Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2009[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:51, 30 June 2009 [1].

Rocket[edit]

Nominator(s): - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been around for a while; it's in the best shape it's ever been and probably likely to be, and we're coming up for the 40th anniversary of the manned landing on the moon. It's also a critical topic, and its important for the wikipedia that this article make FA. I appreciate this is a technical topic, and technical topics often have a harder time than most with these kinds of processes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have several issues with this article, so I'm going to oppose (changed to Strong Oppose, see below) for now, but I would be happy to support the nomination if they are resolved:
  1. Orbital speed should never be measured in Mach, as sound does not travel in a vacuum.
    The Earth's atmosphere extends all the way to the geopause, and so orbits to that altitude may not be considered a vacuum, and sound waves can propagate. Indeed, visible evidence of Earth's atmosphere can be seen around the space shuttle when orbiting, and the Shuttle is continuously losing altitude due to this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but there is no Mach value for that air density. --GW… 22:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Mach 1/the speed of sound is determined by the average molecular speeds which in turn is related to temperature, and is essentially unrelated to pressure.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I've put {{fact}} tags onto those two figures. I also think it would be appropriate to provide values in metres per second. --GW… 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but you're simply wrong about this; NASA can and do define orbital speeds in terms of Mach. The speed of sound in gases is well defined even at extremely high altitudes, even well away from the Earth where the supersonic solar wind dominates and there is (for most normal purposes) what would be considered a 'vacuum' but is in fact just very low pressure gas with large mean free paths.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not feel that linking "extremely high speed" to "hypersonic" is wholly appropriate.
    The exhaust speed of rockets meets the definition of hypersonic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So perhaps the text itself is in need of revision --GW… 22:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Man visiting the Moon" should link to Exploration of the Moon rather than Apollo program.
    That does not seem to be appropriately focussed. The text should point to highlights, but exploration of the moon includes many automated landings, which while significant accomplishments were not the highpoints.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are too many {{main}} links to History of rocketry.
    fixed- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Highest point of altitude of its flight trajectory is 90 km." (referring to the V-2), is both grammatically and factually incorrect. Whilst most V-2s reached an apogee of about 90 kilometres on operational flights, some did go higher. The article should also mention that a V-2 made the first spaceflight in June 1944 (see Spaceflight before 1951 for further details).
    Do you have a reference for this? My understanding is that 90km was not exceeded until after WWII had finished.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try and dig one up for you. --GW… 22:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The V-2 article references "Peenemuende, Walter Dornberger, Moewig, Berlin 1985. ISBN 3-8118-4341-9". I don't have this book, so I can't confirm it, but it might help. I'll look for an online reference later. --GW… 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "The V-2 evolved into the American Redstone rocket, used in the early space program." implies that the US was the only country with a space programme
    I don't agree that that is implied; and in any case the V-2 is mentioned 2 paragraphs further on, in the context of Russia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the word "US" between early and space would clear up all ambiguity. --GW… 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "The R-7 launched the first satellite- Sputnik, and later Yuri Gagarin-the first man into space, and the first lunar and planetary probes." It would be more appropriate to spread this out a bit. Also, the satellite was "Sputnik 1", not "Sputnik", which currently redirects to an article about the overall programme. The sentence also uses "and" too many times.
    I've changed the title to Sputnik 1.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to expand on Yuri Gagarin; he was not a rocket vehicle, and the article should be as short as possible and kept on topic; this is not an article on space exploration per se. Planetary probes I suppose are rocket vehicles, just about, so I will add a sentence somewhere about probes and wikilink to the relevant article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The article contains a mixture of both "US" and "U.S." as abbreviations for the United States. Per the Manual of Style, only "US" (without the dots) should be used.
    Fixed, although I can't do anything about reference titles or for that matter the registered trademark text at the bottom of the article page ;-).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "These epoch marking events" is not neutral
  10. The article contains a mixture of British and American English. I would say British English is slightly more common in the article, but I'm not certain.
    Please be more specific.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See British and American spelling differences. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In some places imperial units are listed before metric units, and in other places, the metric units are listed first. The metric units should be listed first as it is a scientific article.
    The MOS is somewhat conflicted. The use of imperial units seem to relate to English work done well before the advent of the SI system, on balance I feel these should be left as per the original; conversions have been provided.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Apollo" was not a "launch vehicle"
    That has been resolved. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Use of the word "our" in the "current day" section is inappropriate. "Modern day" would probably also be a better title for that section.
    This has been resolved. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, marked that as resolved by mistake. Only half the point has been addressed. --GW… 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to change that title. I disagree that that is a desirable change and it's not remotely FA gating.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "Post Cold War"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "However, in the minds of much of the public, the most important use of rockets is perhaps manned spaceflight." is inappropriate speculation/WP:WEASEL
  15. "the Soyuz for orbital tourism" implies that it was desiged to carry tourists, or that that is its primary purpose.
    I do not feel that that is implied, only that it is used for that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for a small minority of flights. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really a small minority of current flights, and the question is about trends in any case.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "SpaceShipOne for suborbital tourism" implies that it was used commercially. It only ever made three spaceflights, none with a tourist aboard.
    Nevertheless these were flights made under the X-prize that was intended to promote space tourism, and the Futron report is given as a reference.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I also fail to see a sufficient connection between tourism via the Soyuz and SS1 spacecraft, and rockets, to warrant this paragraph's inclusion.
  18. "may show a trend towards greater commercialisation of manned rocketry." is further speculation
    The speculation is referenced to the Futron report, as such it is appropriate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. The "types" section is entirely unreferenced
    I have added references to a variety of rocket vehicle types.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The references you have provided are insufficient. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not all rockets have inbuilt stabilisation systems, some are spin-stabilised at launch.
    The word used is 'device'. Spin stabilisation is still a device. The word device does not necessarily denote any hardware. All rockets need some device for at least some degree of stabilisation.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that is acceptable. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "Rocket propellant is mass that is stored, usually in some form of propellant tank" - solid rockets do not have tanks
    I feel that this is inappropriate, but I added casing anyway. A casing is a form of pressure vessel, and IMO may be quite reasonably considered to be a form of propellant tank.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard a vessel used to house solid propellent called a "tank", but since you've changed it anyway, this is resolved. --GW… 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. The liquid engines on the Space Shuttle are called Space Shuttle Main Engines, or SSMEs.
    ????- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Space Shuttle Atlantis during launch phase, showing both solid (SRBs) and liquid fueled (Shuttle) rocket engines in use.". I would also advise linking "Atlantis", or better still, replacing the whole name of the shuttle with "{{OV|104}}" --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SRB is a general industry term for ground ignited solid rockets. I do not believe that the change you suggest would improve the article for the audience, and the details of that particular launch system can be found anyway at the linked article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolfkeeper, can you please try to preserve the bullet points in your responses? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is with the "Shuttle" engines, not the SRBs. --GW… 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no error here, nor does it violate any processes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. "As a side effect the pressures act on the exhaust in the opposite direction and accelerate this to very high speeds (in accordance with Newton's Third Law)." would read better if the parenthesised section were presented as an additional clause instead.
  24. Most of the examples of rockets shown in the "mass ratios" section are American. This makes the section unrepresentative.
    I think you're taking the concept of 'representative' further than it really is supposed to go- balance in articles is about the overall article, not such that each and every section having to be balanced in detail; and it's not a nationalistic thing, it's about notability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. "the rocket sheds excess weight...to reduce its weight" - do I really need to comment on this?
    Resolved. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The meanings of some of the symbols in the equations are not sufficiently explained.
    Please identify which ones are not- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The "Safety, reliability and accidents" section is too short, and entirely unreferenced
  28. The lead does not adequately summarise the contents of the article
    Leads are difficult to write. In what sense are you finding it not adequate?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read WP:LEAD. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I helped write WP:LEAD, in what way are you finding it inadequate?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. "H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr. of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)" does not explain which nation's "National Advisory committee for Aeronautics" they were working for.
    I disagree since it was linked anyway, but whatever, done.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved. --GW… 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. The "Science & Research" secion has too many hatnotes.
  31. Can you check the article does not confuse weight and mass
    Seems to be OK; it would be inappropriate to change things like thrust to weight ratio to be thrust to mass ratio.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Can a few more images of non-US rockets be added. I know it is quite hard to find suitable ones, but the current images make the article slightly too slanted towards the USA.
    Well, the very first and very prominent picture is that of a Soyuz, and we have others including V2s and so forth at other points. We also have an audience that are likely to be familiar with the Saturn V and Shuttle, on balance we need to primarily consider what the audience wants, while educating more widely.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. There should be a section on alternatives.
    No. This article is about rockets, that is only a see-also topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that it is a valid topic in the interests of neutrality. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be off-topic. The topic is rockets. The topic is not space-launch except and insofar as it relates to rockets.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Could the types section be made more detailed? It reads almost like a see also section.
    Probably not a good idea IMO; rocket is a very general article and these are all general subtypes of rockets.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, it should probably be converted to prose. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. "Space rockets" is not a synonym for "launch vehicle".
    I believe that they are synonymous. I don't think, for example, DC-X or Quad (rocket) are normally considered launch vehicles; (although they are launched and they are vehicles, but I think that is used as a phrase.)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but to give two examples, Skylark and Black Brant are both spacegoing, but not normally considered "launch vehicles". --GW… 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the convention is that they historically are correctly described as either launch vehicles or space vehicles. I think the term 'launch vehicle' implies launching into space, which these are capable of.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However it is usually used to imply launching into orbit, which the latter two are not capable of. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is most commonly seen in that context, but that does not seem to be the true meaning.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably some other issues, but that will do for now. I would like to see this as an FA, and as I previously stated, I would be happy to support if these issues can be addressed. --GW… 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't strike other people's comments. --GW… 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my above !vote to strong oppose due to the nominator's attitude towards some of the basic issues in the article. I inserted a number of citation needed tags into a particularly poorly referenced section of the article, which he removed without adding citations. I subsequently added two further tags, with clear explanations of why citations were needed, to two particularly dubious statements in the article. He removed one of these with an edit summary of "FFS", which in the absence of any explanation, I am interpreting to mean "for fuck's sake" (which is just about how I feel about this nomination). I feel that there may be a slight issue of WP:OWN here, and in light of the nominator's unwillingness to follow even basic policies (such as referencing disputed statements), I feel there is no way forward for this FAC. --GW… 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike reviewer comments: reviewers strike comments when they are satiisfied with changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Quite a few problems here.

  • Whatever the case of that is, it's from NASA, and it's on their history site, and the original picture is highly likely to be out of copyright. Unless you have anything more concrete, I don't consider this to be a gating issue.
  • It's almost certainly incorrectly tagged; that is a "gating issue". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Genghis Khan.jpg is missing quite a bit of information. I appreciate that some of this information may no longer be available, but at the very least a general date range should be in there.
  • The painting is out of copyright, and is claimed as a photo by the uploader. This does not seem to be a gating issue.
  • If you can't provide a gate range, how do you know it's out of copyright? I'm sure it is, but if we're claiming that it's out of copyright owing to its age, we need to know at least something about its age. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tsiolkovsky.jpg has neither author information nor date of publication, at least one of which is needed to support the public domain claim being made.
  • But not predating NACA. NACA got rolled into NASA, and would have inherited the material.
  • Ah, thank you. File:AMBA Pioneers.jpg seems to be a work of the U.S. Army, based on the source, which would put it in the public domain, but would also make it incorrectly tagged. Is this correct (in which case I can fix the tag), or am I mistaken? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis is File:Mk 2.jpg claimed to be a work of the federal government? There is no author information.
  • Its use here as part of an educational resource: [4] makes it work of the federal government.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the page it was on and updated the information, It's actually a NASA image, and credited as such on the bottom of the page I've linked. Hohum (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis is File:Xmim-115a.jpg claimed to be the work of a U.S. army employee? There is nothing in the source provided that would support that.
  • The date on File:Bumper.jpg is incorrect and, once again, we have a photograph that is claimed to have been created by NASA but which predates NASA.
  • It's going to be NACA again.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, just clarify that on the image description page (and might as well provide the date, etc., for completion, since you know it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are already mentioned at Delta-v budget, but we can copy them in without a problem.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are given in the article anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did it, based on the equations already in the text.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just provide all of the relevant information on the image description pages, then, and all should be well. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The equation used to produce the image is given in the text associated with that image in the article already; this is not gating on this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear that File:Artistsconcept separation.jpg is a work of NASA; it certainly seems to be housed in a NASA gallery and hosted on NASA's website, but on that website it says that it's the work of MSFC Graphics: [5] Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the two descriptions that you list as "copyvios" are actually PD text as they appear on a NASA website. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite so; I should have realized that. Apologies. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sadly, this is an engaging and well written article. But, large blocks of text lack citations. The image placement is problematic causing text squashing and white-space. Other minor issues are:

  • Here " The vehicle was only different in details from most modern rockets, with turbopumps, inertial guidance and many other features" the use of "only" and "many" is contradictory.
  • I think it should be "slave labourers".
  • Here "Often the propellant is a kind of fuel which is burned with an oxidizer to produce large volumes of very hot gas" - why "kind of fuel"?
  • Specific impulse needs defining and not just a link. And, there seems to be two definitions of delta V:
  1. The delta-v capacity of a rocket is the theoretical total change in velocity that a rocket can achieve without any external interference (without air drag or gravity or other forces).
  2. Often, the required velocity (delta-v) for a mission is unattainable by any single rocket.
  • One is a vehicle's capacity, the other is how much you need for a particular journey. I don't see the problem, they're both delta-v.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires more work, which I doubt can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm Talk 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary these do not seem to be major problems to me in any way, and can be dealt with in only a few hours work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article and would be pleased to see it promoted to FA, but the lack of citations, and the format of the extant ones is a big problem. I cannot see this being resolved quickly, given that each additional reference will need to be verified by an independent reviewer. My advice (but I do not want to seem patronising) is to withdraw this nomination to allow time to find reliable sources. My feeling—having reviewed over 270 FACs—is that the article will not be promoted unless the lack of reliable sources is seriously addressed. Often withdrawn, but subsequently renominated, articles achieve FA standard more quickly than FACs that are debated here for weeks. Graham Colm Talk 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this; the issues you refer to are uncomplicated, and the amount of work is less if we complete this FAC process now than if we repeat it at a later date.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're better now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely WP:CITE#Citation templates is about citation styles not necessarily templates? Template:Citation and the alternative Template:Cite book et al., give the same output, anchors etc. I had started to work on rationalizing the style to using short, neat template:harvnb inline references, which give clickable links in the references section which then link to anchors in the bibliography section. Hohum (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:51, 30 June 2009 [6].

1968 Illinois earthquake[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because since creating it in November, I have been steadily expanding it to become a better article. It passed a GAN back in February, and after a prose review from Casliber back in April, I think that it's finally ready. Its relative shortness can be attributed to the magnitude of the quake, in fact, it wouldn't be notable save for the fact that it was the strongest earthquake in Illinois history. ceranthor 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

  • "Took place on" in the opening sentence seems a bit bland, would replacing it with "struck on" be too emotive?
  • "Foundation cracks" is an odd turn of phrase, perhaps it should be "cracks in foundations".
I replaced with structural cracks.
  • "Response to the earthquake was mixed; some did not even notice the shaking, while others panicked", is this the response of people within Illinois or the 23 states? Also, a semi-colon should be use for two related clauses that could stand as separate sentences, so I think a colon may be better here.
  • "Millions within the region felt the shaking of the tremor": "shaking" is used in the previous sentence, to avoid repetition I'd recommend changing this to "Millions within the region felt the tremor".
  • "...suggest that earthquakes in the area are of only moderate magnitude can be felt over a large area": is there an "and" missing between "magnitude" and "can"?
  • There are some conflicting figures; I changed the lead from "Since it was felt over an area of 500,000 square miles" to 580,000 per this source used in the geography section, but in the history section it again says 500,000 (I haven't changed it).
  • Clarify: the only other occasion there is a conflicting figure with 580,000 is when it is stated that "The earthquake was felt in 23 states and affected a zone of 500,000 square miles (1,300,000 km2)". This may arise from "The 1909 Aurora earthquake, for example, affected people over an area of 500,000 square miles (1,300,000km2)". Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the damage section "the epicenter was located slightly south of St Louis": 120 miles might be slight by some measures, but it's probably best to remove "slightly".
  • It's mentioned that "Most buildings that experienced chimney damage were 30 to 50 years old". I think it would be worth expanding on this a little, explaining that older buildings were built to lower standards.{{cn}}
  • Was there any legislation instigated after the quake to ensure buildings could better withstand earthquakes?
  • Ceranthor has noted that there probably wasn't any legislation introduced after this event as it wasn't strong enough, if Cenrathor's searches draw a blank, that's good enough for me. Nev1 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes, but you should probably check that I've not changed the meaning of anything. I haven't read one of wikipedia's articles on an earthquake before and I found this one interesting. I think that with a bit of tweaking, I could support it's promotion to FA Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ceranthor 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a sentence added on why the older buildings were damaged in the quake while newer ones were not, but this is a very minor issue and I am happy to support the article. Nev1 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
  • Current ref 3 (RObert Blanchard) should be Blanchard, Robert to match the other refs
  • Current ref 16 (Some took..) is lacking a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
I've emailed the website to see if the publishers know where the info is coming from.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except the last one. ceranthor 20:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this last one? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I asked at your talk page... ceranthor 00:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you did, oops. I'm still unconvinced by the reliablity of this source. Any other way to source this information? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to wikilink everyone of those state names? It's a lot of blue for no value added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite tedious to do... I'll delink them. ceranthor 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice-looking article. It appears to be pretty concise and clean, but I've just got a few comments and questions:
  • A new version of the graphic appears to be ready in the Graphics Lab, but I'm sure you're on it.
  • In the first line, you can't be both at something and around it at the same time. I'd change it, but I'm not sure which is preferred. :)
  • Structural cracks in what? Buildings? Bridges? All of the above?
  • Is there a reason for the "now" in the most-felt quakes lead sentence? I'd suggest removing it unless there's a reason for it to be there, like if some quake was moved from above it to below it on the list.
  • Do you have any information about the 1965 Illinois quake? You mention it in passing, which only made me want to know more, especially since you gave more information about the 1909 quake.
  • The last sentence of the history section seems a bit redundant since you mention two similar earthquakes right before stating that many have been felt in the same area. If the sentence is being used to explain that still others also took place in the area, I'd suggest mentioning them.
  • The article mentions that the quake also was called "New Madrid event". Was it because the quake also partially occurred on that fault? If so, it'd be nice to have a line drawn specifically from that fact to the naming.
No, it was because the event was initially thought to be on the New Madrid fault, I'll mention it in the geo section.
  • I'm unfamiliar with the term "confining stress"; could you create a stub or explain it in the article. All the other jargon terms have appropriate Wikilinks.
It means exactly what it sounds like, stress on a fault which confines the land surrounding it. It causes liquefaction in earthquakes.
  • I'd suggest Indiana accompany Evansville, since it's not quite as well known as Chicago and St. Louis. :) That, and I got dinged for a similar reason in an FAC. McLeansboro also might need an Illinois qualifier since it's mentioned right after that long list of states.
  • Since McLeansboro is a redlink, could you give at least a vague location ... something like "Mcleansboro, Illinois, X miles (X km) west of XXX"
  • I'm not sure what you want to do with Dale; you've got the second reference wikilinked, and the location accompanying that second reference probably should be moved to the first reference as well.
  • In the first sentence of the third paragraph of damage, you say the "damage reports consisted of ..."; "damage" also is used twice in that sentence. I'd suggest just making it a straightforward list.
  • In regards to the sentence that begins "A post office canvass", why was a post office performing a damage survey? Was it the U.S. Postal Service or just one local post office?
I have no idea, the reference doesn't say. ceranthor 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the response section seems a bit out of place. I'd suggest ending with the quote; it does a good job to illustrate the reactions.
  • In regards to the aftermath, when was the next noticeable tremor? If it doesn't warrant inclusion towards the end, I'd suggest putting it in the history section.
  • I made a handful of minor fixes to the article, mainly in regards to removing extraneous words, moving Wikilinks to first reference and minor grammatical fixes. As always, if I've made a factual error, don't hesitate to let me know so I won't do it again!

Overall, it's a bit short, but it appears to cover the subject adequately and in an appropriate fashion. Drop me a line when you've made changes, and I'll be happy to take another look. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ceranthor 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added a threats section not because the article wasn't comprehensive, but because several other editors and myself agreed that it would help explain the article a lot better. ceranthor 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any problems. Like was said before, it's short, but covers its topic well. ResMar 22:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I gave the article another readthrough and made some changes. The biggest of these was to remove a redundant sentence about Dale in the damage section. The only thing from my list that I didn't see as resolved or resolve myself was the location of Mcleansboro in regards to a major city, but since it has a Wikilink, it's not critical. The article's a bit short, but that's due to the subject, not for any lack of coverage. Good work by everyone who wrote it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concerns (#3):

I believe I've done it correctly, admonish me if I have completed it incorrectly. ceranthor 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two images seem fine. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay now. I believe the above photo helps to illustrate the damage clearly, compared to words alone. The fair use rationale is adequate in my view. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; yes, this meets the featured status criterion. (As an aside, I would solicit the input of the main editors of this article on a query I've raised on the article's talk page.) AGK 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment. Ceran, could you clarify the relationship between Cottage Grove Fault and Wabash Valley Fault System? Is the fault a part of this system? Ruslik_Zero 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that the threats section involves the Wabash system and not the Cottage Grove Fault? ceranthor 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant how Cottage Fault is positioned in respect of the Wabash System. I answered this question myself. So, I am supporting now. Ruslik_Zero 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Maralia. This needs some work still.

Prose/MOS:

  1. "Some locals in the area" - redundant
  2. "located on the Illinois-Indiana border" - this should be an endash (it's also repeated elsewhere in the article).
    Still needs to be fixed in the lead.
  3. There is an error of some kind in the History section. The premise given is that the 1909 and 1965 quakes suggest that quakes in the area "are of only moderate magnitude and can be felt over a large area". However, the 1909 and 1968 quakes are then described as large, while the 1965 quake is presented as "contradicting this idea" despite originally being given as a reason for the premise.
    Not yet fixed.
No, no, no, that's not how it's meant! :) The 1909 and 1968 shocks were felt over a wide area but the 1965 quake was only around Tamms.
  1. The last sentence of the History section is a list that is torturous to read ("Many other earthquakes have occurred in the same region as the 1968 tremor: earthquakes in 1838, 1857, a pair of earthquakes in 1876, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1887, 1891, 1903, 1905, 1912, 1917, three earthquakes in 1922, 1934, 1939, 1947, 1953, 1955, 1958, 1972, 1974, 1984, and, most recently, the 2008 Illinois earthquake."). This needs restructuring.
    Mostly fixed, but improper use of a colon.
  2. "The earthquake occurred at the depth of 25 km." - this needs a conversion, and should probably be reversed with it for consistency of style. Additionally, it is at odds with the 19km figure in the infobox.
    The sources say 25 km, but you've changed "25 km" to "16 miles" with a conversion to 26 km. Not quite right.
  3. "A fault plane solution of the earthquake confirmed two nodal planes striking north-south" - this should be an endash.
  4. "and to a horizontal east-west axis of confining stress" - endash.
  5. "Although at that time no faults was known in the immediate epicentral region" - grammar.
  6. "the motion indicated corresponded to that along the Wabash Valley Fault System roughly 10 miles east of the region" - conversion.
  7. "However, scientists eventually realized the real cause was an unknown fault under Illinois." - 'real' is extraneous here, as 'however' makes it clear that the previous theory was incorrect.
  8. "Its local high school reported nineteen broken windows in the girls gymnasium along with cracked plaster walls." - girls' gymnasium
  9. "The damage consisted of fallen chimneys, foundation cracks, collapsed parapets, and overturned tombstones." - this is an exceedingly simplistic—or perhaps misplaced—sentence, considering that the previous two paragraphs describe fallen chimneys and foundation cracks.
  10. "The evidence of this comes from a family in Dale, Illinois, near Tuckers Corners and southwest of McLeansboro, where a home sustained cracked interior walls, plaster fell off the structure, chimneys were broken" - this sentence reads like a local news report, and 'the evidence comes from' makes it sound as though this is all the evidence. Presumably this is just one example; please present it as such.
  11. "where a home sustained cracked interior walls, plaster fell off the structure, chimneys were broken." - and chimneys were broken.
  12. "He also described it as "a very rare occurrence."" - per logical quotation, this full stop should be outside the quotes.
  13. "One official correctly predicted the earthquakes would have no aftershocks." - While he may be an expert on the topic, I do not think it is accurate to refer to the director of seismological studies at Loyola University as an 'official'.
  14. "Millions in the area experienced the earthquake, the first major one in the area for decades." - repetition of 'in the area' throughout the article makes the prose weak.
  15. "Another woman, Jane Bessen, said her party "did not know about it until we got there"." - got where? this quote makes no sense.
    This was changed to "Another woman, Jane Bessen, said her party was "in a car...to Evansville and didn't know about it until we got there"." This still makes little sense in context. "Another woman" is a baffling introduction immediately after a quote by someone named Harold. I presume this quote is meant to highlight that not everyone noticed the quake—but it should be introduced as such, and this would come across more clearly if it was either before or after the slew of quotes from people who did notice it, rather than in the midst of them.
  16. "concluded the land adjacent to the New Madrid fault was moving less than two millimeters a year" - needs conversion, and should probably be reversed with it for consistency.
  17. "Douglas Wiens, a professor of earth and planetary sciences, said, "The strongest earthquakes in the last few years have come from the Wabash Valley Fault"[22]," - this cite should be moved after the comma.
  18. "Michael Wyssession, an associate professor of earth and planetary sciences, disparaged the Madrid fault zone" - how does one disparage a geological feature?
    Not yet fixed.
  19. The Wyssession quotes are presented illogically: they are listed one after the other, with no intermediary text, but with two sets of quote marks.
    Not quite fixed; one extraneous quote mark was removed, but the other was not.
  20. Please fix the citations to use a consistent date format; I see ISO, dmy and mdy.
    Mostly fixed, but cite 9 ("The south-central Illinois earthquake of November 9, 1968: Macroseismic studies") has a malformed publication date and an ISO accessdate. Cite 12 ("The Wabash Valley fault System in Southeatsern Illinois") needs an accessdate. Cite 16 ("It's Official-County was Center of Earthquake") needs a publication date, as does cite 19 ("Some Took Quake Calmly, Others Shook For Hours").
  21. Cite 16 ("Earthquake Damage Probable...") needs a publication title.
    Sorta fixed, but why |publisher=McLeansboro Times Leader? This is the name of the work—not the publisher—and it would be automatically italicized if you used the |work= parameter. Same issue with cite 5 ("Quake-Shy St. Louisans Compose Jangled Nerves"), which also needs an accessdate fix, unless it was actually checked in 1968 :)
  22. Cites 21 and 22 are erroneously listed as LiveScience publications; they are in fact from ScienceDaily, which helpfully includes citation information on each article.

Paraphrasing:

I recognize that it's probably difficult to paraphrase this type of thing, but three sentences are extremely closely paraphrased from this source even though none of the sentences cite that source.

  1. "Most buildings that experienced chimney damage were 30 to 50 years old." - source: "Most buildings that sustained damage to chimneys were 30 to 50 years old."
  2. "A concrete-brick cistern collapsed 6.2 miles (10 km) west of Dale." - source: "About 10 kilometers west of Dale, near Tuckers Corners, a concrete and brick cistern collapsed."
    This remains unchanged.
  3. "Moderate damage including broken chimneys and fractured walls occurred in several towns in south-central Illinois, southwest Indiana, and northwest Kentucky." - source: "Moderate damage to chimneys and walls occurred in several towns in south-central Illinois, southwest Indiana, and northwest Kentucky."
    This has been changed to "Moderate damage including broken chimneys and fractured walls populated multiple towns throughout south-central Illinois, southwest Indiana, and northwest Kentucky." This is further from plagiarism, but populate? Verb change needed.
These have all been finished, I believe.

Accuracy:

  1. "and was the largest earthquake ever recorded in Illinois; it had a Richter scale magnitude of 5.4–5.5" - not quite accurate to the cited source, which says 5.4, not 5.4–5.5.
  2. "A future earthquake likely will happen in the next 50 years: there is a 90 percent probability that an event with magnitude of about 6 will take place in that timespan." - 'future' is a given; 'next 50 years' is fuzzy, as this refers to a 2005 prediction; and 'magnitude of about 6' is not quite what the source says. Reword: In 2005, scientists determined there is a 90 percent probability of a magnitude 6–7 earthquake in the New Madrid area during the next 50 years.
  3. "a later study by Eric Calais of Purdue University and other experts concluded the land adjacent to the New Madrid fault was moving less than two millimeters a year" - not accurate to the source, which says "The team determined that the ground surrounding the fault system is moving at a rate of less than 0.2 millimeters per year".
    Value is correct now; add a nonbreaking space, please. I don't suppose conversion would be helpful here after all.
  4. "Steven Obermeir of the United States Geological Survey is one of several scientists who have found sediments suggesting Wabash Valley Fault earthquakes over magnitude 7 on the Richter scale." - not quite accurate to the source, which says "Obermeir and others have found disturbed sediments from previous earthquakes along the fault with estimated magnitudes of about 7 on the Richter scale over the past several thousand years."
All finished.

In general, I question the lead's assertion that the quake caused "considerable damage"; is this supported by sources? Given the descriptions in the Damage section, 'considerable' seems like it might be a stretch. Maralia (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I was unable to access a computer today and most of yesterday. I'm skipping around, and I have a query, what conversion do I use for millimeters? ceranthor 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've now resolved all your comments excluding the millimeter convert one, and I don't think disposing of considerable is necessary. For a 5.4, this caused a very surprising amount of damage, coming from someone who has written and read many earthquake articles. ceranthor 10:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my comments per your subsequent edits. Still not comfortable with "considerable damage" absent sources that say as much. If it did cause 'a very surprising amount of damage' for a 5.4, surely there are reliable sources that say so. Maralia (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All finished, thank you. ceranthor 02:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something crazy is going on with the infobox; it says the quake was at a depth of "25.7495040000000 km". --Golbez (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose—1a. I've made a few copy-edits at the opening. It seems to need an independent and careful copy-edit throughout by a word-nerd to pick up little glitches and, worse, problems of logic.

  • Please check my "in the nation".
  • May I steal this for my "Logic Workshop" page? "Response to the earthquake was mixed: some people near the epicenter did not even notice the shaking, while others panicked." The contrast doesn't work—apples and oranges. Perceiving the effects is contrasted with reacting to the event (notice vs. panic; i.e., perception vs. behaviour). At first it may seem to be a subtle distinction, but it jars. And does "near the epicenter" apply to both groups of people? It's a loose end. I'd fix it if I knew the topic. Maybe relocate the "some people ... didn't notice it" to after "rupture" ... "Despite this, some people ....".
  • "Data from large earthquakes that occurred in May and July 1909 and the November 1968 shock, respectively, suggest that earthquakes in the area are of only moderate magnitude and can be felt over a large area." Is "shock" used in the middle to avoid three occurrences of "earthquake(s)"? If so, I'm asking myself whether it's somehow different from that term. (If not, consider instead: "Data from the large earthquakes of May and July 1909 and November 1968 suggest that earthquakes in the area are of only moderate magnitude but can be felt over a large geographical area." (I used "but" because I think you're drawing a contrast there ... one would normally expect magnitude to correlated with geographical spread?)
  • Size-wise? "had a felt area" (sounds like a billiards table). What "idea"?
  • Fallen ... felled ... felt ... felt.
  • Magnitude 6 turns into "6–7" later. Please be utterly consistent.
  • Remove "of them being". "more than 100 times greater in geographical reach" (or whatever one says in this scientific field).
  • Surely the earthquake occurred on the surface too? Is there a technical term for what happened 16 km underground? And the order of metric/US conversions is inconsistent at least once.

