Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2007
July 2007[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 21:04, 31 July 2007.
Batman Begins[edit]
Very through Article on the movie Batman Begins. Article is now stable enough to be re-nominated for FA.Mercenary2k 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A few nitpicks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any way to write the second paragraph of the plot so it doesn't start two consecutive sentences with "Realizing ___ is right..."?
Done One of the sentences no longer starts with Realizing
- I saw two statements, "...ironically of Wayne Enterprises property" and "His use of fear toxin is an example of his sadistic nature.", that could qualify as POV unless there is a statement from the creators that that was their intent.
Done Removed both of them. Don't think they were necessary.
- Shouldn't the plot summary find some way to explicitly mention that Wayne takes up the moniker of Batman during the drug bust?
Done Added it.
- A mention of Crane being apprehended and then escaping in the plot might also be good.
Done Mentioned it.
- Katie Holmes's Razzie should probably be separated from the other awards in some way (possibly brought to the end of the section) for people unclear on the negative nature of the award.
Done Made it clear what exactly a Razzie award is. Mercenary2k 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would like to say that I am one of the original contributors to the article, so I am not sure if my recommendation to oppose would count (and I know a recommendation to keep wouldn't fly). The article is incomplete in several ways, in my opinion:
- The Plot section has over 1,000 words. The section needs to be severely trimmed to around 600-700 words.
- I've made a start on that. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The images in the Plot section and the Cast section, per the application of fair use these days, do not have sufficient fair use rationale. The arguments for the images seem to be too subjective for FA status. I do believe that the Batmobile and Batsuit images are absolutely appropriate, though I am not sure about Gotham City, as no real detail is reflected with the corresponding description of the city.
- The Filming subsection does not have a clear end to it. It tapers off with a series of mentions of filming locations.
- The Reviews subsection is enormously underdeveloped. There is a serious violation of WP:NPOV here because there is no specific negative criticism about the film. The film was not universally well-received, so negative criticism needs to be reflected. In addition, the existing positive criticism in the subsection is vague and does not specify exactly what was liked about the film -- the strong acting, how the story unfolded, the real-world redefinition of Batman and his universe? The Reviews subsection basically needs to be fleshed out.
- The lead section fails to cover any aspect of Production, and it should cover the Release section as well.
- I also believe that there are prose issues to be dealt with if this article is to achieve FA status, but I think that the above issues should be handled before the article undergoes copy-editing.
- The Plot section has over 1,000 words. The section needs to be severely trimmed to around 600-700 words.
- I would consider this one of the weaker Good Articles, and I believe that the FAC process was too premature for the tasks that still need to be completed to expand and improve the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It says the movie was well-recieved by most critics, but there is not one example of a negative/average review. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, ref. # 16 is from a fan page and should be REMOVED AND REPLACED. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the URL, but the Starlog article is correct. The URL just happens to be the only electronic copy of that article, and I imagine it was added to make verifiability easier. However, the direct copy of the article may constitute a copyright violation for that site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I too have worked on the article to a notable extent and can say that it is not ready. Mostly per Erik's comments above. However, I do not feel that the Plot section needs to be shortened. The Filmaker 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 15:55, 26 July 2007.
Age of Mythology[edit]
Self nomination - this article recently passed GA, and I believe it meets the FA criteria too. It's been peer reviewed by the video games peer review, and there has been a good deal of WikiProject collaboration on it.
I'd be more then happy to make any changes suggested to the article. Thanks for considering it, Giggy UCP 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - I've only had a brief look over it and will have a proper read later, but at the moment I have a few questions/comments:
- Are their any images that can be found that are not going to be copyright? For example do people play this game in competitions, or at LAN parties or whatever? (sorry am not very familiar with all that) If so then a photo of a large group of people playing in a tournament or something would add significantly to the article.
Done - Some sections of the article have no inline citations, is there a reason for this?
- I believe the reception section should be expanded. It's not comprehensive enough for my liking. Surely more could be said about it's sales, criticism (good and bad) and awards?
- Are their any images that can be found that are not going to be copyright? For example do people play this game in competitions, or at LAN parties or whatever? (sorry am not very familiar with all that) If so then a photo of a large group of people playing in a tournament or something would add significantly to the article.
- Thanks. - Shudde talk 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Shudde. I'm going to look for a non copyright photo, or otherwise attempt to take on myself. I'll also get to the citations when I get the chance, although I don't think there are any statements that need sources but don't have one. Thanks again for your critique, Giggy UCP 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Great work on the article so far, Giggy! Here are some comments:
- Needs copyediting for grammar and spelling, eg then vs than Done
- Some of the expression needs to be fixed, eg the opening sentence of the Gameplay section is too choppy, use if i.e. and etc. in the buildings section, ...
- The wikilinks for the four ages are a tad misleading, as they don't really correspond to their linked articles (I think the terms in the game are more fictional than historic). In particular the classical age links to a disambiguation page Done - Links removed (except Archaic Age, which is historically relevant)
- Likewise the wiktionary link for "favor" doesn't really explain its meaning and role within the context of the game. Is explained later though. Perhaps remove wiktionary link? Done - Link removed
- If my memory serves me correctly civilians can also fish with nets, along with fishing boats? Nope, not true :D. That was in Age of Empires and Age of Empires II!
- Why is "Isis is considered the best Egyptian major god?" Citation? Comment removed. Not cited anywhere, just a popular multiplayer statement that made its way in there.
- Need to wlink "Set" earlier Done
- Each civilization has a finite number of "population slots;" which can be raised by building more houses and Town Centers. Fix grammar. Done
- The units section needs more explanation added. What's an "attack bonus", or "pierce damage"? Done
- What's the point of the picture of the players at the tournament? No text refering to any tournaments. Done
- There probably needs to be more explanation of the different game modes, eg capture the flag, timed games, wonder games. Done
Recurring dreams 07:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nearly every nonfree image used in the article (and there are several) have the same copy-pasted fair-use rationale - that the image is used for "illustration and identification." Each image needs to be justified by significant critical commentary, and that needs to be explained on the images' description pages. If you can't come up with a good way to justify them, then the image should be deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'll read the article when I can. In the meanwhile, automated peer review brings up the following:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
I'll give more "human" suggestions ASAP. · AndonicO Talk 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd like the suggestions I left on your talk page to be taken care of before I can support. For the sake of understanding and centralized discussion, I will summarize them here.
- Passive voice should be active voice ("the person is fighting" becomes "the person fights" etc.) Done as far as I can see
- Look in civilizations; there's a "you". Done
- Try to add the work and the publisher. Usually involves CNET and one of the websites it it owns. Done (As best I could, anyway)
- Try to flesh out development and reception.
- [6]
After this and other problems are taken care of, I'll support. Clyde (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Aside from the issues above I would like justification and likely an eventual cutting down of the gameplay section. As it stands the list-alike section goes extensively into irrelevant aspects of the game such as "In Age of Mythology, most cavalry receive an attack bonus against archers" which do not help the reader get a general overview of the information surrounding the game. Wikipedia:Summary style applies to what I have just said and as such I feel the article fails this important MoS guideline. There are a lot of featured video game articles such as the recent Supreme Commander that can be used as examples and inspirations. 74.13.94.166 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - This article is not up to standard. I feel that the gameplay mechanics reaches down to too low level, at some points it reads like a game guide. Aesthetically, I think that section could be improved with some boldening of unit classes, although whether you feel that it'd make it too listy is your call. The article is not comprehensive, there was an Age of Mythology soundtrack that was released, so the audio work was definitely a key part of this title, yet there is no mention of it other than some passing mutterings in the reception section. Here are some relevant links: [7] [8] [9] [10]. I don't like the feel of the reception section at all, summarising just three sources is not good enough. Instead, it should try and touch upon and flow through all aspects of the game and use multiple sources to back that up, it's useful to link to aggregation sites such as Metacritic or Gamerankings. - hahnchen 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the lack of boldening is my fault. I thought it was encouraging to break up the flow of the section, and encouraged listy cruft. However, if you think it will help the article, let's see how it looks.--Clyde (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I wasn't aware of a soundtrack, thanks for pointing that out. I've added information about it. [11]. As for the boldening, I agree with Clyde. Giggy UCP 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- And I also added information concerning Metacritic and Game Rankings. Thanks for your comments! [12] Giggy UCP 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- This still does not satisfy my concerns. I don't want to sound like an elitist bastard (I am), but I'm surprised you've chosen Avalanche Online as your sole source for a review, which seems to be pretty amateurish and more of a forum than anything else, especially given that I linked to Music4Games which is probably the most dedicated and professional news source on video game audio. I don't like the style of the reception section, giving a synopsis of three reviews is not significant enough, and I feel that the flow of the prose is totally shattered by a fetish for review scores. Whereas I don't mind a smattering of scores in the prose, I think it's totally unnecessary to list the score breakdown for each review criteria, the GameSpot synopsis just focuses on numbers. I'd much prefer a run through of how well the various aspects of the game were received by a wider range of sources, rather than the entire game's reception by a small number. In relation to the layout of the units, I would prefer if it was just a list, because it already reads like one and would be more elegant if chopped and formalised into a list. Another minor point are the image resolutions. I'm sure that quite a few images could be {{non-free reduce}}d, I'm no fair use fascist and won't insist on making images so tiny that you can't make anything out, but Image:Age of Mythology ingame screenshot.jpg, Image:AoMGreekScreenie.jpg, Image:Age of Mythology Editor.png and Image:Age of Mythology Liner.jpg are worth checking out, I'd stick to 800x600 maximums when dealing with screenshots, but it's hard to balance out showing the graphical prowess of the game and Wikipedia's fair use restrictions. - hahnchen 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also think that the bonus 4 mission campaign by Ensemble, Age of Mythology - Golden Gift should get a mention. - hahnchen 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- And I also added information concerning Metacritic and Game Rankings. Thanks for your comments! [12] Giggy UCP 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Numerous problems:
- The second sentence is WAY too wordy: rephrase to "...in North America and a week later in Europe."
- In the second paragraph of the lead, there is an unreferenced claim, "Age of Mythology is the first "Age of" game to utilise a 3D graphics engine, allowing rotation of the map". IAW WP:MoS, this also needs to be referenced later in the article and IMHO expanded upon.
- The third paragraph needs only one reference at the end of the paragraph for both sentences.
- Paragraph four is never referenced or expanded upon in the main article and should either be fixed or deleted from the lead. It also needs to be rewritten IAW WP:DATE (either include the exact date, which would be preferable, or un-wikilink September, unless it is somehow important to the article).
- Problems throughout include multiple uses of numbers when they should be spelled out (there are quite a few). Well-known is highly subjective (and in any case should be hyphenated), but should not be used in an encyclopedia.
- Awkward/choppy phrasing throughout, example: "Minor gods are slightly less significant gods (according to history) such as Bast and Hel. All gods have unique technologies, myth units, and a unique god power. God powers are special one-time use abilities that can massively damage an opponent, or can benefit the player. For instance, if a player chooses the minor god Thoth in the mythic age, they can summon down a barrage of meteors to destroy opposing civilizations. Or, if the player choose Hephaestus, the player can create a Plenty Vault, which provides a steady trickle of resources; however control of the vault can be taken away if another player has more units and buildings around it." ...and while we're on the subject, this is not "according to history," it is according to mythology and this is WAY too detailed without definitions of what a "Plenty Vault" is, looks like, how the opposing entities can actually take control of it, etc. In short, keep it simple...much simpler than this.
- The Favor section is awful, choppy, and not very descriptive. Rephrase/reword/significantl upgrade.
