Head and the various countries' games
  • "There is also one reference to ball games being played in southern Britain prior to the Norman Conquest." - this seems like an odd way to start a paragraph. The previous paragraph mentioned Cornish hurling, and isn't Cornwall in southern Britain? The aforementioned section of the national games could also use a double check - it seems grammatically dubious.
  • "In the ninth century Nennius's Historia Britonum tells that a group of boys were playing at ball" - "at ball" seems weird (unless it's a quote", and the beginning, I can't tell what's the subject of the sentence. I think there should be a comma after "century" to make it clearer
  • "A second medieval image in the British Museum, London clearly shows a group of men with a large ball on the ground." - this might be pedantic, but why "clearly"? That sounds like POV language. Ditto the next sentence, and the last sentence of that paragraph is troublesome that it says "likely"
  • "The first detailed description of what was almost certainly football in England was given by William FitzStephen in about 1174–1183." - given the quote, I don't think you can say "almost certainly" without any bias.
  • "King Edward II was so troubled by the unruliness of football in London that, on 13 April 1314, he issued a proclamation banning it" - this is the first instance of a date in the article. Make sure all dates are consistent.
  • "In 1531, Sir Thomas Elyot wrote that..." - source?
  • "These antiquated games went into sharp decline in the 19th century when the Highway Act 1835 was passed banning the playing of football on public highways." - this is a huge jump from 1531.
  • In all, it seems like the prehistory section of football has a bit too much info, given that this article is about American football. I think it should be cut town, ideally with a few quotes removed.
  • "Although there are mentions of Native Americans playing games" - given how much time is spent on ball playing on Europe, this could be fleshed out a bit. Were there ball games there?
  • "Princeton won that game by a score of 8 - 0." - but you just said before that it only went to six goals. If the 6 wasn't a permanent part of the rules, then it's not needed and confusing.
  • "Later in 1870" - you used the exact date for the previous one, why not this one?
  • "This game's violence caused such an outcry that no games at all were played in 1871. " - you mention a lot of the violence in specifics earlier, but here the violence caused a moratorium, so details would be good.
  • "Football came back in 1872, when Columbia played Yale for the first time. " - related to the above. Was it a formal ban, or just no games were played?
  • "The only way to score was still to bat or kick the ball " - as far as I can tell (and let me know if I'm wrong) this is the first mention of batting
  • Given that Harvard v McGill has an article, the details for that section can be a bit shorter. I'd focus more on the second paragraph, which says - "This series of games represents an important milestone in the development of the modern game of American football." And then explain why.
  • "Following the introduction of rugby-syle rules to American football, Camp became a fixture at the Massasoit House conventions where rules were debated and changed. " - how did this student have that much say? And more of the "why"s behind the rule changes would be appreciated.
  • "Later changes made it possible to snap the ball with the hand" when?
  • "At the 1882 rules meeting, Camp proposed that a team be required to advance the ball a minimum of five yards within three downs." - did it pass?
  • "When Walter Camp witnessed this tactic being employed against during a game he refereed between Harvard and Princeton in 1879, he was at first appalled, but the next year had adopted the blocking tactics for his own team at Yale." - aside from being unsourced, this sentence is quite a run-on! Try splitting up. Also, when did Camp become a ref?
  • "Alex Moffat was the early sport's greatest kicker and held a place in Princeton athletic history similar to Camp at Yale." - this sounds like something from a book, not an unbiased Wikipedia article.
  • The whole Arthur Cumnock section feels unnecessary, that it could be summarized in a sentence or two.
  • In the expansion section, you talk about the first time football was played in Kentucky and Tennessee. Why those two states, and not others?
  • "Yale football starts the same year and has its first match against Columbia, the nearest college to play football." - what year, and why present tense?

This is all up to the expansion section, so I will stop my review for now. I certainly learned a lot reading the article, and it is good work, but I don't feel it's ready for FAC. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you very much for your feedback and I am glad that you learned alot. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2016 [13].

Jonathan Mitchell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ylevental (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mitchell is an American autistic author and blogger who advocates for a cure for autism. He opposes the neurodiversity movement. He is one of the most controversial figures among autistic bloggers because of his hatred of autism, his view of autism as a disability, and his desire for a cure. He writes stories, blog posts and books as a hobby. This article contains a strong introduction explaining the controversy, an essential life background, personal views on neurodiversity with detailed examples, and more information on criticism and hobbies, all with good spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. This is a very unique controversy, with a pro-cure viewpoint coming from an autistic blogger, whereas most autistic bloggers support neurodiversity. Ylevental (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Hi Ylevental; I'm afraid this article is still a long way from being ready to be nominated here. Though there are some good sources, it also cites some rather dubious sources which are not appropriate for a biography of a living person, including blogs. The tone of the article is also inappropriate; phrases like "He is one of the most controversial figures among autistic bloggers" and "having even participated in autism research" do not come across as neutral. Before bringing this to FAC again, you may want to nominate it at peer review and/or good article candidates to help you prepare, or seek out someone with experience writing about these kinds of topics (perhaps through a related WikiProject) to help you. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 [14].