I don't want to discourage, but it's not ready yet. It would be great to see this again, but shining—I look forward to it. Do mark hypotheses as such, so it's clearer for readers. Tony (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose As the GA1 reviewer, I remain unsatisfied with the geography section. I would like to know at least what county the epicenter was in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:50, 30 June 2009 [7].

Cheadle Hulme railway station[edit]

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is a fairly short article, but it is as comprehensive as I can reasonably get it. It's currently a good article and has had a detailed peer review. Thanks for your comments. Majorly talk 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's as good as one can get on the topic; support. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on first skim-by (I'll do a fuller readthrough when I get the chance): a Virgin Trains press release is used as a source for material on the general early history of the station, rather than about Virgin Trains themselves (currently ref #1), and I wouldn't consider them particularly reliable in this context (they've no reason to really care about the exact details of what happened 150 years before they were even founded). There will be reliable sources about for the material for which you're using this press release (a, b, c for example). – iridescent 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I prefer using the specific templates; for some reason, the bibliography was changed to the citation template (which I never use), so I changed it back. If there's a requirement for the citation template to be used, I'll be happy to switch them all over. Majorly talk 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: just letting you know I haven't forgotten this (been rather busy), and I'll hopefully fix these issues by tomorrow. Majorly talk 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Concur with Iri on the press release issue. Better to find a history source for that information.
  • What makes http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/ a reliable source of information?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I'd agree aboutmyarea is not a reliable source of information. However, in this case, they are simply reproducing minutes from meetings, that were on the partnership site. Unfortunately the government site seems to remove old meeting minutes, and they are not on archive.org. There are some minutes on there from more recently, that have been used as sources. Majorly talk 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Majorly on this one. Probably the "by-the-book" solution here would be to remove the links altogether and cite the minutes as if they were print sources, but that would reduce the usefulness to the reader, just to satisfy strict-compliance. – iridescent 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering withdrawing this FAC to be honest - with plans for major renovations on the go, it'll soon be out of date and anything added to it would not reflect any FA status this article may get. In short, I don't think it's stable enough for FA at the moment. Majorly talk 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone familiar please withdraw this - too many issues for me to work on right now, and the issue of stability concerns me. Thanks, Majorly talk 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Steve 22:46, 29 June 2009 [8].

February 2009 tornado outbreak[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA standards. Although the event was relatively recent, February this year, the final reports on the event from the National Climatic Data Center have been released. The article may be long, but it should be fully comprehensive for the entire event. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is not long at all...only 39% of the maximum word length recommended per the page size toolbox. You may need to add convert templates to convert acres to hectares, both otherwise you appear to have the imperial/metric equivalents all listed. Per my recent experience with the Wind FAC, you're going to need to pick a format for your references. Either pick Surname, FirstName or FirstName, Surname for all your references, and make sure they all have authors. Consistency is paramount, despite the article's content. I dickered around with the reference section for over half the time wind was at FAC. Just an early comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note DR :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Everything looks fine (it helps when they all come from the same PD source!). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Steve :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey Cyclonebiskit, you should take a look at this. Heres the final survey on the Grove tornado and it is saying that it went through three counties and not four.[9] The information on the main article is refereneced by what I think are preliminary tracks and info. While I would enjoy getting this promoted to FA, I think you may have pulled the trigger on this too early. Showtime2009 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've decided to withdraw this nomination after thinking it over. As Showtime said, I probably jumped the gun with this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Steve 21:24, 28 June 2009 [10].

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri[edit]

Nominator(s): MacMedtalkstalk 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is a great article about a classic game. After reviewing the first nomination, I found that the majority of opposes were based solely on the major lack of references. I have found numerous references for the article, and I strongly believe that this should be a featured article. MacMedtalkstalk 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments

These are just some issues I noticed with a quick glance:

  • File:SMACx-DiploScreenshot1.jpg and File:AlphaCentauriGameCD.jpg both need fair use rationales for why they should be included in the article. Also, both need to be reduced in size (see the tags on the images' pages).
  • The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. Try to touch on all sections in the article; see WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  • The "Influence", "Technology", and "Availability" sections are unreferenced.
  • There are a few single sentences throughout the article. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on their content or incorporate them into another paragraph.
  • The citations need to include more parameters then just the title and access date. Also include the author, date, publisher, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET to help you out.
  • For FA, it seems that there should be a larger variety of sources for improving the content of the article. Consider using the resources department of WikiProject Video Games to find additional sources.

The article has other issues, but just wanted to point out the main ones first. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Likewise, citations need to come directly after punctuation, without a space. Like so.[1] A lot of yours are like this [2]. Easy to fix and makes the whole thing look a lot more professional. Seegoon (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-comment – this is absolutely not true and I wish people would stop claiming that it is; we have no policy as to whether footnotes come before or after punctuation, as long as the style is consistent in the article. Look at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref tags and punctuation and see for yourself. – iridescent 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a discussion about this in the most recent section on the talk page (see the footnote of the alternate method which contradicts the guideline). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that; sorry for spreading disinformation. But, it has to be noted that consensus, project-wide, seems to be for references to come directly following punctuation. It's very rare to get an article appearing at FAC which does anything but. I can't argue with guidelines, but I presume that these citations were inserted when the article was first drafted, four and a half years back. Things have just evolved and changed since then. Seegoon (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if you noticed this, MacMed, but the first FAC was from 2004- 4 and a half years ago. --PresN 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am very willing to do the work necessary to build it up until the community thinks it is ready for featured status. Unfortunately, I have a commitment IRL tomorrow, but I will begin work on Monday. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article has numerous issues preventing it from being featured quality. The gameplay section is much too large and rather than give a general overview as a good encyclopedia article should devolves into pratically an instructional guide on how to play the game. Furthermore, there is no development history of the game and very little on the reception of the game, making most of the content "in universe" and unable to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject in a real world context. Too make matters worse, the inspiration and reception sections are almost entirely unsourced and contain several pieces of trivia not befitting an enclyclopedia article. There are quite a few video game FAs, and I would suggest looking at a few to bring it more in line with these. Indrian (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I am going to withdraw this nomination for now, and renominate it after dealing with the issues laid out here. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 27 June 2009 [11].

United States[edit]

You may be looking for a different FAC: see fixing old issues in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): GeometryGirl (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I am nominating this for featured article because I think it satisfies all the FA criteria; it has also not been a FAC in the last two years. I'll do my best to deal with objections, but expect others to help me. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are not a significant contributor. Have the significant contributors been notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been notified more than five days ago on the talk page. See here. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk page notices are better. More to the point, have they signaled that they want to go forward with the FAC? FAC instructions say: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. " Notification is not the same as consultation. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably significant contributors have the article on their watchlist. Moreover, the significant contributors are so plentiful that I figured a central notice/discussion on the talk page was more appropriate. After almost a week no reply was made to my prompting. I therefore - boldly - added the article to FAC, taking the lack of response as a lack of resistance to FAC. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this stage. Although it has 200+ references, whole swathes of it are completely unsourced, including some bits that are contentious and need to be sourced. I appreciate the 'There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article' policy, but it's not a blank check to make uncited claims and there are multiple controversial points with no references. The entire Cold War and protest politics section (arguably the most sensitive part of the entire article) doesn't have a single reference, and nor, for example, does the rather dubious statement that "The leadership role taken by the United States and its allies in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War, under President George H. W. Bush, and the Yugoslav wars, under President Bill Clinton, helped to preserve its position as a superpower" (a statement which isn't backed up in the linked "more information" subtopics, September 11 attacks, Iraq War, and Late 2000s recession – none of which have much to do with Bush Sr, Clinton, or the Gulf War). I appreciate an article of this size is hard to keep clean, sourced and neutral, but there just seem to be too many "well, everyone known that" assumptions such as "Superman, the quintessential comic book superhero, has become an American icon" (again, unreferenced and not mentioned in any of the linked subarticles). – iridescent 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: To avoid cluttering up the FAC, very long list of minor-but-need-to-be-fixed issues listed here. – iridescent 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although very good in many parts, there are significant problems, apart from referencing, there are some very important omissions.
    • Native Americans are scantily covered, with little mention of their controversial treatment, land rights, disposession, and claims of genocide.
    • The section "Foreign relations and military" contains no reference to controversial areas of US foreign policy, including alleged interference in other countries - support for dictators, overthrow of democratic regimes, military interventions, etc. These are important matters with respect to the United States relationship with much of the world, and need to be properly covered.
    • The USA's use of energy and its contribution to global pollution, as well as its position on global warming, should be covered.
    • The Lead does not fully summarise the article as WP policy advises. There is virtually nothing about cultural influence, health, or education. Xandar 21:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even though the art has 200+ refs, there are numerous unsourced sentences. Also 4 refs aren't working Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not there yet. This one's been in and out of FAC like a revolving door. A bit premature. Apart from the verification issues discussed above, here are a few observations from the top, suggesting that work is needed throughout.

  • The term "(the) United States" appears an awful lot in such places as the lead. Better to ration where it's easy; for example, "and led to the end of legal slavery in the United States" --> "and led to the end of legal slavery throughout the country". Another synonym you might occasional deploy is "the nation", where it's obvious you're referring to the US. And why not use U.S. after first spelling-out in each section or para, where not in the vicinity of other country names (as CMOS seems to insist on)?
  • You'll hate me for saying this, but "is retained in the idiom "these United States." – dot after the closing quotes on WP (dodges hail of cream tarts).
  • Italicise the with the term as term (it's part of the nominal group).
  • "The short form United States"—I think it should be pointed out that the the is required when a nominal group, and is often not used when the term is an adjective ("there were United States citizens on the flight"); and USA can't be used as an adjective, can it (?), and is less common nowadays ... You might also point out that outside the US, the dots are often not used in the abbreviation. The etymology section is interesting, including how it has changed.
  • "Acres"—what are they? Each one needs a metric equivalent (ha, not sq. km). Tony (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 27 June 2009 [12].

Lincolnshire, Illinois[edit]

Nominator(s): Starstriker7(Talk) 07:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article is ready. It has a lot of info, I just made a run to check for dead link citations and have updated them or compensated for them, and the article itself has been through a number of copyedits, although most of them were partial. I feel certain that problems I did not notice will arise with the article, but I believe FA is an obtainable goal nonetheless. --Starstriker7(Talk) 07:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Okay, websites do NOT go in italics, italics are used for newspaper, journal, magazine and book titles. Conversely, you have some magazines/newspapers unitalicized. (I noted current re 38 (Stevenson...) but there may be others
Comment I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here...you mean websites in the references? --Starstriker7(Talk) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the references. The websites names should be in a plain font, and the newspaper/magazines should be in italics. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I replaced it and reworded accordingly to accommodate the new reference. Hopefully this reference can be accessed more easily. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to try to work this out using trigonometry, and then paste my work at the bottom. Once I figure out how to display the formula, there will no longer be any use for this distance calculator. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mapquest would be fine to calculate it also. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the context of the reference, I don't know if it'd be a good idea to use Mapquest. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I replaced the link with trig. Hopefully that's better...? --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem I don't think I have any way of replacing these sources. Radio-locator.com has been cited as a viable source by WikiProject Radio Stations, but only to such an extent; they admitted it wasn't always accurate. Although WAES is licensed, the only possible replacement sources would be to find fliers from Stevenson High School, where the station is based; otherwise, I could probably just delete the information. --Starstriker7(Talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any insight on the situation, whether or not I should delete the paragraph on WAES? --Starstriker7(Talk) 06:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I just deleted it. It isn't that significant a portion of the article, so I figured the information could be deemed extraneous. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned by the number of sources that are from the town or county or from primary sources for the information (such as the various companies). There should be more third-party coverage to counter potential bias
Comment I've already scoured the local library and most websites pertaining to the village. I'll try to search for other sources, although I don't think I can guarantee anything. --Starstriker7(Talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Come to think about it, all the company websites used are only to verify their presence in Lincolnshire or that they exist at all, and exactly what it is they do. This at the least should make them validEDIT: I meant to say that there really isn't much to bias. The town and county sources I cannot replace, however. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Lol, I guess not. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it's kind of frowned upon for nominators to strike out comments by reviewers. TwilligToves (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more scholarly sources used for the History section rather than relying on the rather shallow and unsourced village websites that largely just list facts rather than giving historical analysis. Does Dretske not list her sources? TwilligToves (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find any comprehensive sources exclusively on Lincolnshire's history when researching it, so I don't know how to resolve your first point...Also, I'm not quite sure what you meant in your comment about Dretske. Could you please clarify? --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the second point, I meant does Dretske not give a bibliography of her sources? TwilligToves (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find any on the Internet, but I can say with certainty that she included them in her book. I might be able to have a friend send them to me via email, as I won't be able to access the book directly. --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my old friends there will be able to send me the bibliography via email next week. Can this wait until then? --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 27 June 2009 [13].

Battle of Ollantaytambo[edit]

Nominator(s): Victor12 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because even though it is small (12kb prose size) it seems to me it reasonably covers most available information on its subject, has images that follow Wikipedia's guidelines, is properly written and throughly referenced. Any comments for further improvement are more than welcome. Victor12 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from seddon
  • Please include the references at the bottom in the notes section, rename it references, and at the ref templates through the article with those four references where appropriate :)
  • I've checked the english spelling and corrected one word but I'll need someone to look through the spanish spellings.
  • Non-breaking spaces need to be added when stating the numbers of things, eg. 100 houses would be 100 houses. Go through the article and add them in :)

That's a very quick review, I'll have to give it further time to give a complete review but thatll keep you busy for now. Seddσn talk 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Non-breaking spaces have now been added throughout the text. As for your suggestion on references, I don't understand it. Is there something wrong with the way they are presented right now? They seem to be ok to me. --Victor12 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Hi Victor, thanks, that was an interesting read about a subject I wish I knew more about.
  • The See also section could do with a review, as currently all the links are repeating links already in the article.
  • A little more information about the terraces would be helpful. Were they of agricultural or military design or some combination and what sort of heights were involved?
  • Casualties on both sides are completely unknown? Would you mind just checking the sources as even an approximate figure on one side would be better than nothing.
  • Whether Cusco and Ollantaytambo are 70 km apart as per this article or 60 as per this (perhaps one is as the crow flies or using new bridges?) It would be nice to see consistency; in either event its a jolly long way for infantry to retreat in 24 hours. Would you mind checking that it was the army who got back so quickly not just some riders.

Also I've made a few tweaks to the prose, hope you like them. If not, it's a Wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your review. As for your comments:
  • You're right about the "See also" section, any suggestions on what links to put there?
  • About the terraces, those built by Manco Inca in the approaches to Ollantaytambo were military in nature as he was expecting an attack. Those in the Temple Hill in Ollantaytambo were of a ceremonial character as explained in the Ollantaytambo article. they are the same type of terraces found in other important Inca ceremonial sites such as Machu Picchu. I'm currently away from my sources but I'll check them soon to add more details on this structures.
  • About casualties, I've read every single account mentioned in the "Sources" section and there are no casualties figures in any of them. One reason for this is that Spaniard chroniclers (and even Titu Cusi Yupanqui, the only indigenous source) didn't care too much about dead Indians, friend or foe, so they didn't kept record of their deaths.
  • About the distance from Cusco to Ollantaytambo, the 70km figure is quoted by Hemming, the 60km figure is unreferenced. Anyway, I'll double check and get back to you on this.
  • As for prose, your changes are fine, thanks. --Victor12 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Victor, the important thing for FA is that we confirm that a normal topic such as battle casualties is not covered because its not available - obviously we can't cover what can't be sourced so thanks for confirming that. Also I've redone the see also section, hope you like it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've checked Protezen and Hemming. The 70 km figure actually comes from Protzen, as for the retreat, the relevant Hemming quote is But the Spaniards succeeded in riding out of the Yucay (another name for the Urubamba river) valley that night (the night of the battle) and they fought their way back into Cuzco the following day. Now that I look at it, it seems rather ambiguous so I'll double check with other sources. Protzen does not provide height figures for Ollantaytambo's terraces but I'll keep searching. --Victor12 (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Right off the bat I see one thing you need, a pronunciation guide for "Ollantaytambo" (see {{pron-en}}). I've been staring at that word for five minutes and the only thing that springs to mind is "olly olly oxen free!"
Well I have added a pronunciation guide, I believe it is correct but if I'm wrong feel free to correct it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two or three uses of the word "indian", shouldn't this be natives? These people are not from India, and use of the word to describe New World natives is kind of archaic. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see why it is used. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job, I couldn't find anything that I couldn't fix myself after a little digging. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. It seems reasonably well-researched, but the prose is not up to par. There are several simple errors that require basic proofreading, but I also find the writing clumsy and verbose in many places, indicating the need for an independent copyedit. Please get someone new to go through it with an eye toward conciseness and basic grammatical problems.
    • Inconsistent comma use with parenthetic material. You usually use them, but you have many instances like "For a while Manco Inca ..." that clearly require them.
    • "There is some controversy over the actual location of the battle" This is quite clumsy—more elegant: "The actual location of the battle is the subject of some controversy"
    • "provides a better match for the descriptions" Same problem. You can express this in four words instead of seven: "better matches the descriptions"
    • "For a while Manco Inca and the conquistadors maintained good relations, together they defeated Atahualpa's generals and reestablished Inca rule over most of the empire." The comma separator is ungrammatical.
    • "so the Spaniards garrison" Is it "Spaniard garrison" or "Spaniards' garrison" or what?
    • "Primary sources about the battle of Ollantaytambo are mostly written by Spaniards." So, not written all the way? Move "mostly" to the right to remove ambiguity.
    • "when Hernando Pizarro's arrived in Cusco" Pizarro's what?
    • "Weapons used by the soldiers were comprised of melee weapon such as maces" Many issues here. Incorrect use of "comprise"; something "comprises" something else but is not "comprised of". (Ex. A zoo comprises many animals.) Avoid repetitious "Weapons ... comprise ... melee weapons" as well (I'm assuming you meant "melee weapon" to be plural?). Chuck the whole thing and start over.
    • "With this array of weapons, Inca warriors were at a disadvantage against Spanish soldiers as their wooden clubs and maces with stone or bronze heads were rarely able to kill armored Spaniards." Again, this seems an awfully laborious way of saying basically "The disadvantage of the Inca weapons was that the wooden clubs and maces with stone or bronze heads could rarely kill armored Spaniards." or, possibly more accurately, "... could rarely penetrate the Spaniards' armor."
--Laser brain (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:16, 24 June 2009 [14].

Benzodiazepine[edit]

Nominator(s): Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the article has finally reached the criteria for featured article. It is indepth and comprehensive, makes extensive use of high quality recent sources, written clearly and consisely. I also believe that the article has the right balance where both professional and layman can derive a great deal of knowledge and understanding from the article subject. Of course there may be some suggestions made before it is promoted to featured article and I am open to constructive criticism or suggestions for improvements but I do believe the article is ready for featured article nomination for review and hopefully promotion.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom; images and reliability of sources checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sourcing is not to a professional standard: too many citations per fact; too many old papers cited; non-relevant-focus papers cited; inconsistency between sources used for the lead and the body; primary research papers cited without good reason; sources of narrow scope used where wider scope required. The article is apparently comprehensive (I'm no expert) but not discriminatory enough in the facts it chooses to present. The prose isn't consistently at FA standard and needs a copy edit (but don't advise one at this stage due to other problems). Two prose examples: there are a number of single-sentence paragraphs and paragraphs beginning with "They". The "Mechanism of action" section is utterly impenetrable to anyone without a pharmacy degree, which isn't acceptable. We must attempt to explain to the general reader how benzos work in the brain and achieve the effects they do. Why do they make you less anxious? Why do they make you sleepy? Why do they relax muscles? Why do they stop seizures?
Since sources are the foundation upon which an article is built, I don't believe these problems can be fixed quickly. The article shows some evidence of having random fact laid upon fact rather than being planned, executed and refined. The editors need to go through each section, selecting a small set of high quality and focussed sources, and build the text from what those sources say and the weight the sources afford to the facts. As an example of this practice, the seizure section was reduced from thirteen sources to three. I don't suggest this FAC be withdrawn despite my opinion that it can't be rescued in time: I hope we can get reviews by editors with expertise in English and in Medicine. Here are some (but by no means exhaustive) examples of specific problems found:
  1. The first three sentences of the third paragraph in the lead are cited to three separate papers. But the text is standard stuff that surely could be cited to one review? All threeTwo of those are written by Lader and one paper is ten years old.
  2. The next sentence on long term use cites three sources, two of which are old (20 and 18 years) and are focussed on withdrawal rather than long term use.
  3. The two sentences on pregnancy in the lead are sourced completely differently to those in the body text. The lead uses sources that are 11 and 15 years old. UPDATE: Those two sources have been appended to the citations in the pregnancy body section. But couldn't the existing ref in the body section (PMID 18378767) have done for the lead? It is up-to-date, unlike the lead sources. Colin°Talk 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The lead text on the elderly and on drug overdose is cited to different sources than the body text.
  5. The statement on the general properties of benzodiazepam is cited to a primary research paper on genetically modified mice.
  6. The statement in "Therapeutic uses" on the various administration routes is sourced to a primary research paper from 1978 on five newborn infants with convulsions.
  7. Source PMID 7388368 is just the sort of paper we should be citing, except it is 30 years old. Surely there is a more up-to-date version?
  8. The lead statement on their properties and uses in veterinary practice is sourced to two papers: A review from 1975 on restraint methods in swine (which mentions diazepam for minor procedures) and a Bulgarian-language research paper from 1984 on the effects of powdered diazepam on various animals. Surely a vet textbook could be used, and be more clinically relevant and up-to-date. BTW: there doesn't seem to be any justification for citing non-English sources for this article.
  9. The statement "Midazolam can also be used along with other drugs in the sedation and capture of wild animals." is sourced to a primary research paper that captured nine aardvarks with ketamine combined with one of five other test drugs, one of which was midazolam.
  10. The (vet) statment "They are used before surgery as premedication for muscular relaxation" is sourced to a 20 year old primary research paper on five dogs undergoing anaesthesia. This doesn't tell us about modern vet practice. Indeed, none of the sources in the vet section could be used to document how benzos are currently used in vet practice.
  11. The statement "Benzodiazepines are also used to treat the acute panic caused by hallucinogen intoxication" is sourced to a 20-year old paper on hallucinogenic intoxication, the abstract of which says "Panic reactions may require treatment with a benzodiazepine or haloperidol." Benzos have well-known anti-anxiety properties so of course they will be used for severe panic attacks. Is this really notable, or something random a PubMed search found?
  12. The drug related crime section contains a long paragraph sourced to a single primary research study on Australian police detainees. My gut feeling is that the some of the results here may be particular to Australia during the period studied, and give different results for other countries or different demographics. Much reduced.
  13. The statement "Eclampsia also responds to them but benzodiazepines are not as effective as intravenous magnesium." is included in the "Other indications" section, but is sourced to a review of diazepam (only, so not "them") vs magnesium. The use of diazepam here is no different to its use in treating any prolonged seizure, so this isn't an "other indications". In fact, much of the "other indications" deals with anxiety situations, and we have an axiety section. And where's the muscle-relaxant indications (only tetanus and stiff person syndrome are mentioned, but "muscle spasm of varied aetiology"[BNF] are an indication for diazepam)?
  14. There are far too many cases where three, four and even five citations are strung together, sometimes just to source a single sentence. I'm not sure what the cause of this is, but it isn't necessary for a subject like this. We are dealing with an mature class of drugs for which there is an abundance of high quality literature. Occasionally, a sentence or paragraph may require multiple sources when combining distinct facts, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know whether the editors are trying to strengthen an argument by citing multiple sources but that isn't necessary on WP. The other possibility, and more worrying, is that multiple sources are being combined to produce a statement that may transgress WP:OR. I'm particularly concerned about the various places side-effects/symptoms are mentioned. It is not the job of Wikipedians to pool the side effects (or withdrawal symptoms) of the various benzos and come up with a list of notable ones.
(BTW: Please can you respond below my signature rather than within the above text, to avoid breaking it up. Thanks.) Colin°Talk 21:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article and making these recommendations. I have responded below.
Point 1. I did actually try to resolve that by locating review papers on pubmed but was unsucessful. I could resolve it but would need to use multiple secondary sources. Actually an idea has popped into my head, I have a text book on benzodiazepines, a reliable one. It is written by Roche pharmaceuticals (I think). The entire book is about benzodiazepines, it is bound to cover these issues in the first paragraph, I just hope that I can locate them easily without having to read the whole book LOL. I shall see what I can do. Got mixed up when half asleep, thought you were talking about the first ref. Anyway I shall see what I can do about this over the coming days. I think that it can be resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I have removed the old 1999 review.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2. I can get more recent citations for long term effects but unfortunately they would be primary sources I think. Very little research money is given to study long term effects of benzos, much of the research was carried out back in the 90's. I would be of the opinion that the citations should stay if they cannot be replaced with more recent secondary sources. Perhaps we could remove it from the lead though and just discuss it briefly in the article body somewhere?
Point 3. Done. Resolved, sources now cited in article body. Improvements have been made in finding more recent sources but as discussed this is not always possible for certain aspects of this article.
Point 4. Done. Resolved this issue.
Point 5. Done. I have replaced citation with a citation to the British national Formulary.
Point 6. Done. Deleted the primary source.
Point 7. Done, I deleted it. I am not aware of any update to the guidance of 1980 by the MHRA or related bodies, well there was actually a small update in 1988. The problem is these regulatory bodies only do updates if they believe the evidence base has changed or their views have changed and need to be revised. If they don't think policy needs changing they just leave things as they were. How do we resolve things like if current national guidelines are based on old reviews? I say they are current because the BNF, Department of Health still use these guidelines so they are current in that they are still functional review and guidance but only because it hasn't been updated. I think that we should stick with that until it is updated by the MHRA.
Point 8. I know very little about veterinary medicine and am not much more than a layman. I also do not have access to any vet books. Is there a wiki vet project that we could contact? Otherwise I think that improving these issues is not going to be very fruitful. perhaps we should delete the vet section. I dunno if I want to do that but if it is not possible to resolve it and the section is holding the FA back, oh well maybe it will have to be deleted. Done. (by somone else).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 9. Done. Resolved by someone else.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 10. Done. Resolved by someone else.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 11. Done. I deleted the hallucinogenic intoxication ref.
Point 12. The problem with citing crime data is that these types of data are compiled usually by or on behalf of governments rather than clinical researchers so review papers are hard if not impossible to track down. Done. Resolved by drastic shortening of section to a single sentence to remove undue weight issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 13. Partially resolved. Deleted the ref. Other point regarding use as muscle spasm of various causes can be treated with diazepam is a good point. Should we use the BNF as a citation for this?
Point 14. I do have to admit that I sometimes add 2 or 3 sources together. The reason is because is sometimes people challenge single refs as being "only the opinion" of one book, one author or group of authors etc. So sometimes I think that it is necessary if covering an area not widely known or even perhaps controversial or as noted earlier just to make the sentence or paragraph more comprehensive by including additional data, due care though needs to be taken not to do OR of course. Oh and another reason (perhaps bad habit or is it good?) is I tend not to edit articles by putting refs in middle of sentences like after a comma and prefer to add them both to the end of the sentence.
Part of the reason the side effects is full of citations is actually because of this review process as there were disputes over sources and which ones were the best etc. Although there were several refs used even before the FA review but they have doubled since it I think.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All valid points Colin. I agree with you that we really don't need to use primary sources for the article but I am not sure if we can achieve 100% no primary sources in the article without article content suffering. There are certain aspects of benzos which are not regularly reviewed or even extensively researched or regularly updated and thus finding recent reviews for certain aspects of benzos is not always possible in my opinion. The crime stats is the first thing that jumps to my mind as something which is rather difficult to find review articles as it is mostly gov reports and stuff and not discussed or reviewed or undergo meta-analysis in the literature for a number of reasons which I can explain if necessary. I do think that primary sources though should be debated and almost always if not always removed if a more review paper exists for that aspect of a subject and if agreed on talk page. I have deleted a couple already that you have suggested and more will probably deleted.
Ok those are my opinions which may be a bit blurred as I am half asleep. I will look forward to other's comments on the FA.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree with Colin's comments. Except for two points. First, as he himself noticed "we are dealing with an mature class of drugs for which there is an abundance of high quality literature.". However, that means that the reviews tend to be older, and a 10-15-year-old review on benzodiazepines is often as fresh as it gets. If it is hard to find a review, WP policies do allow the judicious use of primary sources to improve the article. Second, the problems he noted are relatively easy to fix so, IMHO, they do not kill the nomination. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out I think that I got mixed up and thought Colin's point 1 was talking about the first ref. I did warn that I was half asleep when I wrote the above though! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten parts of my responses to Colin with a more awake mind as well as updated some of the problems raised as resolved/done. So if you read my half aasleep response, please reread the updated "awake" response to Colin. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response, Literaturegeek. Wrt the use of primary research papers: they are not absolutely forbidden but they should be used (if at all) to describe what that research found, or aspects of the study, not because of some fact they mention in their introductions, or to say "this is current clinical practice" when actually it was the particular circumstances set up for the study.
The vet section has been rewritten with appropriate sources.
I appreciate your problem that some research is no longer being conducted, so the studies and the reviews of those studies might be ageing. I'm no subject-expert here so I'm pointing out these are alarm bells when reviewing sources, but you may well have justification for having to use older papers. Some sources like Cochrane reviews or government/professional-body clinical guidelines are regularly renewed so even if the evidence and conclusions and text hasn't changed, the review/guideline might indicate that it has been recently checked as current. Other sources like academic monographs and professional textbooks are often regularly re-issued in new editions: these could be used more in this article I'm sure they would cover the subject to sufficient depth for this article's purpose. You might need to find a collaborator with access to a university library, if you don't yourself.
Wrt 3/4/5 citations strung together: it is not the job of the Wikipedia article page to prove the fact to the reader. For a given fact, cite the best source we can find. If someone queries the source, discuss this on the talk page and if necessary, replace the source. But don't keep adding in the hope it makes the argument stronger. Also, citing several authors to make the point that "X is widely held to be true" is verging on WP:OR. Instead, find a source that says that many/most authorities believe X to be true.
The "mechanism of action" section is improving but hasn't reached the level of clarity and accessibility I would hope to find in an FA. The lead sentence's "GABAA receptor" "modulation" is likely to kill a lay reader's confidence that they will be able to follow this section. Start with an overview sentence or two that says in complete layman's terms what these drugs do (look up some websites, charity sites, patient info leaflets [these leaflets can be excellent for this purpose -- I think the FDA have them on their website]). Then introduce the reader to sufficient brain anatomy/chemistry that they can understand how GABA/benzos affect neuron firing. Then explain how this affects anxiety/seizures/muscles/etc. If there are aspects of "how they work" that science doesn't know, then say so (sourced, of course). Why are some benzos better at one property than some others? Why does diazepam relax muscles when other sedative/hypnotics do not? Why might some people get a "paradoxical" reaction? Colin°Talk 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome Colin. Agree with the need for caution when using primary sources. Here is the 1988 ref by the CSM.[15] There hasn't been any update for the benzodiazepine drug class that I know of. Of course there are publications all the tiime debating this and that particular aspect of benzos back and forth but as far as national guidelines by the likes of the MHRA I am not aware of any update since 1988. I did research their site using keyword benzodiazepines and all I found after 1988 was a few sentences recommending an update to product/patient information leaflet for indivudal drugs regarding drowsiness and driving increase road traffic accidents or something like that. Individual patient information leaflets are regularly updated though. I understand what you are saying that it is not the job of wikipedia to prove poinnts to the reader and agree. What about other reason? One thing about review papers is often they only briefly skim over the aspect that you want to cite. What about using 2 or even 3 refs if you want to make the wiki article more comprehensive for the reader? What if article content suffers by only using one source for a paragraph?