- Now the biggies:
- Passive voice throughout: example: "Food, wood, and gold are also gathered by villagers" should be "Villagers gather food, wood..." (In addition, this sentence is very short). In short, anything that has the word "by" in it is likely passive voice. Read this for more information.
- Citations missing for many paragraphs with specific claims including numbers. If you plan to keep these, please give us some reference.
- ALL dates need to be wikified, including the references. Please fix
In short, there are so many problems, I don't have time to list them all (I am not going to waste 4 hours on something that will not pass FAC review in its current form). Should all of these problems be handled, I will be happy to come back and clarify some more. — BQZip01 — talk 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - The article is in good shape; it just needs a few things clarified:
- The Gods sections needs some cleanup; it almost seems like it was thrown in there. It could be a little bit better written.
- "Age of Mythology’s gameplay differs from that of other real-time strategy games in that players are able to choose gods for their civilization to follow." what other games do/do not do this?
- "Each major god possesses a major god power, which is a powerful piece of “magic” the player can summon once in the game." could be "Major gods posses their own accompanying power. Each one is unique in the way it is dealt, but generally extremely destructive and can only be used once in the game."
- The Favor section should be rewritten, as it has an overall colloquial tone.
- "Age of Mythology was granted a score of 9.2 by GameSpot reviewer Greg Kasavin..." should be "Gamespot's Greg Kasavin gave the game a 9.2 out of 10; gameplay was ranked 9 out of 10, with Kasavin stating that "you'll get the impression from Age of Mythology that the designers spent their time further adjusting the gameplay conventions that they themselves have already helped pioneer."
- A copy edit should be conducted (by fresh eyes). You may wish to contact the League of Copyeditors.
- The Gods sections needs some cleanup; it almost seems like it was thrown in there. It could be a little bit better written.
Once the outline above is addressed, I'd love change my position to support. NSR77 TC 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The first 2/3rd's is just a rehash of what happens in the game, units, etc. It's like an instruction manual - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. From "Development" on is relevant and encyclopedic and seems well sourced. But that is only 1/3 of the article though. It is a great game though. --Merbabu 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 02:39, 24 July 2007.
Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989[edit]
Last FAC closed early, renominating on Raul's advice. -RunningOnBrains 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is there any way to box up the multi-colored tornado counting thing rather than leave it floating mid-lead and pushing the contents box down and thus creating a big gap below the opening image? Just a thought... SGGH speak! 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support: This article is well-written and well-referenced. What is more is that it provides a lot of details on the subject. However, I have noticed a few mistakes in it, which can be easily fixed.
- Perhaps the lead can be lengthened by a bit.
- "Amazingly, while dozens of homes and other structures were levelled, no one was killed by tornadoes that day." (section 3) Does not Amazingly suggest some POV?
- "...and 1 death and 11 injuries were caused by..." (section 3) 1 should be written out.
- "In just 5 hours, the storms..." (section 3) 5 should be written out.
- "The airport in Oxford, CT recorded..." (section 3) CT should be written out to Connecticut and a comma should be put after it.
- Typical tornadoes in this area are short-lived, and not particularly damaging." (section 3) No comma required.
- "...only 6 violent tornadoes have occurred..." (section 3) 6 should be written out.
I am sure in that these can be easily fixed. Please count my support only after these are fixed. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a. Listy table, then stubby sections. That's all it comprises. It's just a disjointed, not particularly well-written story—this happened then that happened then this happened ... No wider picture or analysis. Most unsatisfactory, as is the director's encouragement to resubmit so soon. "Ram 'em through, as many times as it takes."
- Comment The FAC was re-submitted because it was closed out of turn, there was no actionable criticism left, and only reviewed by one editor. If this failed a full debate/critique, I of course wouldn't renominate until all criticisms were addressed. If reviewers feel the prose is insufficient/stubby, I can expand it greatly from newspaper articles, but it may take a few days.-RunningOnBrains 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Big ugly list/table. Can't it be at the bottom, so as not to obstruct the flow of the article at the top? Ugly, lewd colour scheme; not only that, the blue seems illogical. Fourth column forces the text into tiny chunks verticalised. Some units have no metric equivalent (same for the main text).
- Would making it collapsable help? I'll go ahead and do that. Additionally, color scheme is not my own, and I would be hard-pressed to change it (based upon the Tropical cyclone WikiProject color scheme for the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale), and is used on all tornado event articles.-RunningOnBrains 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- "This final section of the path is plotted as a skipping tornado, but may have been three or more tornadoes." But?
- Fixed, I believe.
- "may have been three separate tornadoes"—Two lines later; is this referring to the same phenomenon?
- "The National Guard was called in to aid in cleanup and keep order, as some looting was reported in the devastated area." So the National Guard was called in to aid in cleanup because looting was reported? That's what it says. Tony 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just started looking through the article. We could use a bit more background on the storm; the main article starts with when the damage began - where did the storm begin? If tornadoes are rare in that area, what were the circumstances that created them then? Matt Deres 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actual meteorological data on this event is hard to come by. I contacted National Weather Service offices in several states, and only got a response from one, who said in so many words that all meteorological data about that day was lost. The only real records that exist from the pre-digital age are traces of radar returns, and they did not have those on file. I have been unable to find any scientific studies on the event either. -RunningOnBrains 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:59, 24 July 2007.
GoldenEye[edit]
This article meets all the requirements since the previous FAC. Vikrant Phadkay 15:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As shown here, many of the previous problems brought up in the previous FAC are yet to be fully amended, and I wouldn't expect the article to have improved enough for FA status since the last FAC just 50 days ago - • The Giant Puffin • 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Image:006 Alec Trevelyan.jpg needs a fair-use rationale for this use. Image:Kleinman titlecredits.jpg has a fair-use rationale that doesn't specify which use it applies to, and needs to have a unique rationale for each use. Image:007Ouromov.jpg has no fair-use rationale for any of its uses. Image:Goldeneye comic cover.jpg isn't really the subject of significant commentary in the article and should probably be removed per WP:NFCC #8. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have corrected all that was needed in these images. Vikrant Phadkay 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose (delist) I am opposing this article for the following reasons. I am suggesting that it be delisted because I believe that the editors need more than two or three weeks to resolve the following issues.
- (1a) - While I do not expect "brilliant" prose in wikipedia articles (that is very difficult to achieve), I do expect that the prose will be grammatically correct, professional and easy to read. That is not the case yet with this article. The editors need to have someone come in and work with them who hasn't contributed to the article (fresh eyes). Some of the problems include: wordy sentences, dangling modifiers, poor diction and a tendency to write list-y sections rather than coherent, flowing sections.
- (1b) - The article is not comprehensive. This is the most serious problem with it. The article is supposed to cover all aspects of the film, but it has very little discussion of the film's themes (relegated to the "Reception" section) and none on the film's cinematic style (e.g. cinematography). An analysis of the artistic elements of the film, except for the sound, is missing from the article.
- (1c) - The missing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections should be written using the peer-reviewed work of film scholars. There is plenty of material available on Goldeneye. Currently, the article does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on this topic. Here are some examples that I found in a five-minute google scholar search. It would appear that the editors did not really engage in any serious research for this article:
- Jeremy Black's The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen
- James Chapman's License to Thrill
- Judith Halberstam's Female Masculinity
- Christoph Lindner's The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader
- Thomas J. Price's "The Changing Image of the Soviets in the Bond Saga: From Bond-Villains to "Acceptable Role Partners"" The Journal of Popular Culture 26 (1), 17–38.
- (2b) - I found it slightly odd that the "Production" section came before the "Plot" section. Is there a reason for this?
- (3) - Eskog has already outlined the problems with the images.
- (4) - The cast list takes up a lot of the article and the reader learns very little from it. Is there any way to shrink or remove this section?
I urge the editors to do some research, revise and copy edit the article, take it to peer review and then resubmit it to FAC in a few months. Awadewit | talk 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article would have been submitted to Peer Review before the previous FAC, but due to the huge backlog there, any submission is likely to go unnoticed - • The Giant Puffin • 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry. I am still working actively here. Vikrant Phadkay 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The article is not yet ready for FA status. Several of the main concerns from the previous FAC have not yet been met. The article does not discuss any of the film's themes, such as the collapse of the USSR, beyond a brief paragraph. This sort of thing needs its own section, especially as GoldenEye was the first Bond film for 6 years, during which several important events happened and times changed. There is also a general lack of scholarly sources, a list of which provided above by Awadewit is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The vehicle and gadgets section also needs further improvement, as some of it has no real life context at all. The paragraphs about the BMW Z3 and Omega watch are fine, as they describe the real life information. There also needs to be more mention of the film's cinematic style, and the artistic aspects (beyond the soundtrack) of the film. - • The Giant Puffin • 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 00:00, 16 July 2007.
San Juan, Puerto Rico[edit]
The article has undergone a mayor reconstruction by me and two fellow users. The article passed GAC a month ago and it underwent a Peer Review wich is now archived. Any concerns presented here will be attended by me or by any member of WikiProject Puerto Rico. Thanks for your time. -凶 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. I've noticed several issues with the text:
- The lead could be a little longer; the first and second paragraph are a little too small for my liking.-
Done - In "Old San Juan", there's some oddly placed footnotes. Are they part of the previous paragraph?-Done
- Do we need to know when the satellite photograph was taken? I'm not sure it's worthy of mention; I've not seen the date noted on any other photo.-Done
- "East of Old San Juan lies the upscale tourist oriented neighbourhood of Condado, which occupies land that used to be owned by entrepreneur Pablo Ubarri Capetillo, a Spanish railroad developer and Count of San José de Santurce under the Spanish colonial period." It's hard to follow this sentence. I'd recommend splitting it into two.-Done
- "San Juan constitutes the most populated city in Puerto Rico." I think "is" is sufficient.-Done
- Second World War should be World War II throughout the text.-Done
- Overall, the content is definitely there, but some of the prose is a little awkward. I'd recommend a copyedit personally.
- The lead could be a little longer; the first and second paragraph are a little too small for my liking.-
- I'll add more as I go through the text. If you happen to disagree with any of my comments, let me know! CloudNine 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Let me start by saying thanks for taking of your time to review and help us improve this page, on behalf of our WikiProject I must say we are grateful. I took the liberty of placing checkmarks in the points that were attended by me already, now I will be absent for a few hours since I have a dinner appointment but when I come back the lead will be expanded. -凶 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- The lead has been expanded. -凶 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - Very nice article. I have contributed with some minor copyediting and left left a few minor suggestions to be taken into consideration, but as it is I believe that it has the makings of an FA. Tony the Marine 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - I also support this article, which has really improved.Pr4ever 20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak object. The article is very well written, and well presented. I do feel that the coverage of the city's education system is very thin however. About the only reference I find to tertiary education is that the University of Puerto Rico is historic, and any mention of secondary (high school) education system in the city is non-existent. For tertiary education, a look at this directory reveals the presence of a "University of the Sacred Heart" with 5000 students, and a "Universidad Metropolitana" with 10000 students, as well as some smaller ones, and they really ought to be mentioned in the article. In fact, I think that the education sector of a city as large as San Juan is significant enough to warrant a separate section, or even a separate article with a summary section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)- Comment - I added a new section on "Education". -凶 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Although there is not coverage of secondary education, decent coverage of the tertiary system is what is important in an article on the city, and a separate article on the education system will be good to have at some point. I support featuring this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I added a new section on "Education". -凶 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from Universe=atom:
- Why is there no "See also" section? A major city like this should definitely have one.Done
- Reference #46 is in Spanish. It should be labeled so, especially since it appears 27 times in the article.Done
- Why is it so that Ref #45 has only the title? Why is there no access-date, publish-date, or publisher (all of which are available on the website)Done
- The format of several references needs to be changed. Most references have only the title and the access-date. Why is there no publish-date or publisher? These should be included (exception: if they are not available even on the website). References that should be added to because of this include #1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22, 23, 27-30, and 32-47. Done
- Perhaps the beginning of section 9 ("Sister cities") can be added to by putting, for example, "The following cities have been identified as sister cities..."Done
- Section 2 needs some more references in its beginning.