Operation Sandwedge[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 08:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is less about a minor cog in the Watergate machine than about one which was never even set in motion—Operation Sandwedge was the proposed covert strategy eschewed by Nixon in favour of what ended up happening. This article is part of a continued fascination of mine with things that didn't happen (cf. Ronnie Rocket, Project A119) and I hope you find it as intriguing as I did. It received a GA review from Sp33dyphil in 2012, and a recent peer review from Nikkimaria which identified a potentially troublesome source which has since been removed. The text also benefitted greatly from a copy-edit by Relentlessly. The first nomination received some useful attention from Wehwalt and Dank, and an image review by Nikkimaria, but unfortunately stalled due to interference by the White House Plumbers a lack of attention. I'll hopefully be able to garner a few more reviews a second time around; thanks in advance to anyone who wants to have a look at it. GRAPPLE X 08:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a former Watergate buff – I was endlessly facinated during my student years in the 70s – I was interested to see this article, but somewhat dismayed at its brevity: 731 words in total does not seem adequate. Although in itself a peripheral element in the Watergate scandal, Sandwedge was the likely origin of some very significant events and deserves, I think, rather more detail than we have here. Here are a few points for consideration:

  • The Background section should be expanded, to summarise the general mindset of Nixon's men in 1971, with regards to intelligence gathering, surveillance, dirty tricks etc. This was the era of the "enemies list", Ellsburg, the "Plumbers Unit" etc. It's important to understand that Sandwedge was conceived in that atmosphere, and was by no means an isolated initiative.
  • The sources I have looked at (Fred Emery's Watergate, 1994; Theodore White's Breach of Faith 1975; John Dean's Blind Ambition 1976) all suggest that Caulfield was the initiator of Sandwedge, rather than someone to whom the task was delegated by Dean. See in particular Dean, pp. 73–75. Dean gives a detailed account of his attempts to sell Caulfield's idea to Mitchell, Haldeman & co, and of the distrust the senior Nixonites had for Caulfield.
  • The same sources give a lot more information on the contents of Caulfield's 12-page memo, and of the proposed modus operandi – Caulfield would set up a private security firm to disguise the White House connection. He suggested various Nixon luminaries as co-principals in the firm, including Joe Woods, brother of the president's secretary.
  • There's plenty in the sources about the possible funding of the project. Although the article suggests that the project was virtually stillborn, in fact money was passed to Caulfield: $50,000 in or around October, by Herb Kalmbach who acted as a kind of paymaster for campaign intelligence activities. Emery gives details of how this money was disbursed.
  • The article does not give the date of the meeting between Haldeman, Mitchell, Magruder and Gordon C. Strachan. It was 28 October 1971, and although these powerful figures did not indicate confidence in Caulfield, it's not entirely accurate to say that "as a result of this meeting, control of the operation was passed along to G. Gordon Liddy". Liddy did not enter then frame until November. As Emery observes, Sandwedge was a long while dying; in January 1972 Dean was requesting further funds for the ooperation, because the original $50,000 was running out (he didn't get it).
  • In addition to the above, personally I would like to see a bit more fleshing-out of some of the principal figures. Who were Magruder, Strachan, Hunt, McCord? Who for that matter was Liddy? Links are not enough.

In short, I think that the article as it stands needs considerable fleshing-out before it meets the criterion of comprehensiveness. There is surely no shortage of reliable sources. I can help with citations if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, the brevity reflects what sources I was able to find for the article—the books you've mentioned didn't turn up even as mentions on any searches I made and so I didn't know there was more material out there; the article gives the impression the project stopped before it started because I genuinely thought it had. I'd be willing to shelve this for now to try to locate the books you've named and use their material for it; that would also address your last concern some, as I hadn't gone into great detail on each figure named for fear it would seem like padding. GRAPPLE X 18:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better withdrawn for the time being. The article is distinctly threadbare, and I'd have to oppose at present on the grounds of non-comprehensiveness. I'll help as far as I can to flesh it out; apart from the books I've mentioned there are other potentially useful texts, which I'll try to look up. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've ordered up the three texts you've mentioned so I should be able to get picking them apart within a week or two. I've never had to withdraw a nomination before but I've just removed this listing from FAC, I presume that does the requisite. GRAPPLE X 01:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I'm not disagreeing with anything Brian said, just noting that I've copyedited and supported on prose before, and nothing has changed. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2016 [15].

Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): Firebrace (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took this on as a project in early December as I felt the article was very neglected for such an important piece of English history and a tourist attraction visited by 3 million people a year. Many hours were spent verifying the extant citations, adding 23 new ones, and generally bringing the article up to a more acceptable standard. Hopefully featured article? Firebrace (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Important article, yes; ready for FAC – not yet, I'm afraid. Despite the obvious work and improvements, there are uncited statements in almost every section, whole paragraphs sometimes lacking references. The lead section does not comply with WP:LEAD. The well-known episode of Captain Blood's attempted theft is covered in a single uncited sentence: "In 1671, Colonel Thomas Blood attempted to steal the Crown Jewels." The article has never been subject to any review processes, and needs considerably more attention before it is ready for FAC. Suggest withdrawal, much further work, and peer review. The involvement of a co-editor with more experience of the FAC process might be an advantage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2016 (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/January_2016&oldid=702328546"