Regarding how benzodiazepines work/mechanism of action who boghog seems to be enthusiastically improving :). I think Prof Ashton did a pretty good job in The Ashton Manual of writing about how benzos work in easy to understand terminology but whilst also describing it from a professional perspective. Read this to get an idea of tone and wording.[16]. Dunno if this will help give a few ideas of how to make the mechanism of action section both informative to the professional but also informative to the lay person.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other point is that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the benzos at least not the 1,4 benzos. Most if not all commonly prescribed benzos will relax muscles, act as hypnotics, anxiolytics etc. If someone was convulsing and spasming and a doctor only had temazepam available, administering it would alleviate or reduce seizures, spasming for example and would also relieve anxiety. Prescribing indications are primarily motivated on pharmacokinetics and potency of the benzodiazepines and potency of available doses but also by what the manufacturers decide to market the drug on as. Speed of crossing the blood brain barrier as well is important for emergency situations. I don't think that it is worth discussing subtle differences between benzos unless it is just such as speed of crossing the blood brain barrier and also potency of benzos. There are some benzos which are metabolised into partial agonists and also atypical benzos eg clobazam which are more selective for certain receptors but think this info if it can be located would really be more relevant for the individual drug pages unless we find a good review paper which says that these differences are relevant.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Stringing citations. Sometimes one thing is discussed in one review, and second in another, and first and third things in the third review. You have a sentence that talks about things 1,2 and 3. It is easier and more readable to put all three references at the end of the sentence. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article and its sources have improved greatly. I've struck many criticisms and most of those that remain are significantly reduced, possibly to the point of not being a barrier. I'm left with three weaknesses.

  1. There are areas where the important facts are lost among the lesser. This probably occurs with a desire to be comprehensive and please everyone; laying fact upon fact is good for building an article -- but eventually you need to revise and refine. An example is the indications section where it is not always clear what indications are evidence based, what are common for good or bad reasons, what are uncommon due to rarity, what are uncommon due to being second or last choice, etc.
  2. The prose still needs a good going over. I've tweaked a little but I'm an amateur. There are sentence structures that seem awkward or illformed to me but I'm not able to confidently revise. I suggest you find someone with good writing skills and collaborate with them (for you may have to correct their factual mistakes, or supply alternative wording based on sources only you have access to).
  3. The Pharmacology section is still a level too advanced for WP. Helping the reader understand this may bloat the section to the point that a daughter article could be required, leaving this section less detailed.

Colin°Talk 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The indications listed I think do have an evidence base and are licensed indications for benzodiazepines. As far as first line and second line, I dunno if we start going into that much detail we will end up describing the treatment of anxiety, treatment of mixed anxiety and depression and treatment of insomnia. Is this not more relevant to anxiety disorder pages or insomnia page (which I have contributed a little to anyway in this regard on those pages). I think we risk going too much off-topic if we start discussing too much detail on what should be tried first for each indication.

I have just done some work has been done on the prose so hopefully this has been resolved? I am not sure what else needs to be done.

The chemistry section is always going to be technical if someone doesn't understand molecular chemistry. I don't believe that can be simplified. The mechanism of action section has an introductory paragraph which I feel the lay person will understand the basic gist of how benzos work, i.e. they help "calm" the nervous system. I don't think that it does any harm to then explain some of the technical details which the reader can skip if they wish although they may be able to get the general gist of what is being said from the intro parragraph. I think having some technical details gives the article a bit of credibility making it professional.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for Sandy. After the restart of the nomination, do the two previous "support" votes count? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a new, clean slate: just like a new nomination. If you want to bring forward any unresolved issues from the previous nom, it might be better to take them to article talk so that this page won't become so unwieldy again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Concerning Colin's statement that 'the "Mechanism of action" section is utterly impenetrable', I have added a somewhat less technical introduction to the subject which I hope makes the section more accessible to the general reader. The general mechanism is known (benzodiazepine → GABAA receptor → increased GABA binding → increased chloride current → increased membrane potential → inhibition of neuronal firing). Furthermore I think it is rather intuitive that inhibition of neuronal firing in the brain would lead to the constellation effects that benzodiazepine possess. However it has not been entirely worked out which specific GABAA receptor subtypes control which specific neurons in which specific parts of the brain to mediate the anxiolytic vs. sedation/hypnotic vs. muscle relaxant vs. anticonvulsant effects of benzodiazepines. Hence it is not possible to pinpoint the exact mechanism of sedation for example, even though the general mechanism of benzodiazepine's pharmacological action has been worked out. Boghog2 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments not addressed in previous nomination. Right now I am close to supporting:--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Introductions summarizing content in sections with multiple subsections usually make articles much more accesible for lay readers. I believe they should be added in the sections that do not have them (Special populations and pharmacology).: (I have finally done it myself)
  2. Lolk 2006 article is in danish: I am sure there are plenty of reviews on benzos in elderly in english.
  3. The article is probably overlinked: MOS states that words should only be linked the first time they appear.

I did add intro type sentences too some of the sections as requested but they ended up getting deleted as being redundancy. A problem I am finding which is probably unavoidable is that each reviewer is going to have at least slightly different and conflicting views on what the article needs done to it to reach featured article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the Lolk review, it was unnecessary anyway as another review said the same thing pretty much. I did not know foreign language papers were not acceptable for featured articles. Sorry about that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will when I get a chance go over the wiki links to remove any overlinkage.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 Comments

  • Colin's great re-write of the therapeutic use in seizures mentions all the main anti-seizure benzodiazepines in the body of the article. That means that the list on the right with Main anticonvulsant benzodiazepines is not needed and can be deleted. The challenge now is to get rid of the two other unsightly items -- Main anxiolytic benzodiazepines and Main hypnotic benzodiazepines -- by working 3-4 of the most often used into the body of the corresponding chapters.
  • Epidemiology/Utilization section/paragraph is still needed
  • Drug misuse section still has to be copyedited
  • I wonder if FV knows where to find or maybe can draw a 3D picture of the GABA-a receptor. It is pretty and would be a nice illustration. Unfortunately, all the pictures I saw were copyrighted.

The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology is going to be rather difficult to get because governments don't track benzo prescribing figures. They know how many prescriptions are issued each year and some people have made rough guesstimates of how many are long term users. A popular figure is between 1.2 million and 1.5 million in the UK are on benzos long term based on like s survey of an "average sized GP practice" multiplied by total of GP practices in the UK. That is how it is calculated. Not very accurate. Figures for short term users would be even more difficult if not impossible to get. Then you run into t he problem of people claiming article not being a world view of the subject matter and wanting stats for their countries included etc etc which aren't available. I can see utilisation causing more problems than it would solve. If national govs tracked number of people taking benzos it would be a great idea.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two 3D schematic representations of the GABAA receptor in the GABAA receptor article. If you would like either of these specifically modified for the benzodiazepine article, let me know. I am open to suggestions. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 2-D representation seems to be most instructive [17]. What do you think about adding it to the article? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion and therefore I have inserted the 2D figure. Boghog2 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In line with Sceptical chymist I think that lists of main xxx benzodiazepines are not appropiate. They are unesthetical, probably unencyclopedic (I doubt any reader has an interest in knowing all of them) and also at this point original research, since no reference is provided to support that they are the main ones used for each problem. I feel that not much would be lost if they are simply eliminated (although it would be even better to integrate them in text). I also want to say that I feel that great improvements are being attained and to thank the effort of the main editor and several reviewers in this line.--Garrondo (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the tables. I agree with the original research problems of the tables. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: All my concerns have been solved.--Garrondo (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The prose needs a good going through, entirely, by an unfamiliar copy-editor.

  • Don't professionals commonly refer to them as "benzos"? I'd be inclined to put this in as a common term in parentheses at the opening.
  • "Elimination half-life"—Bizarre term, since elimination is normally considered to occur at something like four or five times the half-life. Half is eliminated ... hmmm ... hard. But if it's standard, what can we say?
  • "... being categorized as either short-acting, intermediate-acting or long-acting. Short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of insomnia. Longer-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of anxiety." Can't we make it neater, like this? "being categorized as either short-, intermediate- or long-acting. Short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of insomnia; longer-acting benzodiazepines are preferred for the treatment of anxiety." Note the semicolon. You've used the reverse ellipsis anyway in the second sentence. Problem for me in "long-acting" and then "longER acting"; are you referring to the same characteristic?
  • Remove "now"?
  • "in the short term" (last two words are not a double adjective, so no hyphen—"term" is the noun). But then the reverse problem: "long-term use"; please pipe it, because the linked article was wrongly named (now redirected to an article where the hyphen IS there). Please see [exercises], if you wish.
  • This is a bombsite, I'm afraid: "uncertainty remains whether they cause major malformations in a small number of babies". First, we need "as to". Second, is the uncertainty about the proportion of babies that suffer malformation for this reason? Maybe you mean ... well, I'm unsure what you mean. "The role of benzodiazepines in the major m in a s n of b is uncertain"?
  • "The first of its kind"—"The first benzodiazepine"?.
  • "Taken during gestation can however, cause neonatal withdrawal effects." Nope. What is being taken? Two commas required around "however" in mid-sentence, but better to start with H.,".
  • "such as alcohol or opiates": you're overusing "or", when you mean "and" in a simple list ("or" in English is very exclusive). Greatly ... particularly —a bit marked. Tony (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with benzos being included, it is a very widely used terms in the general public but even sometimes amongst professionals. If you take away the word elimination, a lay person is going to think "what is a half life?" but with the word elimination half life they are more likely to figure out that it is to do with metabbolism. Maybe we could change it to metabolic half life but maybe that is a bit of a, as we say in the UK, "dodgy" term? Some great suggestions for the lead Tony.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Colin's point about sources is a good one. I've tried to catalog the extent of the problem in Talk:Benzodiazepine #Catalog of sources. Briefly: most sources are quite good. However, there are 19 primary studies, many old; there are 30 reviews more than ten years old; and 1 confidential document and 1 letter to the editor are not needed. Eubulides (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That is really thorough and useful list. Thank you The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That must have taken some time and is immensely valuable. Thanks very much. Colin°Talk 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. All but one of the primary sources have now been removed and the remaining source, Loxley 2007 (PDF), is arguably OK and in any case is carefully summarized. As far as sources go, the remaining problem, as I see it, is citation of too many old reviews, dating back to 1981. Anybody care to take a crack at that? Talk:Benzodiazepine #Recent reviews that may be worth citing lists some good recent reviews, many of them freely readable. Eubulides (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is not ideal but deserves to be promoted. Most of the concerns have been addressed, and the article has made huge progress since it was first nominated. It does represent the finest of the Wikipedia work. For example, a comparison of Benzodiazepine with its closest peers -- the only two featured articles on a class of drugs -- is very much in favor of Benzodiazepine. One such article, the FA Antioxidants is long, lacks internal logic, is all over the place, and full of unnecessary details and specialist jargon. Another one, the FA Anabolic steroid has multiple tags and does not follow guidelines -- it even does not have the Indications chapter. In contrast, Benzodiazepine follows guidelines, is properly referenced, is not overly long, avoids jargon (except where appropriate), is written reasonably well, and addresses the most important things first before specialist chapters like Pharmacology. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. Oppose. Unfortunately, after I gave the article my support, the nominator re-introduced the POV issues related to the side effects of benzodiazepines. The particular issue is the controversy regarding benzodiazepine tolerance and long-term effects. A significant number of psychiatrists (it may even be a majority) believes that the long-term effects of benzodiazepines are relatively mild and tolerance to their main therapeutic anxiolytic action may not develop. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is much improved and would like to see it promoted to FA but can't vote due to a large amount of work done to the article prior to FA review. I believe it has reached FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my list of points in response to Colin's points. I believe that I and others have resolved Colin's points although if any point has not been resolved satisfactorily let me (us) know. :)

Thank you everyone for your hard work on rreviewing this article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting Garrondo and Sceptical. Hopefully Colin will also support the article now or if not will let us know what else is remaining.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, more improvements have been made to the article. I think all issues have been addressed effectively. Can I ask who supports and who opposes the article going to FA status? Thank you again everyone for all of your hard work on this article. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved opposes still from Tony1 and Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colin's items 2,3 and 7 regarding the age of the references have been discussed extensively here and on the Talk page. The bottom line: research on old drugs is sluggish, the most relevant and detailed references tend to be old because there is nothing to update them with. The newer reviews often simply regurgitate the conclusions of the older reviews. In such circumstances the demands for fresh reviews are onerous and unrealistic. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many (or maybe even all) of Tony's opposes have been addressed. I think he just have not visited this page recently to cross them. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of the old reviews were updated but some were not changed as newer sources were not available. I believe Colin was satisfied but has raised some additional points which I am going to address today. A number of Tony's problems have been addressed but will try and address the unaddressed ones today as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support. I supported this article in the original go-round, and it has improved in many ways since then. However, there is still at least one significant POV and summarization issue, with no resolution despite my repeated attempts (see Talk:Benzodiazepine #Paton 2002), and I cannot support it yet. I've tagged the relevant section, until we can resolve the disagreement. Also, Colin's and Tony1's comments weigh heavily with me: the article has changed quite a bit and clearly needs a copy-edit, but before that, the sourcing needs to be improved. In terms of sourcing older and/or primary sources, I fear that the article has gone downhill since I last cataloged the sources (in Talk:Benzodiazepine#Catalog). Eubulides (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Previous problems have been fixed. A further copy-edit would help (where's Tony1 when you need him?), but the article is already of FA quality. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the sourcing needs to be improved" and "In terms of sourcing older and/or primary sources, I fear that the article has gone downhill since I last cataloged the sources". What??? I see that you and Sceptical ended up getting into a fight on article talk page. You are now claiming that this article has sourcing problems when it is 99% secondary sources with most old reviews wherever possible replaced with new ones which in turn led you to supporting the article. I am concerned that because you had a falling out with Sceptical over the paradoxical section that you are now wrongly claiming (perhaps in temper) the article has "gone downhill" in terms of primary sources and older reviews when in reality all but one primary source has been removed and the majority of the older reviews have wherever possible been replaced with newer sources and you were happy to support it.

I don't think either you or Sceptical were interpreting things accurately. I edited the paradoxical section and believe that I have resolved the dispute. I would appreciate it if you would retract your statement that implies that the issue of use of primary sources and older reviews has gotten worse when you know that that issue has been resolved. Why did you make this statement above?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate all of your work in categorising all of the sources according to year of publication and whether they are primary sources or review articles. Please try to appreciate that when I spend hours upon hours upon hours resolving these issues to then see because you and another editor had a fight over a couple of sentences you claiming inaccurately perhaps in temper that this issue hasn't been resolved but has got worse when you know it is resolved is very frustrating.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was resolved after I made my comments about sourcing and POV. I've now struck those comments and changed the "comment" to a "support". Thanks for all the work you've done on the article. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eubulides for clarifying and clearing this up. Much appreciated. I just didn't want other reviewers to get the wrong impressions of the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved

I have done extensive work trying to resolve all issues raised here. I believe that they are all resolved or where I or others disagreed was explained why. I have resolved the issues raised by Eubulides, Colin and Tony1. If you feel issues still have not been resolved and could be please type below so that they can be resolved or else discussed. Please also cross out resolved issues in any comments that you have made. If you do not support the article please explain why. Thank you again for everyones hard work.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I concede I was a little hasty in supporting first time around, but the article has improved significantly, so I am happy to be wrong. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prose needs improving further to reduce possible ambiguities and misunderstandings. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, I have read through this a couple of times - alot of it is quit technical I agree. Can you please give some examples and we can try and fix? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problem is the prose and not the technical nature of the subject matter. Looking at one section on "Alcohol withdrawal": Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference between a planned controlled reduction of alcohol in motivated outpatients, which should probably be called "detox" (or alcohol detoxification) and "alcohol withdrawal syndrome" are confused. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that clordiaxepoxide was in fashion in preference to diazepam in detoxification, because clordiazepoxide is less addictive. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their long half-life makes withdrawal smoother and rebound symptoms less likely to occur." I would have put something like; "The benzodiazepines with a longer half life make detoxification more tolerable and dangerous alcohol withdrawal effects less likely to occur." Perhaps adding something about benzodiazepines being addictive themselves, and the historical use of the chlormethiazole. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are thus not recommended for outpatient detoxification." This statement should be more clearly linked to the shorter half life benzodiazepines, as chlordiazepoxide is use for out-patient alcohol detoxification and taken orally four times per day. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rebound effects are more likely with short-acting benzodiazepines, especially if they are not tapered after alcohol detoxification." This does not specify if the "rebound effects" are of alcohol withdrawal or benzodiazepine withdrawal. The term "alcohol detoxification" is used for the first time in this paragraph and pops up at the end of the sentence, which adds to the confusion about what this section is about - "alcohol detoxification" or "alcohol withdrawal syndrome", or, if it is about both the two, they are confused. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the section on "Other indications": Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "severe pain". Not a notable use, I would have thought. Needs to put this is context of co-prescribing, or remove it. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They bring about anxiety relief and also produce amnesia; which can be useful in this situation, as patients will not be able to remember any unpleasantness from the procedure." For most benzodiazepines the anxiety (should have said "amnesia" - corrected at 19:38, 18 June 2009 by Snowman) is not absolute, I would have thought. Medazolam may need a special mention, in its capacity to induce anmesia an as a premed for endoscopy (including gastroscopy) day cases, and other day case interventions. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some examples include the treatment of tetanus[47] and stiff person syndrome which is a neurological disorder characterized by severe muscle stiffness." Some uncommon or rare disorders here, and I do not think that you get many points for mentioning these before benzodiaepines in thyrotoxicosis. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have made some good points, I need to sleep, but there are quite a few interested in polishing this article up. It was always going to be a big one to do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Elderly": Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Chronic effects of benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine dependence in the elderly can resemble dementia, depression or anxiety syndromes, which worsens over time." What worsens over time? Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image draws attention to the caption: "Adverse effects of benzodiazepines are increased in the elderly. These adverse effects are often mistaken for the effects of old age." Please specify which "adverse effects" are referred to and provide a reference. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the wicket favours critical reviewers. In summary I see problems with the prose almost everywhere I look, and my impression is that the article is nowhere near a FA grade. I suspect that everything will need to be copy edited again and again, word by word, and line by line. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that alcohol withdrawal and alcohol detoxification are confused. The reason that benzodiazepines are prescribed during alcohol detoxification is to manage alcohol withdrawal symptoms or syndrome.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "alcohol withdrawl syndrome" and "alcohol detoxification" are confused. It might happen, but I would not normally expect a person undergoing elective "alcohol detoxification" as an to have a fit as part of "alcohol withdrawal syndrome" whilst on a therapeutic reducing schedule of chlordiaxepoxide tablets, as the medication should prevent this. Fits, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, and "alcohol detoxification" are all mixed up in the same paragraph. Could delirium be confused with "Korsakoff's syndrome"? - the treatment for that is thiamine. Would it be better to say "subdue delirium"? Again I would not normally expect someone undergoing elective outpatient or inpatient therapeutic "alcohol detoxification" to have much in the way of delirium. "Alcohol withdrawal syndrome" can be severe and the severe end has a mortality. Snowman (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen people who have had delerium tremens in a hospital environment despite chlordiazepoxide therapy and was required lorazepam injections to partially relieve it although it is not a typical scenario. Are you saying that you want the terms alcohol withdrawal deleted and replaced with "alcohol detoxification" or just the title of the section changed to alcohol detoxification? I am still not sure that I am following you. Perhaps you should edit the problematic terminology of this section?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have copy edited that section. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chlordiazepoxide is more commonly prescribed for alcohol withdrawal at least in the UK and USA (not sure about other countries). Diazepam is however, a better anticonvulsant so may be preferred by some clinicians for managing alcohol withdrawal. I have referenced that chlordiazepoxide is the most commonly prescribed benzo for alcohol withdrawal.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a niggling doubt wondering what might be used all over the world. Anyway, both diazepam and chlordiazepoxide are reasonably cheep drugs in the west it seems. I suppose "non phamacology" is used most for mild problem drinkers giving a verbal warning about the bad effects of alcohol and advice drinking less. I think drugs would be used at the more severe end of drinking problems. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved next point, reworded sentence using your preferred wording and I also added about the risks of dependence. I am not sure it is worth mentioning about chlormethiazole. It is so very rarely used today, I think it is going too off-topic unnecessarily. I think that it might be relevant to the alcohol related articles though. I started to add about chlormethiazole but then realised I needed to explain to the reader that it wasn't a benzo and then make it relevant to the reader and it really would bring up undue weight and irrelevance to the article section I feel so would rather not add about chlormethiazole. It is certainly relevant from a historical perspective to the alcohol related wiki articles though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only said "I would have put something like; ..." and wrote something that came to mind, and I expect my line could be written better, and I welcome any improvements. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, chormethiazole might be off-topic. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have resolved your next point regarding the short acting benzos not being recommended in ouutpatient detoxification. It is now cleear to the reader that the sentence is only referring to short acting benzos.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resolved the issue by just deleting the bit about rebound effects as it was confusing if it meant alcohol withdrawal or benzo rebound.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severe pain was deleted so this issue is resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your complaint is regarding anxiety not being absolute etc. Some patients are anxious and some aren't, if they are anxious then a benzo often midazolam can help. If proceedure might be traumatic the amnesia effects help. I don't see what you are saying is wrong with that section or paragraph?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant to say "amnesia" is not absolute. I have struck "anxiety" out and added "amnesia" afterwards. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think of my remarks as "helpful comments" which I hope can advance the discussion here and lead to improvements in the article, and not as complaints. Snowman (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry I didn't mean to impply negativity by using the word "complaint". I didn't view your remarks as negative but as productive criticism and productive suggestions which are helping to improve the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have resolved the issues that you have raised regarding the elderly sections.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the side effect of amnesia (or therapeutic effect in this situation) could be achieved with all benzodiazepines if a high enough dose was given. Some benzos are lower potency pharmacodynamically speaking or else just marketed in low potency doses or both which can largely be overcome by giving/taking higher doses of the benzodiazepine. AAnyway have expanded that section using the British National Formulary as a ref.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I am not sure what premeds are given these days. But the article seems to suggest that when a benzodiazepine premed is given the patient immediately forgets everything. Amnesia might be achieved quite quickly with IV high does medazolam or lorazepam, but what if the aim of the premed was to reduce anxiety and it was given in a lower dose perhaps orally the evening before or prior to a ga. I think most patients normally remember going into anaesthetic room prior to g.a. surgery, but they might not remember much about a endogastroscopy (not g.a.) after iv benzodiaepine. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would like you say depend on the dose and route given for the benzo. It would also depend on what were the desired effects that the treating clinician and patient wanted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted rare indications for benzodiazepines for muscle spams. I did a search for thyrotoxicosis and only found a single secondary source for benzos for this indication and it was from 1971 and had no abstract. i spoke to a doctor and enquired about what is usually used for chronic conditions with muscle spasms and was told that it was usually baclofen that is used. I assume that this is because tolerance does not occur with baclofen like it does with benzodiazepines and thus baclofen is a better treatment option long term.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Mehta DK (2009). "4 Central Nervous System". British National Formulary (57th ed.). BMJ Group and RPS Publishing. pp. 183–264." The page range is much too large for quick verifiability, and I think this is unsatisfactory at FA, especially as the book is divided into smaller sections. I have the book and it would be easier to verify, if you put actual page numbers or smaller sections like "section 4.1.1." for each reference point. Why have you put "Mehta DK (2009)". I could not find this person in the long list of contributors, nor any attribution to chapter 4. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can resolve this issue but this means having several references to the same book and chapter but just with different pages. The BNF has a list in the back for tracking down info for alcohol withdrawal, hypnotics anxiolytics so it is not like regular books in that regard so don't think that verification is a problem for anyone who has access to the British National Formulary. Can you confirm that you are ok with having several refs to same book and chapter but just more specific pages? I am just concious of trying to resolve one minor problem but creating more problems.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is worth doing otherwise it could take ages to verify parts of the text and provide proof for a correction. I can not be guessing at where the information came from anywhere from pages 183–264. Someone else asked for more information on this too. There is a way of listing more than one ref on different pages in a book with a "Cited texts" section, and just putting the book and page number in the list of notes. Look at another page where this is done before doing a lot of work on it. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there are many references to the same book, each to a different page range, it's better to have just one full citation to the book (this can be done in Further reading), with the remaining citations being to pages within the book, saying only "BNF 2009" or something like that. Please see Daylight saving time for an example. This sort of thing is quite common in the humanities (see Samuel Johnson for an extreme example, not that I'm recommending that style here!) and it works fairly well. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; I do not think that many articles use a "Further reading" section for "Cited texts". There is a whole log of MOS on this. "Philip Larkin" is a GA to refer too. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall check out the "cited texts", after I have resolved your other points. Looks like a good option. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Philip Larkin and looked at how they did their cites. They didn't use the citation templates and just manually typed between ref tags book title and page number. I know if I follow that suggestion it will get opposed based on consistency of refs. Inline citations using citation templates are an important part of GA and FA articles. I think we need a different solution.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can use citation templates to implement that style. Please see Philitas of Cos for an example: it has three sources used in lots of places (in the References section), with inline citations to specific pages or chapters of each source (in the Notes section). For example, the citation {{cite book |author=Spanoudakis |title= Philitas of Cos |page=26}} generates "Spanoudakis. Philitas of Cos. p. 26." in Notes, with the full citation appearing in References. Citations to other sources are given in full, and appear in Notes. All citations use citation templates. In other words, whether one uses citation templates is independent of whether one factors out full citations to books. This is a relatively minor point, and doesn't affect FA status, so perhaps I'll simply implement it if I find the time. Eubulides (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional comment: on the positive side I think that the section on fits is quite good. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but Colin was responsible for most of the work improving that section. I helped a bit to though. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we close?

I believe that I have resolved almost all of the problems raised by snowmanradio. I am still not completely clear on the problems in the alcohol sections (see discussion above). The other problem was the recommendation of using "cited texts" with in a single reference. I was unable to find any instructions on how to do this. Can anyone provide me with a wiki page which describes this? Are we close to going to FA status? If not, then what remains to be done?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited the alcohol withdrawal section. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new referenced caption for the image of the old lady is good. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a medical article I feel that ambiguities need to be minimised. I have concentrated on four fairly randomly selected sections, to discover what state the article is in overall. My comments were not meant to be a complete list of problems in the article. Also, a reviewer above said that his list was not meant to be an exhaustive list of problems. One section I looked at was good, two sections have been tidied up a bit, and one has been almost completely rewritten. What about the rest of the article which I have not commented on? I think that the article needs a lot of improvements before it is near FA. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree on the importance on removing ambiguities. The other sections though I feel are in a lot better shape than the ones you reviewed. I have requested the help of an experienced copy-editor (Matissee) who thank God has kindly agreed to help out with this article, as I am finding resolving the final issues very stressful. Hopefully she can help nudge the article forward towards a featured article status. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about asking Matissee to help out too. I am glad that she has done some copy editing because I think she is very good with English grammar. I feel more relaxed already. Snowman (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved

Matisse appears to have finished copyediting the article, this I felt was the final issue that needed to be resolved. I feel that I have resolved the issues raised by reviewers. I really think that the article is up to FA standard and infact believe the article is of a higher standard than a lot of other FA articles (but I have a little bias hehe). I would kindly request reviewers to give the article a final review and either support the nomination or point out what remains to be done. I do appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into this article, reviewing it, making constructive criticisms and editing the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • BNF page numbers have only just become available today, so I expect people will be checking them over the next few days. Could diazepam and chlordiazepoxide be included in the "Pharmacokinetics" section? Much is made of the half-lives of these drugs in the rest of the page, so it would seem reasonable to give them a mention in this section. Could the reference points be placed more directly with the text in this section to indicate where the information has come from? Snowman (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four links to disambiguation pages have now been fixed (one of the links was to Z-drugs which was IMHO misclassified as a disambiguation page. I have therefore removed the {{disambiguation}} template from this article. Boghog2 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks on return. I've withdrawn my oppose, but there are still glitches. Further copy-editing, if this is promoted, would be welcome—there's not a lot to do, but it requires careful eyes to pick out the occasional ambiguities and looseness in the expression. I've made a few light copy-edits at the top.