- Grammar mistake: "A year later, the settlement was moved to a site then called Puerto Rico, Spanish for "rich port" or "good port", after its similar..." (section 1) Comma should be before quotes end.Done
- Grammar: "...settlement was given its formal name, "San Juan Bautista de Puerto Rico", in honor of..." (section 1) Same thing as previous one.Done
- Grammar: "...by 1746 the name for the city..." (section 1) Comma required after 1746.Done
- Grammar: "San Juan as a settlement of the Spanish Empire, was used by..." (section 1) Comma required after San Juan.Done
- Grammar: "For these reasons San Juan became a target of the foreign powers of the time." (section 1) Comma required after reasons.Done
- Grammar: "The English returned in 1797 ,during the French Revolutionary Wars, led by Sir Ralph Abercromby who had just conquered Trinidad." (section 1) Comma mistake related to spacing.Done
- Grammar: "This event happened on April 6, 1917 wich was the day that the United States declared war on Germany." (section 1) Major grammar mistakes: the word which is misspelled. Also, comma is always required after years.Done
- Grammar:"In May 1898, United States Navy ships, among them the USS Detroit, USS Indiana, USS New York, USS Amphitrite, USS Terror and USS Montgomery, commanded by Rear Admiral William T. Sampson, bombed San Juan during the Spanish-American War, though the city was not occupied." This article is supposed to be written in American English. So, the serial comma should be followed.
- Grammar: This mistake appears several times throughout the article, all of which should be fixed.
- Grammar: "Camp Las Casas located in the distric of Santurce served as the main training camp for the Puerto Rican soldiers prior to World War I and World War II, the mayority of the men trained in this facility were assigned to the 65th Infantry Regiment of the United States Army." (section 1) 4 major grammar mistakes in just one sentence: (1) There should be a comma before the participle phrase (located in the distric of Santurce); (2) The word district is misspelled; I can not believe that this was not noticed before; (3) The word majority is also misspelled; (4) There should be a semicolon (instead of the current comma) after World War II because it connects two independent clauses.Done
- Grammar: "This regiment has been active since 1898 and its still active in the present." (section 1: just one sentence after the previous one) This sounds like slang would. There should be a comma after 1898. Also, why is its used. First of all, if it were to be used, there should be an apostrophe there. Second of all, it should not at all be used but instead should be replaced by it is.Done
- Grammar: "Camp Las Casas was eventually closed down and on 1950 a public housing project by the name of Residencial Fray Bartolome de Las Casas was constructed on its former location." (section 1: just one sentence after the previous one) There should be a comma after down and one after 1950.Done
- Grammar: "As a result the city is now composed of a variety of neighborhoods." (section 2) There should be a comma after result.Done
- Why is there no "See also" section? A major city like this should definitely have one.
There are more other grammar mistakes in this article, but I do not think that I need to mention them since they all have the same types of mistakes that I have given. Hopefully, they will be recognized and fixed. On a good note, however, if all the points that I raised are taken care of, I think that this article will be worthy of FA status, and I will vote Support. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I already attended the points with green checkmarks by them, however I didn't get what you meant by saying the serial commas should be followed, can you please explain what you mean further? -凶 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- In WP:MOS, it says that "If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used." So do as you please with that. Also, where on the Style Guide does it say that numbers should be written out at the start of a sentence? I've seen you make this recommendation a couple of times, Universe=atom, and I have to say I haven't seen it. EDIT: Also, the WP:MOS says that "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quote marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)", so "**Grammar mistake: "A year later, the settlement was moved to a site then called Puerto Rico, Spanish for "rich port" or "good port", after its similar..." (section 1) Comma should be before quotes end" this is incorrect. --Estrellador* 08:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style also states that a particular national variety of English should be followed if the article is related to theat variety. For example, the article British Empire would obviously be written in British English, and the article History of the United States would obviously be written in American English. Similarly, San Juan, Puerto Rico would obviously be written in American English (because Puerto Rico is an American territory). In American English, the serial comma is used, and in British English, it is not used. It should definitely be used throughout this article, which, as it can be seen, is not being so. As for the numbers in the beginnings of sentences, Estrellador*, it is a common known fact that numbers in that position, even if they are years, should be written out. For more information, consult any external grammar manual. As for the comment on the comma & quotation marks, I had thought that it had been like that. If that is not so, as Estrellador* pointed out, ignore that point. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers for the clarification, Universe=atom, and the number-starting-a-sentence thing is in the Manual of Style: "It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: recast the sentence or spell the number out." so fair enough.--Estrellador* 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style also states that a particular national variety of English should be followed if the article is related to theat variety. For example, the article British Empire would obviously be written in British English, and the article History of the United States would obviously be written in American English. Similarly, San Juan, Puerto Rico would obviously be written in American English (because Puerto Rico is an American territory). In American English, the serial comma is used, and in British English, it is not used. It should definitely be used throughout this article, which, as it can be seen, is not being so. As for the numbers in the beginnings of sentences, Estrellador*, it is a common known fact that numbers in that position, even if they are years, should be written out. For more information, consult any external grammar manual. As for the comment on the comma & quotation marks, I had thought that it had been like that. If that is not so, as Estrellador* pointed out, ignore that point. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- In WP:MOS, it says that "If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used." So do as you please with that. Also, where on the Style Guide does it say that numbers should be written out at the start of a sentence? I've seen you make this recommendation a couple of times, Universe=atom, and I have to say I haven't seen it. EDIT: Also, the WP:MOS says that "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quote marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)", so "**Grammar mistake: "A year later, the settlement was moved to a site then called Puerto Rico, Spanish for "rich port" or "good port", after its similar..." (section 1) Comma should be before quotes end" this is incorrect. --Estrellador* 08:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support It had some minor mistakes which have been taken care of. Antonio Martin 00:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, the article has a good start, but there is a good deal of work remaining, which may or may not be doable during FAC, and I don't feel it's close to FA or should have attained GA with substandard prose. For a comparable article, I suggest looking at El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda. El Hatillo is but one small municipality, affording no sources in the English language, and yet has a more comprehensive article than San Juan, the capital and largest city of PR. Surely there is as much to say about San Juan, if not more, than can be said about El Hatillo?
- 1a—prose
This is an area that requires more work; perhaps an independent copyeditor can be engaged. However, since the article is not yet comprehensive, copyediting would be secondary to completing the article. Some samples of problems to be addressed:
- Foreign phrases should be in italics, not quotes.
- Listy prose; for example, Sports is basically a list, which tells us very little about the place, significance, importance of sports in the Puerto Rican culture.
- Informal prose: The first edition of World Wrestling Entertainment's pay per view New Year's Revolution was held here in January 2005. Held here?
- Random samples of prose issues, which are throughout:
- The Santurce Crabbers won the National Superior Basketball League championship on 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003 during this period being recognized as a dynasty.
- In an attempt to decrease vehicle dependency and road congestion, the City constructed a metro system dubbed “Tren Urbano”, or Urban Train in English, the 10.7 mile (17.2 km) long line connects to 16 stations.
- A daily ferry service known as the Cataño Ferry, (“La Lancha de Cataño” in Spanish) which operates a route across San Juan Bay between Old San Juan and the municipality of Cataño.
- ... in Santurce.[25]There are several technological ... (check spaces)
- Due to technological advances after World War II in the development of the airliner coupled with the island's climate and natural setting, has transformed San Juan into the springboard for tourism around the island, and has made the rest of the Caribbean known throughout the world during the last fifty years.
Other reviewers have listed the extensive prose problems, so rather than list more, I suggest that WP:LoCE be contacted, or an independent copyedit be done after 1b is addressed. The current prose is sub-standard even for GA, and I'm surprised it was passed.
- 1b—comprehensive
This is another large issue; the article is seriously lacking in comprehensiveness. No crime in San Juan? No municipal services, police, fire, etc? One paragraph on education, no education issues, no secondary schools, no stats? (See El Hatillo article for comparison, or glance through New York City or Boston.) No discussion of health care ? No hospitals? More disappointing than the lack of basic information essential to a city article is the lack of any sense of the culture of San Juan. Sections dealing with the culture rather than imparting a sense of the culture are mostly lists of who's who in Puerto Rico. One short paragraph on Economy? What does a historical list of mayors add to the article? No discussion of political issues, just a list of Mayors? The article content should be seriously beefed up before the copyedit issues above can be addressed.
- 1c—factually accurate
All hard data should be cited, example: In 2007, the government of Puerto Rico announced a large expansion project to the bayside piers called the San Juan Waterfront at a projected cost of $1.5 billion, which will include docking space for 60 megayachts, 900 total hotel rooms, 1,850 housing units, over 400,000 square feet of commercial space and a new recreational park.
- 1d—neutral
Watch wording on things like ...
- East of Old San Juan lies the upscale tourist oriented neighbourhood of Condado, ..
- San Juan enjoys an average of 82°F (28°C) during the year, ...
- Please see WP:UNITS and fix throughout, or employ {{convert}}
- Full dates, and month day combos should be linked, see WP:MOSNUM
- Low value words (example fertilizer) should not be linked, see WP:CONTEXT—common words are overlinked, while some other terms (example, Museum of Contemporary Art of Puerto Rico) should be red-linked or stubified.
- Please read WP:LEAD; once the article is completed and copyedited, the lead should be a compelling stand-alone summary of the article.
- Citations are incorrectly formatted; pls see WP:CITE/ES. All sources should include a publisher and last access date, as well as author and date when available.
Please don't use those green check marks to indicate items completed: reviewers strike their own comments as they are addressed, and those only clutter the FAC page. Also, I note three Supports above from authors of Puerto Rican articles, in spite of numerous deficiencies in this article. I hope editors will strive to produce the kind of article Puerto Rico's capital deserves rather than supporting an article with deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, way to assume bad faith, I sincerly hope you were offended by the comment I made on Talk:History of Puerto Rico because if you heard what I have to say about this insult the result would be an immediate block. To assume there is fan vote here and to suggest I'm doing a half assed work here just pisses me off, to leave something clear I work with what is given to me, I took this task out of good will since I haven't lived anywhere near the city since I was three, there is no way for me to get sources on this specially now that I will edit out of Orlando in the near future, so if the users that live in the island don't provide me with information I can't take these articles to Featured Article by myself. I already realized that with me out and the other users working on the page busy, this FAC will fail so you win, kept up this work that way even more users will have a negative image about the administrators at Wikipedia and with time the vandalism will be to much even for them to control. When I come back I will probably go bact to editing pages about organizations and biographies where I can stay away from people like you. -凶 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:First of all: User ? (Dark Dragon Flame), please do not accuse user SandyGeorgia of assuming bad faith just because the truth was pointed out. I scrutinized those comments, and all of them turned out to be true. While I had been reviewing this article, these points had slipped out of my hand. This article can still be improved further, and, as SandyGeorgia said, what SandyGeorgia pointed out are only examples from the entire article. As I pointed out in the paragraph after my comments, I had said that the grammar mistakes in the comments were only from the beginning of the article, and the rest of the article was still filled with them. As I look over the article now, I still see tons of grammar mistakes. Please do not interpret my oppose wrongly; perhaps you can apply for FA status in a few weeks after this article has been professionally copy-edited. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 13:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I feel I should abstain myself from supporting or opposing since I contributed to the article, but I believe SandyGeorgia's suggestions are a welcome addition to the article. I would suggest postpone this nomination until some of these suggestions are addressed. The article does not necessarily have to include all of them, nor does it have to be identical to El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda (although comparisons are useful), but adding this information and more copyediting could greatly improve the article. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. There's plenty of work to be done, and I don't think it's possible to complete it within a timeframe of an FAC. CloudNine 16:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose law and government section needs content, and demographics section seeds sources--SefringleTalk 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose many places didn't finish, e.g. chart of temp.Coloane 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hence the revamping of the article notice above. It's a work in progress. CloudNine 13:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Confused—Cloudnine, you indicated (above in red) that the article was being revamped, but later you said it couldn't be accomplished within the timeframe of FAC. Should I continue to revisit the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah; in my opinion the article should be removed from WP:FAC, but I was under the impression it's not ok for me to do so. I revamped what I could (especially as I don't really have any connection with San Juan), but it's not enough really. CloudNine 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then it might be good to un-"red" the comment above, since it may cause Raul to leave the article at FAC when he promotes/archives (it gives the appearance ya'll are trying to get it done within the FAC). I just had a peek, and the article is still very far from ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. When I posted that red comment, I thought a member of WikiProject Puerto Rico would expand the stub sections. CloudNine 15:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Nice article, visually appealing. Mix Precipitation 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- — Mix Precipitation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:11, 7 July 2007.
United States housing bubble[edit]
This article is independently getting very high praise and pointers from professionals in the blogosphere. E.g., here is Jonathan Miller at Matrix, "Housing Bubble Goes All Wikipedia On Us,"
Wikipedia adds an incredibly thorough entry on the whole housing bubble phenomenon called United States housing bubble. Hat tip to Calculated Risk.
It lays out much of the events associated with the end of the recent housing boom. Its long, but its a good read.
Here are some of the topics:
- Controversy
- Mania for home ownership
- Widespread belief that housing is a risk-free, growth investment
- Popularity of home purchasing in the media
- Speculative purchases of homes
- Crash of the dot-com bubble
- Historically low interest rates
- Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability
- Interest-only and adjustable rate mortgages
- Predictions and status of a market correction
Its makes a pretty strong argument for Wikipedia as a resource.
- [italics added]. I think this independent blog entry by a professional real estate analyst pretty much says it all. Since these comments have been made, this ongoing story has evolved with the correction of the U.S. housing bubble, including the subprime mortgage collapse and the reaction of the U.S. Senate, and the spread of the subprime problems into near prime mortgages. No one knows how long or how far housing will fall, but history shows that no one should be surprised if this story continues for a decade or more. Waiting a decade for the last part of this history to be written is not in keeping with the "wiki" in Wikipedia, so I'd like to propose that this article appear as a featured article now. It's received much independent praise, it satisfies Wiki's FA criteria, and it's a very timely article on a hugely important subject. Frothy 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A sidenote - I'd like to add, regarding this article's first FAC nom, in all the years I've been FA director, that FAC nom was probably the one I hated to fail the most. Raul654 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Raul654, thanks for that comment. Here's what the blog Paper Money had to say about this article during the first nomination in the post "Wiki Wiki Housing Bubble":
For those of you out there who have yet to read (or haven’t read lately) the Wikipedia page dedicated to the United States Housing Bubble, I would strongly recommend that you do so.
To say that the page is thorough would be an understatement.
It has been meticulously edited and formatted with many of the most compelling and pertinent data including housing cost and P/E analysis, charts, and discussion on the media and overall cultural factors that influenced the housing mania along with an abundance of exacting footnotes.
It is truly a living document dedicated to what may, in the end, be one of the most compelling stories of our time.
Thanks Frothy (and to the others) who have done such a superb job authoring this great Wiki page over the last nine months.
- As noted above, this article now contains several huge new developments in this subject since that time. Frothy 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg [30], Image:Lereah BookCover 2005.jpg [31], and Image:LereahNotBust.jpg [32] need fair use rationales. -Bluedog423Talk 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done on Time magazine cover because fair use covers illustration of "the publication of the issue of the magazine in question"—the appearance of this cover is cited as the peak of the bubble. Also,
- Done on Lereah Book Cover #1 because fair use covers "an article discussing the book in question", which the United States housing bubble does explicitly.
- Done on Lereah Book Cover #2 because fair use covers "an article discussing the book in question", which the United States housing bubble does explicitly.
- Frothy 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Frothy, if I understand Bluedog423's comment correctly, the request is for fairuse rationales to be added to the images themselves. See This Is The Sea image for an example; it is used in This Is the Sea, and there is a statement of fair use at the image page itself. Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support This article is very important as it identifies major economic factors in the lives of millions of our readers using top quality sources and explanations. As a example of wikipedia article making it is top notch. Frothy has done a wonderful job and many others have helped. WAS 4.250 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Despite excellent relevance and references, the first and most important criteria for featured article status is good writing. This article goes off on tangents regarding the collapse of subprime and alt-A without really describing what these are let alone why these matter. Some of this content needs to be split off into other pages or presented differently. The section that refers to rising interest rates seems genuinely misleading to me as it hypes the "blood bath" angle without bringing up the fact that interest rates are historically low, which oddly enough would support the bubble hypothesis. The remarks about proposed bail outs are extremely serious, but appear to be addressed here with a total lack of seriousness and even levity. Specifically, what Rep. Schumer and others have proposed is important, but described here in an intentionally misleading way. Do you want to have a featured article or a political campaign? You have to choose one or the other because you cannot have both! -- M0llusk 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what to make of your comments. Senator Schumer's proposal is discussed in the following context:
How could anyone think that does this lacks seriousness or contains levity?! How can you say that these statements constitute a political campaign?"Moreover, Democratic senators such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York are already proposing a federal government bailout of subprime borrowers in order to save homeowners from losing their residences. Opponents of such proposal assert that government bailout of subprime borrowers is not in the best interests of the U.S. economy because it will simply set a bad precedent, create a moral hazard, and worsen the speculation problem in the housing market. [cited]"
- And there's an entire section on low interest rates called "Historically low interest rates" explaining their relevance to the bubble. The fact that interest rates are rising is logically relevant to the section in which this subsection appears, "Status of housing market correction", whether or not rates are historically low.
- Therefore, contrary to what you have said, the examples you cite show the article is well written. Frothy 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- The proposal by Schumer is not progressing. I think it was withdrawn, but in any case there is no serious risk of a bailout plan going anywhere. According to this account there is an active proposal being pursued that might result in a bail out. The reality is that Schumer's plan got shot down hard. The only proposals that are making progress are those that provide a way to resolve exploding loans for homes that banks don't actually want to take back and may have been fraudulent in the first place. This section has heavy handed political points of view with little practical information. As it is written the purpose is clearly to distort, not to accurately reveal.
- The section on rising interest rates at the end is an incoherent mess. Interest rates go up, therefore home prices fall? NO! That depends on many other factors. Then we have a Great Depression? That was driven in part by industrial and economic collapse in Europe. Is Europe currently in a state of industrial and economic collapse? So this time we get all the way to a Great Depression just through interest rates going up? Then there are some remarks about subprime funds blowing up. With more information about context that might be interesting, but wrongly valued funds blow up all the time. Exactly how rising interest rates were the sole factor causing house prices to lower thereby causing subprime funds to blow up is not sufficiently established. Maybe the rising interest rate section should discuss interest rates instead of immediately levering a weak conclusion about the relationship with house prices? And the blood bath rhetoric is inflammatory and entirely unhelpful. What blood? Who bathes? You aren't making any sense!
- Why is there a "status of alt-a" section? That information has no direct relevance. The macroeconomics would spell bubble with or without any "alt-a" distinction. Is it a bubble or isn't it? All of these controversies can be solved by splitting out stuff. Make a Legislative Responses section and split the bailout paranoia to that if you are serious. Make sections for the details of the run up and the correction if you want to talk about alt-a. In any case, I still think this article is a mess with confusing information and stuff that does not belong. -- M0llusk 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to have confused what the article says with what people quoted in the article say. In the case of the "blood bath" quote that concerns you, this is the opinion (unambiguously represented as such) of a PIMCO executive, an opinion that carries significant weight, coming as it does for an executive of an organization having US$0.64 Trillion in assets under their management, and whose influence in the MBS/CDO markets cannot be underestimated. Please take it up with them, not with us—whether you like it or not, this is a highly relevant opinion for housing, which is directly affected by these mortgage markets. Frothy 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what to make of your comments. Senator Schumer's proposal is discussed in the following context:
- Oppose All of this time at FAC and between FACs, and the first issues raised still haven't been addressed. Please see WP:MSH regarding section headings (shortening them, avoiding repeition, and correct capitalization). The article has almost as much content in footnotes as in the article, and extensively relies on quotes. The article still has stubby sections: "Crash of the dot-com bubble" is two sentences. If it warrants a section, the content should be expanded. Please see WP:LAYOUT wrt See also—relevant links should be incorporated into the text to the extent possible. A red link in See also ??? If we remove the lengthy footnotes, quotes, and See also, how much content is left? The concerns from the first FAC remain. The lengthy footnotes give the impression that the text isn't well written, and that much of that content should be included in the article. Footnotes are still not correctly formatted (please see WP:CITE/ES for examples). External links is a link farm and should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Would you mind not cluttering FAC with those boxes—FACs aren't promoted based on flashy marketing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, your comments about the reference format are simply wrong. These notes conform to The Chicago Manual of Style’s format, which states:
This is entire consistent with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Frothy 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Quotation within a note. When a note includes a quotation, the source normally follows the terminal punctuation of the quotation. The entire source need not be put in parentheses, which involves changing existing parentheses to brackets and creating unnecessary clutter.
- I got a talk page note regarding this comment; the response above has no relationship to my Object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, your comments about the reference format are simply wrong. These notes conform to The Chicago Manual of Style’s format, which states:
- And that's not a fair account. We addressed all of these: the annotated footnotes were, by consensus, felt to be essential in a subjective controversial article such as this; and the links to relevant blogs quoted by major news organizations are also essential—not the "link farm" you call them. I could go on, but instead I invite anyone to review the record to see that these subjects have been discussed at length and resolved by consensus, a consensus with which you obviously disagree. Others continue to go out of their way to praise this article. From designing better futures:
wikipedia article on the house price bubble. It is surprisignly thorough and filled with data.
- From Mr. Moderate:
Wikipedia has an excellent article on the housing bubble in the United States. I can’t recommend it highly enough.
- Frothy 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Fair use of the magazine covers seems a bit questionable to me. In Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Examples_of_unacceptable_use, #7 says that using a cover merely because it depicts the subject is not acceptable. Since a cover is usually connected with an article, using a cover merely because the issue contains a relevant article doesn't seem much different. As I understand it, fair use of a magazine cover only works if the cover itself is notable, such as the 2006 Time Person of the Year cover, or the cover art itself is discussed critically. Gimmetrow 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the fair use rationale: "the appearance of this cover is cited as the peak of the bubble." The cover is not used incidentally; it manifestly conforms fair use policy as it is used in the article because it's appearance shows a mania for home ownership in the U.S., as explained explicitly in that section. Frothy 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- How does that answer the question? The use of the four covers appears decorative to me, contrary to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8, and far too similiar to Unacceptable use #7. Gimmetrow 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- "7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."