  • "The first benzodiazepine, chlordiazepoxide (Librium), discovered accidentally by Leo Sternbach, was marketed from 1960 by Hoffmann–La Roche, who also marketed diazepam (Valium) from 1963." Can you insert "in [year]"? I think I winkled 1955 out of the text below; seems kind of important (and an amazingly short R&D track). "who" --> "which", if you're referrring to Roche and not Sternbach.
  • There's a rule concerning "the": when there's an "of" on the right, use a "the" on the left. It's not incontrovertible, but it's the default. "Therapeutic properties of benzodiazepines are mediated by enhancing the effect of the inhibitory neurotransmitter ..."; needs to start with "The thera...": presumably you're referring to all of them, or at least all of the ones we commonly know about.
  • Are these equative or exclusive "or"s? "cognitive impairments or paradoxical effects such as occasional aggression or behavioral disinhibition occasionally occur." If the former, please use parentheses: "cognitive impairments (paradoxical effects) such as ...". I suspect the second occurrence is exclusive; if not, please use "and". "Or" is dangerous in English, I tell non-natives and natives alike. Another problem: do you mean they might "occasionally occur" in most or every patient? Probably not; if you want to convey that these are relatively rare, you might consider saying "occasional c. i. have been recorded/observed", or something like that. Sorry to be fussy. Tony (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS After conferring with User:Noetica, I think the best is: "Benzodiazepines are generally safe and effective in the short term, although cognitive impairments, or paradoxical effects such as aggression or behavioral disinhibition, occasionally occur." Still the issue of the last two words, though. Tony (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It has been argued that long term use of hypnotics and over prescribing of these drugs represents an unjustifiable risk to the individual and to public health in general, especially in the elderly." This seems to be an imbalanced comment. Who is arguing this? Presumably there is a counter argument. Are there exceptions and for who? How is over prescribing quantified? What is the unjustifiable risk to an individual? What is the unjustifiable risk to public health? Snowman (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much is made of the half-lives of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam in the article, but they are not included in the "Pharmacokinetics" section. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no argument that hypnotics lose their benefits after a matter of days or weeks. Not even the drug companies argue that they remain effective because it is proven via EEG studies and the risks such as increased motor vehicle accidents and next day sedation aren't really disputed either. So really anyone advocating chronic benzo hypnotics would be arguing we should give these drugs even though they do not work and they would have to argue they are completely without any adverse risks. I will try and track down the full text of that article to get the more finer details of the unjustifiable risks. I would imagine it would be cognitive impairment, road traffic accidents and dependence. It is a bit like drinking a couple of pints and getting behind teh wheel would be a risk to public health.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I support Snowmanradio's observations above and have added my own comments on the talk page. I think this article is near FA, but it seems to promote global, generalized statements that are accepted by the establishment but unsupported by the research literature on the long term risk/benefits of benzodiazepine use. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

I am finding the editing environment intolerable. I feel like I am under attack by medically illiterate people. For example I explained to Sceptical that CT scans don't measure neuron function but only measure brain structure changes. He either thought I was mistaken or ignored me and continued edit warring and denouncing refs based on his lack of understanding of what a CT scan is. Then Mattissa is attacking me with her original research for example, saying things like there is no way benzos could cause convulsions from abrupt high dose withdrawal and I am biased for even suggesting this, she had a "fit" when I mentioned this doesn't happen with opiates. Her evidence, things like well it is Schedule IV so therefore withdrawal has to be mild. I spent 5 or 6 hours refuting all of her original research with refs. She denounced National Statistics of drug related deaths as propaganda, implying some government conspiracy involving hundred of coroners faking lots of dead people and lab results. Furthermore a lot of these arguments were totally off-topic as I was not challenging the article content such as overdose section so it was a pointless argument. I feel under attack by scientifically illiterate people who have gotten ideas in their head. Today really is the final straw when Sceptical bombarded me with various wikipedia policies which really denounced his actions. He deleted a reffed sentence which I can actually add half a dozen or more refs to back it up if necessary so that only the view of tolerance doesn't happen when I had both views cited. He only wanted his one which was uncontrolled questionaire based trials. I can't work in this environment unless someone with some basic medical knowledge can come along to refute all of this gibberish like accusing me of bias for saying convulsions can occur from abrupt withdrawal. I wouldn't jump onto an article on a subject matter I didn't understand and start stating what is factual and what is not. Are there any doctors who can come on the talk page and just start responding to some of this stuff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The environment has been like this really from the beginning of FA review, have tried dispute resolution, trying to reason with people, compromise, nothing works. It has now escalated as I now have two people with very little knowledge of addiction medicine or medicine in general edit warring with me or bombarding me on the talk page with original research POV stuff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think like I have always thought that this FA should be closed and abandoned.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have made some helpful comments and edits to the article but it is all canceled out with the above problems whcih paralyse me from improving the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved

Today seemed a bit drama free and was able to find the time addressing the issues raised. I believe that I have resolved the remaining issues of this article. I think that the article is ready for FA promotion now. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need intervention from this community

Extensive vandalism of this article with NO intervention from any editors. I am left to defend the article against SEVERE trolling from Sceptical Chymist. I am battling vandalism where systematic review article keeps getting deleted and replaced with weak uncontrolled studies ONLY allowed by OWNERSHIP trolling Sceptical Chymist. He has throughout this pretty much ignored any points and just replies with propaganda such as bombarding me with wiki policies which don't even apply to my editing but to his VANDALISING editing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for weeks and is immune from politeness, compromising, discussion (I get ignored) or anything. Just obsessive distorting the evidence base using weaker sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also had issues with Mattisse but she stopped when I challenged her so I am forgive and forget but issue with Sceptical is I have an obsessive guy who has some "idea in his head" that he must defend to the death with weaker sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intervened and supported Literaturegeek originally by copy editing and clarifying the text and removing {{pov}} and a {{clarifyme}} tags, and others eg [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. I maintain my position that statements made need to be supported by recent peer-reviewed articles, and where uncertainty exists over facts because sufficient relevant research has not been done, that needs to be acknowledged in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was done Mattiesse. You just claimed using original research to claim that really this or that should happen. You are welcome to find secondary sources which say xyz. We can't go doing original research to make article say xyz or go deleting systematic reviews, faking refs using weak reviews which quote a single 1980 source to then go deleting systematic reviews. This destroys an article, distorts hard evidence and Sceptical's original research and edit warring and failure to discuss points is indefensibly and I stand by that. Please don't use original research to continue to criticise me or the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what you meant by last sentence. I agree with your oppose and tried to close this FA down early on as I knew I was being trolled. I know the difference between content dispute and being trolled and disruptive editors. I submit there is no choice but to close this FA. Based on the lack of community intervention there is no point reopening it for FA candidate as it will be trolled again. I can't devote 6 hours per day fighting against vandalism and trolling, I haven't the time and don't want to get an edit war block.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Mattisse she did try to intervene intially and I do appreciate her doing that and also the copy editing. She did tread on my toes when she kept criticising edits based her perceived view of the suubject matter, I feel she got sucked in by Sceptical Chymist being not medically trained or knowledgable on the subject matter and thought I was misrepresenting the evidence by saying abrupt withdrawal can cause seizures and similar complaints. I am happy to give Mattisse the benefit of the doubt and accept that her actions were well intentioned. Nobody is perfect, I myself lost my temper and have been uncivil but feel who wouldn't after weeks of trolling by Sceptical Chymist. The sooner this FA is closed down the better I feel. Trust me I don't want this to be the case but admins don't take trolling seriously, always label it a content dispute and so forth or even side with the troll and sockpuppet based on past experiences. This article should not be renominated for FA.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to fight back against all the smears of this troll, any reviewer here or checking FA archive history can see how many times I compromised, deleting Crime section, deleting the data on one third of people becoming suicidal after abrupt withdrawal in pregnancy and on and on. I deleted statement after statement, compromised and compromised some more, trying to get this article to FA status. I believe my efforts have been honorable and NPOV and followed MEDRS and so forth. I may have come across POV at times but that was because I was in a battle with a troll and was in "defense" mode fighting original research, faked references and so forth, trying to defend the article and get it to FA. Anyway I have said my piece, just close this FA down.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, clearly an unstable article. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose as well. I support closing, so agree with Physchim62 and Stifle. I warned people early on about the problems with Sceptical, which was why I tried to close it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a withdrawal request? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless you want to hang about for a week or 2 for dispute resolution. I can't revert anymore (or I will be blocked for 3rr) against what I regard as original research and misrepresenting refs, deleting systematic reviews because an editor doesn't like them, debunking clinical guidelines as being extremist by abusing refs and making them say what they don't say and so on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:22, 23 June 2009 [25].

United States Senate election in California, 1950[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. Despite the rather dull title, this was one of the most famous Senate races of the past century, between Nixon and Helen Douglas. I think it does them all justice in an article in which there are few admirable people.Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not bad, but right off the bat I have one issue.

  • Descriptive titles should not be bolded within the lead. I know this can be a contentious issue, but I think it creates awkward first sentences when one tries to un-naturally cram all the words from the title together. I think it would read better as "The United States Senate election in California of November 7, 1950, is still remembered for its contentious nature..." or something like that. I don't think we need to be reminded twice that the election occurred in 1950. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 06:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play with it a bit, perhaps use different wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your sources for the election results tables? Any why are some of the fields not filled in (percentages and totals)? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General election is from here. As for the primaries, they are from Gellman, I can give you a page number if it helps. I don't have the total number of votes in the primaries so can't give exact percentages, there may have been write in ballots. I am going to California in July and intend to look at the official Statements of Vote at the Nixon Library (probably July 21). I discussed this at peer review, and the reviewer (Brianboulton) saw no reason why this should hold up FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No offense but I disagree. FAC criteria 1b requires that an article be comprehensive. Personally I would suggest waiting until the article is complete before nominating, but that is just my opinion. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'm just going to withdraw it, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise its a good article. You can wait and see if anybody disagrees with me, but that is up to you. Generally speaking, a table with missing information is not really something we want to be "featured". Comprehensiveness is part of the criteria, and obviously the information is available, so it would be prudent to wait until the article is finished and "complete". Otherwise my vote would be support. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a valid point. I'll notify you when the table is filled in, and hope you will support then. It was a point I brought up at PR. I'll get the official Statement of Vote, and the article will be the better for it. Besides, I need to push Matthew Boulton through if I can since there are celebrations of him on the 200th anniversary of death in August and I'd like to see if I can get that to TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Organization looks good, but it needs some serious copyediting. Just in the lead, there's no full stop at the end of the last sentence of the second paragraph, "Nixon and Douglas won their party's primary..." should read "Nixon and Douglas won their parties' primaries" (or "Nixon and Douglas each won their party's primary", if you're into the singular "their", which I'm not), etc. I can commit to doing some copyediting, but I probably won't do enough to get it to FA level, so if you can recruit someone else that would probably be beneficial. Given sufficient copyediting, I expect to be able to support this by the end of its candidacy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...accusing him of being a do-nothing, a tool of big business, and an agent of oil interests." Are any of these direct quotes? If so, she should be in quotation marks. If not, I think the tone may be somewhat informal for a Wikipedia article.
  • Throughout the article you refer to the California State Assembly as "the House"; is this not just a colloquial nickname?
  • What is the source for the statement that financing was an issue for Douglas? It initially appeared not long before a citation to Gellman 292; is that the source that supports it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the California State Assembly is ever referred to. House is short for House of Representatives, and is commonly used. I'll throw in a pipe to it. The accusations are a very close paraphrase of what is actually said. Yes, it is Gellman 292, I'll throw in a cite. I've asked Mattisse to do some copyediting on the article, but your help would be welcome as well. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. SI, somthing in the article must have given you the impression that Nixon and Douglas were members of the California State Assembly. That isn't the case. They were members of the United States House of Representatives. I've restored the language, but made things rather clearer. Hope that clears up any confusion. And I've deleted the sentence about the fundraising entirely, the way you've reorganized that section it is rather an orphan and repetitive of what's alreay in there!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I shit the bed on that one; thanks for fixing it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quote from Ambrose (page 209, it is available in Google books here "She accused Downey of having a do-nothing record in Congress and of being a tool of big business. She claimed the California oilmen had Downey in their pocket."--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Other images are verifiably free and properly tagged. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do on these, and since I'm not an image hawk, might need a bit of help.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've taken care of the image concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:20, 23 June 2009 [26].

Valkyrie[edit]

Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article because I think it meets all of the requirements. It's been a GA article for some time now after a very extensive GA review. I've held off nominating this article for a while because I wanted to bring a number of articles associated with it up to GA status (since they would also get a lot of hits upon promotion of this article). I've since done so with several articles that needed it (Einherjar, Valhalla, Fólkvangr) and created List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology to go with it (now a Featured List). It has since become very clear that, unfortunately, articles such as Odin, Frigg, and Freyja that are linked from here really need total rewrites but are extensive undertakings that will take a while to get the attention they deserve. Once they get those rewrites they'll be in FAR territory, but in the mean time I figured I may as well nominate this one here and see what happens. Anyway, enjoy the article! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick pointers from Otterathome (talk)
  1. Currently 2 dab links.
  2. There are a large amount of images, are they really all appropriate and helpful?
  3. Add {{clear}} above notes header to stop wrapping due to image.
  4. No external links?
  5. How about a further reading section? (WP:FURTHER)
  6. Only 1 category?--Otterathome (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think one was just taken care of by another editor.. Where is the other?
  2. I think all of the images in the article appropriately illustrate their given sections.
  3. Done.
  4. I see no need for any external links. There is no website that I would link to from this article. This article trounces any other website out there that I've seen handling the subject.
  5. I think the references provided are appropriate enough for further reading, and outside of these references, there's nothing I would recommend for the purpose of further reading outside of alternate translations of primary sources currently listed.. and I don't think that would make for an appropriate "further reading" section.
  6. Indeed, the article is listed under the single category of category:valkyries. I can't think of any appropriate categories for the article other than this that are not presumptive or original research. I think that's the most appropriate way of handling the matter.
Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about having external links. Even if they don't even compare to this they are more useful to have than just names of books. Linking what you already have to Google Books would be fine. One of my feelings is that, as a student, I would use Wikipedia to do research, but my teacher won't let me cite it, so this should be a starting point. Reywas92Talk 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Bloodofox, I really can't think of any other pages to link to on the internet. However, Reywas92's suggestion about Google Books is very constructive. I will add GB links right away. –Holt (T•C) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Feel free to adjust. –Holt (T•C) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do this, Holt. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the dab links, the Atli one needs to be fixed, but Classical mythology is supposed to be like that. I don't know which Atli we're speaking of, so I haven't taken care of it. –Holt (T•C) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'm going to go through the article more thoroughly later, but I find the article incomplete without any of shield maidens (conflated in many stories, parallel in others and in tradition) and mention of Wagner is extremely limited along with there being no mention of the Völsunga beyond the lead. The article is less than 60k in size, so an expansion could be in order. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shield maiden connection is handled in the origins and development section. Valkyries get a single mention in Völsunga saga, which occurs during the flyting between Sinfjötli and Guðmundr, where Sinfjötli accuses Guðmundr of having once been one. Note that both are male. I don't know if the Völsunga saga echo should be handled here; it's a direct echo of the flyting in Helgakviða Hundingsbana I converted to prose form and the potential implications of it are handled in the Runic inscriptions section. I don't see why we need anything other than a quick mention of Wagner, though bringing in a source that mentions that his work was responsible for repopularizing the notion of valkyries among the general public would be a good addition. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence on each of the above should suffice. Nothing major. The reason why I mentioned shieldmaiden is during my check on the wiki versions Brynhildr and from personal knowledge. As the page says, she was a main character in the Völsunga saga (but there is that parallel). You could mention this parallel in the Prose Edda section following the line: "Sigurd cuts the mail from her, and she awakes and says her name is Hildr and "she is known as Brynhildr, and was a valkyrie."" The reason why I missed the shield maiden is the source addressing them as "shield girls". Quite strange. :) In the Valkyrie names section, you could mention Brynhildr and the different names per Wagner et al. This would allow you to put in another connection between the Edda, Völsunga saga, and Wagner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the "shield girls" thing is a bit odd too, and it's presumably due to the sometimes weird English translation of the work it's quoted from. I should point out that Brynhildr is only directly referred to as a valkyrie in the Prose Edda section you've mentioned above, and she appears not only in Völsunga saga as a main figure but also in various other forms of the cycle (for example, the famous Nibelungenlied, where she is referred to as a queen of Iceland, and so forth). I think the wise move would be to just limit it to where she is referred to as a valkyrie and let readers click her name to see where else she appears. As for Wagner's work, I think it would be best to limit mentions of him and other modern adaptations to the "Modern influence" section. Wagner's sources of inspiration could be mentioned with the composition of his work, but wouldn't that be obvious enough and best handled in depth on the individual articles of the works themselves? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to Wagner, to be honest. I think I'll wait to see what other people say. If no one sees it as a problem, then I wouldn't bother expanding. I just have a thing for Wagner and the Völsunga saga (along with the Nibelungenlied) as I am descended from the Burgundians and it was of early interest to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, then I highly recommend a visit to the island of Bornholm (if you haven't already been there). It's a beautiful place with lots of history, and it's very interesting to see where it all likely began for the Burgundians! :bloodofox: (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are at least 15 quotes. Most of them English literal translations of Norse poetic texts. Can't those be converted to prose? Please do so for better readability. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material that is quoted is material that is difficult to summarize or interpret. I've tried to convert as much of the article into prose as possible; some of this material cannot be converted into prose without warping the meaning - some of it open to numerous theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While the article is extensive and fairly comprehensive, (see ottava Rima on Wagner and Shield Maidens) it does not at the moment meet the required standard. The main problems I see are:
  • Prose quality. The prose in the lead and elsewhere is clumsy and poor, requiring a thorough copy-edit. Too many brackets, too many unexplained terms, poor sentence structure. Sometimes it is hard to determine the meaning of sentences.
  • The lead itself does not effectively summarise the whole article, as it should according to WP guidance.
  • Arrangement. The article begins with a long series of "attestations", which seem to be a series of Valkyrie legends and stories taken from different sources. While this material is of interest, it is poorly translated and summarised and in the wrong place. This sort of exemplifying material should be low down within the article. The material in "Origins and development" should logically come first in the article, after Etymology, and much of the other descriptive and archaeological material should also appear before the stories. Description should come first and examples later.
These are three quite major problems that will need a lot of work to make the article FA standard. Xandar 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I direct you to my responses to Ottava regarding Wagner and Shield Maidens. The material is there. If you have further qualms regarding it, please provide details as to exactly what you mean or what needs to be added.
  2. Give me some examples, otherwise I presume you're simply unaware of the inherent issues with the fact that much of this material comes from verse poetry. Previous thorough reviews don't seem to have had this problem.
  3. Specifics please. The lead summarizes the article as far as I can tell, and I have yet to hear this issue from someone else (including the nigh 40 GA articles I've written on material from Norse mythology).
  4. The attestations are just that: attestations. This is the material being discussed, and therefore it's presented first. Without it, the rest makes no sense at all, as all arguments and theories are based on the material in the attestation section, which one must be familiar with first before attempting to make sense of the theories and arguments. The attestations are the meat of the article. With all other Germanic mythology articles we bring out the attestations section first; it's logical and essentially a requirement as this is where the information regarding the figures being discussed is. The theories are based off of this material. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.You can work those matters out with Ottava
2.It doesn't matter where the material comes from, the Featured Article standards specify "professional standard prose". Although this can be interpreted loosely, prose that is hard to understand and convoluted does not come near to meeting that standard. Featured Articles represent the best of Wikipedia, therefore standards are higher than for other review levels.
Some examples of prose problems.
  • In Norse mythology, a valkyrie (from the Old Norse valkyrja, meaning "chooser of the slain"[1]) is one of a host of female figures who choose those who die in battle. The valkyries bring their chosen who have died bravely in battle to the afterlife hall of the slain, Valhalla, ruled over by the god Odin, where the deceased warriors become einherjar.
The first sentence is ambiguous. They "choose" those who die in battle for what - marriage? It isn't stated. Some information is in the second sentence, which repeats information about choosing from the first. It then states that the deceased warriors become "einherjar", while giving no idea what this obscure word might mean, or what the purpose is. Providing a link is not enough - this information should be clearly in the article.
  • Valkyries are attested in the Poetic Edda, compiled in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources; the Prose Edda and Heimskringla, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson; Njáls saga, a Saga of Icelanders written in the 13th century; throughout the poetry of skalds, in a 14th century charm, and in various runic inscriptions.
The word "attested" seems obscure and a form of jargon as used here. It would be clearer to say something like "Valkyries appear in many Norse mythological works including..." The sentence is also such a long list that it needs breaking up for comprehensability. A second sentence, following the description of Njal's saga would help solve this problem.
  • Other terms for valkyries include óskmey (Old Norse "wish girl"), appearing in the poem Oddrúnargrátr, and Óðins meyar (Old Norse "Odin's girls").
Do both terms appear in the poem, or only one? The translations: "wish girl" and "Odin's girls" are poor, since "girl" should not be used in this context (giving the wrong impression), "maiden" would be the standard usage in this context.
  • In stanza 30 of the poem Völuspá, a völva tells Odin that "she saw" valkyries coming from far away who are ready to ride to "the realm of the gods." The völva follows this with a list of 6 valkyries: Skuld (Old Norse, possibly "debt" or "future") who "bore a shield," Skögul ("shaker") who "was with her," Gunnr ("war"), Hildr ("battle"), Göndul ("wand-wielder"), and Geirskögul (Old Norse "Spear-Skögul"). Afterward, the völva says that she has listed the "ladies of the War Lord, ready to ride, valkyries, over the earth
This like many of the passages in the Old Norse attestations section, is horrible! What is a "volva"? We have to guess. The sentence mixes past and present tense confusingly. "she saw" does not need quotation marks. The context of the sighting is unexplained, however we have lengthy bracketed and often vague translations of the names of the valkyries. The final sentence is also poorly translated and confusingly set out.
  • In the poem Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, a prose narrative says that the unnamed and silent young man (son of the Norwegian King Hjörvarðr and Sigrlinn of Sváfaland) sits atop a burial mound and witnesses nine valkyries riding by. He finds one of the nine particularly striking (this valkyrie is explained later in a prose narrative as named Sváva, the daughter of king Eylimi, and who "often protected him in battles"), and the valkyrie speaks to him.
Similar problems. Information is put in lengthy brackets, mid-sentence, which should be properly set out in separate sentences. ... "the unnamed man" - we don't know him, so should be "an unnamed man" .... "sits atop" - should be "sits on top of"
  • This is followed by "I send you, I look at you, wolfish perversion, and unbearable desire, may distress descend on you and jöluns wrath. Never shall you sit, never shall you sleep ... (that you) love me as yourself." Poor translation. This could almost still be in Old Norse for all the sense it makes.
There are many more passages like this.
3. MOS:INTRO states that the lead should summarise the article in a way that it could stand on its own as a mini-article. Archaeology and runic sources are barely referred to, and as a whole the lead tells us little about the subject. Also the fact that you have written 40 articles leads me to the thought that perhaps these articles contain problems because they haven't had the necessary time spent on polishing and refining them.
4. The "attestations". You say that this is the material being discussed, so it is presented first. But this is the wrong way round. This is not an essay, and Wikipedia articles should be set out in an encyclopedic manner. The policy WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources like the poems and myths that fill the initial sections of this article, should be used only with care. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources. But what the article does at present is to set out a series of primary sources, expecting the reader to glean information piecemeal from these sources. This is not an article. Clear explanation and description gleaned from reliable secondary sources should form the first part of the article. The primary sources or "attestations" should be at the end of the article, and material at present hidden at the bottom of the article, needs to be moved up. Xandar 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Article Rhinemaidens provides a good example of how to handle a related subject. Xandar 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The Rhinemaidens are a modern literary creation from a single source, whereas valkyries are an element of Germanic paganism from multiple, at times conflicting sources, nor do scholars come to an underlining agreement about the implications of these sources or the underlining belief in valkyries as a whole. You simply cannot create an essay-form article out of the subject of valkyries like you can with Wagner's Rhinemaidens and hope to be at all as accurate or neutral as the article is now. This is why things like "she saw" are in quotes - it is not clear exactly what she means; she's suddenly speaking in third person and may or may not be in some sort of trance or simply remembering something. This is verse poetry we're dealing with here. Furthermore, an einherjar is exactly what the article describes in the introduction - it couldn't be anymore clear. I haven't had time to respond to your FAC comments, and it looks like I may need to pull this article from it soon as I don't think I'll have time to go through the FAC process here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between summarising verse and summarising prose. You are just summarising ideas and setting them in readable prose. However I do think a good amount of time is needed to polish an article for FA. I'm not out to "get" you. I just can't see this article as reaching the required level. As for an example of a featured article dealing with folklore from many sources, try looking at Vampire. Xandar 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think his main point is that it's easy to make a coherent readable summary of a single coherent artistic work by a single author. It's a lot harder to readably summarize a number of disparate—possibly contradictory—accounts from numerous sources, in prose and in verse. Vampires are different in the other direction - there are so very many variants that the only practical thing is to summarize secondary sources. With valkyries it's still possible to give a decent overview of all the important primary sources and I'm very glad Bloodofox has done that, I think that makes the article very useful - regardless of whether it should be a featured article or not.
When writing about mythical, legendary or fictional material there's certainly nothing wrong with spending a significant part of the article summarizing the original literary accounts (i.e. "the primary sources") - the Rhinemaidens article doesn't shirk from that. The question is whether the valkyrie article can be made a bit more readable without going into WP:SYNTH territory (which I know Bloodofox is keen to avoid). Haukur (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Could be sifted through for polishing. These are just at random—

  • Why was "host" linked to Wictionary? If it was going to stay, please note that your selection of "Noun 2 (second meaning) was hidden from the readers. But it shouldn't stay.
  • 13th century, but 14th-century charm. I corrected it, but there are other examples.
  • What does "various" add? What does "several" add (we know it's more than one from the plural; does several mean three? six? ten? Better to remove.
  • "twelve" but "11th"?
  • Hate "theorized", multiple times; maybe it's a personal quirk of mine.
  • MoS breach: external punctuation, please: "... appears commonly as simply a term for "woman," just as ...
  • "shield girls — Irish female warriors"—MoS breach: em dashes unspaced or en dashes spaced when interrupters. Tony (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address a few of your concerns:

  1. Some time back I linked "host" to the wiktionary since I was unsure whether that usage was particularly common. However, since English is not my first language, I shouldn't be the ultimate judge of the linking.
  2. Corrected the rest [27].
  3. I'll leave this to someone more proficient in English and its nuances.
  4. Same as above.
  5. It can get repetitive, but in lack of any other word bearing the same clear meaning, I have nothing else to suggest.
  6. Fixed.
  7. Being a direct quote, we can't do anything about mr. Simek's quirky punctuation habits.

Feel free to report more. –Holt (T•C) 12:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After reading the oppose of Xandar, I undertsnd his point. But I think that this topic does not seem to be covered by such an amount of complex coherent sources that an article in the manner of Vampire would result: Vampire is generally known and popular mythical creature that appears to have almost a final united form and is covered by immense number of sources due to his overall popularity. Valkyrie is more of a mythological and generally minor creature compared to Vampire, which is rather more folkloric (therefore much better covered by sources) and can not be compared with the other one. I think that the topic is in this article covered brilliantly. The style rather than to create its own picture of Valkyrie, it fluently and adequately sums up and explains the provided sources. Of course this picture is not complete, but it is as complete as the sources are. I didn't have any significant problems while reading it and I think it covers all of the WP:FACR.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is one of the best we have on Old Norse and Germanic topics on Wikipedia, and most definitely the best and most comprehensive article on valkyries that exists on the internet. It covers the topic in an excellent manner, and is well referenced with important secondary sources suitable for further study. I am familiar with the primary sources (and the secondary sources, for that sake) that are used in this article, and I must say that Bloodofox has handled the summaries of both the prose and the verse excellently. When summarising verse you can easily land in a quagmire of inaccuracy and blatant errors due to the ambiguity and linguistic complications of Old Norse poetry. Bloodofox has carefully evaded these problems, and written the summaries of the primary sources in a way that is very suitable for Wikipedia and its policies. When the translations themselves are hard to understand, the author should of course not make any attempt at interpreting the translations, but rather quote them. I think it meets all requirements of WP:FACR, and see no valid reason to why the article should not be promoted. Xandar has given some constructive criticism, but in the end his arguments about professional prose etc. are not tenable, as this is a special case in terms of primary sources we are dealing with. –Holt (T•C) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion remains that this article is not up to standard on quality of prose (numerous examples given), and format. Valkyries are not such an obscure subject that there are not suitable secondary sources, and a simple rearrangement and copyedit of content would do much to raise the standard. Since no attempt has been made to deal with these points, my objection remains. Xandar 23:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your position, but I do not fully agree with you. I will have a closer look at the examples you have given and see if there is any room for copy editing without changing the meaning of the text. –Holt (T•C) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image quibble as follows:

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thanks for pointing it out. –Holt (T•C) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad General Support. The article is a well-researched, comprehensive treatment of its topic. In my view, it meets the featured article criteria for length, images, referencing, appropriate structure and lead, stability, neutrality, sourcing, and comprehensiveness.

The valkyries are creatures from Germanic mythology, with most information circa 13th century. The extant manuscripts do not lend themselves easily to a clear flow of narrative. There are inconsistencies, lost segments, plus contrasting translations and interpretations; the primary sources marry verse and prose, with varying clarity.

A reviewer commented above (and on the FAC talkpage) they believe the article substantially fails to meet requirements of a concise lead giving an effective summary of the article, and suffers from very poor writing and structure. I disagree. I think the lead acceptable and the structure effective; the alternative structure suggested might work, but I don't see either structure as inferior. The current structure comprises etymology, attestations, and scholarly theories. That sequence is used in many Norse mythology articles assessed as Good by reviewers—some of whom have many featured articles under their belt, and many of whom are among the most highly respected and experienced reviewers in the GA project. Of course, this isn't GAC; however, if such a critical structural flaw were present it's reasonable to expect it would have been raised before.