- It's used in at least one article (because 1≥1), so it qualifies.
- I referenced "unacceptable use #7", not "fair use criteria #7". Gimmetrow 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's used in at least one article (because 1≥1), so it qualifies.
- "8. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot."
- The use of this magazine cover to illustrate the mania for homes in 2005 contributes significantly to the article in ways that words cannot, hence it qualifies.
- Your objections just appear to be grousing and do not withstand the scrutiny of the reading of fair use policy. Frothy 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do not see how the magazine and book covers significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic more than words alone. Please explain, precisely, what would be lacking to the article if, say, three of these four images were removed? Or all four? Unacceptable use #7 says
- An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that cover itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply
- This is illustrating a topic rather than a person, but otherwise seems very similar. Gimmetrow 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Asked at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Use_of_magazine_covers_to_illustrate_a_topic. Gimmetrow 02:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do not see how the magazine and book covers significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic more than words alone. Please explain, precisely, what would be lacking to the article if, say, three of these four images were removed? Or all four? Unacceptable use #7 says
- Regarding the use of non-free images in this article, all of them seem to be unacceptable. The magazine covers themselves are not significant (I can understand the text just as well without their inclusion -- see WP:NFCC #8). Ditto for the book covers, which are only there for the purposes of identification (the sentence "The book was published in 2005 and again in 2006 with a different title" is not really critical commentary). Lastly, the WaPo "bubble bench" photo is a clear violation of NFCC #2 as well as #8. The article doesn't discuss the bench at all or what is so important about this specific photo (as opposed to other possibly obtainable free photos of the bench). By not using the bench photo in a transformative manner, we are potentially encroaching on the WaPo's commercial opportunities -- in other words, any other media outlet that was publishing an article or book about the housing bubble would probably have to license the photo from the WaPo; why should Wikipedia be exempt? howcheng {chat} 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - very confusing to read for the layperson. This is a good start, but the topic needs to be laid out in a clearer way. The lead section, and the article, uses the term "bubble" a lot, without ever really explaining what a bubble is. There are links to various other articles, but most readers will have to go and read those articles first to have a chance of understanding this one. Wikipedia articles should link to other articles, but they should also be self-contained to a large degree. It is very annoying to have to break off and go and read another article before coming back to this one. One final point, the article doesn't seem to have a proper ending or conclusion. It seems to end in mid-air, with the rest of the story left untold. Either pick a cut-off date and stick to it, moving the recent "news" stuff to a new article, or wait until the story is finished before writing the article. Carcharoth 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg has no fair use rationale for use in this article.
- Image:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png indicates source as coming from a book, but that the image has been released under GFDL. I can find no evidence supporting this. Further, Image:Barrons shiller 06-20-2005.gif is indicated as a copyrighted work. The former image is a copyvio and should be deleted. The latter image needs a fair use rationale for each use, including use on this article.
- Image:Economist-06-15-2005.jpg has no fair use rationale for use in this article.
- Image:EconomistHomePrices20050615.jpg is a copyright violation of the original from The Economist magazine.
- Image:Lereah BookCover 2005.jpg and Image:LereahNotBust.jpg lack fair use rationale for use in this article. Further, there's nothing about the covers of significance that is not reproduced in the article. The title's changing is what is significant, and that can be reproduced in text (and is), thus making these images useless to a greater understanding of the subject.
- Image:WaPo Bubble Bench.png lacks fair use rationale for use in this article. Further, it's replaceable fair use; a free license version is available at [33].
- Why don't you simply read the fair use rational under this image itself? Frothy 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Counter suggestion? Instead of being antagonistic about this, how about you modify the fair use rationale to be something more akin the format we have come to expect here? Example: Image:AcornComputersLtdLogo.jpg. We do not need a several pages long fair use rationale. Forgive me that I didn't read pages on pages of this rationale. --Durin 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply read the fair use rational under this image itself? Frothy 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The existence of the blog photo shows that the use here is replaceable, but where do you see that the blog photo is freely licensed? Gimmetrow 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Beneath the image on the blog it says "The image can be freely copied to other sites as long as credit is given to this blog" While that is not a specific release under a specific free license, it's highly likely that the rights holder could be contacted to clarify the release license. --Durin 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, don't know how I missed that. I think it might be good if someone contacted the blog about releasing the image under a license allowing derivative works, such as CC-by-SA. Gimmetrow 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Beneath the image on the blog it says "The image can be freely copied to other sites as long as credit is given to this blog" While that is not a specific release under a specific free license, it's highly likely that the rights holder could be contacted to clarify the release license. --Durin 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The existence of the blog photo shows that the use here is replaceable, but where do you see that the blog photo is freely licensed? Gimmetrow 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:PHX inventory July2005-March2006.png says source is from Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service, yet Frothy claims rights to release (and releases). Conflict of rights here.
- Many of these problematic images were uploaded by User:Frothy. I'd recommend a thorough review of all of his image uploads.
- Also, the scrolling box for the "References and notes" section is very unappealing. Further, when you attempt to print this article that section does not print properly due to the scrolling box. --Durin 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- These criticisms are absurd—as it states clearly on all their respective pages, I generated these plots myself based on the publically available sourced data, then released the copyrights of this "particular expression of an idea or information" under the appropriate copyright license. And how can you say that the other images have no fair use rationale when such is given explicitly and unambiguously on their pages??! I ask you to retract these all these unsupported claims unless you can back them up with explicit criticisms using the language provided on each page. Frothy 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps my language above was a bit abrupt with regards to your image contributions. Nevertheless, the points remain. You claim that there are valid fair use rationales for the images where I said there are not. With respect, you are incorrect. Take for example Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg. This image does have a fair use rationale, but it is not a valid fair use rationale as it is not indicative of how this image contributes significantly to this particular article. All images must have a fair use rationale for each use. Please see our policy on this at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10(c). So, the fair use rationales as noted above need to all be updated to reflect how and why they contribute significantly to this particular article.
- As to Image:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png, I don't find my assertions here absurd. You've indicated on the upload that the original copyright holder has released rights under GFDL (since it's not gfdl-self). Yet, there's nothing on the image to indicate this release or on the image's discussion page. Further, the existence of Image:Barrons shiller 06-20-2005.gif as being marked as a copyrighted image is in conflict with your GFDL assertion. Since my position is, by your account, absurd on this would you be so kind as to provide the GFDL release from Robert Shiller or his designated agent? That would be most helpful to clear this up.
- As to Image:EconomistHomePrices20050615.jpg in the image description you state "I recreated this image from the original graphic" A recreation from an original counts as a derivative work. As such, not all rights transfer to you, and the magazine The Economist retains rights to this graph. Could you please contact them and obtain release of their rights to this image under a free license? Instructions for doing so are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
- With the book covers, the information on them is replaceable by text. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 states that images must "increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" The titles of these books are already discussed in the article, and that's what is relevant about the book covers, not the artwork or anything else on them...just the titles. Thus, text can reasonably replace the use here.
- With Image:WaPo Bubble Bench.png, I demonstrated how a free license image of the same bench is most likely available, making this image replaceable fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #1. Thus, this image fails that criteria.
- And lastly, with Image:PHX inventory July2005-March2006.png there is indeed a conflict of sources. You indicate release of the image, but also indicate the source is Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service. Which is it? Alternatively, if you mean the *data* is from them, the source needs to be clarified to indicate that.
- These are not absurd issues. They are real issues that need to be address to bring these images into compliance with our policies here. This is why I made the assertion as above; if you believe these images are correct, then indeed an evaluation of all your image uploads might be helpful to clear up other problems. --Durin 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- One more time: I created these plots from numbers given in the sources cited. You can't copyright numbers. You can only copyright their representation, and as stated on these pages already, I released the copyright to the representations of these numbers that I myself created. I rewrote the wording of this release to make it extra special clear to people. As for the WaPo photo, I requested, but did not obtain, permission to get this article from the blog you mentioned. Therefore, this image from the WaPo is the only one available and constitutes fair use for the reasons provided on this page. I also clarified the rationale for the Time cover, which clearly qualifies under the language provided in it's copyright statement. They and the book covers are used to illustrate the mania for home purchases in the press, which constitutes fair use. Frothy 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting Image:Time Magazine June 13 2005 Cover.jpg. Image:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png remains improperly tagged and not GFDL. Thank you for clarifying the source of Image:EconomistHomePrices20050615.jpg. However, I remain concerned that this graph is a recreation of the Economist's original. I can not see the original article, so I can not verify. Thank you for fixing Image:PHX inventory July2005-March2006.png. --Durin 20:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for pointing that out. Frothy 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- US copyright law certainly can apply to numbers, and if the data from which you constructed your graph was copyrighted, then you need their permission to represent that data in your graph. If the only copyright is on the Economist's graph, then you're in the clear. johnpseudo 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the copyright article before venturing forth on this subject: "Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the included items, not to the particular items themselves." Frothy 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)©
- US copyright law certainly can apply to numbers, and if the data from which you constructed your graph was copyrighted, then you need their permission to represent that data in your graph. If the only copyright is on the Economist's graph, then you're in the clear. johnpseudo 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I still strongly protest Image:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png as being a copyright violation being a replicate of Image:Barrons shiller 06-20-2005.gif. There are slight differences, but this is blatantly a derivative work. --Durin 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have Shiller's original plot in front of me, and, in spite of "slight differences", Barron's plot is essentially the same, whether or not we shoose to call it "derivative". It's the same data set that Shiller published—he represented it one way, and his plot is copyrighted, Barron's represented it in a slightly different way and their plot is copyrighted, I represented a slightly different way yet, and released the copyright on my representation. It's that simple. The fact that you can identify that it's a different representation of the same data is all that's necessary. Frothy 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you generated a new plot, with your own colors, format, etc. that would be one thing. In this case, the plot you generated is virtually identical to the copyrighted one. That constitutes a derivative work. No, you can not copyright fact. You can copyright the format of the presentation of those facts. Some companies have entirely geometric designs for their logos. You can't copyright a circle. But, the format of that circle with other geometric designs can create a copyrightable work. Such is the case here. What you've created is a virtual clone of the original copyrighted data. This makes it a derivative work, and as such the original copyright holders retain rights. --Durin 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- A Cartesian plot of data is not copyrightable. For your argument to have force, there would have to be something distinctive in Barron's representation of this data that was copied, and there simply isn't. No one can copyright the representation "I used a red curve for such-and-such XY data and a blue curve for another." As you observed, the representations of the data are different, and therefore one's copyright does not apply to the other. Frothy 15:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll be placing your version of the image for deletion as a copyright violation sometime in the next week. There isn't any reason to be treading this deeply into grey area vis-a-vis copyright concerns. --Durin 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason why this wouldn't be a featured article. This article is certainly much more detailed than Wikipedia articles about other economic bubbles, such as the dot-com bubble. I pretty much echo what all the supporters of the article have said. I disagree Carcharoth; this article should be very easy to understand to the layperson, especially if you read the article in its entirety. Of course it seems to end in mid-air, because this event is still ongoing and will most likely be updated with new information over the next couple of years as the situation plays itself out. It doesn't mean that an article shouldn't be written about it. However, it is made abundantly clear that the housing bubble is still in the process of bursting. In the intro it describes what a bubble is in the first place before going into very detailed explanations about how the housing bubble came to be. Great info about the role of subprime mortgages and how they contributed to the bubble. Clinevol98 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Citations are needed for all the financial calculations on the right.
What does "N" stand for in the "Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability" section?Prose problems:
- "markedly declining 2006 market data, including...rising inventories" (declining = rising?)
- "deny the existence" (POV choice of words)
- "citing consistently rising prices since the Great Depression" (awkward)
- "expected increasing demand by the Baby Boom generation" (awkward)
- "The investment motive for purchasing homes should not be conflated with the necessity of shelter that housing provides" (I don't think it means conflated, but I don't know what it does mean)
- "The manager of the world's largest bond fund PIMCO, warned in June 2007 that the subprime mortgage crisis was not an isolated event and will eventually take a toll on the economy and whose ultimate impact will be on the impaired prices of homes." (weird comma and awkward end of sentence)
- The "The bursting of the 2001–2006/7 US housing bubble" and "The Subprime Mortgage Industry Collapse and Senate Hearings" sections are much too long, wordy, poorly illustrated, and have no flow- they seem to just be a LONG list of separate facts, events, and quotes. johnpseudo 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- From the article itself:
Yes, rising inventories are generally indicative of a declining market. And how can it possibly be POV to write that someone denies the existence of something when they say explicitly that they deny it's existence?! The use of conflated is correct; please consult a dictionary. Frothy 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Assuming a home cost of P dollars, yearly interest rate r fixed over N years, …
- By referring to "the existence" of a housing market bubble in the phrase "deny the existence", you are writing from the point of view that a bubble exists. A more NPOV way of phrasing is to say "deny that a bubble exists". I have consulted a dictionary (conflation- blend: mix together different elements). The sentence in the article is "The investment motive for purchasing homes should not be conflated with the necessity of shelter that housing provides; an economic comparison of the relative costs of owning versus renting the equivalent utility of shelter can be made separately." At the very minimum, the use of the word "conflate" is inaccessible and ambiguous. In the last half of the sentence (which presumably is telling us how NOT to conflate the two), the investment motive is still "blended" with the necessity of shelter- in fact, the "economic comparison" being suggested seems to consider the two simultaneously. johnpseudo 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- And I see what you mean about "declining"- I guess you mean to say "data of a declining market", but it is currently structured to read "market data which is declining", which is contradictory to "rising inventories"- an example of data which is NOT declining. johnpseudo 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- johnpseudo, I deny the existence of leprechauns. Is that POV, or written from the perspective of someone who believes in their existence? Frothy 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not making the claim that the meaning of the words is any different. I'm just saying that the word 'denial' draws to mind unintended psychological connotations when the words 'disagree' or 'dispute' would do just as well. johnpseudo 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- johnpseudo, I deny the existence of leprechauns. Is that POV, or written from the perspective of someone who believes in their existence? Frothy 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
(section break)
- Comment. I was asked to comment on United States housing bubble and am submitting these comments in response to that request. I do not know much about this topic, so my comments reflect the naive reader. I am not an economist or real estate mogul.
The article seems well-referenced, mainly to popular news sources. Since the article covers a current event, the lack of academic studies on it is understandable. My overall opinion is that it is a good article that would be easier to absorb if some of the tangential material was cut, putting more clear focus on the existence and timing of the bubble per se. The article lead speaks of the bubble as an assumed fact, using terms like "This bubble is..." but the text of the article says that there is controversy about the existence of this bubble. It may be good to summarize the controversy in the lead.
The graphic used at the top credits Robert Shiller, and I see that there has been controversy on the talk page related to this graphic. Since I had never heard of him before, his name did not ring a bell and I was unsure why he was being mentioned until after reading the article. Is there a more institutional source for this information rather than citing one economist?
The section '"Controversy over the existence of a housing bubble" includes other material such as the collapse of the subprime market that does not seem to directly relate to the question of the existence of the bubble. Probably these things connect, but for the non-specialist it seems that we must put it all together in some way that is not clear. The section does not have clear quotes that are current stating that no bubble exists (or existed). Instead there are statements that continue to assume the existence of a bubble such as "Based on markedly declining 2006 market data, including lower sales, rising inventories, falling median prices, and increased foreclosure rates, some economists have concluded that the correction in the U.S. housing market began in 2006." I did not see any statement clearly denying the existence of a bubble. The section on "Status of housing market correction" held my attention much more than the sections that precede it, and this section seems to settle the question of the existence of the bubble in favor of believing that there was one. I think this section should be moved up to follow the lead, with the analysis sections following it.
The section title "The bursting of the 2001–2006/7 US housing bubble" conflicts with the Timeline section, which lists "2005-ongoing" as "market correction". Pick one or the other cutoff date and make the section titles map to the timeline. The word mania, as in the section "Mania for home ownership" is a loaded term that left me wondering about bias in the article. I would prefer to see a more neutral term used. The citation for "mania" appears to be one article in Time magazine, which does not seem sufficient to make such a general statement about a societal attitude. The use of weasel words such as "it is also widely believed" (that home values will yield average or better-than-average returns as investments) with no citation for this statement are suspect.
I did not understand why the sidebar "Approximate cost to own mortgaged property vs. renting." detail was in the article, used as supporting detail for refutation for the idea that home ownership is a guaranteed road to wealth. The article is about the existence of a housing bubble in the United States, and this seems extraneous to that point. The information in that sidebar is unsourced, contains a math formula that I find incomprehensible, and may or may not reflect an accurate economic model of the issue it claims to summarize. What is the source, and why is it needed here?
The sidebar for "Equivalent price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio for homes" seems somewhat more relevant and is cited to Fortune magazine, which seems like a plausible source.
The section on "Historically low interest rates" includes several unsourced sentences detailing the math issues, which made me glaze over. I would have preferred to have a simple summary of the point, with a citation to a WP:RS.
The sidebar on "Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability", which contains math which I cannot understand, takes up a lot of space. I would prefer a one-sentence summary of whatever point the material is making.
The information on "Subprime, interest-only, adjustable rate, and stated income mortgages" also seems to be going into a lot of detail that does not directly pertain to the existence of a bubble. I would prefer to read about that issue as a detailed article, and just a short summary in this article explaining what these are relevant to the bubble question. For each sentence in this section, ask: What does this have to do with the bubble issue?
In the section "The Subprime Mortgage Industry Collapse and Senate Hearings" the quote from Bill Gross is just too long, giving disproportionate weight to his views, which are unencyclopedic in tone.I does not read like objective analysis, it reads like a polemic. I would expect a refutation to balance something like this. His use of sexist language such as "hooker heels" and "good looking girls" left me somewhat offended.
I did not check the references closely, but at least some of them appears to be blogs, e.g. [34] , [35]. Blogs are not considered as WP:RS. I would enforce a hard-line policy of getting rid of all links to blogs and self-published web sites. I understand that some blogs are very useful, but credibility of the article will improve if you avoid them. If something is important you would expect to be able to find a reference to it in a WP:RS.
Joint Center for Housing Studies, Kara Homes, and Mark Zandi are red links, which I dislike seeing. Buddhipriya 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: Fair use rationales for magazine covers are invalid. The article does not lose anything by replacing the images with the text "The appearance of a cover story on the bubble on Time Magazine was taken as a sign of its peak." etc. Valid use of magazine cover would be, for instance using the O.J. simpson Time photo here to illustrate the controversy when Time Magazine darkened Simpsons' portrait on the cover. With the flimsy rationale given here for the Time and Economist covers, virtually every Time cover would be valid. Borisblue 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comments.
(1) Raul, why bother to have independent reviewers here at all? Why don't you just sit in isolated judgement, unmolested by these pesky people who insist on professional writing and complain about issues of logic and completeness, as I did last time this came up. Yet again, you compromise your position as director, since you are meant to be seen to make disinterested decisions about promotion at the end. You're spectacularly failing in this.
(2) Nominator: you might have succinctly pointed out the blog-approval, but these large, intrusive boxes shit reviewers and make you look defensive from the start. Let us judge with open minds, please.
I'll return later to review the article. Tony 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tony, in your first point, are you explicitly referring to Raul's comment: "in all the years I've been FA director, that FAC nom was probably the one I hated to fail the most"? If so, I agree that that comment was unfortunate. It might be interesting to get an idea of what you think about the failed noms, but as the person who ultimately makes the final judgement, starting off with a comment like that may unduly influence things (either way). I certainly read the article with that comment in mind, but couldn't understand it. By the time I'd finished reading the article, I knew I would be opposing. Maybe it was partly because Raul's comment made me hypercritical? Who knows? Further discussion on the general point of this should probably be taken to a different venue. Carcharoth 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:11, 7 July 2007.
Macau[edit]
Self-nom. I think this is a very good article along with the topic of Hong Kong. This article has improved significantly recently. Guia Hill 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - just started looking, wil try to give heads-up as I go:
- Following the Opium War in 1841, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain and most of the foreign merchants left Macau and it became a quiet place. is ungainly and needs rephrasing.
- . However it has continued to enjoy a leisurely multicultural existence and make daily, practical use of its historical buildings, in the process becoming a favourite stop-off for tourists. sounds like a travel brochure and is probaly unnecessary. mention tourism in lead somewhere thoughcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
More later. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can I rephrase in this way: Most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong after the Opium War in 1841. Macau then became a quiet place. Please give me more opinions. For the sentense of However it has continued to enjoy a leisurely multicultural existence and make daily, practical use of its historical buildings, in the process becoming a favourite stop-off for tourists. will be erased right away according to your opinion. Thanks a lot! 70.54.9.155 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::Getting there but Macau then became a quiet place. is such a vague sentence as to be meaningless. Better would be a statement about economic activity falling or something I guess..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- The business and economic activities in Macau declined. is that OK? 70.54.9.155 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- a world class tourist industry... better replace with "significant tourist industry" as teh former sounds like an ad.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Every one on board was about to give up all hope of surviving this.. "Everyone" (typo) and can be phrased better. "had given up hope.."cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since at least the 5th century, merchant.. - drop the "at least"cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- All Done!70.54.9.155 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
: Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore as well joined Macau as.. - lose the "as well"
I wonder whether the second part of this para where this sentence came from is veering into POV territory.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Citation was added.70.54.9.155 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- the most well-known... - "one of the best known"
:Over than 150 sea crossings every day between the route of Macau... "There are over 150.."
:Residents of Macau mostly speak Cantonese natively - rewrite
:The coalescent of Chinese and Portuguese cultures and religious traditions for more than 4 centuries has left Macau.. - 4 --> four; coalescent?? umm..blending, mixing, or something else would be better. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:The biggest tournament of the year in Macau is the Macau Formula Three Grand Prix in November, when the main streets in the Peninsula of Macau basically and temporarily become a racecourse. - losethe first "in Macau" as self-explaantory, and ractrack instead of racecouse which sounds like its for horses. Also drop the basically and temproarily as also self expamnatory.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:osculation.. - oscillation, and incessant means never stopping. Would 'regualr be better adjective here?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- All Done.70.54.9.155 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Update - much better, those were all the bits that stuck out most and have been dealt with well. It's nearly there. Scanning over it I still feel a bit funny about the prose but I will try and ideentify what it is that stops it flowing nicely.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The lead basically says: "Macau is a special administrative region. Most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong after the Opium War in 1841." Jumping into the middle leaves too much unanswered. I've restructured some for context, but you're welcome to change it. Might want to explain what "little tiger" is. I jumped down to the Culture section. "Macanese cuisine is unique to Macau, China and which consists of a blend of southern Chinese and Portuguese cuisines, with significant influences from Southeast Asia and the Lusophone world." This seems like an incomplete sentence, and the rest of the paragraph is a bit vague on what makes the cuisine unique. Compare how Indonesia, a recently-promoted FAC, lists enough ingredients to convey the flavour of the cuisine. Gimmetrow 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinions. I added the wiki link of East Asian Tigers at "little tiger" so that readers can figure out what it is in detail. Actually this can be skipped if you mind. The sentense that you above mentioned was changed as: With significant influences from Southeast Asia and the Lusophone world, local cooking in Macau consists of a blend of southern Chinese and Portuguese cuisines. And I also added: Common cooking techniques include baking, grilling and roasting. It is renowned for its flavour-blending culture. Typically, Macanese food is seasoned with various spices and flavours including turmeric, coconut milk, cinnamon and bacalhau, giving special aromas and tastes. Famous dishes include Galinha à Portuguesa, Galinha à Africana (African chicken), Bacalhau, Macanese Chili Shrimps and stir-fry curry crab. The most popular snack is pork chop bun. The most popular dessert is ginger milk and Portuguese-style egg tart. with references in order to list enough ingredients to convey the flavour of the cuisine. 70.54.9.155 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment here are the left over issues from my GA review as well as a few new ones:
- A general comment: the article reads too much like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article in quite a few places.