The remaining criterion is "engaging, even brilliant" prose. For me, it's something hard to quantify, but I know it when I see it. King Arthur is one article where I saw it. Interestingly, two articles linked from that one—Y Gododdin and Historia Regum Britanniae are closer in structure to Valkyrie than the style proposed above. Here, I think the prose in the article strong, but the situation complicated by the material, which means lots of "foreign" and archaic terms. I'm swayed by Tony having given it a light copyedit; and, while it may benefit from still futher polishing (hence 'broad' 'general' caveats), I support its promotion. –Whitehorse1 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this view. Haukur (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even leaving structural issues aside, at the very least the article needs a full and thoroughgoing copy edit. There is no sign of this having happened to the necessary extent. The wording at present is IMO not good enough to represent Wikipedia as a feature article. I don't know if this is the case, but the article gives the strong impression of having been written by someone whose first language is not English. The majority of the problems of the article are caused by the poor quality english which makes comprehension very difficult. It is quite possible to make comprehensible translations of norse poetry; see example on this page. It is also possible to write good prose articles on the subject. (see Britannica). However most of my comments have not been addressed. Even the use of the inappropriate word "girls" (made also by another reviewer) has not been altered. I would advise that individual members of the Guild of copy editors be requested to take on the task of rewording the article. Xandar 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xander, you are very clearly unfamiliar with the sources at hand. Old Norse poetry is infamous for being archaic, cryptic, and outright mysterious; the older the poem the more so. We must be careful, as always, to cite our sources directly and avoid WP:SYNTH. You may want to read the extensive GA review this article has seen, as it may well answer some of your questions: Talk:Valkyrie/GA1. The "girls" thing is a directly attributed quote. There is likely e a reason for the choice on the part of the translator, but it's not our call to make. We can, however, cite another translation next to it if needed. My native language is English (thanks). The Britannica article is an extremely simple overview that goes into no detail and is of little value. Our introduction stomps it. The misinformation-pushing external link you've posted above does not summarize anything, it just outright posts a translation of Darraðarljóð (and does not credit the translator..). In fact, we cover Darraðarljóð far more accurately, neutrally, and extensively (and largely in prose, might I add..): Valkyrie#Nj.C3.A1ls_saga. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object -

  • title ought to be labelled "Valkyrie (Norse mythology)" or "Valkyrie (Mythology)"

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the primary topic. There are hat notes at the top of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

  • I am a little puzzled at the structure of this (and some other related articles eg. Valhalla, Odin). While a tremendous amount of work has gone in to the article, I think I in general agree with Xandar. I hate to say this, but it just doesn't read like an encyclopedia article for a lay person. It reads somewhat as though put together by specialists or experts in the field using a structure that I expect would be of value: to specialists or experts in the field. Bloodofox's remark above - "Xander, you are very clearly unfamiliar with the sources at hand" - is itself revealing. Let me state up front that I am in the same boat as Xander - which would make me well-qualified to be a reviewer of this as an encyclopedia entry, I would have thought.
  • There should be a 'middle way' here. The extensive recitation of "attestations" (a technical term which I have come across previously in articles in this field) does appear to raise issues in respect of WP:PRIMARY, while I accept that the diverse nature of accounts of Valkyries in these items is itself important to the subject. Perhaps I will be howled down, but I suggest that the attestations section be reduced to a few paragraphs which summarise the range of attributes and roles played by Valkyries in the eddas and sagas, then (I think?) go to archaeological record, then more or less on to "origins and development", which I would have thought would be the heart of this as an encyclopedia article.
  • An alternative (or additional) option would be to have a separate WP article, "List of accounts of Valkyries in the eddas and sagas", which would be a table containing a version of the text of the first half of the current article.
  • An editor has remarked during discussion, above, "The extant manuscripts do not lend themselves easily to a clear flow of narrative." True, and that is where we as editors, pulling together the secondary sources, should come in. By the time we are done, I think we should have created a clear flow of narrative that guides the lay reader through the otherwise arcane and complex environment of the 13th century sources.
  • Related to the above, I had trouble following the section titled "Theories". We just jump, without any introduction, straight in to some material about ways in which the concept of Valkyrie may (or may not) have been used in other contexts. As a lay person I could not really follow this discussion.
  • Separate to the above structural issue, the article needs copyediting, with problems evident from the first sentence of the lead: "...a host of female figures who decide among those who die in battle." The expression "decide among those who die in battle" does not make sense unless in the same sentence as "bring these chosen warriors". An improvement might be: "a host of female figures who select, from amongst those who die in battle, the warriors whom in the afterlife shall be brought to the hall of the slain, Valhalla, ruled over by the god Odin." But this is one of many phrases that could be improved: "...dwelt in a house sited in a location called..."; "...asks her what gift he will receive with the name she has bestowed upon him, yet that he will not accept it if he cannot have her as well..."; "...to assist Sigrún in her plight to avoid her betrothment" are some other examples from early in the article.
  • The section "Origins and development" feels underdone: each paragraph is a summary of one scholarly work, with long quotes, and not much attempt to bring the various sources together and summarise by theme, issue, time period or any other criteria / framework.
  • In conclusion, I am moderately experienced at GA review, while very new to FA, and I am unsure why I seem to be out of synch with the support several editors have given the article. If I am a long way off base here, I hope someone will - civilly - give me a run-down on why, either here or at my talk page. If this article does not make it through this FAC, I would welcome being contacted and asked to cooperate with improvements at the article in future. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, here is the main problem with your comments and Xandar's: the verse poetry is what it is. It cannot be turned into an easily-chewed and digested essay. The reason for this is because the verse poetry is itself riddled with obscure references and the meanings behind these often-corrupt stanzas are much debated. I've attempted to convert the verse poetry into prose where it is clear, but I refuse to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV to produce a false feeling of clarity. The fact is that the attestations are disjointed, do not necessarily agree, and are often outright mysterious. Some express annoyance when confronted with this hard fact, but it is what it is. The wording in the attestation section has been very careful chosen based off sometimes up to four translations of the Poetic Edda. It's disjointed because the stanzas themselves are. They can't be much fooled around with before their meanings are altered, and when that occurs we are misrepresenting the material.
Secondly, I feel that the attestations section is the very core of the article. Everything else in the article is entirely based around it, and rightly so. In fact, everything we know about valkyries comes from these very attestations, which we here handle carefully and in detail. Theories are produced about the attestations, and these theories very frequently point to and cite these oft-cryptic tales and mentions. Scholars do not directly spit out these attestations, they simply refer back to translations (while they sometimes provide a few stanzas of their own proposed translations, we are using the translations they're pointing to, if they're not directly reading the Old Norse, in which case we'd have to just post the Old Norse, but anyway...). It's a spiraling staircase. Basically, either we provide the attestations themselves or we dance around the very subject of the article, providing only vague descriptions. The valkyries are the attestations. Note that we're not making any judgment calls of our own here on any of the attestations, we're simply providing what they say.
In fact, our approach isn't odd at all for dictionaries on the subject; Lindow's (Norse Mythology...) and Simek's (Dictionary of Northern Mythology) take what is the same approach - they spit out what is known about the subject to familiarize their audience with the sources, and then they comment on what has been theorized about the subject. It's a very logical approach. On the other hand, they have little space, and therefore they can only go so far, yet we have limitless space, and thus we're able to do what they are cannot: I am pretty sure that we now provide the most accurate, expansive, and extensive article on the subject that has ever existed. Furthermore, stating which attestation comes from what source (and even where it appears in the source itself) is absolutely crucial; there are volumes of works about the dating, manuscript versions, variations, and origins of each source. The above dictionaries are, like we, quite careful to note what information came from where.
I've written many articles. Early on I ended up with this structure because, in my opinion, there is simply no other more neutral, informative, and high-quality way of presenting the material. It is extremely effective. The attestations tell the tales, the theories process the tales. It seems that many others have agreed, as I have produced 38 other GA articles using the exact same structure, and I am not only in its utilization. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have some differences of view with some of your points, and have also identified what I see as some other areas for improvement in the article, but I want to leave those things for now, as it is getting very late in this part of the world. I thought I should try and sketch how I thought the text could look that outlines the portrayal of valkyries in the primary sources. I wanted to do this to be constructive, but also to demonstrate why I do not think the fragmentary nature and diverse portrayals of these mythical figures necessitates the direct presentation of the attestations. Please accept that the following sketch is rough, at times poorly phrased, and has paranthetic notes to the editor at points. It is meant simply to sketch a possible approach. It is written as though it were the first text that followed from the lead:

Origins (heading level 2)
Valkyries are known principally from old norse and old english documents of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in particular the poetic edda, prose edda, some of the sagas and other norse texts, and some old english texts such as Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, written by Wulfstan II. In these works women appear sometimes as messengers or lovers, often riding or flying on horseback, though they are also referred to in other forms, such as women having swans' garments. However, while these texts are the most detailed records for these mythological figures, they are neither the only, nor even the earliest, representations of these enigmatic creatures (or similar text).

The earliest textual references that are generally believed to be Valkyries are in approximately the ninth century: the Idisi of the Merseburg Incantations ...(etc) (mention archaelogical finds here perhaps, or leave them until after the text sources)

Old norse and old english sources (heading level 3)
It is old norse sources, particularly the poetic and prose eddas, that provide the most complete - yet complex - picture of the Valkyrie.

In the poem Völuspá Valkyries are portrayed as "ladies of the War Lord, ready to ride" to "the realm of the gods", while in Grímnismál the god Odin expresses a wish that the valkyries Hrist ("shaker") and Mist ("cloud") would "bear him a [drinking] horn", and talks of other Valkyries who "bear ale to the einherjar" (a term which would need a phrase of explanation probably here). By contrast, in Völundarkviða, three Valkyries appear in a domestic scene, spinning linen on the shore of the lake, and they become the wives of three brothers; however after seven winters they fly off to a battle and do not return. They are described as the daughters of mythological kings.

Though they appear as messengers and as choosers of those fated to reach Valhalla, Valkyries are also described in more active roles. In Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, for example, one particular Valkyrie, Sváva, is said to have protected her father, king Eylimi, in battle, while in Helgakviða Hundingsbana I they protect Helgi amid a battle at Frekastein. In Sigrdrífumál, the Valkyrie Sigrdrífa claims more than merely the capacity to protect: she says that she angered Odin because she had "brought down" Hjalmgunnar in battle.

That is how I thought the material from the attestations could be framed as encyclopedic text rather than as laying out the sources.
Other issues that have come to me as I have been working on tihs:
  • There are no dates associated with the text and info on the archaeological finds. I would see that as important information in understanding the original, evolution and dissemination of this significant mythological figure. I would expect some if not all of the major finds will have had some dating work done, and should be included where possible.
  • The section "Modern influence" provides a good range of examples of the portrayal of Valkyries since 1800. However, it is remarkably free of any description of how they are portrayed in these works. I would suggest that Wagner's "Die Walküre" is probably the single most important cultural representation of the figure in modern culture. Of the many, sometimes contradictory, forms that the Valkyrie takes in the sagas and eddas, which features are brought to the fore by Wagner, and what have secondary sources said about why?
I am afraid that I strongly disagree. This is pure WP:SYNTH and completely glosses over the numerous difficulties and details about the subject. It does the reader no favors and is completely misleading. We currently detail each story as it is presented and in a completely neutral manner. We handle each mention on a case-by-case basis. Yet you are proposing we delete this and turn the article into some sort of blurry soup of an essay? This would not be a step forward, rather it would be many steps back. In the sample you've written above I can point out various points that are outright wrong and/or original observations ("messengers," "domestic scene").
Secondly, I believe that you are mistaken about the dates: doing a quick scan, I see dates for everything. If you are looking for a particular date, please identify exactly which. Furthermore, our current introduction provides as complete a description of the einherjar as possible.
Third, if you can find a study comparing Wagner and the sources, please identify it, as I have yet to see such a study. Also, wouldn't that be more appropriate for an article on Wagner's valkyries? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your points in sequence. First, we may just have to agree to disagree. All WP interprets specialist (and primary source) literature to explain it to a contemporary lay audience. To do so is not WP:SYNTH. The difference between a full-length treatment of a topic such as this and an encyclopedia entry is that the encyclopedia entry necessarily reduces the range of difficulties and details to outline the important points. It should not "gloss over" those difficulties, but neither should it simply reproduce them in a form that a lay reader will have difficulty in understanding. I am sure my first draft, done in a couple of hours, is indeed a "blurry soup", but i do not resile from the purpose. I agree that my choice of "domestic scene" went too far; my fundamental position remains unchanged.
Second, I went back to the text on dates, and i was wrong to say there are no dates. There are indeed dates for the two runic inscriptions and the runestone U 1163, and the late 14th century "valkyrie stick". There appear to be no dates for three of the four images in the small image gallery in this section (which are excellent images, I should add), nor for the image of the figure on the horse at right, other than a reference in the text (not in the image captions) to them being Viking age - which is a period of nearly half a millenium; not what I would have thought of as a date, though it may be the case that more precise dating has not been achieved.
Third, I am reviewing the article, not writing it. I am happy to assist with editing etc, but I am an expert on neither Viking history nor Wagnerian music. I don't know of a study such as about which you ask, but I find it difficult to believe that a prominent musical and character theme in one of Western classical music's totemic artworks has not been addressed by music / cultural historians with an interest in that period / Wagner / the semiotics of Wagnerian opera. If this is an article about Valkyries, I just would have thought that it would be discussed here. If others think me wrong, I have no problem with that.
In conclusion, there is a tremendous amount of excellent research in this and related articles, and my main desire is to see it more appropriately summarised for what i thought would make an accessible encyclopedia article. I am happy to be a copyeditor / assistant in such a future process, though I can see bloodofox and I are a long way apart in our views. After today I am likely to be offline for about four days. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hamiltonstone. The article as it at present stands is NOT an encyclopedia article. It is more a selection of poorly translated primary sources with very poor structure. An encyclopedia article needs to provide a clearly accessible DIGEST of secondary and some primary sources. The primary sources should be illustrative, and secondary to the clear explanatory text. The problems with the English of the article still persist. Until these matters are corrected, it will not be IMO a feature quality article. I feel you would be better advised, bloodofox, to accept some of the help and advice being offerred, rather than become defensive. We are not out to get you - just to get a better quality article for Wikipedia. Xandar 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, and I have given examples above of encyclopedias handling the same material and using the same approach. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent choice of quotes and pics. Id prefer a sharper definition in the opening sentence: "one of a host of female figures" scarlessly begins to capture their essence. And if you dont already know the topic its ambigious whats meant by "host" - a homogenous host of valkries or possibly a diverse bestiary of various female quasi - divinities? Maybe you could change it to "Valkyries ... were supernaturally gifted warrior maidens, who gathered around battlefields to choose warriors for Vallhalla from among the slain. " Some folk are just going to arrive at the article for quick definition, or might just read the lede and then skim through the pics and a few quotes. Maybe one or two longer quotes might help communicate how they were experienced, perhaps at least one from the modern era. I think this quote does it quite well for the modern ear, a lone warrior caught outdoors by a storm on the eve of the battle of clontarf when he encounters a mysterious stranger:


FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All dabs are checked and fixed. Classical mythology is supposed to link to the disambiguation page, since the Erinyes (furies) appear in both cultures. –Holt (T•C) 09:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I am beginning to read the article and will massage the prose if I can make it flow better, but please revert if I accidentally change meaning. The sourcing and info is fantastic and the subject matter would make a welcome addition ot the FA ranks, it just needs some help with the prose which I will try to do. I have alerted another editor, Eusebeus, who would be a great help to this. I will place queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is one of a host of female figures who decide among those who die in battle - "decide" what? This does not scan for me - should it be "decide who will die in battle"?
Valkyries are described in the Poetic Edda, a book of poems compiled in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources; the Prose Edda and Heimskringla, two books written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson, and Njáls saga, a Saga of Icelanders written in the 13th century. - there must be some way to only mention '13th century' once....
In the poem Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, (a prose narrative says that) an unnamed and silent young man... - for me it reads much better without the bracketed bit and no meaning is lost as we know it is a mythological work. Is there a reason for not removing it?
  • Oppose I am very sorry but this article does not read well. This article requires something like a section Overview summarizing the attestations in a simple comprehensive way. As it now stands it is by no way an encyclopedic article. Vb (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the reading, but not on calling a section overview - that is the lead's job. Still, I think you mean some section called Attributes or Description? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to do this "simply." The attestations are what they are; they are neither simple nor easy to digest. The attestations section is comprehensive as possible. The lead summarizes the entire article. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:59, 20 June 2009 [28].

Jifna[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer son (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating Jifna for featured article because now, after working on it for over a year, I strongly believe that this Good article deserves the status of a Featured article. It has gone through two Good article nominations (passing the last one) and it has been successfully peer reviewed. Naturally, an FA review is the next step. Al Ameer son (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers! I'll fix the ref templates, find an archive for the dead links, and will make the necessary adjustments to the remaining Talmud and Josephus refs.
As for the reliability of the above sources, most are totally reliable while a few are reliable in particular situations. I don't know how the first source could be questioned since the entire page it links to is cited by reliable authors (Michael Avi-Yonah, Edward Robinson, Herbert Donner, A. Schneider, Tawfiq Canaan, and others). The second, the Jifna Hope Association is arguable because its basically sponsors Jifna, but none of the info it backs is contradictory to the information provided by other source. The 4th and 5th sources have nothing to do with Jifna really-they're just used to back general events like the Battle of Yarmuk and the Six-Day War (they could be removed if necessary). Palestine Remembered is not a reliable source, but when it comes to simple facts like population and elevation, I see no problem using it since the above two figures are supported from actual censuses and atlases. I don'ts see how the JMCC could be questioned for its reliability and the sentence used from the Universal Workshop is backed by this source (Traditional Palestinian Embroidery and Jewelry, by Abd as-Samih Abu Omar (Jerusalem, 1986)). --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for specifics, the first site doesn't have an author, and it's sparsely cited (nor does it give full details for what it does cite). If, as you say "Palestine Remembered is not a reliable source", why should it be reliable for the information, rather than citing it to the censuses and atlases? JMcc gives me a malware warning when I go there. The last isn't "backed" by the source, it mentions on the page that some traditional shawls are shown in that work. The FA standard is "1 (c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" which is the standard you need to meet.Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get info from the censuses and atlases that Palestine Remembered used and the JMCC was used by the BBC [29] for a survey on Palestinian views. The JMCC is really a source for surveys and polls in the Palestinian territories. As for the first source, I don't see how it's sparsely cited, almost all of the info is backed by a reference. Anyhow, the editor/publisher of the page is Studium Biblicum Franciscanum - Jerusalem, a Jerusalem-based archaeological group. They have many publications on archaelogical digs in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and manage a museum and library in Jerusalem. Is there a way I could get STF-J to officially pass as a Reliable Source? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would regard the SBF-J as a reliable source. It seems to be run by the Faculty of Biblical Sciences and Archaeology of the Pontificia Universitas Antonianum in Rome. [30] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly has all the symptoms of being a reliable source, and it has never been doubted before. As for the issue with Palestine Remembered, I have been unable to find anything about the 1922 and 1931 populations of the town in google books or on the web. If anyone has access to those figures, that would be great, but until then, I believe I will be forced to remove those two figures from the article. Luckily, we still have a population figure from 1927. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would use Palestine Remembered for entirely non-contentious issues like this. I googled a little to see if I could find an alternative source, and I couldn't, but I did find a source who says it was apparently 100 percent Christian in the 16th century, if that's of any interest. It's here, and in case you can't see what I'm looking at (Google Books sometimes shows different people different pages), it's Thomas Evan Levy, The archeology of society in the Holy Land, p. 511, footnote 31. He includes Jifna in a list of cities with a majority Christian population in the 16th century, but of Jifna says it was 100 percent according to Toledano. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the first one is acceptable. I'm willing to leave the JMCC stuff out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. That still leaves a number of other sources that need to have their reliablity shown. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the Jewish Encyclopedia reference because it was just an additional source. I'll remove MidEastWeb and Military History Online (they're just used for general information and I'll replace them with more specific info backed by book sources). I have removed MidEastWeb and Military History Online. I'll remove the the Palestine Remembered info when we could get access to a more reliable source for the 1922 and 1931 censuses.I'm trying to get an archived link to one of the dead links (the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange) which will replace Palestine Remembered as the source for Jifna's elevation. On your note about Jifna's population in the 16th century, I have actually included that already with the same source you mentioned actually ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article isn't comprehensive enough or strong for a featured article. I think a lot of the sections such as economy and education etc could be fleshed out and more sources could be found. You have less than 50 citations. It's a good article but featured quality? Needs a lot of work, as an example: "A legend about Jifna's spring, which the village survived on for centuries, involves it running low on water" -very awkwardly written. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's not as comprehensive as one would hope is because the very small size of the village (pop. 1700) and the lack of sources there are on the net about modern Jifna. There's really not much more to write in the Education section other than what's already there. The Economy section could use more info, but I just have had no luck in finding anything else on it. As for the last sentence, I rewrote it to make more sense. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, you don't have to only use online sources for articles. In fact, it's encouraged to seek out and find printed sources for articles, as often they are the better sources for information, especially for subjects that predate the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes absolutely. I have used 13 books for this article (See Bibliography), but I couldn't find much on modern Jifna i.e. its Economy, Government, Education, Transportation, etc. in books. The books mostly covered the History and Demographics sections, as well as providing some info for the Geography and Culture sections. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:59, 20 June 2009 [31].

Ottawa language[edit]

Nominator(s): Jomeara421 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... Ottawa language passed Good Article in February 2009 and has undergone Peer Review subsequently. It gives a portrait of the general characteristics of the Ottawa dialect of Ojibwe (a prominent indigenous language of Canada and the United States), including what makes it different from other dialects of Ojibwe. This article was a Stub when I came across it in December 2008 - I have made 374 edits to it. Articles on language can get heavy with linguistic terminology and complex details fairly quickly, so I have split the more complex material into separate articles wherever possible. I have included ISBNs wherever known. There are a few website citations; these are mostly from official Canadian government websites, and virtually all are backed up with other sources. I have followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template quite closely. All images are in the public domain. There are few FAs on languages, and none on North American indigenous languages, so it would be nice to have one. Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • In notes but not in refs: Goddard 1979
  • JUST FYI: You may wanna use named refs for: Nichols John and Leonard Bloomfield 1991 pp. 18–23; Rhodes Richard 1985 p. xlix; Rhodes Richard 1985 pp. x-xi; Rhodes Richard 1985 pp. xxxix-xliii; Valentine J. Randolph 1994 p. 430; Valentine, J. Randolph, 1994, pp. 43–44.
  • What's with the single brackets around Dawes, Charles E?
  • I've removed them. It's a locally published book (the only published material on Ottawa from Oklahoma), and has a copyright notice with that name, but doesn't otherwise clearly state that he is the author but I assume he is. Jomeara421 (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Not happy with the writing yet. Here are tons of issues just in the lead.

  • Please avoid links to commonly known countries, which will be prominent in the higher-value links that jostle with them, to the states/provinces.
  • Infobox: semicolon then comma for "Region"? "Total number of speakers". It that in some infobox template? If so, it should be corrected.
  • "Total speakers" is part of template, someone else would have to fix that. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation changed. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Linguistic innovation" gagged me, and then I saw it does pipe to the right term; please don't pipe it. "Innovation(s)" occurs many times in the lead, and probably once is enough. Readers will understand "change" more easily, and you do indeed use "change" once or twice.
  • I've cleaned up use of 'innovation'. The term 'linguistic innovation' is very common in linguistics, though. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does MOS allow single quotes as used in the second para? Why doubles in the fourth para, then? They're not good in many browsers/fonts.
  • I've followed the linguistic convention of using single quotes only for glosses (translations) of terms in the language under discussion. The MOS recommends but doesn't require use of double quotes (for reasons to do with Wikipedia's search capacity). I can change the singles to doubles if need be. Some guidance would be helpful. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both "also"s are redundant. "Other innovations in pronunciation, as well as changes in word structure and vocabulary, also contribute to differentiating Ottawa from other dialects of Ojibwe." -->"These and other innovations in pronunciation, and changes in word structure and vocabulary, have differentiated Ottawa from other dialects of Ojibwe." (I think it's a bit fussy here to use "contributed to">). More importantly, why not continue the opening theme of para 3 (grammar) with the grammatical stuff in para 4; then deal with pronunciation.
  • Wording changed, will see about organization of paragraphs 3-4. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compared with" is preferred by many writers for contrasts rather than similarities, although "to" is often used. Are "flexible" or "supple" better than "free"?
  • I changed 'free' to 'flexible' - will see how that reads. Jomeara421 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicating an 'in focus' noun phrase that is being emphasized, and "obviative", indicating an 'out of focus' noun phrase that is less prominent"—I doubt whether many linguists, let alone semi-experts, will know what you mean by "out of focus" noun phrases. Do you simply mean grammatically marked and unmarked nouns and noun phrases, such as in many languages (in different guises, of course).
  • I've experimented with a simplified wording. "Proximate/obviative" is hard to explain concisely - there is no directly comparable phenomenon in English. Jomeara421 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure quotes are needed if you're linking a term; it's already highlighted by the blue. No big deal, though.
  • Strange not to be told in the lead how many native and non-native speakers, and whether it's taught in schools. Critical information, yes? The 8,000 in the infobox doesn't distinguish between n and nn.
  • Speaker information is discussed in 'Classification' section. Numbers are unreliable (Canadian census data does not break out 'Ottawa' and there are no other sources of non-anecdotal information) so I am hesitant about putting a number in the lead. There is no information at all about non-native speakers. The most authoritative source on Ottawa (publications by Valentine) does not give speaker numbers. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks after the lead:

  • "literally"—not a correct usage.
  • Probably a hyphen is better for -mo, etc., not an en dash. See WP:MOSDASH and see what you think.
  • Changed. A bot went through and made mass changes, hyphens were there originally. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also" again idle; please audit throughout for "also". BTW, do you point out that Canada's capital comes from "speak a language"? Maybe, maybe not. I wonder who chose it.
  • "mutually intelligibility"—nope, "mutual ...".
  • MoS: external puncuation to be true to the original source: "could be said to consist of several languages,"—please audit throughout.
  • "It has been noted that, along with the Algonquin and Severn Ojibwe dialects, Ottawa "show[s] many distinct features, which suggest periods of relative"—That's PhD thesis lingo, and should be discouraged even there. Just make the statement and own it ("Along with ..."), since you provide the source at the end of the sentence.
  • "that make each of them it distinctive".

And much more. Can you find one or two people new to this text to copy-edit it? Many WPs are clearly skilled at and interested in foreign languages: you can tell by the boxes on their user pages—can you access categories of them and ask around? See also anthrop. people. Tony (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't had much success with that in the past. Jomeara421 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip: search the edit histories of related FAs or articles you know to be in good shape. You can pick out who does the copy-editing. Make a list of them as valuable potential collaborators in the future. Ask the most likely ones now whether they can help. Post a note at whatever WikiProject is most appropriate. If no luck, ask me. Tony (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Rjanag
  1. In the Classification section, you have "Mutual intelligibility is the criterion applied to distinguish languages from dialects; varieties of language that are mutually intelligible are classified as dialects, while varieties of speech that are not mutually intelligible are classified as separate languages.[5]" (sourced to Lyle Campbell's introductory text). Is this a bit too authoritatively-worded? I am not a typologist, but I'm pretty sure this is just a rule of thumb and is not universally agreed on within the field (because mutual intelligibility is not necessarily binary—ie, two languages might not be entirely mutually intelligible but not entirely unintelligible either; and because there are sometimes sociopolitical factors that also come into account—for example, German and Schwäbisch are, so I hear, not intelligible, but Schwäbisch is still considered a dialect; and, finally, because it doesn't always go both ways...there are cases reported where speakers of X can understand Y but speakers of Y can't understand X. Seems a little unfair for the poor speakers of Y, but apparently it happens). Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, this sentence seems to present an oversimplification, so maybe it can be reworded a bit to imply that this is just a rule of thumb, or to imply that mutual intelligibility is the commonly accepted criterion for these languages but it's not a universal problemsolver?
  2. Same section, "The suggestion that Ojibwe "could be said to consist of several languages"[6] is consistent with the use of the term "language complex" to describe Ojibwe.[10]" Seems to be a logic problem here; usually in 'X is consistent with Y', Y should be the assumption, or whatever happened first. (i.e., "i put the egg in the microwave and it exploded; the explosion was consistent with my prediction that eggs in microwaves would explode"). Here, these things seem to be parallel: some typologist claim that Ojibwe is a group of several languages, and likewise some people refer to it as a "language complex"—they're not assumption and evidence, they're just two examples of the same thing. (In fact, the source for calling it "language complex" is more recent than the "said to consist of several languages" one.) I think a rewording is in order.
  3. A couple books in your bibliography have "Canada" listed as the author, and the short form footnotes for them (currently notes 14-16) are like "Canada. 1980, p. 20". That just seems strange to me; my intuition with government sources like has always been not to provide an "author", but just use the title. So, the long citation would be something along the lines of "Linguistic and cultural affiliations of Canada Indian bands. Indian and Inuit Affairs Program (1980). Research Branch: Corporate Policy. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada", and the short-form one would be like "Linguistic and cultural affiliations, 1980, p. 20". I don't know if there is a specific guideline on this, it's just a thought.
  4. More footnote issues: the ones I pointed out above, the Canada ones, use a period between the "author" and year. The rest seem to use commas (i.e.: "Bloomfield, Leonard, 1958, p. viii"). That should be standardized. Also, most of the footnotes use the author's full name (personally I would feel more comfortable if it were only last names, but if you're consistent I guess it should be fine), but there is at least one like "Rhodes and Todd, 1981, p. 54, Fig. 2". And it's not just a two-author thing, because some other notes with two authors still use full name: "Feest, Johanna and Christian Feest, 1978, p. 772". Anyway, that needs to be made consistent.
  5. In Geographical distribution: "For other communities that have been identified as Ottawa, see Ottawa people: Known villages." There must be some way to pipe that to avoid the self-reference. I'm thinking something along the lines of "[some number of] communities [[Odawa people#Known villages|have been identified as Ottawa communities]]", I dunno, something to that effect.
  6. Same section, "Canadian census data does not identify Ottawa as a separate group." ... would "does not identify the Ottawa as a separate group" be better? To clarify that we are using the term to refer to the people, rather than the language.
  7. "The relative decline in the vitality of the language is reflected in the observation that "Today too few children are learning Nishnaabemwin as their first language" Actually, the language's decline is reflected in the fact of few children learning, not in the observation of that fact. Could be reworded...although, to be honest, it seems awkward anyway to say that the decline is "reflected" in childrens' not learning it, since one could also argue that the decline is caused by that. Whether or not children are learning the language as L1 is, after all, one of the diagnostic criteria for whether or not a language is moribund (according to Grenoble & Waley 2006, I think, and probably tons of other books as well), so you could just as easily say the fact that children are no longer learn the language is reflected in how much the language has declined in vitality. Anyway, I think there needs to be a rewording to make these things more parallel, rather than suggesting any cause-and-effect relationship. It could be trimmed, too, since the sentence before it already mentions that it's not often being learned as L1.
  8. In Population movements: "The non-Ottawa-speaking Ojibwes who moved to these areas shifted to speaking Ottawa, as did the Potawatomi migrants, with loanwords in Ottawa reflecting these influences." is also a bit awkward, since the first half is referring to the past and the second half is referring to now. A better rewording might be something along the lines of "...and Ottawa acquired Potawatomi loanwords that reflect these influences".
  9. "two subdialects of Ottawa have been recognized, corresponding to the ancestry of significant increments of the populations in particular communities.[41] The subdialects correspond to differences in the way that the language is named." Confusing. First of all, the use of "correspond" twice is just a style issue; more importantly, though, you're saying it 'corresponds' to two different things, and the reader's first reaction may be "well, which is it?" I think the problem is just one of word choice. The connection between the subdialects and the 'ancestry' seems historical—the subdialects grew out of these different communities. The connection between the subdialects and the naming is current—it's how that historical stuff is reflected today in the people's endonym. So, I think it's just a matter of choosing a different word to express one of those two 'correspondances'. (And I would advise against using "reflected in" like I just did, because I already see that phrase popping up a lot in the article.)