- The International rankings section should be removed and any notable information merged into the other sections of the article. Done
- The Culture section contains nothing about sport, film, tv, radio, music, etc.
- You should know that Macau is not a country (I know you compare Macau to countries) and is a very small place that it has very limited products under this section. For radio and TV, I personally believe that these are not culture; and these already mentioned in the topic of communication of Macau. Grand Prix is a kind of sport and is already mentioned in this section.
- International Music festival is mentioned twice in culture. (?)
- The Transportation section still contains too much detail - prices, rickshaw tips, the legal age for driving and airline destinations, etc should not be included. Done
- The Legal system and judiciary section contains too much detail and should be merged into Government and politics. Names of people in specific positions are not required. Done
- The Name section should be renamed Etymology and moved before History. Done
- The Economy section is loaded with far too many Main article links - one or two links relating directly to the section is generally enough. Done
- Quite a few paragraphs are uncited. (which paragraphs?)
- (Caniago 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
Oppose, various issues. I will point out some in the Demographics section:- Considered as a special administrative region or dependency, Macau is one of the most densely populated regions and is among the cities with the highest level of population congestion in the world.
- Do we really need to know that Macau is densely populated both as a city and a region?
- If you asked me this question, it makes no difference for you to ask why "Forbes" told us these things actually.
- Forbes just says it's one of the world's most congested cities, it doesn't say anything about regions. It'd be better to go with just 'Macau is one of the most densely populated cities in the world', possibly adding the number of people per square kilometre for more context.--Nydas(Talk) 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you asked me this question, it makes no difference for you to ask why "Forbes" told us these things actually.
- Macau's population is 95% Chinese, primarily Cantonese, Fujianese as well as some Hakka, Shanghainese and overseas Chinese immigrants from Southeast Asia and elsewhere.
- 'Overseas Chinese immigrants' is awkward, as is 'Southeast Asia and elsewhere'. Suggest changing to 'Macau's population is 95% Chinese, mainly Cantonese and Fujianese with some Hakka, Shanghainese and Overseas Chinese. Done
- The remainder are of Portuguese or mixed Chinese-Portuguese ancestry, the so-called Macanese, as well as several thousand Filipino and Thai nationals.
- 'So-called' is POV language, maybe describe the differences in usage of Macanese in more detail here, rather than later. 'Mixed' is redundant. Done
- With over 503,000 people (2006 second quarter estimate) living in that region, Macau is now classified and upgraded as a large city.
- 'Classified and upgraded' is redundant, use 'classified' alone. This sentence could easily be dropped completely. Done
- The gap between poor and rich is relatively large. The government is making an in-depth investigation in mapping out policies and measures to make a rational distribution of resources gained from the economic growth. In order to assist the urban poor, the government has cut its administrative cost, exempted and reduced taxation to boost an overall development of the local economy and upgrading people's living standard.
- Reads too much like a political speech. It's filled with nonsense words like 'overall' and 'in-depth'. How does reducing administrative costs help the urban poor? Who are the urban poor in Macau?
- "urban poor" was changed to " people from low income group." Done
- "urban poor" was changed to " people from low income group."
- Although dual nationality is not recognized by the government of Macau SAR, foreign passports (including Portuguese passports) can be freely used as travel documentation without restrictions, regardless of one's nationality.
- Could be shortened to 'Dual nationality is not recognized by the government of Macau, although foreign passports can be freely used as travel documentation.' Done
- The work force in Macau SAR is mainly composed of manufacturing 16.4%; construction 8.3%; wholesale and retail trade, repair, hotels and restaurants 27.1%; financial services, real estate, and other business activities 8.6%; public administration, other communities, social and personal services, including gaming 31.8%; transport, storage and communications 6.8%.
- We don't need to know exact percentages; they're probably out of date anyway. Done
- But don't you think the figure from late 2006 is up-to-date? don't you think other figures from CIA 2007 is up-to-date?
- According to recent census figures, of the more than 355,000 persons surveyed, 16.8 percent had no religious affiliation/other, 79.3 percent were Buddhist, 6 percent were Roman Catholic, and 1.7 percent were Protestant. The number of active Falun Gong practitioners declined from approximately 100 persons to approximately 20 after the movement was banned in mainland China in July 1999. There are about 150 Muslims in Macau.
- I personally don't think it's necessary to hedge large, rough figures with collaries like 'more than'. 'no religious affiliation/other' is poor phrasing. We don't need to know there are a tiny number of Muslims or Falun Gong members.--Nydas(Talk) 13:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Done
- Why we don't need to know there are a tiny number of Muslims or Falun Gong members in Macau? I personally think that it provides a good index to know the diversity of religion and the basic human right in Macau. Falun Gong is completely banned in Mainland China. 70.54.10.204 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. But I personally don't understand what do you want to know actually (it seems to me you don't need to know many things). However, most opinions above mentioned are not very constructive and give no improvement for the article in general.70.54.10.204 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes needed Some dates need wikilinking, including some full dates in the footnotes. The footnotes don't need to state when a source is in English. The footnotes need to state the publication date of sources when available. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for correct dash usage. Epbr123 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the problem. For the part of the footnotes don't need to state when a source is in English Fixed
- Thanks for pointing out the problem. For the part of the footnotes don't need to state when a source is in English
- Oppose: This article is too long, much like the Hong Kong article; it feels like the editors have been trying to cramp every available information into it. However, the article should serve only as an introduction. Consider moving some of the detailed discussions to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, like Economy of Macau. There are also various style problems:
- Intro: Most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong after the Opium War in 1841. The business and economic activities in Macau declined. - seems to pop out of nowhere. Leave it in the History section.
- why this sentence should leave in the history section? what do you mean by "pop out of nowhere", you didn't explain anyway.74.12.181.96 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe you just need to integrate it better. The problem is you didn't mention its economy before the "decline" (leaving people wonder what it declined from), and you shifted suddenly from "Portuguese traders" to "foreign merchants". Try something like: "The economy of Macau depends on her interaction with the rest of the world (To mark that you're going to provide an intro about the economy and history). Portuguese traders began settling in Macau in the 16th century, developing Macau into an important trading post for foreign countries(Give a purpose for the Portuguese settling). However, after the Opium War in 1841, most of the foreign merchants in Macau left for Hong Kong (Maybe put a reason here, and also add something about 1841-1999)." A shorter alternative will be to just describe the characteristics of Macau's economy/history, like so: "The economy of Macau depends on her interaction with the rest of the world, most notably her neighbour Hong Kong and Portugal."Feathered serpent 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- why this sentence should leave in the history section? what do you mean by "pop out of nowhere", you didn't explain anyway.74.12.181.96 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Etymology: a fisherboat sailing across the sea one day found itself in an unexpected rainstorm. [. . .] On the specific locale where she set foot on, a temple was built. - more like story-telling, i.e., not encyclopedic. Consider summarizing the myth with fewer sentences and omit the details like "boarding at the eleventh hour", "walk ashore in a glowing aura of light and fragrance", etc. Feathered serpent 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Etymology always consist the origin of words, and it is quite common to depict it with myth and story. 74.12.181.96 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- True but it may not be appropriate for this article which is supposed to be factual. In articles like Athens, the only myth-relating sentence is: "In ancient Greek, the name of Athens was the Attic and Ionic names of the goddess Athena." And in Rome, the only myth reference is: "According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21, 753 BC". Similarly this article can simply state the "The name 'Macau' is thought to be derived from the Templo de A-Má, a still-existing landmark built in 1448 dedicated to the goddess Matsu - the goddess of seafarers and fishermen", and put the mythlogy part in the Macau section of the Matsu article. You may give a summary of the story here, but it should not go beyond 2-3 sentences, something like this: "Matsu was said to have boarded a fishing boat and allowed the boat to safely arrive at the port of Hoi Keang. On the specific locale where she set foot on, a temple was built. When Portuguese sailors landed several hundred years later and asked for the name of the place, the natives replied with the name of the temple, A-Ma-Gao (i.e. Bay of A-Ma). 'Macao' or 'Macau' hence came to be used to refer to the whole region "Feathered serpent 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- This article is not too long indeed, it is only 68 kilobytes, for the article of Hong Kong, it is 79kb and it is an FA article, so your reason is not rational. For the part of your opinion in intro and etymology, I didn't see any problem for these.74.12.181.96 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- When the article of Hong Kong received FA status it was 45kb only (7th Sept 2005). Many other FA articles are also only around 50kb. Ann Arbor-53kb, Sarajevo-41kb, Canberra-49kb, etc. Of course there are some FAs that are longer, but what I am trying to illustrate is that FA doesn't mean long--we need quality. It is totally fine if it is long and readable at the same time. Here, I am sorry to say it is difficult to extract information from the article. The History section is nice, with the headers and indicators, but for example, the Politics section is so tightly packed together. It is enough, as an intro, to know that Macau is one of the least corrupt, but do we need to know how Hong Kong ranks, how Japan ranks, or even that some guy is 163th? Wouldn't one "4th out of 163 in the Asia sector" be well enough for the job? Feathered serpent 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Etymology always consist the origin of words, and it is quite common to depict it with myth and story. 74.12.181.96 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Informative and pretty well written.Avis12 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: this editor has made only 8 edits, after their account was created on the 20th June 2007. 70.187.183.120 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice article with good photos! nothing objectionable for the time being. UTislander 16:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: this editor has made only 4 edits, after their account was created on the 21th June 2007. 70.187.183.120 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you would give me this comment if I vote "oppose". This is my IP which is the same as my account UTislander. 66.46.192.218 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: this editor has made only 4 edits, after their account was created on the 21th June 2007. 70.187.183.120 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Comment: so? 74.12.182.133 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose pending cleanup:
- "Miscellaneous topics" isn't an encyclopedic section heading, and it appears to be only Sister cities.
- See also should be minimized (see WP:GTL) by including articles in the text where possible. Articles already in the text need not be listed in See also. Many of those links, if not already in the text, should be.
- References need a lot of formatting work. Publishers and last access dates are not given on all References and some are unformatted links (see WP:CITE/ES), example—refer to International organization participation; the section of Government, CIA [2] Also, publication dates should be given whenever available, for example, on news sources like http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/business/worldbusiness/24macao.html?ex=1327294800&en=150850fd9370148a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
- Is there any reason all that Further reading can't be alphabetical by author last name?
- External links could be pruned; no need for foreign language sources when English language are available.
- Landmarks is a list which could be converted to compelling prose.
- Full dates (month day, year) are supposed to be linked, example in Landmarks section, see WP:MOSNUM
- Judging by the Landmarks section, the prose could use a serious audit.
- Macau preserves China's largest group of historical properties in the urban area, as it had almost five centuries of regular oscillation between West and East, after the Portuguese seafarers settled in Macau in the mid-sixteenth century.
- Why is urban area linked, why is sixteenth century linked (see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM), and I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
- Incorrect use of dashes and hyphens, see WP:DASH, and
- Macau International Music Festival - MIMF is basically conducted by the Cultural Affairs Bureau of the Macau SAR Government every year.[66]
- why "basically"? Looking at the next line after that:
- The 20th anniversary of the MIMF is celebrated with a touch of romanticism. Jazz, Classical music, electronica, Chinese folk-pop, rock and fado will fill Macau's autumn nights with magic. The eclectic programme of 28 performances promises to delight Macau audiences, accustomed to the festival's annual offering of some of the best music from all over the world.[67]
- Unencylopedic prose, tourist-brochure sounding. why are Jazz and Classical music capped, others note? And you can't cite a festival's own website as claiming the best music in the world.
- WP:LEAD is not a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article.
Much work needed to polish this article to FA standards; the above list is samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I am not going to edit this article anymore.74.12.182.133 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Sandy. Tony 09:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose
- would like to see more than just one image of the casinos in Macau.
- would like to see an image in the infobox.
- intorduction lacks sources
- Twentieth century section, Government and politics section, Transportation section Demographics section, and Culture section needs more sources.--SefringleTalk 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:11, 7 July 2007.
Karmichael Hunt[edit]
Self-Nomination. I have edited this article to hopefully a very well written article. SpecialWindler talk 08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will respond to queries within 24 hours. SpecialWindler talk 08:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. It is a well-written article. Two things: (1) some of the "Retrieved on:" dates are 2009! and (2) does he have a girlfriend? DrKiernan 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. The 2009 things have been fixed, (don't know how it happened). And I know there should be more on his personal life, but there is no information throughout sources about it. SpecialWindler talk 11:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose (1a) - many choppy sentences which are not right, eg "Hunt joined the Broncos at the end of the 2003 season, bringing his scholarship, earned in 2001, to fruition. " with too many commas. By rewriting the sentence, you can avoid things like that. There were a few sentences with commas three or four times in the sentence with only three or four or two words in between. There were also a few contractions that I removed. I did a few examples of how the sentences can be smoothed out. Also, there are a lot of guys out there who will be tougher on your prose. Also you need to check through for weasel words and such. In instances where he is MotM, you don't need to put subjective words, just say he was adjudged MoTM. In one instance (I am from SA and don't know anything about rugby) it said ...he was good and had 18 runs....I just looked inside the source and changed it to note he had the highest nuimber of runs, which is better. There are some unusual things also which I didn't investigate closely. In one para, there is a sentence which is unrelated to the rest of the para saying that he became friends with a team-mate. Some of the idea cohesion in paragraphs do not seem good enough. Also, you are using Brisbane Broncos' website as a source. I don't think that is necesarily neutral. If you can find a 3rd party equivalent, that would be better. Also, I don't think you should use Broncos, but rather that Brisbane is a more appropriate term, but I'm not sure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Doing... I will take your suggestions, and try and remove all the "choppy sentences", Note, that although the Brisbane Broncos website is a little biased, it still tells the facts, and is a news article. So. SpecialWindler talk 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done sentence that dosen;t belong in a certain paragraph. SpecialWindler talk 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done the short choppy sentences. SpecialWindler talk 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose at the present, for the following reason (in list form, so you can {{done}} them more easily):
- "Premiership winning team" - Premiership-winning (dash)? Link to 2007 NRL Finals or something?
- Done linked to Brisbane Broncos 2006. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt made an excellent NRL debut in 2004 and was named the Dally M rookie of the year" - Winning an award says he was excellent, and it's generally better to avoid judgemental terms in the (summary-style) lead, where it isn't referenced or backed up by stats.
Not done I don't quite get what you mean. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try to avoid using judgemental words ("excellent") in the lead, especially when they are redundant, given you have decided not to reference the lead (which is fine). Daniel 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "His manager asked the 15-year-old what he wanted to do in the future. Hunt responded that he wanted to play first grade, the highest level of rugby league, in his rookie season" - Doesn't sound terribly biographical or encyclopedic, but maybe that's just me.
- Done re-worded a little. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "and he was arguably the best player in the competition" - WP:WEASEL, perfect case.
- Not done reworded a little, but I feel its still weasling. The obvious solution would be to remove the statement, but it is an important fact. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "He played in the Under 17 Queensland team, and along with Anton LaVin" - If LaVin's notable enough to get that isolated mention (LaVin seems notable by it), then link to his article (even if it's a redlink at this stage).
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- That jersey in "Debut season" (green and black) doesn't look much like the Broncos.
- Not done Green and black?? Hmm. No offence, but are you colourblind. Sorry... It seems maroon and yellow to me. It is the Kit (sport) design, not a perfect replica of the jersey. (But I don't know where you got green and black) from. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- It looks green and black in my browser. http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4163/greenblacksm4.jpg (Inset is the image page, when I click on it). Daniel 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, still looks maroon and yellow to me. even on that page. Maroon is the main colour, yellow the edges, and grey in the background. Is it Maroon, in the QLD jersey in the lower part of the article. SpecialWindler talk 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note - it looks like fluorescent green and brown to me. Maybe you should consider checking a different browser to double check? mdmanser 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see fluorescent green and brown in both Moz and IE. The other two jerseys (and all other headers) look the same in both browsers. It's just the Broncos jersey that is off. Florrie 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, still looks maroon and yellow to me. even on that page. Maroon is the main colour, yellow the edges, and grey in the background. Is it Maroon, in the QLD jersey in the lower part of the article. SpecialWindler talk 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- It looks green and black in my browser. http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4163/greenblacksm4.jpg (Inset is the image page, when I click on it). Daniel 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt joined the Broncos at the end of the 2003 season" - After calling them the "Brisbane Broncos" for the first time in the section, I have no qualms with the "Broncos". However, the first mention needs to be full, and possibly even linked as well.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "asking the NRL to protect Hunt with more penalties" - NRL hasn't been used fully, nor has it been linked yet, in this section.
- Done (A little earlier in the section) SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The Broncos made it to the qualifying finals but were knocked out of the NRL competition in the semi-final" - reference, it stands out because it's the last sentence of the section.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Find a better section title than "Second year syndrome".
- Doing..., trying to think of one, if not will just go with "2005" SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Coach Wayne Bennett advised Hunt to be a teenager in the off season, so that it would not affect his second year in first-grade rugby league" - what's 'being a teenager' mean? Were these Bennett's exact words?
- Done they wern't bennetts exact words, so, I just added meaning. SpecialWindler talk 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt scored less tries and had less kick returns, but was retained at his preferred fullback position for the entire year" - Reference.
- Done will find one SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "In the seventh minute of the round 6 game, Hunt was knocked unconscious by a Shaun Timmins high tackle" - was it high? Was it penalised during the game? Did Timmins get suspended?
- Done will find out SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "During 2005, Hunt made an inconsistent showing, with patches of both good and bad form" - Reference!
- Done removed statement SpecialWindler talk 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "He was again overlooked for the 2005 State of Origin series" - Overlooked? To be overlooked, you must be considered the favourite for getting selected. If he was, reference.
- Done he wasn't the favourite, so I'll change the wording. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt performed particularly well as halfback" - 'Particularly well'? Why not just 'well'?
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "During his injury, early in the morning on..." - This whole paragraph needs a ton more references, if only for BLP's sake.
- What does BLP stand for SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not done. The two references at the end of the paragraph, reference the whole paragraph. SpecialWindler talk 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- What does BLP stand for SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "When Hunt's contract ended at the end of 2006 the Broncos' concern mounted as to whether they would be able to retain him or not" - References, please. And references that the Broncos were concerned, not just the media being concerned that the Broncos may be concerned.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The Broncos could only offer Hunt about AU$200,000 a season" - Link AU$
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The South Sydney Rabbitohs may have even offered Hunt up to AU$500,000 a season" - Link to Souths.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt signed with the Broncos for a further three years. Cullen announced that" - Who's Cullen?
- Done he was cheif excesitive SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hodges was impressive in the position" - Reference.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "This allowed him to bring different styles of play to the Broncos' attack" - Unneeded in a biography article, very general, unreferenced, and arguable.
- Done removed SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "However Hunt, played an exceptionally good game in Round 15 against the West Tigers, scoring three tries, assisting in a try and gaining an exceptional 281 metres in the Broncos win" - double usage of 'exceptional'/'exceptionally'. I'd ditch the second one, personally.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "This move had the full support of Bruno Cullen" - again, who is this Cullen bloke? Chairman? Random guy down at the local?
- Done referenced above, and again now.SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "confirmed his loyalty to Australia" - is there another word for 'loyalty' that can be used in this sentence? Playing for Australia in rugby league rather than New Zealand is different to being loyal (which is a subjective term) to the team, and different again from being '[loyal] to Australia'.
- Done changed tp alligence, though that makes two alligeances in one sentence. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "But Hunt was overlooked" - as the above 'overlooked' comment.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "His good form in 2006 paid off [71] when he was" - ditch the reference which is in the middle of a sentence, and not even near a comma.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "performed fairly well" - just 'well'.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "In the end, Australia won 50-12" - Change this sentence to remove 'In the end'.
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "to stay with incumbent Origin fullback Matt Bowen" - Link 'incumbent'
- Done SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Premiership winning team" - Premiership-winning (dash)? Link to 2007 NRL Finals or something?
![[3]](http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2006/090106/images/Nature_finches.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Time_Magazine_June_13_2005_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lereah_BookCover_2005.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LereahNotBust.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
I will want to have another look at this, and possibly get more structural issues and a little bit more prose, but that should entertain you for a while. Daniel 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, for some of the little things, I will do the references over the next day. SpecialWindler talk 09:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Quality of references I've noticed Brisbane Broncos News is used a fair bit as a reference. It is not a totally NPOV source of citation. Look at this glowing article: [38] Third party sources are more reliable. Michellecrisp 11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am not totally knowledgable about the NPOV, but I basically understand that it should be nuetral/ not biased. After reading the WP:NPOV article, it seems that it has notihing on citations. But even so, why arne't they reliable sources, even if they were a little biased towards their own team, its the same as a Sydney newspaper talking about QLd. And from the Brisbane Broncos News website, I only use the information from the page and do not elaborate in what some of the biased things are. SpecialWindler talk 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- So your saying that [39] is better thatn the above. It tells the information, below though you need a fee. SpecialWindler talk 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would be less worried about NPOV, and more about WP:RS. It would be best to replace the Broncos News page with newspaper articles wherever possible. Recurring dreams 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point is sources and references need to be independent and third party where possible. A club's own website (most probably written by a media manager/spin doctor paid by the club) is not an independent source. Do you think the Broncos management would allow anything critical to be published on their website? of course you may encounter some bias from a Sydney newspaper writing about Qld, but it would be far less biased than the Broncos website. Essentially the Broncos website is a self published source. I've encountered this before on Wikipedia with Liberal students using Liberal websites to citate their claims. Michellecrisp 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would be less worried about NPOV, and more about WP:RS. It would be best to replace the Broncos News page with newspaper articles wherever possible. Recurring dreams 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- So your saying that [39] is better thatn the above. It tells the information, below though you need a fee. SpecialWindler talk 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