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

No. 1. I've qualified the sentence on mutual intelligibility. One could write a book (or two) on m.i., but I'm not going there. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2. I've tightened up the 'language complex' prose. The main idea is that Ottawa could be considered either a dialect of Ojibwe or a separate language that is part of the Ojibwe language complex. Nobody's ever said which is right, so it's a tossup. Maybe they're both right. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 3. I've changed references to government publications to an 'anonymous' style a la Chicago Manual of Style, with same for footnotes. Jomeara421 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 4. I've made the citation style consistent. Footnote citation style is consistent now as well ('Rhodes and Todd' was only stray, very observant). Jomeara421 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 5. I've reworked this sentence. Jomeara421 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 6. Changed. Jomeara421 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 7. Surgery on sentences about decline of Ottawa. Jomeara421 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 8. I've broken the sentence in two, should be better. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improvement. I further reworded it a bit to "Many Potawatomi and Ojibwe loanwords in Ottawa are a result of the influence of the incoming groups." Other possibilities, with slightly different nuances, are
  • "The large number of Potawatomi and Ojibwe loanwords in Ottawa is a result of the influence of the incoming groups."
  • "One result of such migrations was a large number of Potawatomi and Ojibwe loanwords in Ottawa"
  • "As a result of these migrations, Ottawa came to include many Potawatomi and Ojibwe loanwords"
I'll leave it up to you which rewording is most faithful to the source. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 09:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Many ...' version is potentially ambiguous since it can be read to infer that there could be other sources of Potawatomi and Ojibwe loanwords. The source doesn't quantify the amount of borrowing, so prefer: "As a result of the migrations, Ottawa came to include many Potawatomi and Ojibwe loanwords." Including 'many' would not be consistent with the source and would be a fudge in any event. Jomeara421 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds good to me. I see you've made the change, so I can strike #8. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 9. I've combined and reorganized the offending sentences - should be clearer now. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those changes look good, and I've striken those points. I've still only been through the first bit of the article, so hopefully tomorrow or Sunday I can do the rest and I'll leave further comments below here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just about everything above has been addressed. I'm still not 100% happy with the rewording of the bit about subdialects (#9) but it's not really ambiguous anymore, and is not an urgent issue; I can keep brainstorming for rewordings. Anyway, I'm collapsing the above points, and will continue to add further stuff below (once the stuff below is resolved, I'll collapse it as well). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the Phonology section, "Words are written in the Modern orthography described below, with phonetic transcriptions in brackets using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) as needed.[46]" is a bit confusing. At first I thought it was talking about the status of the language itself (ie, "nowadays everyone writes in Mod. Orth."), but once I got to the end of the sentence I realized you were just explaining what orthography you chose for the article. Could that be made a bit clearer? Also, what is the reference at the end of the sentence for?
  2. Same issue with the first sentence in the Consonants subsection.
  3. The description of fortis and lenis consonants might be confusing to lay readers. I can understand it because I have enough background to know that all the things you describe (lengthening, aspiration, etc., as opposed to voicing, alternations, etc.) are associated with stronger or weaker consonants/positions, so I can understand what the underlying difference between fortis and lenis is...for a reader without a linguistics background, though, I think this would come off as a random list of features. Perhaps in the first place you mention fortis and lenis (right under the consonant chart) you could add a brief sentence explaining the underlying difference (strong vs. weak)?
  4. Section on consonant labialization: I can't really see the dot in ɡ̣taaji. Not sure if there's anything that can be done about that, though.
  5. Why are f, r, l not included in the consonant chart, or in the list of letters used in the Modern Orthography section (ok, I understand the second part...because they're never used to write Ottawa words)?
  6. It seems like the Morphology section would be more properly titled "Derivational morphology". Inflectional morphology (verb inflections, etc.) seems to be covered in the intro of the Grammar section; the Morphology section appears to focus on derivational morphemes and compounding. On the other hand, "Morphology" is a nice, clean section header...maybe some of the discussion of inflectional morphology could be moved down so it comes under this instead? (And, if you want, you could also divide it into sub-sub-sections, "Inflectional" and "Derivational", or what-have-you.)
  7. In the section on verb orders and yes-no questions vs. content questions... could "content question" be linked to wh-question rather than to Question#Grammar?
  8. Under Writing System... "interest in standardization has increased, with the publication of a widely used dictionary and reference grammar providing models for spelling conventions." : Some dates, even general estimates, would be useful. Increased since when (i.e., as compared to when), and as of when? Is there still increased interest today?
  9. "A study of indigenous writings in Ottawa produced between 1823 and 1910".... what did this study find? Was it looking at the different orthographies used during this period?
  10. Is "Double vowel system" also written that way, without hyphens, in your sources? I was tempted to stick a hyphen in there, but if that's it's official name then I guess it's ok.
  11. Does Ottawa have a velar nasal ([ŋ])? The consonant chart near the beginning of the article does not include one, but you give an example of one in the explanation of apostrophes in the Modern orthography.
  12. As for the History section...I think this may have come up during the GA review as well, but i still feel that a lot of this detail (especially in the "Development of Ojibwe dialects") is not really about Ottawa, and not necessary for most readers. Wouldn't it be enough to just mention that Ottawa is one of the dialects that split off of Ojibwe due to these various historical changes, and leave off the long list of all the Ojibwe dialects that have been identified? To be honest, I think the whole History section could be shortened, and may not even need subsections; it could probably just be a paragraph or two with {{see also}} links.
  13. In the Sample Text section, "The texts that Medler dictated were originally published in a linguistically-oriented transcription using phonetic symbols, and have been republished in the modern orthography, with analysis." ... I'm not sure what you mean by "republished", do you mean they were published again (in a book or something) or that when you wrote the text in this article you re-wrote it in modern orthography on your own? Also, I assume "with analysis" should be removed, now that the analysis has been spun out into a sub-article.
  14. A more general note...judging by this article, it seems that Valentine's work is one of the most widely-used, seminal references on Ottawa, yet in the article itself his name is never mentioned. If he has had such a huge influence on Ottawa language studies, maybe it would be good to mention him somewhere...I don't know where it would fit, but a small section or paragraph somewhere mentioning noted Ottawa scholars such as Valentine and Andrew Blackbird.
  15. In the References section, the title of Valentine's book is given as Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar (note the missing "o"). Is this a typo, or a real alternate spelling?

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Nos 1, 2. I have clarified both sentences. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 3. I have tried some wording changes. The problem is that 'fortis' and 'lenis' are just cover terms for an aggregation of phonetic features, and there is no real explanatory force to the terms; 'strong' and 'weak' are just equivalent terms and have no explanatory power. The Wikipedia article notes this problem. 'Tense' and 'lax' are similarly problematic cover terms, they don't really mean anything and don't correlate with any non-adhocly (?) determined phonetic features. Jomeara421 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...I guess just mentioning "strong" and "weak" will do, then. We can't expect lay readers to understand everything, no matter how much we water things down, so that should be a decent compromise...it's enough for people to get the general idea (more clearly than they would with Latin terms) and still keep it concise. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 4. The subscript dot shows up clearly in print, but is not great onscreen. As you suggest that's likely as good as it gets. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. I think readers will be able to figure it out. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 5. f, l, r only occur in loanwords so have a somewhat different status than the other sounds. Valentine excludes them from his consonant chart, so I have followed that. But on the other hand words containing these sounds are incorporated into Ottawa, so these sounds are part of the Ottawa phonological inventory. Sometime borrowed sounds are included in a consonant chart, but put in parentheses. So it's a tossup. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I was thinking about word-initial [ʒ] in English, which only occurs in like French 'loanwords' and stuff (i.e., "genre"), but English is probably not a good comparison, since it has loanwords that are so well-assimilated by now. Maybe you could put them in the chart, but in parentheses and with an asterisk that leads down to the sentence mentioning how they only occur in loanwords? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 6. I have been following the outline of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template, which has 'Grammar' as a Level 2 heading with 'Morphology' and 'Syntax' as Level 3 headings underneath. The whole section is intended to be a summary (so not too detailed), with a separate article for 'Ottawa morphology' and (when I get to it) 'Ottawa syntax'. I have put the inflectional morphology material underneath the 'Morphology' heading, which of course is where it belongs. Jomeara421 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 7. "Wh question" redirects to Wh-movement so I linked to that. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man, well that's a pain...I don't know whose great idea it was to make wh-questions a disambiguation page, which doesn't even link to any article about wh-questions. I think wh-movement is not really the same thing as the question itself (and certainly not what people are looking for if they click a link that appears to be "content question"), so maybe it would be better to keep the link you had before, or redlink it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back to the original link. The Wh-movement article is not so bad, and one could argue that Ottawa wh-questions have movement at some fairly abstract level. It might be better if the article were called Wh-phenomena, but that's not my area. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...wh-questions and wh-movement are completely different phenomena (which just so happen to co-occur in English), and unfortunately Wikipedia does not appear to have any decent treatment of wh-questions at the moment. But just for an example, Mandarin Chinese has wh-questions (as far as I know, they have to be universal...I couldn't imagine a language without them) but no wh-movement...their equivalent to English "what did you buy?" is "you bought what?" rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some thinking, and I don't think Question#Grammar is the right place to link. It's not about content questions, it's just about general mechanisms for marking interrogative mood (and, on a side note, much of it is unreferenced and dubious). I think the best solution is to either a) link to wh-question, even though it's only a disambiguation page, and just hope that someone will do the cleanup work there eventually (specifically, turn it into a real article and just leave some hatnotes at the top); or b) leave it unlinked (after all, I think the meaning of "content question" should be relatively clear if "yes-no question" was just mentioned before it). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links to disambiguation pages are frowned upon at FAC, so I'll just delink it. Jomeara421 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 8. There is nothing for which there is a real source. I have modified the sentence by adding the dates of publications of Rhodes' Ottawa dictionary and Valentine's Ott. grammar. The former in particular provides a strong model for spelling since dictionaries of course need to apply spelling conventions for consistency. I don't know if that is enough, but I don't have any other published references. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also added a reference for a 1996 Ojibwe orthography standardization conference. Jomeara421 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 9. I have written the sentence to make it clearer that the reference is to an inventory of the documents in questions, not any partiular analysis of them. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 10. I've added a reference that cites it as "Double Vowel" (upper case both words, no hyphen), but have also seen other capitalization choices although never with a hyphen. The term is part of the folklore of Ojibwe linguistics and doesn't actually appear in print that often. Jomeara421 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 11. The velar nasal is a predictable allophone of /n/ before /g/ (this would be covered in the Ottawa phonology if I had got that far - I will some day). I have added some text to clarify the source of the velar nasal.

So does orthographic ng correspond to [ŋ], or to [ŋg]? I guess that's what I'm not clear about...whether the [g] is preserved after the [n] assimilates. I had a good idea for rewording that bit in the article (basically, just moving the explanation of assimilation into a footnote), but I wanted to check about this first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orthographic ng is always [ŋ] word-finally. Jomeara421 (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 12. I have been following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template more or less closely; it includes a 'History' section, so I thought I'd put one in. The linguistic history of a dialect is of course a list of the changes that differentiate one dialect from another. Since the article (and its subarticles) enumerates these differences throughout it is hard to have a useful 'History' section. So I've trimmed this section quite a bit. The other articles on Ojibwe are useful enough to provide some of the overall historical context so that it doesn't need to be included here. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 13. I have added a reference and revised the sentence to make it reflect the meaning: the stories were originally published in Bloomfield 1958, and then retranscribed and analysed in Valentine 1998. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 14. I've added a brief section "History of scholarship" after the lead. Thanks to the work of Bloomfield, Rhodes and Valentine Ottawa is one of the better described North American indigenous languages. If there's a better place to put this section, feel free to do so. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 15. Nishnaabemwin is the syncopated version of Anishinaabemowin (i.e. with metrically weak short vowels deleted). That is the correct spelling and pronunciation in Ottawa. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. It's not far off the mark, but it needs an independent editor to go through and clean up such issues as those I found from a representative section, Writing system:
    • "Written representation of Ottawa was introduced by Europeans, with indigenous literacy occurring sporadically through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." The vague "with" connector leaves us guessing at the relationship between these two clauses.
    • "Ottawa and other dialects of Ojibwe have been written since the seventeenth century by native speakers of English, French, and other languages, by explorers, traders, missionaries, linguists, and others." Ungrammatical.
    • "Ottawa has been written in ways that ultimately derive from European alphabetic writing systems" Quite clumsy.. the "ways" derive from the "writing systems"? "has been written in ways" can certainly be said more elegantly.
    • "writing system used to write"
    • "a history of his people in English, with an appended grammatical description of Ottawa and the closely related Chippewa (Southwestern Ojibwe) dialect, including translations of short religious texts." The separate "with" and "including" clauses leave doubt as to what contains what. Are the translations within the grammar?
    • Do you write in an orthography or using an orthography? We can't decide.
    • "Documents written in Ottawa ... includes"
--Laser brain (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

No. 1. Reworded. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2. Material removed, since it repeats the content of another sentence. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 3. Reworded. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 4. Fixed. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 5. Reworded. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 6. 'In' versus 'using' an orthography. It's close but changed to 'using' throughout. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 7. Fixed. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:57, 20 June 2009 [32].

Alcohol in the Bible[edit]

Nominator(s): Arlen22 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has an excellent layout, and is about an important topic. Arlen22 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose based on the fact there are several maintenance tags, indicating the article isn't up to scratch. And just glancing at it briefly indicates this is true - lots of manual of style breaches, lists where there should be prose, huge chunks of unreferenced prose yet single facts in lists with more than half a dozen, and sentences such as "The inhabitants of ancient Palestine also drank beer and wines made from fruits other than grapes, and some references to these appear in the scriptures, too", "Wine was commonly drunk at most meals and was a staple of life in ancient Palestine", "Both the climate and land of Palestine, where most of both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures takes place, were well-suited to growing grapes, and the wine that the vineyards produced was a valued commodity in ancient times, both for local consumption and for its value in trade" are all problematic and need work. A lot of work. It's an interesting topic certainly, but nowhere near ready for FA standards. I'm a little surprised it is a GA, and would suggest you take to be peer reviewed instead. Good luck. Majorly talk 15:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has the primary contributor been notified of this FAC? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer Review I will put it up for peer review. Do I leave this on and let someone else archive it or what? Arlen22 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll archive it now: please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the fac tag in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:57, 20 June 2009 [33].

Infernal discography[edit]

Nominator(s): $ĐШЧ • • • ► 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article because I believe that it is of a high enough standard to be considered for "Featured Article" status. I am the main editor of this article, as I have basically created the page from scratch (began on May 15 2009), with little or no help from any other Wikipedia users. I believe that the article contains verifiable information, and its layout, length and format suit the purpose of the article (Discography). $ĐШЧ • • • ► 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment IMO this would be better submitted to Wikipedia:Featured lists. To be honest, there's not enough prose (IMO) to warrant treating it as an article rather than a list. Just my opinion; others may disagree. – iridescent 12:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WP:FLC would be a better place for this. The references, by the way, need date, author and publisher info as well, and you should remove youtube refs. Apterygial 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not enough prose to even satisfy DYK requirements; far better suited at FLC. Even so, as mentioned above, the references need to be formatted properly. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per Julian Colton. Scattergun approach to referencing, and quality of references is questionable. Recommend WP:GA first. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per others, I suggest taking this to Featured Lists at some point. I would at first recommend a peer review to get it up to scratch. Please review other similar lists to see the kind of standard expected. Good luck! Majorly talk 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this needs to be taken to FLC. Before that, though, the refs need to be formatted properly, the questionable sources (Youtube?) need to be replaced, and the dates should be delinked. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:57, 20 June 2009 [34].

Peru national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe that it meets the FA criteria, it made it to GA status and from that point on has received much review and contributions from various editors. Modeled after the Scotland national football team article (FA status), I believe that the Peru national football team article exemplifies Wikipedia's best works and hope that whoever reviews this agrees with me.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To promote the growth of the sport, British residents of Peru and Peruvians returning from England began to increment the practice of football." Do you mean "implement", or perhaps "increase"? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increase, of course. Football was already implemented by the sailors by that time. Thanks for pointing that out.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a lot of rough edges present. The amount of work required probably makes it a tall order to resolve all the issues over the course of a nomination.
    • Blogs are used as sources in a number of places e.g. Flicktokick.wordpress.com (which quotes Wikipedia as its source), Jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com
    • A thorough copyedit is required, probably by a native speaker. Examples of unnatural or indirect phrasing are abundant throughout, e.g. "La Blanquirroja managed to successfully qualify for the 1982 FIFA World Cup" could be simply "La Blanquirroja successfully qualified for the 1982 FIFA World Cup, (or just "La Blanquirroja qualified...", qualification implies success); "a change took sudden place in the late 1990s" ought to be "a sudden change took place in the late 1990s". These are just a couple picked at random; there are many others.
    • Why do some players in the squad listing have their name in the form of external links, and why is there an asterisk next to one of them?
    • Two players have negative goalscoring figures.
    • Nobby Solano is listed as the team captain in the infobox, yet in the body of the article it says he has retired.
    • "In 1938, Peru won its first international title during the first Bolivarian Games, which Peru won after sweeping the participants Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela." Sweeping?
    • "Peru became the fourth nation after Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil to win the famed South American tournament". "Famed" is a peacock term. "to become champions of South America" would avoid this, while making the scale of the achievement clear.
    • "The national squad's slow change and bad situation was most obvious during the early South American Championships of the 1940s. By 1941, la Blanquirroja still had effective but old players like Teodoro Fernández in their lines." The only citation for this is a list of lineups for the 1941 Copa America
    • I'm not convinced by the use of a list of Elo ratings at a reference for the sentence "By the 1950s, Peru once again found itself a major protagonist in South American football, considered to be among the top 20 of the decade". A retroactive ranking calculation made by a hobbyist in 1997 is a weak justification for such claims.
    • "During 1953 and 1954, Peru achieved its only two titles of the 1950s thanks to the Copa del Pacifico after losing and winning two times against Chile" - its not clear from this how two titles were gained, given that the team lost twice.
    • Why did Peru withdraw from the 1934 and 1954 World Cups?
    • The licensing is OK but can the watermark be cropped from File:Seleccionperu.jpg?
    • "The participation of Peru in the 1970 FIFA World Cup remains as one of the most memorable as the squad caused surprise as they advanced into the quarterfinals after defeating Bulgaria 3–2 and Morocco 3–0, and losing 3–1 to Germany." The only reference for this is a list of results, which doesn't support the bits about it being memorable or causing surprise.
    • "By the time the Spain 1982 World Cup came, the Peruvian squad was seen as a strong contender, but ties with Cameroon and Italy and defeat by Poland (5–1) saw them leave the tournament early." - again the only reference is a result page, which makes no mention of Peru being seen as a strong contender.
    • "after being randomly chosen in a sorting between it and Brazil," what does this mean?
    • In the "Uniform" section, references to Peru's first, second, third and fourth kit ought to be reworded. Terms like third kit have a different, specific meaning in football contexts.

Oldelpaso (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try to resolve all of those problems in order to try to change your opinion.
    • Replaced the Flicktokick.wordpress.com with a FIFA.com source.
    • The Jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com is only referenced 6 times. It does not make any exceptional claims, and the only information taken out from it is important to explain the early history of the team. There is no other easily available source that holds this information, and not because the information itself is not valid or important. You have to take into account that it is extremely unlikely that anybody from Peru is ever going to publish anything from those times related to any sport outside of Peru. Even in Peru it's rarity to find such sources of information on paper. I know that Wikipedia has its policies on blogs, but that is why there is supposed to be people that interpret the policies and apply them as they see fit in accordance to their own rational process of thought.
    • I don't know why the names of some players have external links, or why the asterisk. I'm sure whoever edited that did it in good faith. I'll fix it as it is no big problem. The negative goals probably means the numbers of goals scored against them (they're both goalkeepers). I'll fix that too.
    • Solano unofficially retired from the national team just a few days ago. He has even mentioned his desire to start a coaching career. However, it is not official, and therefore there is currently no official replacement for Solano as captain of Peru. The Peru NT right now is going through many strange phases, and that's really completely out of my hands. All that the contributors to the article can do is attempt to update it with the most correct information available.
    • I've found some minor information as to why Peru withdrew from 1934. It's something along the lines of wanting to support Uruguay's boycott and not wanting its players to remain in Europe. It's really confusing, and the places where I found the responses were highly unreliable places such as forums (Both English and Spanish), and even Wikipedia in Spanish (but with no references). This is what I mean when I mention that finding this kind of information for Peru is highly difficult. Jaime Pulgar Vidal's blog is much more reliable than the vast majority of the other places where such information sporadically appears.
    • Peru withdrawing from 1950 and 1954 is yet again another mystery. I read in the Spanish Wikipedia that Juan Peron of Argentina persuaded the government of Peru (under Manuel Odria, who was a military dictator like Peron) not to participate in 1954.
    • There's nothing I can do about you not being convinced by the ELO ratings. ELO ratings are present in every single national football team article. If ELO is not reliable, then it should be taken out of every single football article that has it in Wikipedia. Until then, I don't see any problem with it.
    • I'll check all of the grammar mentions you made.

Thanks for your constructive suggestions.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this might sound silly, but what is the watermark in the picture you mention?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text saying (c) Jose C Swain. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do that. It should be fixed now.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe that almost everything you mentioned should be fixed by now. There are a couple of exceptions, though. The first is the Jaime Pulgar Vidal blogspot, which I really cannot find a replacement to, and I really do not want to delete it as it provides important historical information to the article; I hope this is not going to remain a major issue for the present FA candidacy of the article. The second and last is the copyedit you suggested, as obviously I will not be able to find the problems with the article (I wrote it, so I really can't find a writing problem with it); what do you suggest I could do? Other than that, everything else you mentioned should be fixed.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What credentials does Vidal have? Oldelpaso (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He provides information about himself on his blog. From this source, he claims to hold a Bachelor's degree on history from the National University of San Marcos and to have the profession of a sports journalist. His information has apparently been used in a book entitled "Ese Gol Existe" ("That Goal Exists"). His information has been used as reference in other Wikipedia articles (Spanish wiki) and on a series of websites. I don't know if this is enough to prove his credibility (I'm assuming good faith, and so far he does seem credible; but I know there's a difference between seem and fact), so I've sent him a message in order to establish some sort of contact with him. Hopefully, if he decides to reply back, he will provide more information on his credentials.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source that helps establish his credibility. It's again on the matter of the book "That Goal Exists," but this time it has more information on it provided by the French Institute of Andean Studies. According to the information they provide, they certify that Mr. Vidal had input in the book, and that the book's editor is the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vidal provided his credentials (Yay!). You can reach them by clicking on this link. I'm truly quite surprised that he replied. However, he has provided the information in Spanish. I told him to provide the information in whatever language was easiest for him, so if you would like for me to translate his text then feel free to ask me (I'll translate it exactly as he wrote it in Spanish, but only if you, the evaluators, deem it necessary).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from that (I don't speak Spanish) that he has covered football topics on TV, radio and in print, so I'm satisfied there.
However, on other parts of the article where sourcing could be stronger, I am certain that decent sources exist, just perhaps not on the web. World Cups and Copa Americas are by no means obscure events. I own just two football books which mention Peru at all, a total of a mere couple of pages of material, but even from that there are passages which would provide stronger referencing than that currently present. For instance, Brian Glanville's Story of the World Cup makes it clear that Peru's 1970 World Cup side were noted for playing in an attacking manner; "the Peruvians scorned negative methods" and "delighted in attack" but "that Peru's defence was very far from the equal of their shining attack had been plain in their concluding group game against West Germany". For an FA I'd expect more robust referencing than that generally present at the moment. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good book sources for Peru in the World Cup and the Copa America, but that's as far as it goes. Only recently are people like Mr. Vidal putting on paper the early days of Peruvian football (1890s-1960s). You're right, though, that more robust referencing would make the article stronger. The way things are going, I can tell that the article won't pass the FA candidacy at this point, but it's been a constructive experience nonetheless. Not only did the article get Mr. Vidal's credibility established, but now I know that the main issues it needs work in are the prose's copy-editing and stronger referencing (from books). Thanks.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, your points 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 should be fixed by now.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Too many issues at the present time. Prose needs serious copy-editing, as there are too many problems for me to think that providing examples alone would be helpful. The number of non-free images is excessive, and sourcing quality is questionable in some cases. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examples are always helpful. There is only 5 non-free images. The image currently tagged as "questionable" is the one that I took from User:jcswayne, who had it under the GUN free license. The user who nominated the image as "questionable" has not even bothered to reply to the explanation I gave for the picture, and that therefore should not be counted on the article's fault.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user who nominated the image replied, and has agreed that there is no problem with the image. Please check the link for verification of my statement.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not look at the non-English sources. --Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:57, 20 June 2009 [35].

Garden City High School (Kansas)[edit]

Nominator(s): JHawk88 07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel like this article has been heavily reviewed and rigorously well-written. I personally have closely edited and inspected nearly every aspect of the article and I feel that it deserves to be a Featured Article. Furthermore, it contains interesting information about a high school located in a part of the country in which a small percentage of people are familiar with. This article is informative, fair, interesting, well-written, and useful. JHawk88 (talk • contrib) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • The first four references lack a publisher ..its run into the link title, but should be listed separately. Same for current refs 6, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30. All need publishers
  • What makes http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/texas/brandy-perryman reliable?
  • Likewise http://macfeesports.com/KSDIVI.htm?
  • Current refs 24 and 25 (Mark Fox and Hal Patterson) are to wikipedia articles. These are NOT reliable, and need to be replaced.
  • http://www.nndb.com/people/484/000055319/ is not reliable and needs to be replaced
  • I'm concerned by the number of sources that are from the school district or from primary sources for the information (the mayors office site, etc). There should be more third-party coverage to counter potential bias.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article certainly contains more information than many school articles but is not featured article material. Right now, we just have a random collection of facts with no attempt to tie them into a larger narrative. To have a comprehensive article on a school that meets FA requirements, it is really necessary to chart important developments in curriculum, the impact various school administrators have had over the years, any contentious bond issue fights, the growth of various sports programs, etc. I am not sure a single wikipedia school article has ever achieved this, and the only way this would be possible would probably be to dig through local newspaper archives. This site fails to make use of such sources for any year before 2008, which casts doubts on the thoroughness of the research. Topics this local can be difficult to find information on, but the stories can be just as compelling as those at institutions with a more national profile. To reach FA status, there is much work to be done. Indrian (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I tend to agree with Indrian, lacks coherence. I'm a brit, I've no idea what the year grades mean, nothing to tell me. School success and failure seem to measured only by progress of basketball team. I don't think this article is ready yet jimfbleak (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked one ref at random The first unofficial band was organized in 1915. Since then, the Garden City band program has steadily grown into one of the most widely-acclaimed bands in the state. The Garden City Marching Band is often referred to as the "Marching Herd" is entirely unsupported by the next ref, and is also spammy. Given the other failings, changed to oppose jimfbleak (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Includes song lyrics (which are a direct violation of WP:NOT). Citation quality is poor (several citations are to Wikipedia, others to primary sources, and there are fourteen separate cites to the school's own website. There is also a lot of trivia, and two images which may violate the image policy (File:GCHS Band 1925.png doesn't provide proper source or copyright holder details and probably fails NFCC#8, and File:GC Track.jpg is taken from the school's website and marked as PD). Stifle (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:49, 17 June 2009 [36].

Switzerland[edit]

Nominator(s): Renaissancee (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article I feel it's met all criteria. Article has detailed yet short and precise information in certain topics, plenty of pictures and information. Neutral (just as Switzerland is :) ) and is overall a featured article in my eyes. Renaissancee (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have not edited the article recently; have you contacted the primary contributors? I don't think this meets FA criteria; the refs are not formatted, the sourcing is hardly high-quality, and I see citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:29, 16 June 2009 [37].

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl[edit]

Nominator:--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Hit Me!Sign Here!


I am nominating this for FA becuase it is in really good shape and I beleive it will pass. I know I havent done much of the work mostly User:Ink Runner and User:Artichoker, but Ink is inactive and Arti gave me permission to nominate it.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Hit Me!Sign Here! 13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On nomination/significant contributors: According to pagestats, User:Coltonblue and Sotomura are the top contributors (followed by Ink, User:Amarkov , Urutapu, Sukecchi, and Lividore before Artichoker.) Also, I see no indication at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon that Artichoker has in fact given permission. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are inactive, and it was in the archives, here.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Hit Me!Sign Here! 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I see is that Artichoker said to run it by Ink Runner. Have you done that? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and looking at his contributions, he has not given his consent. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is inactive.....as basically all the top editors, I asked and they never answered, check there talk pages and somewhere it says inactive--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Hit Me!Sign Here! 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm standing, both User:Sukecchi and User:Urutapu have edited in June 2009. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I'm going to quick-oppose based on {{fact}} tags throughout the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am familiar with this game as two of my kids are avid Pokemon fans (my 18 year old and 10 year old girls!). I would like to see this popular subject promoted to FA but I can not support right now because there are several very large swaths of unreferenced text. Wikipedia articles are summaries of commentary by WP:RS reliable sources. When content is unreferenced, it gives the appearance that the article is the WP:OR of Wikipedia editors. I encourage the nominators to go back and try again after they have provided references for all unreferenced sections. NancyHeise talk 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Needs a few more references in the first section of "Gameplay" and in "Plot", but other than that, the article seems good enough for me after a quick skim. I'll give you my support when that's done. Tezkag72 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Ink Runner is the main contributor to this article, by far; however, he is inactive. I myself never gave permission for this article to go to FAC, and I don't think it's high enough quality to pass at the moment. For starters, the Platinum section which was recently merged needs to be fleshed out and copyedited, with probably a few source changes. The "My Pok[e]mon Ranch" section also needs to be rewritten and sourced. Artichoker[talk] 17:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 03:13, 15 June 2009 [38].

TNA X Division Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): --WillC 08:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it passes the criteria mostly and believe it should at least be given a try at becoming an FA. It just passed its GA review a day or two ago so it has been edited heavily with a few disagreements which have been resolved. Just thought to make that clear. All comments will be taken care of quickly.WillC 08:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention a few things. After an extensive expansion from this to this and a GA review I believe it is ready for it to become an FA. Considering I rewrote the entire article I didn't contact any other contributors. I hope that is okay? I hope you consider the X Division section with the note in good faith. There aren't any written sources that I'm aware of at the moment but any I find while I read reports I'll add quickly.--WillC 10:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attention: I'm sorry about the current disagreements between me an another editor. It is disrupting the stability of the article I know. So please do not let that effect your decision in the end. I'm in the process of trying to stop this and instead just have a discussion.--WillC 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping that in mind, can you resolve the citation needed tag in the "X Division" section? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm in the process of trying to finish that. The user involved doesn't believe anything covers it and anything I add is removed like that. Trying to avoid an edit war. It is difficult though.--WillC 23:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a bit of work on the writing.

  • Does the MoS say not to put quotes in italic face just because they're quotes?
    • Not sure, I did it because it was a direct quote and to set it apart. I haven't read it fully.--WillC 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This match has become wildly successful in TNA"—"wildly" is technically known as an interpersonal item (i.e., the writer's subjective opinion).
  • "To date this match has only been used to determine the number one contender to the TNA X Division Championship." Is "To date," one of those temporal expressions that will date? See Vague terms, I think it is, in MoS. "As of ...".
    • Fixed. Wrote about two hours ago during when I was trying to make everything seem good. Should have changed it to "As of" and include the templates, which I just did.--WillC 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an all steel cage format PPV event"—probably just one hyphen required.
    • Changed it from an em dash to an en dash.--WillC 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the em dash was correct. Tony was referring to the fact that compound adjectives need hyphens. Depending on what you meant, it would be "all-steel-cage format" or something similar. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, my bad. Thanks for fixing it.--WillC 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To win this match, three or more—depending on how many are involved in said encounter—of the participants must be eliminated by pinfall or submission until only two remain." Said encounter? Please, not in formal English; better never. Can you recast the parenthetical phrase so the sentence is easier to read; it's hard on the working memory as is.
    • Rewrote. The said encounter was placed to try and make it seem intelligent when I have a small vocabulary and since I can't spell well it makes it even smaller LOL.--WillC 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the X Division Championship.[7][8][9][10][11]—Can these be conflated into one note?
    • Each ref is used to source all encounters to show that it has been used to determine the number one contender and contested for the championship. Ref 7 is for the 2005 match, ref 8 is for the 2006 match, ref 9 is for the 07 match, ref 10 is for the 08, and ref 11 is for the 09 match. If I had one that sourced all matches, I would replace them if the said source was reliable.--WillC 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1—Do we need the opening hyphen? Tony (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In there to seperate it from the number better. If it isn't needed I'll remove it.--WillC 11:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source is still questionable, but is used within multiple FL articles, so I'm guessing it has reliable fact checking. Plus it doesn't source major things so it could be considering passable. I'm never sure why something is reliable. I just use it if it is used within other articles of higher classes.--WillC 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will help? It will involve alot of reading. But they pretty much tell how they get their information and how long they've been trying to compile it all and making sure everything is correct.--WillC 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was hoping to make it through the article in one reading, since it is a short one. However, I'm running into problems all over the place in the body. Tony only scratched the surface with this one.

  • "It is currently tied with the TNA X Division Championship for the second highest ranked championship in TNA". Hyphen for "highest ranked"?
    • My bad, wasn't thinking. Fixed.--WillC 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been a total of 38 reigns among 19 different wrestlers." Some wordiness that can be removed here.
  • Speciality matches: "Three of multiple matches used in TNA are the...". Problems with the grammar. Replace "multiple" with a simple "the" and the sentence will be much better off.
  • "The cables are attached to four post that stand...". Typo; "post" needs an s at the end.
  • Does the TNA video say that the Ultimate X match has been successful in TNA?
    • No but the Ultimate matches DVD states that which is a general ref. I'll add a ref to it, since I'm also using the Ultimate matches as a ref to be more clear also.--WillC 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "involves the ring being surrounded by a giant red steel bared cage...". Bared? Do you mean barred?
    • Must have been a typo. Fixed.--WillC 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an all steel cage format PPV event." Hyphen after "all"?
  • "To win this match, three or more participants must be eliminated by pinfall or submission until only two remain depending on how many are involved in the encounter." Move everything after "remain" to after "participants" and place commas before and after it. The order seems odd now.
  • Creation: "while the ring announcer Jeremy Borash stated it was for the NWA–TNA X Championship." Commas before and after name. Alternately you could just remove "the" before "ring announcer", but I think the first method is more efficient.

If a short article is going to be brought to FAC, the prose has to be solid since shorter pages should naturally have fewer rough patches. Unfortunately, there are a large number of them here. Please get some outside help on this one. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry about the prose problems. Not a great writer and but I try. Hopefully with time that will change. Thank you for all the comments and any more would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.--WillC 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article has been protected for three days. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Note - I've full-protected the article for three days as a result of the ongoing edit war. I therefore oppose on the basis that the article is not stable. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Juliancolton. – iMatthew • talk at 00:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I agree. I might as well just withdraw the nomination.--WillC 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a request for withdrawal? (sorry if I'm being dense, but I need to know for sure) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might as well. Protected for 3 days. I can't edit it or fix any problems, and once it is unprotected. Another edit war will pop up.--WillC 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, hope you resolve the dispute soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [39].

Albert Einstein[edit]

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Although I have not been an active contributor to this article thusfar I am nominating this for featured article because this article was previously delisted from Featured article status and all of the identified errors appear to have been fixed. Additionally, a lot of additional information has been added and inline citations have been included. Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You were not a major editor. The whole article looks disorganized. The lede should not have that large list of contributions. I see a lot of unsourced statements. His personal life history seems rather cluttered. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are large swaths of unreferenced text. Also, the religious views section on Einstein is incomplete and incorrect in places. Einstein had a religious view and believed in God see this source [40]. At page 48 of this source [41]. Also, religious views of Einstein are a contentious subject. In matters like this, you need to have every sentence referenced and make sure that you include all viewpoints by using words identify the source making the claim. NancyHeise talk 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem I will address those issues over the next couple days. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. Beside the points raised above, there are issues with the spacing of inline citations (make sure they go directly after the punctuation with no space in between). Single sentences should either be expanded on or incorporated into other paragraphs to improve the flow of the article. What was found as a result of "Before the cremation, Princeton Hospital pathologist Thomas Stoltz Harvey removed Einstein's brain for preservation, without the permission of his family, in hope that the neuroscience of the future would be able to discover what made Einstein so intelligent."? I believe I read something recently that stated he had a larger brain function than the average person. Can the Honors section be converted to prose with some explanation for what each item is? Hopefully these suggestions help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone out and made some changes to the flow of the article, alignment and order of images and removed some info. I also split the honors section into 2 sections. One section for awards and 1 for honors and I am in the process of restructuring it to prose vice bullets. Over the weekend I will work on inline citations and expanding the existing references into formatted references vice the oneline bracketted links and I will expand the lead. I think realistically I should be able to get this article up to snuff by middle of next week provided all goes well. Please let me know if you see anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more images, a couple new references and added some data to expand some of the paragraphs. I also did some more adjustment of images. I still need to expand the lead and some more work on the inline citations and citation expantion.--Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed most of the major problems mentioned above. I still need to fix a couple references and expand the references listed under the external links section but please take a look at the article now and let me know if I need to make any other changes.--Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -
  • Mixed citation styles. Some are footnotes, some are parentheticals and there are lots and lots of unsourced infromation.
Not sure what you mean here can you explain this a little more.--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: Catholic school, speech difficulties, compass, models, mechanical devices, rote learning, Italy, military service, slowing down, The Times, etc.
  • Easter egg linking: citizenship in the German Kingdom of Wurttemberg goes to German nationality law, why the sky is blue links to Diffuse sky radiation
  • Unsourced quotations in the Religious views section
  • See also section contains lots of links to articles linked in the text
Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper titles in the refs need to be italics.
  • Lots of websites in the references lack publishers and last access dates.
Done. I took most out of the External links section because they didn't add value to the article,wheren't notible or where already in the article.--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cite error tags in the references.
Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I find this article needs a lot of work, and probably a rethinking of the sources used, thus the oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [42].

Twitter[edit]

Nominator(s): Greg Tyler (t • c) 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that together, we as the Wikipedia community have turned it into a well-written, useful article of high quality. I also want to see some critical commentary, after the changes to our recent peer review were made and the article breezed through its Good article nomination with no problems being raised. Thanks! Greg Tyler (t • c) 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section requires citation. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, that had passed me by. I decided to remove the section for two reasons. Firstly, sources are a nightmare because, although there are plenty of examples of "The best 200 Twitter Apps" and such, there is no-one out there who wants to actually discuss the existence of such things in a reliable source. Secondly, the section didn't really stand on its own except as a build-up to the main article on the subject. At first, that guiltily felt like an easy way out, but I now reckon it's for the best. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems fair enough. I won't support right now because of SandyGeorgia's comment below, but I may give it a more thorough review later. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an article that is not fully cited, has MoS issues, and has ce issues apparent to "breeze through its Good article nomination with no problems raised" is not a good thing. Please review WP:DASH, the article is not fully cited, I found a ce error in the first paragraph I read, and "When asked about how he was going to use the additional investment funds in an interview, Williams said:", did he really plan to use the funds in an interview? How? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define "ce" please? And give any further examples of specific areas that need more citations? Thank you. Hopefully I've cleared up the investment funds comment, I can understand how that was misleading. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a huge amount of MOS cleanup: [43] (I did not rewrite that paragraph). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Support}}I love twitter--75.60.27.102 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm thankful for your support, it's not a question of liking Twitter but of considering the article of high quality. Apologies if that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure you understood the system Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs an independent copy-edit. Here are a few random examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny, technically:
    • Opening: "Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read other users' updates known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the user's profile page and delivered to other users who have subscribed to them (known as followers)".—More comfortable with a comma after "updates"? "Them" could back-refer to any preceding plural (I see four possibilities). "known as followers" might be better adjacent to its referent (... other users—known as "followers"—who have subscribed to those posts).
  • "allow anybody to access them"; or "allow open access."? See what you think.
  • use ... using. Why not remove "to use"?
  • Remove "extensive" ... I mean, how extensive is "wordlwide"? "in that the site" -->"because"?
  • Another "using ... users"; please audit throughout for such repetitions.
  • "(after Facebook and ...)".
  • Are they annual growth rates at the end of the lead? There are months hanging around. Tony (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the suggested changes, and cleaned up some other over-uses of "user" and "using". However, I left the part saying "them" in the lead, as I believe it is now fairly obvious that the tweets are the subject:
"Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the author's profile page and delivered to other users - known as followers - who have subscribed to them."
I've also requested some copyedit input from related WikiProjects. Thank you very much for the feedback. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg asked my project. We are unfortunately probably going to be unable to assist much, but I will personally give it a good look next week (I am busy this week). Computerjoe's talk 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TechCrunch is a reliable source. It's worth hundreds of thousands and is the primary blog of Web 2.0. Also, Compete take data and analyse; this is reliable too imo. Computerjoe's talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters are using their information here [44], Forbes here [45], the Wall Street Journal describes TechCrunch's founder as a 'a power broker' due to the site and the San Francisco Chronice calls him 'Mr. Web 2.0'; TechCrunch has no fewer than 3410 Google News hits in the past month alone [46]. In my opinion, this demonstrates how they are treated as a reliable source. I am really tired of people treating blogs as automatically unreliable; TechCrunch is probably more reliable and has a bigger circulation than many newspapers! Computerjoe's talk 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Compete, they're merely reporting their observations. Like how Alexa would. Compete.com has 114 GNews hits in the past month [47]. Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [48].

Jovan Vladimir[edit]

Nominator(s): Vojvodaeist 08:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it reach gfeatured article criteria. It is well organized, illustrated and referenced.Vojvodaeist 08:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Has VVVladimir (talk · contribs) been told about this nomination? Apart from adding a category, the nominator does not seem to have made any edits to this article. Graham Colm Talk 09:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't work on this article but I can answer if you have some question or comment (or to improve some section).--Vojvodaeist 15:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to let this run only because none of the significant contributors have been active on Wiki recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From what I see, this appears to be a translation of a featured article from the Serbian Wikipedia. Although at least one sentence have been taken directly from the English source cited:

In a situation reminiscent of earlier Serbian rulers, he is pressed by Bulgarian expansion, while being courted by the Byzantine emperor.

From a quick check of the sources, I could not see how Note 3. supports the facts given, although the book is by the respected historian Vladimir Ćorović. The article requires further copy-editing from a native English speaker, and I think the best way to proceed is Peer Review. Graham Colm Talk 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest to add some more precise reference?--Vojvodae 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, I can only read Russian, so I might have missed the salient points. In general sources in English are preferred—but are not mandatory. You could explain here how the sources supports the statements. Graham Colm Talk 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put link to specific chapter in electronic edition of Ćorović's history. The point is that territory of Jovan Vladimir's state was previously part of the Časlav Klonimirović's state. After Časlav death his country was divided in several parts and, in one of them, Jovan Vladimir rise to power. (8th chapter from the top).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Needs a thorough independent copy-edit. Here are examples from only the lead. The whole text needs work.

  • So if you've got a link to the Eastern Orthodox "May 22", why is the item linked to the standard May 22? How does that pass the relevance test that is now—after overwhelming community support—stated at MOSNUM? Same for "1016", which is a threadbare collection of factoids that seem to have little to do with this topic; if any of them does have relevance, why not include it in the main text?
  • "fell in love with the captive"—oh, I get a bit wobbly when I see a reference to oxytocin levels in the guy's brain at a certain time. How could we ever trust the evidence WRT something so subjective and vulnerable to cross-cultural distortion? Will you consider weakening the claim? ("may have") or otherwise recasting?
  • "finally"—yep, being beheaded sounds pretty final to me. Do we need "finally"?
  • Jovan Vladimir was buried in Prespa, and shortly after his death he was recognized as a martyr and saint, and is celebrated on May 22;[2] he is the first Serbian saint. Two or three years after the burial he was reburied in Duklja, but in ca. 1215 his remains were ..."—spot the triple redundancy somewhere after the first comma. There are quite a few problems here: "Jovan Vladimir was buried in Prespa, and shortly after was recognized as a martyr and the first Serbian saint, his sainthood celebrated on May 22;[2]. Two or three years later he was reburied in Duklja, but in about 1215 his remains were ...".
  • Is his "feast day" this day of celebration already mentioned? Please make it clear to those who aren't familiar, even if it seems obvious to you.
  • Are his remains a "relic"? Unsure. And "of the saint" would be neater, if it's not obvious from the context already.
  • "cross that"—you could dispense with "that".
  • Comma after "hand" could go for greater smoothness?Tony (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected per Tony's suggestions. As for the whole text, fresh eyes would be very welcome to copy-edit it for smooth running - especially an expert in editing like Tony. VVVladimir (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. VVVladimir (talk)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to see other opinions. I will fix all these problems in next few days. I also ask for one help: can somenative english speaker read article and fix language mistakes? I also plan to put some more reliable sources (printed especially).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is used as a reference for some well-known and undisputed historical facts. It can be easily replaced by book(s) of prominent historians, if needed. The second link is a translation of a part of Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. So the text on that page is not a historical work in itself - it is just a translation of that historical document relevant for Jovan Vladimir. There is no reason to dispute the correctness of that translation. The third link is on the site of the Russian Orthodox Church in England, and it is used as a reference for a religious title of St. J. Vladimir, not for any historical facts. The fourth link is of a prominent expert for Albania, and is used as a reference for the facts in the article connected with Albania. The text on the fifth link cites the aforementioned chronicle and John V A Fine Jr., a prominent historian of medieval Balkans. VVVladimir (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - reluctantly. This is an interesting and engaging article that has been on my mind for a week or so. Sadly problems still remain; it needs a thorough copy-edit and more citations. There are too many statements that lack attribution to reliable sources. I do not think that Ealdgyth's concerns have been adequately addressed. Graham Colm Talk 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [49].

Norton Internet Security[edit]

Nominator(s): Tyw7


I am nominating this for featured article because Norton Internet Security is a popular software made by the world's leading security companySymantec. I think this article have all it takes to be a feature article. It is long, informative, contains good grammar, and is a Good Article. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 10:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Have you contacted significant contributors to the article? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contacting TechOutsider. Can you list the other contributors below. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Other notable contributors include User:TechOutsider and User:Ched Davis. The edit count tool is extremely useful in determining the major contributors. TechOutsider (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure this is ready yet jimfbleak (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • refs are not formatted correctly, random capitalisation, bare urls etc
    • It is unclear to me why refs like Softpedia, Dave Taylor, or the Amazon review by David Jardine are reliable
  • Proposition I think we (the members of WikiProject Software) should make a body of formatting experts, who will go-through the proposed Featuring Article & then contact the major contributors to finalize. And after their confirmation the real nomination should take place (so, even if the article was not been selected, it will go through a thorough formatting, thus increasing the overall quality). Tell me guyz, what you all think about it (I know its a very bad place to discuss this - but not too bad to initiate discussion, later we will create a page for it).
  • Comment,
Well I have no problem with selecting Norton Internet Security for Featuring but jimfbleak does have points.
Tyw7 and all active contributors & leaders - feel free to vandalize my talk page (hey, no! seriously :P ) its getting summer hibernation & I'm going dumb. Poke me with your 'Ideas' - always welcome. I'm tired of mechanical editing :( . – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 08:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest discussing this at the Wikiproject Software talkpage - you'll reach more people than by posting here. Wikiproject:Military History (MILHIST) has a similar peer review process, you might like to take hints from that. Note that messing around with things with the intention of getting it to FA and not involving the major editors isn't really an option. Ironholds (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to "FBI cooperation", the only source I see is a response to a hypothetical question. None of the sources are an independent report on whether Symantec detects Magic Lantern or not. If that is the only information there is, it should be more clear. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from User:TechOutsider

  • jimfbleak, thank you for bringing the issues to attention. I will look into them. As for the Softpedia editorials, I believe they are reliable because the Firefox article also references Softpedia. It has been delisted (true), however not because of the references.
  • Ironholds, excellent suggestion. Should I withdraw this article? TechOutsider (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is what you and the other nominators want. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, its getting either serious or humorous - somebody help me understand (no seriously guys, shake each others hand :P ). Ironholds, I mentioned to include Major Contributors - didn't I ? – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • HamburgerRadio, I will be looking into that section. Are you questioning if Symantec really whitelisted ML or not? TechOutsider (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and also 1) Any product developer that recognizes specific software must have to make several decisions a day about whether to detect possibly misusable tools. Is there a wider perspective that can be provided? Do they usually comply with developers who request that their software not be detected? 2) Is the article for a product, that did not exist at the time the original statement about Magic Lantern was made, the best place to discuss this? Edit: I misunderstood the article and thought the version list was complete. It appears NIS did exist at the time the statement was made. Although I still wonder if a wider perspective than just NIS is appropriate. Also, that means a more complete history of NIS is needed in the article. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I will be looking to see if I can find information about earlier editions of Norton Internet Security prior to 2006. Yes, other vendors also whitelisted ML, and I will be adding a broader perspective. TechOutsider (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a version of NIS earlier than 2006. NIS produced every year with the earliest version in 2000, so that's NIS 2000. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to confirm that? Because right now a press release from Symantec seems to imply there were even earlier versions. See here; it says NIS00' continues to best competitors. TechOutsider (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least that was the earliest NIS I could find. NIS 1999 or NIS 1998 brought up no result. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the constructive advice. I will be looking into the issues. TechOutsider (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. While this has promise, it's clear it has not been properly prepared and a lot of work needs to be done to get it ready. FAC is not the place to pull the article up to par. Suggest withdrawing to fix up the referencing, eliminate the unacceptable sources, and so on. Please work with the primary editors before renominating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I agree with User:Laser Brain. I only have a netbook currently, which makes correcting mistakes a pain. User:Tyw7 has not edited the article recently; see Revision history of Norton Internet Security. Another fail would be a demerit to the article. TechOutsider (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [50].

Midshipman[edit]

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating Midshipman for featured article because the article recently passed the Military History project's A class review, and I think its an important military rank. I welcome your comments and suggestions! Kirk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: there is a significant number of missing publishers throughout the footnotes; please address these before Ealdgyth has to review them (and when Maralia gets to this, she'll surely note that it's a disappointment that MilHist A-class review passed an article lacking publishers). Also, the templates at the bottom of the page do not conform with WP:LAYOUT; these two items together suggest that a thorough MOS review may be in order (which Maralia is likely to do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publishers - added to the web citations that didn't have them, assuming that's what you meant.
    • US and UK Officer rank templates - these were here before I started expanding the article & were created by someone else. I reviewed WP:LAYOUT, and while I can see why they don't conform, I think they convey information well. I moved them to the bottom above the categories for now. Thanks for the suggestions! Kirk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations need language icons for non-English articles: I did one as a sample (the guardiamarina citations go nowhere, btw). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the rest of the language icons. The Oxford Language Dictionary links for Guardiamarina must require you to login first, that's why they don't work. Should I just use a book citation? Thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Reliable sources
    • The Cobbe_RN reference has copious sources, mostly from the Public Records Office of the National Archives (UK), and it specifically references the Lieutenants passing certificates code ADM 107 which, unfortunately, aren't digitized. Update Removed ref- its duplicated by the Lavery Ref anyways. Kirk (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Connexions is a UK governmental information, advice, guidance and support service for young people.
    • Dutch submarines is iffy, since I can't find the Royal Netherlands Navy for the rank insignia of Adelborst online, although you can see the insignia in photographs which matches this site. I'll see what else I can find, along with the abbreviations.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for future reference, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'm not going to revert and then readd the strike out on the cobb ref, though, as I would have done it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It looks like the MOS issues Sandy pointed out above have largely been taken care of, but I see a fair amount of problems in the prose.

  • "The word derives from the location of ship, amidships, where they were berthed." - "derives from the location of ship" is ungrammatical; suggest "The word derives from the nautical term amidships, referring to the portion of the ship in which they were berthed."
  • "Today, a midshipman is the term for an officer cadet in the U.S. Navy." - "a midshipman is an officer cadet" or "midshipman is the term for an officer cadet".
  • "The first published use of the term midshipman was in 1662, and from 1677 all candidates for commissioned rank in the Royal Navy required previous service as a midshipman." - these appear unrelated; it's unclear why they have been joined.
  • "At the height of the Age of Sail during the Napoleonic era (1793 - 1815)" - a year range should be indicated with an endash, not a hyphen.
  • "The regulations in the Royal Navy demanded that no-one 'be rated as master's mate or midshipman who shall not have been three years at sea'." - this quote should be in double quote marks, and the ending punctuation should be outside the quotes.
  • "A notable example was Thomas Cochrane, whose uncle had him entered at the age of 5, and his name was carried on various ships until he was 18 and received his commission." - this should be "at the age of 5; his name..."
  • "Another way was through the Royal Naval Academy, (renamed the Royal Naval College in 1806), in Portsmouth." - two problems: beginning a paragraph with a vague reference to something from the prior paragraph ("another way") is poor form, and parentheses should never be surrounded by commas.
  • "Midshipmen in the Age of Sail came from a wide social background." - surely the intent is "varied social backgrounds"?
  • "Here is an example of a question from around 1790:" - breaking the fourth wall by speaking directly to the reader should be avoided.
  • "The actual exam questions varied quite considerably" - "actual" and "quite" are both unnecessary here.
  • "In navigation he had to keep a reckoning of the ship's way by plane sailing and on Mercator projection maps, by observing the sun or stars he should be able to determine course and position and understand the variation of the compass." - this string of requirements is not properly joined into a cohesive sentence.
  • "During a time of war, with a large number of ships and battle took its toll on officers, the wait might be a year or two." - something went wrong in the middle of the sentence there.
  • "Career opportunities in the navy, c. 1810" - this image caption needs to identify which navy's promotion scheme it describes.

These examples are from the lead and the Apprentice officers section; a cursory review of the rest of the article evidences similar prose concerns. This needs a thorough copyedit. It would also benefit from additional attention to the insignia images; the great white gaps in the subsections of Modern usage and in the table on Comparative ranks and insignia could surely be reduced if the images were of smaller and more uniform size. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A lot of the copy edit problems stem from the sources which are in 'Academic Historian British English from the 1930's', and I've stared at this too long to do a good job of translating that into brilliant, readable, English prose. I've had a copy edit request out for a couple of months, any volunteers? Kirk (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I expanded the abbreviations and added Maralia's copy edit suggestions. Thank you for your comments. Kirk (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insignia are smaller & more uniform size now. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [51].

1995 European Grand Prix[edit]

Nominator(s): D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article as I feel the article matches the current FA-criterion. Although the article recently failed a GA-nomination (due to misunderstandings between me and the reviewer), I have improved the article further based on peer review comments by Apterygial (talk · contribs). I believe the article meets the sources and images criterion within the FA-criteria. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Bet you never thought you'd see THAT right off the bat for a autoracing FAC!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the hard bit out of the way! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – First off, I'm surprised to see an article that recently failed GAN make such a quick appearance at FAC. I don't see what's wrong with the photos (free images from a 1995 race are unlikely at best now), but I do think the lead should be beefed up as the reviewer suggested to ensure that it covers the entire article. The issue concerning coverage of the track selection seems to have been mostly addressed, although I'm interested to know where the event was held in 1994. Please check that the references use things such as en dashes for page ranges (ref 44) and italics for printed publications (Autosport; with the work parameter in use, they need to be forced). Will try to do a prose/MoS review later, but it looks like I'm about to be swamped for a while. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment Giants. I personally think that the lead is an OK size, it gives a brief summary of the article without going into excessive detail - if you go into excessive detail you may go into detail that is not really relevant to the lead as a whole. One of the comments in the GAN stated that bits in the Background/P&Q section should be in the lead, but I'm not sure what without repeating myself.
  • I'll try and put a bit about where the event was using reliable sources. Done the bit about ref 44, but "italics for printer publications" - the Autosport ones are from their website, so I don't understand what you're saying? D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the articles come from a printed publication's website, the publishers should still be given in italics; at least that's how I've always seen it here. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case there's a problem with the {{Cite web}} template which should automatically put the publishers in italics? See: Template:Cite_web#Examples. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Normally the publication name would be put in the work parameter of the template, but here there's already something in it. Just leave the magazine name in the publisher parameter and add italics like you would anywhere else on the site. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Prose review:

  • "but was held up in lapped traffic with Schumacher overtaking him two laps before the end of the race." → "but was held up in lapped traffic and overtaken by Schumacher two laps before the end of the race." Better structure this way.
  • "Schumacher's win kept him at the top of the Drivers' Championship, 27 points ahead of Hill, the German only needing a further three points to secure the title." Awkward sentence to read. Consider splitting it.
  • Report: Schumacher is linked twice in three sentences here.
  • "However Meanwhile, Coulthard's prospective replacement".
  • Practice and qualifying: "of whom only Berger and Brundle had raced at Nurburgring in an Formula One car before". Should be "a Formula One car before".
  • "Both sessions on Friday and Saturday were rain interrupted, leading to not much action on the track." → "Both sessions on Friday and Saturday were interrupted by rain, which led to little action on the track."
  • "The former driver's crash was caused by a stuck throttle; the resulting damage to the car forcing him to switch to the team's spare monocoque." Either change the semi-colon to a comma or switch "forcing" to "forced".

I'll look at the race summary later. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) D.M.N. (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the race began, Coulthard on his reconnaissance lap out of the pit lane, spun off the track." Awkward sentence from start to finish.
  • I've removed "but of the pitlane" as the link explains that bit. D.M.N. (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whilst" → "while" in second paragraph of Race. Look around for these elsewhere too.
  • "an incorrectly-pressured set of tyres...". No hyphen after -ly words.
  • I see both "repassed" and "re-passed" in this section. Pick one and stick to it.
  • Comma needed in the middle of "dropping to fourth behind Schumacher and Hill who passed him on laps 21 and 23 respectively." Giants2008 (17-14) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, he had had to pit to replace the damaged wing".
  • I don't really know what you're asking me to do here? =O D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while driving round the track with his damaged car...". Is it all right to have "round" instead of "around"?
  • Around seems better - changed. D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with pundits feeling that he had not been 'forceful' enough in his battle with Schumacher." Another of these with + -ings that are in every FAC I look at. The real prose gurus here don't like these (no, I'm not one of them). Giants2008 (17-14) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA fail should not be held against the article. Grand Prix articles make decent articles as they have a discrete and defined place and time, and a workable structure. This was another decent Grand Prix article, apart from the issues with the lead and coverage of the track selection. The fail was simply down to the issues not being dealt with. I see the issues are now being addressed, so the reasons for the GA fail are being dealt with. SilkTork *YES! 12:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. It is pretty good, but there are lots of oddities around that could easily be smoothed out by an uninvolved copyeditor. Strange preposition use, vague connectors, and so on. Suggest getting someone new to go through it looking for items such as these:
    • "Coulthard was fastest on a time of 1:38.378" I don't get the "on a time" construction.. how is someone on a time? Wouldn't it be more elegant to say "Coulthard had the fastest time of 1:38.378" or similar?
      • Changed. That's the only place with that phrase in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A total of approximately 90,000 spectators attended the circuit on race day." What is "a total of" doing?
    • "Before the race began, Coulthard on his reconnaissance lap, spun off the track." This is quite ungainly and requires rewriting.
      • I've reworded it and merged it into the next sentence: "Coulthard was forced to use his spare car, a standard FW17 chassis, for the race itself after he spun off the track during his reconnaissance lap." - hope this is OK. D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "resulting in the start being aborted with a new start time of 14:05 CEST." Aborted with... no. Aborted in favor of, maybe. But simpler: "... resulting in the start being aborted. A new start time of 14:05 CEST was planned."
    • "Irvine also got past Hill, but was repassed by the Williams driver during the course of the first lap." Not sure "by the Williams driver" or even "the course of" are needed.
      • I've remove "the course of" but kept in "by the Williams driver" to make sure it is explicity clear. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "due to an electronic failure on his Footwork car" Why on his car? Surely, in?
    • "The McLaren cars and the Ferrari of Berger slipped back in the early laps of the race, with both McLaren cars overtaken by the Pacific and Forti cars as they dropped down the order." The "with" connector is so clumsy and imprecise. Better: "while both McLaren cars were overtaken by the Pacific and Forti cars as they dropped down the order."
      • Not sure about that. "while" suggests to me that event A was happening at the same time as event B, whereas "with" is an extension of the opening point. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are just samples of article-wide problems at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments - I've fixed what you've noted above which hopefully is OK. I don't think there are too many problems with the article... D.M.N. (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [52].

Mariano Rivera[edit]

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... it became a Wikipedia:Good article and received a peer review, and suggested changes were accordingly made to the article. It is well-sourced and well-written, covers the person's life in career in detail but is general enough for a casual reader to enjoy. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments. A lot of them are just suggestions... stuff I couldn't figure out how to fix myself.
  • "he was converted to closer" - is there any way to avoid passive voice here? For example did Joe Torre decide to convert him to a closer? Passive voice in the first paragraph just jumps out at me.
  • Related to the above item, you might avoid using technical terms like setup pitcher and closer in the intro? This will appear on the main page and most readers won't know what those terms mean. I don't see any convenient way around this though so I don't expect it to be addressed unless someone has a good idea.
  • Does the intro have to have so many inline citations? I was under the impression that citations were not needed in the intro if the claims were cited in the main body of the article. Currently it's a bit distracting, they are quite densely present.
  • Other than the use of technical terms, the intro's wording is very good and does just what an intro needs to do in a FA.
  • "In 1990, a 20-year-old Rivera, then a shortstop, volunteered to pitch for his Panamá Oeste team" - I follow baseball and even I don't know what is meant by "his Panamá Oeste team". Can this be clarified?
  • "Yankees' management reportedly made a trade offer of Rivera to the Seattle Mariners for Randy Johnson, but the Mariners rejected the deal" - The way this is worded might suggest the Yankees were very down on Rivera and just wanted to get rid of him, it might be a good idea to clarify that Randy Johnson at this time was a premier pitcher to be trading for?
  • "There were concerns that the disappointment of the previous season's end would affect Rivera's performance in the future" - too vague, a FA should probably define who was concerned. Yankees management, fans, sportwriters, all of the above?
  • "Rivera won his third consecutive World Series title" - is it proper to say he won his WS title when the WS is a team championship? "helped the Yankees win their third..." sounds better to me, but I'm not sure.
  • "Rivera signed a two-year contract extension" - missing details, shouldn't this give the dollar value of the extension?
  • "began their historic comeback" - this doesn't explain why the comeback was historic. It was because no team had ever come back from 0-3, right?
  • The 2007-2008 section is a bit problematic. First of all, these years were not quite as notable as his earlier years, but this section is the longest of any - suggesting issues with recentism. Second, despite the length, it doesn't mention his 2007 postseason performance. Some trivia like "Rivera also became the first pitcher since 1975 to successfully convert his first 22 save opportunities without allowing any runs in those outings" could probably go. Recentism is a major problem in sports articles... Wikipedia didn't exist or at least wasn't very popular in Rivera's best years, but that doesn't mean we should have longer sections for his more recent years simply because people wrote more content about Rivera in those years.
  • Other than recentism, my biggest concern is that many terms and phrases used in this article ("Moved him into the bullpen", "blew three of his first six save opportunities") will render much of this article baffling to non-baseball fans. I imagine a non-fan reviewer will be along to address that though, so just wait for them... I can't be unbiased about baseball.
All in all it's a good baseball biography article. Fixing the recentism issues might require removing some sentences, but I think it will result in a better article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and tackle your suggestions one at a time as I can get to them. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if converting him to closer was Joe Torre's decision alone - it seems as though mangement decided to let Wetteland walk because they saw a star reliever in Rivera. I thought rather than get too specific in the lead, it would be better to take the emphasis off of who made the decision to move him to a different role. I'll try and look into if any one particular "actor" had the ultimate decision. Sounds like management purposely did not sign Wetteland because they wanted Rivera as closer. This has been fixed.
  • I thought as long as you Wikilinked it, you could include unfamiliar terms. In any case, setup man is something that could be removed if people disagree with it - I included it to differentiate his 1996 and 1997 years as a reliever. However, I definitely think the term "closer" needs to be kept in the lead, since I would think someone can infer the meaning of the word, not to mention his name is used in certain context to infer someone can "close" or "get the job done" (e.g. "he's the Mariano Rivera of the golf world"). I kept the words "closer" and "setup man" Wikilinked, but I also expanded what innings they had Rivera pitching.
  • I didn't know what the guidelines were for citations in leads, but I found them: The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Looks like we can vet individual citations and see if they are necessary or not. Citations for less challengeable material have been removed.
  • I think Panama Oeste (Spanish for West) was just the name of his team. I can fix that to be a little clearer. Reworded
  • I can reword the trade offer to point out Big Unit's significance, but I think mentioning a trade offer will still retain the "down on Rivera" sentiment no matter how you word it. Reworded
  • Will try to reword who was concerned based on what I see in the citation. The coaching staff was concerned. I've fixed this.
  • Will try to reword ownership of the World Series title. I reworded to say the 2000 title was the team's 3rd consecutive, but I had to use a possessive pronoun for Rivera to explain it was his 4th championship.
  • Dollar value was around $20 million for the 2 years - I'll get a citation for it. Was actually $21 million, but fixed.
  • The significance of the Red Sox comeback was mentioned before, but somewhere along the line, it was removed for concerns of POV or concentrating too much on the series outcome. But you're right, the reason the comeback was historic should be explained. Fixed
  • I'll have to take a step back and try and weed out stuff in 2007-2008 that isn't significant enough. Did a little bit of revising - let me know how it looks.
  • Back to my earlier explanation - does Wikilinking unfamiliar terms make their inclusion OK? I tried to explain that moving to the bullpen meant Rivera was becoming a full-time reliever. Blown saves are a real baseball statistic, and you can kind of infer the meaning - it would more wordy to say it a different way. Any other ones?

Thanks for the feedback - I'll try and fix some of the immediate things you just brought up. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on tables You have different table srtyles in different sections. Consistency would be more aesthetic. In particular, however, the tables in the Career Stats section actually kinda make my eyes hurt (I'm not being a smart aleck; I'm serious). There's no visual separation between them.. no borders, no whitespace.. and it's a bit difficult for me to separate them. Could you do something about these format issues, please? tks. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Career Statistics table? I'm not sure what's wrong with it, or what "them" is referring to. The columns? The rows? Maybe you could mock something up in a sandbox page to show me what you would do with it? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon further inspection, I think I see what you meant - can you give the Career Statistics table another look? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyTheTiger
  • Personally, I would link scout (sports). I linked shortstop on your behalf.
  • Can you mention the leagues for the Greensboro Hornets, Ft. Lauderdale Yankees, Tampa Yankees, Albany-Colonie Yankees and Columbus Clippers.
  • Clarify what level Greensboro Hornets and Ft. Lauderdale Yankees were.
  • In the highlight box, I would add 3x AL Saves leader.
  • Do you have any minor league statistical detail?
    • Are his full minor league stats avaiable online? I want to look at them before clearing this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stats are available here: [53] Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could probably summarize his minor league career with an aggregate won-loss record, minor league ERA, inning, strikeout and walk totals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would lumping all the stats together for his entire minor league career be a good idea, since they were across different levels of competition? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In truth, the individual years are not that impressive compared to other guys who were minor league all-stars and such. Thus, it is difficult to expand upon his minor league career without doing a lot of detailed research. Optimally, I would like a minor league section like Chris_Young_(Baseball_pitcher)#Minor_leagues for a featured article although some might feel that is too in depth. It does not seem that you really have done the highest level of research on his minor league years. I think because he has accomplished so much at the major league level, you might look and say nothing he did in the minors is important any more. It would help the reader to have some detail. Absent of that the best cover up is an aggregate summary. I am still not enthused with the lack of detail. Usually guys move up for doing well. You should be able to document this at most levels of minor league play, but you do not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went into a little more detail on his minor league career, with some statements about how he was viewed as a prospect, as well as some more stats. Please let me know what you think. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Integrated it into the first paragraph of the "legacy" section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am talking about "Rivera began the 1995 season with the Columbus Clippers,..."
  • Was he ever a minor league all-star?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I misunderstood you. I integrated that sentence into the section's other paragraphs. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon first usage, you should say American League Divisional Series (ALDS) as opposed to jumping in with an undefined acronym. Same with ALCS.
  • All citations should follow punctuation and not alphanumeric text.
  • Do you have a citation for "Rivera was carried on the shoulders of his teammates during the celebration."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response to TonyTheTiger's comments:
  • Linked scout (sports)
  • Mentioned the leagues for all minor league affiliates.
  • Mentioned the level of all minor league affiliates.
  • Added 3x Major League saves leader (both times he led the AL, he led the Majors).
  • Added a few minor league stats. Let me know if this is still insufficient.
  • I do not know if he was a minor-league All-Star - I've never seen it mentioned in all the sources I've read through.
  • I had already mentioned the long-form of the Division and Championship series before using the acronyms, but just be on the safe side, I've removed all usage of the acronyms.
  • All citations follow a period, comma, or semi-colon.
  • Added a citation to ESPN game recap for him being carried on his teammates shoulders.
Thanks for the comments. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disappointed that nothing is mentioned about the change in mangement because Rivera made a fuss over Joe Torre leaving if I recall. I think he threatened free agency in part because of the Torre move. I also think there was a story about Rivera not liking the changes in ownership as George passed control to his sons. These may be parts of the same story, but you've got to flesh it out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find "as he is the only pitcher to remain tenured as closer for the same team since 2002" confusing since he has been the closer for a much longer period.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed to say 1997. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we lost a fact with the change. I think it should say something like, he is not only the only reliever tenured with the same team since 2002, but also he has been tenured with the Yankess since 1997 in that role. or something similar that retains both facts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will need to get a reference for him being the only reliever since 2002 on the same team (I got that year from somewhere, but I can't recall where). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't find any reference that says he's the only reliever since 2002 on the same team, but I did rephrase the sentence to say his tenure as closer is 6 years longer than any other active closer, and that is tied as having the longest active pitching tenure with any team. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns have all been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/2/27/769395/mariano-s-gonna-cut-you-ev a reliable source?
  • Current ref 91 (Olney) needs a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response to Ealdgyth's comments:
  • Removed the citation and used a combination of 3 refs already in use to show a different speeds being cited.
  • I don't have the physical copy of the book available, so I don't know the page number. But the actual Epilogue is freely available on ESPN.com, and it's linked to in the reference.
Thanks for the comments. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There you go! All done. Have fun at FAC in the future! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 8 (from Birth of a Dynasty) is also from a book, and should be handled similarly to the Olney cite. If a page number is needed for either of these books, please let me know because I happen to have both of them. Also, reference 76 needs an access date. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the Birth of a Dynasty reference mirror the Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty reference in formatting. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The season summaries are pretty good and give a decent narrative of his career, but there is a lack of material tying his entire career together and putting it in perspective amongst other closers. The legacy section quotes several people that have named him the best closer of all time, but the article does not demonstrate how his statistics in that role measure up to both his contemporaries and other relief pitchers throughout baseball history. The accomplishments section does this a little bit in list form, but it does not go far enough and should probably be partially integrated into the prose as well. Without some of this big picture analysis, the article is not comprehensive. Indrian (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point - I may have missed out on the "big picture" by trying to tone down the positive language in the Legacy section. I've updated it and tried to put his career into perspective. Please review it and give me your feedback. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is much better. I will have to do a comprehensive readthrough of the article tomorrow to make sure I have no other problems before I change my vote, but this satisfies the objection above. Indrian (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This article has come a long way thanks to some dedicated editors. Not quite ready to throw my support behind it yet, but I don't want to block it with an oppose either. Indrian (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'm a Yankees fan, so I can't possibly be objective with this one. After reading the article again following my participation in the peer review, one thing stuck out at me: there is really nothing on how important Rivera was during the team's run of three consecutive World Series championships from 1998 to 2000. Many in the media have argued that he was the most important factor in the Yankees' success. That is an important part of his legacy, and perhaps deserves some mention in the appropriate season summaries. Other than that, I still think the article could use a copy-edit to improve the writing and clean up all the baseball jargon. Good luck with the FAC, as it's nice to see something here that brings back fond memories from when I was growing up. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to address this in the season summaries, but I ended up putting the most important information in the "Legacy" section. The 1997-2001 season summary goes into some details about this postseason success with the Yankees, while the "Legacy" section tries to tie a bow around his career as a whole. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks okay to me now. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking over the article again, another issue comes to mind. For Rivera's early adult baseball career, we come in at what appears to be the middle; his volunteering to move from shortstop to pitcher for Panama Oeste. There is no material linking the receipt of his first real glove at 12, the last piece of baseball information given, to that moment. Was Panama Oeste an amateur team? Was it affilitated with a league, business, or other organization? When did Rivera begin playing organized ball as opposed to his game of milk cartons and sticks? This hole should really be filled if possible. Indrian (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried as much as possible to fill this hole. Please review and let me know. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. It's not bad, but it needs work. I found lots of prose problems just in the first couple sections, along with MoS problems that indicate the article has never been audited for MoS compliance. These are prerequisites for FAC. I've listed some sample issues below; please get a fresh copyeditor to go through the entire text and look for more.
    • "he is the Major Leagues' all-time postseason leader" There are more than one?
    • "feared by Major League hitters" Hm, a bit too sportscaster-ish.
    • "a line of work that did not pay very well" By American standards or by Panamanian standards?
    • "They would also play baseball in the streets by substituting milk cartons for gloves, tree branches for bats, and taping beat-up baseballs." The grammar is wrong here. You've used "taping beat-up baseballs" as the final item in a series of things that have been substituting. If you remove the first two, you have "by substituting taping beat-up baseballs" which obviously doesn't work. Requires revision.
    • "Rivera worked on a commercial shrimping boat on which his father was captain, working 12-hour days." Ungainly "worked ... working". Why not just "Rivera worked 12-hour days on a commercial ..."?
    • "Rivera never dreamed of taking up the profession ..." Far too colloquial, the tone is more "magazine" than "encyclopedia".
    • MoS problems with logical quotations.. see WP:LQ.
    • In uses such as "Yankees' tryout camp" and "Yankees' director", you can safely eliminate the apostrophe thereby turning the word from a possessive into an adjective. It looks and reads much nicer.
      • Fixed. There were some cases where no changes were made ("Yankees' title run", "Yankees' closer"), but otherwise, this should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "only allowing 24 baserunners" Move the "only" further right to get the intended meaning.
    • "while only walking 36 batters" Ditto.
    • "but this caused nerve damage to his throwing elbow instead" This is a wreck. Avoid using the ambiguous "this" in reference to something previous. This what? Also, the "instead" is redundant.
    • Please, don't link the years in the article to "<year> in baseball". See MOS:UNLINKYEARS.
    • WP:MOSNUM violations ("to make 2 abbreviated starts")
      • Fixed. In some cases, I had to leave some numbers as they were (7 ⅔; 1, when used with other numerals for statistical purposes), but this was only done in instances of certain baseball statistics. Otherwise, it should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the article explain why the Red Sox fans gave him a standing ovation? (Sorry, just kidding, couldn't resist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern as follows:

  • File:Rivera2.jpg: as stated by the templates, a local admin should check the local file's history on what license the image was first supplied with.

Other Images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verified that it was originally uploaded with the "with disclaimers" version of GFDL-self. —TKD [talk][c] 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many issues at the moment.

Resolved issues from BUC (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major League Baseball's (MLB) New York Yankees" makes it sound like MLB own the Yankees.
  • Rephrased as "New York Yankees team of Major League Baseball (MLB)." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a breakout year" reader may not know what a "breakout year" is.
  • OK, maybe the word "breakthrough" then? Either one seems like a pretty basic vocabulary word the reader should know. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to him as either just "Mariano" or just "Rivera" thoughout the article, not both.
  • "Rivera pitched 26 consecutive scoreless innings, including 15 consecutive hitless innings." reader may not quite understand this. If they were consecutive, does that mean he pitched them all at once in the same game?
  • This should be pretty clear from context clues, since this fact is prefaced by "From April 15-May 21" and it has been explained in the article that Rivera only pitches the late innings of games. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and finished with a 1.91 ERA, and clinched the Yankees' victory in the World Series" remove the first "and".
  • "a historic 125-win season" why was it historic?
  • Rephrased to say "a season in which the Yankees won a Major League record 125 wins between the regular season and the playoffs." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Metallica's song "Enter Sandman"...suggested Rivera was entering to put hitters to sleep." Did someone actually said this was the reason for the song or is it just a general assumption?
    This is how the song is interpreted - there is no evidence to say that is specifically why it was chosen. Rephrased to say "features lyrics about an evil entity giving children nightmares and precedes Rivera's jog from the bullpen to the pitchers mound". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "35 postseason innings for a 0.51 ERA, qualifying himself for the Major League's record for lowest career postseason ERA" "qualifying himself"?
  • Well, you can't just pitch one scoreless inning and have a record-setting 0.00 ERA - he passed the 30 inning minimum for the record's eligibility. Rephrased to say "a 0.51 ERA. This qualified him for the Major League's record for lowest career postseason ERA by reaching the 30 inning minimum for eligiblity; he still holds this record." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fans at Yankee Stadium booed him" I don't think "booed" needs to be linked.
  • In other countries, fans express their displeasure in other ways, like whistling. Booing is not something that all readers may understand the significance of. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he struck out in his first career regular season at-bat" a bit trivial.
  • "39 saves in 40 chances" you were saying "opportunities" before, be consistent.
  • "the best "out pitch" in baseball" reader may not know what an out pitch is.
  • "the best ever, no doubt..." why the periods?
  • "he was a considered a "fringe prospect" at best" by who?
  • Reference is not specific, but it's pretty obvious as a baseball fan that those evaluations come from baseball scouts - fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Say it's from a scout then.
  • "Rivera had begun to throw at 95–96 MPH in the minors" reader may not know what "MPH" means.
  • The first time the word "miles-per-hour" is used in the article (throwing 87-88 miles-per-hour), it is wikilinked, not abbreviated, and followed by the abbreviation, thus making it unnecessary to spell the phrase out in every subsequent instance (such as the one above). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One instence of spelling it out isn't really enough.
  • Yes it is according to basic rules of grammar and style, which state that once one spells out an abbreviation once, one does not have to do so again in the work. Otherwise, there would be no point to abbreviating at all. Also, the article is not written for a three-year-old, so really if someone cannot figure out what MPH means from the clues already given in the article it is not really our problem. In other news, some of our readers may not know what the word "professional" or the word "success" in the first paragraph of the article means as well. Maybe we should include links to dictionary entires for every word in the article? Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "essentially shortening the games for their opponents by three innings" sounds a little POV
  • But that is what they did, isn't it? For readers that don't know what the importance of having a shutdown bullpen is, this should get the point across. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't literally shorten the game so some people may find this confusing.
  • Right, it does not litreally shorten games, it essentially shortens games, which is exactly what the article says, backed up by evidence in the article that the team lost only 3 games in which they led after six innings. Give the readers of wikipedia articles some credit. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub setions for the "Major leagues" section seem a bit odd. 2 years, 5 years, 3 years, 2 years, 2 years and less than a year. Whats the logic behind them?
  • Trying to keep each section balanced in the amount of prose it has. I can divide up the years a little more evenly, though, if that is not important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've alway felt with team sports players, the only time a new section in needed is when they change teams.
  • While I agree with you that sorting by years is arbitrary, your suggested solution clearly does not work for a player that has spent fifteen years with the same team. The FA style rules clearly demand breaking an article into more subheadings than that. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They subsequently installed Rivera in the role of the Yankees' closer for the 1997 season." link "closer".
  • Unnecessary - closer is already linked in the section on 1996 when describing John Wetteland. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again one instance isn't really enough.
  • "Eventually, Rivera settled into his new duties" how?
  • This is explained by the rest of the sentence - he pitched well enough to be an All-Star and finish with respectable stats. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the league's premier starting pitchers" this is POV.
  • How is it POV to call Randy Johnson, 4x Cy Young winner and one of the greatest pitchers ever, a premier starting pitcher? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think he's "a premier starting pitcher" others may not.
  • Wow, this comment is so ridiculous it is almost hard to respond to, but I will give it a shot. Wikipedia policy on POV states that wikipedia must represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" [emphasis in original] Now, do you really think that there is a sinlge source that meets that criteria that does not think Randy Johnson is a premier pitcher. Go ahead, bring one here. Find a significant viewpoint, one that has gained scholarly support from a distinguished group of experts, that says Randy Johnson was an overrated or non-premire pitcher. I'll wait right here. Oh, what, you could not find one? Yeah, that's what I thought. Seriously, NPOV does not mean one avoids using superlatives when they have been earned. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but he soon put any such concerns to rest." needs a ref.
  • This is explained in great detail by the summaries of his 1998, 1999, and 2000 seasons. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much on the 2001 season considering he went to the world series that year.
  • "2005 season turned out to be, at that point in Rivera's career, his greatest year" how exactly?, he didn't win the world series. Best in terms of stats maybe, but greatest?
  • "Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillén announced in advance that he would use Rivera to close the 2006 All-Star Game" reader might wonder why the Chicago White Sox manager is using him when he plays for the Yankees.
  • I'm not sure what the problem is? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he plays for the Yankees, why is the White Sox manager using him?
  • It is not really the job of this article to explain the intricacies of the All Star game. If the reader is curious about the issue you raised, he can go to the page on the all star game himself. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite struggles in non-save situations" what struggles exactly?
  • A bunch of losses and a higher ERA, but I removed specific stats because of "recentism". I don't think this needs to be expanded. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivera threw the final pitch in the venue's history, retiring the Baltimore Orioles' Brian Roberts on a ground-out." I don't mind this being mentioned, but I think that's a bit too much detail for what is basicly triva.
  • The historical value of this piece of info is too great to shorten, though. In the thousands of games and tens of thousands of innings of baseball that took place at Yankee Stadium, Rivera was the last pitcher to record the last out in a game in the venue. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with perhaps the best season of his career" why "perhaps"?
  • Not all his stats from 2008 were better than 2005 (e.g. innings pitched, ERA). Even though I think it was his best year, I can't make a judgment call for this article and say 2008 was definitely his best. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sports writers and baseball experts anticipate Rivera will be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility, once he retires." Do they say why?
  • ... because the same writers call him one of the best closers ever? I'm not sure why this needs clarification. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the stats in the "Career highlights" section do not have refs.
  • Not all career highlights need references, as some of them have Wikilinks that take you to a separate article with the highlight already listed (e.g. World Series MVP - an article is already dedicated to the history of this award). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it has a ref in another article it still needs a ref in this one.
  • No refs in "Career statistics" section.
  • Stats are from Baseball-Reference, but I can put a specific ref right after the "Current as of" text. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a bit of a neglect to non-baseball fans throughout this article, such as the large use of abbreviation. I would get someone who know nothing about the sport to proof read it.
  • Unfamiliar baseball terms are all Wikilinked in their first mention, and the importance of certain awards is explained. Furthermore, I went to great lengths to explain Rivera's place and history and the importance of his statistical rankings in the "Legacy" section. You should point specific portions of the article that need fixing. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a baseball fan so I can't do the proof reading for you. You will have to fing someone else. With baseball terms, a link in the first instance isn't really enough, also, if you can, you want to keep the reader on the same page, rarther than forcing them to go elsewhere, they may not come back.

BUC (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate BUC taking the time to look through this article and discovering several areas that still needed improving to get it up to FA status, but at the same time I am disheartened by other points that are listed here that would actually hurt the article if they were implemented. I am unsure why BUC feels that a three-year-old with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is the target audience for this article and therefore wants to remove all sophistication from it by needlessly sidetracking to define every last word or concept in the article and therefore completely bog it down with tangents. I may be a baseball fan, but I have read baseball books and articles intended for all age levels and all levels of knowledge of the game, and most of them use just as many abbreviations as this one because concepts like American League (AL), earned run average (ERA), and most valuable player (MVP) are relatively simple and, once defined, need not be spelled out every time they are used to needlessly lengthen the article. This is just good writing, period. I have addressed certain other specific points above. I feel it really would be a shame if an article that has steadily grown in quality over the last month had to take a small step backwards at the whims of a single user to gain the featured status it is close to deserving. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 9 June 2009 [54].

Brad Pitt[edit]

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article has been brought to Good article status and two peer review processes. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. Note: Reference 80 is not a dead link. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quick observations at a glance. No page number for reference 43. Ref 37 needs more details - is it the film, a documentary, sleeve notes, etc? Ref 58 - no author listed, but page 3 of the link gives several names. Some links in the references have the word 'review' added to the title, yet ref 78 and 80, both reviews, do not. Ref 81 - no author. Ref 125 - no author. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the source from the Fight Club film article. Also, I've replaced Ref. 37, added an author for Ref. 58. The 'review' thing is not mentioned in the titles to both refs. 78 and 80, and the rest do have the word 'review'. I also added authors for refs. 81 and 125. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the title of ref 78 is "Movie Review - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - Good, Bad or Ugly: A Legend Shrouded in Gunsmoke Remains Hazy - NYTimes.com". I see you're using the title of the page rather than each article. You may want to check the consistency of that format. I appreciate this instance is however a long title. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyTheTiger
Leaning toward Oppose Support-All issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since he is a Golden Globe Award winner, his infobox should have one of those Awards dropdown features like many other actors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The awards field in the infobox was recently removed after discussion at WP:ACTOR. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to that discussion. I would like to see how it applies in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no PD images of Jennifer and Brad?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this intentionally organized topically as opposed to chronologically. I find all kinds of personal relationship info at the end although chronologically it should appear earlier.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many biographies are strictly chronological. This one is arranged by topic and chronological within the topics. Is this intentional? I am just asking you to reconsider the organization. E.g., would you want to talk about a relationship with Juliette Lewis at the time you are discussing his movie appearances with her or do you want to discuss them in separate places. Either way is O.K. by me, but it is something to think about. Also, much has been made of the Mr. & Mrs. Smith movie as it relates to the Aniston breakup.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay I totally get what you mean now. No, its not intentional. I've seen some articles that way. When I first began working on the article, I just wanted to expand the article, and not make dramatic changes. Hence, why the article is that way. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say, "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics," you should probably precede it by Although Pitts' performance was acclaimed,--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote mentions both Pitt and Jolie. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I am talking about an earlier film than you. I am talking about Legends.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I thought you were referring to Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Sorry. Anyways, I added "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics,[6] but many critics enjoyed Pitt's performance." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention Paltrow in the Seven section. I think they were dating at the time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were dating, but I don't see how mentioning Paltrow in his film career section is important. This properly fits in his PL section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert "Mixed reviews were given for the film." to active voice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing his star power, I have never heard of Empire. However, you neglect to mention him as a GQ man of the year, which I believe he once was.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the Paltrow relationship. There is some famous story of her buying him a rolex or something. Have you seen that in the press?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think its necessary to include that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is my point. First, we are trying to summarize secondary sources. I believe this story is out there in several of them because I have heard it and I am not a Hollywood insider. Second, he has had numerous Hollywood "relationships". "much-publicized romance and engagement" gives a complete summary of the relationship, but this story offers us a chance to add depth to the Paltrow section of his personal life. In fact, it gives us a chance to give this relationship its own paragraph if you want to go in that direction. I would try to conjure up a separate paragraph for that relationship in his life bio. So this story gives such a paragraph breadth and depth.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, I would rather say that they shared an apartment during their relationship, then to include that Paltrow bought him an expensive Rolex watch. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if you use both you have the makings of a substantive distinct paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have not made any changes in this regard and have made no further commentary. What is your current thought on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will not add the watch info. Its pointless to include. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am considering opposing for this reason. In general, birthday presents from former girlfriends (live-in or not) are meaningless in the context of the life picture of someone who has subsequently been married (and subsequently united, if that is the proper word). In that context it is pointless. However, given that this is an encyclopedia of summarized public sources, we should realize that almost anyone who pays attention to Hollywood in general or Brad and/or Gwyneth in particular knows the story. Thus, we have a well known story about Brad that is likely well-documented in the public press that we are omitting for some reason. You have not given me a reason other than your opinion that it is pointless to you personally. It is not pointless to the annals of Hollywood where it is documented and our responsibility is to summarize the public annals. We are not here to judge what parts are meaningless to us personally. There are very few known birthday presents of boyfriend/girlfriends that are as storied as this one. Thus, I think you are omitting general knowledge that should be included. There are some celebrities for whom a drunken escaped, a DUI (Mel Gibson), bong hit (Michael Phelps) or some other meaningless incident is essential to the complete breadth and scope of a biography. In this case, you have an unusually important gift exchange between boyfriend and girlfriend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But, when it comes to trying to tell me off, I too am entitled to say something. The fact of the watch does not warrant to be included because it's very trivial. Might want to look into it. If this was "widely reported" why isn't it included in Gwyneth Paltrow's article? Yes, she might have given him the watch, but it was "widely reported", according to you. I don't see these gifts belonging in an encyclopedia article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am not trying to tell you off. I am explaining my current position in terms of an editorial review of this article. Gwyneth's article is not even a GA so we do not have any breadth requirement that the article was reviewed for. When I say widely reported, I mean I person who is not a hollywood insider knows about the story. I am not Brad's best friend or Gwyneth's confidant. I am a guy who heard the story in the press. I am not a groupie of either party who gobbles up every bit of gossip about either. It is the most significant gift exchange that I know of in all of the Hollywood stories I have ever heard. On that basis I am leaning toward Oppose. However, I am unable to find a reference as easily as I thought. Now, I found one that says I have the facts wrong.[56] O.K., I'll let it slide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitt has had an audience with Obama. Was he a financial supporter of the campaign?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he do any activism for Obama like he did for Kerry?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please review the "publisher" fields in the references; many refer to the owner, rather than the publisher (e.g. The Guardian is published by Guardian News & Media, which is owned by the Guardian Media Group, and guardian.co.uk is just the website, not the publisher). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC

I removed guardian.co.uk from the refs. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support: A very informative and generally well-written article. With over 10,000 hits a day on average it is very high profile, and needs all its wrinkles ironed out. Personally, I favour the internal organisation of the article away from strict chronology; it helps us to assess Pitt's professional career better when the private life distractions are left until later. One thing I might do, however, is make it clear that Pitt and Aniston were married at the time of his guest appearance on Friends.
    • What specifically would you like me to say? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed it, see if you like it. You may need to add a ref if the existing one doesn't mention that they were married. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks and its fine. Oh, no need, the source covers that they were married in his appearance on the show. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In many ways the form of the article resembles that of the recently promoted Kirsten Dunst, though I think this is probably the better article. One fault I found when reviewing the Dunst article is to an extent repeated here – a tendency to over-rely on verbatim quotations, of which there are a couple of dozen or more in the Pitt article. I recommend trying to reduce these with some appropriate paraphrasing.
I'll try to work on those. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would this work ---> "Variety wrote that Pitt's take on Louis is handsome and personable, but added that "there is no depth to his melancholy, no pungency to his sense of loss". In conclusion, Variety reiterated that Pitt does not seem to connect in a meaningful way with any of the actors in the film" [57] for the review for Interview with the Vampire? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sort of thing would work well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added that to the Critical success section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I have a number of minor issues that should be resolved quite easily:-
  • "The following year he appeared in two contrasting, critically acclaimed starring roles, in the crime thriller Seven (1995) and the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), for which he won a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earned an Academy Award nomination." First, it was his performances, rather than the roles themselves, that were critically acclaimed, and you need to clarify which of the two roles won him a Golden Globe award and an Oscar nomination. Suggestion: "The following year he gave critically acclaimed performances in two starring roles; in the crime thriller Seven (1995), and in the science fiction film Twelve Monkeys (1995), the latter winning him a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and earning him an Academy Award nomination."
    • Done.
    • "Since his relationship with Jolie..." makes it sound as if it's over. Perhaps "Since beginning his relationship with Jolie..."
      • Done.
  • Early life section
    • "In a review for the film, Entertainment Weekly, wrote: "Pitt is a magnificent slimeball..." Entertaimnent Weekly didn't write anything, its reviewer did, so suggest rephrase: Entertainment Weekly's film reviewer wrote: "Pitt is a magnificent slimeball..." etc
      • Done.
    • Wikilinks within quotes should be avoided, per WP:BTW
      • Done.
  • 1999–2003
    • "The character [in Fight Club] is a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club." Whose desciption of the character is this?
      • The book.
        • You need to cite the page of the book where this description occurs. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, actually it was the description that was "summarized" to add to the character. But, I added a book source and online source. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say Fight Club received "polarized" reactions. From the source, the reviews don't seem at all "polarized", i.e. at two extremes. The source shows a range of review reactions, but heavily slanted towards favourable. Even the old standby of "mixed reviews" seems inappropriate.
      • I'm very lost on this one.
        • I've changed "polarized reactions" into "a variety of reactions", which is accurate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2004–present
    • "...the film is the most commercially successful of his career." This needs a date qualification – it may not always be his gratest commercial success
      • Done.
  • Other projects
    • "Aniston and Grey are no longer partners." Well, we need to be told first that they were partners before being told that they are no longer. This could be done by fixing the previous sentence: "Pitt, along with Jennifer Aniston and her partner, Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, founded the film production company Plan B Entertainment in 2002."
      • Done.
    • I'm not sure that it's a good idea discussing film projects and humanitarian projects under an undifferentiated "Other projects" heading. I would suggest that this section be divided into two subsections: "Film projects" and "Humanitarian projects" (or similar titles)
      • The thing is that the article is 86 kilobytes long. I don't want to make the article much larger than what it is.
        • I'm not suggesting you should add more text, merely that the first two paragraphs of this section could be subheaded "Film and television work" and the remaining paragraphs subheaded "Humanitarian causes" or some such. This would highlight Pitt's commitment to humanitarian causes in the article's list of contents. If you're not comfortable with this suggestion, ignore it – it's not a sticking point for me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did a test, it works. I'll do it. Since you agree about adding the architecture info. to the Make It Right, would this ---> "Pitt also has a knowledgeable interest in architecture, that in 2006, he created the Make It Right Foundation, in which he gathered a group of housing professionals in New Orleans, which was heavily affected by Hurricane Katrina"? Would something like that work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I've tweaked it a bit and come up with "Pitt has a knowledgeable interest in architecture,[ref] which he used to good effect in 2006 when he created the Make It Right Foundation. For this project he gathered a group of housing professionals in New Orleans, which had been heavily affected by Hurricane Katrina, with the object of financing and constructing 150 new houses in New Orleans' Ninth Ward.[ref]" I think that works well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was close enough and check from my part. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've tweaked it a bit more, as on reflection my proposed version seemed a bit wordy, but it looks fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life
    • "In the late 1980s and the 1990s, Pitt was involved in relationships with several of his co-stars..." You had better qualify this as "a series of relationships", otherwise Brad might get cross.
      • Done.
    • "a knowledgeable fan of architecture" – whose description? It's a pretty dumb-down phrase, so if someone said it, it should be in quotes and specifically attributed. Otherwise it should be rephrased, e.g. "He also has a knowledgeable interest in architecture."
      • I was thinking of adding this to the Other projects section, with the "Make It Right Foundation", since it does involve Pitt working in architecture, but I wasn't sure if it would flow well.
        • I think you're right – the mention of his interest in architecture would be better in the context of the "Make It Right Foundation". Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Children
    • "The couple sold the first pictures of Shiloh through the distributor Getty Images themselves, rather than allowing paparazzi to make these valuable photographs." The second part of the sentence reads as an editorial opinion. I would end the sentence after "Getty Images"
      • Done.

After your responses to the issues I will be pleased to change to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the quotes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping my talkpage when you have have worked on the quotes to your satisfaction and I'll look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to do that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thought I'd drop this in after reading the conversation above. I note that "polarized reactions" has been changed to the more wishy-washy "a variety of reactions", based on the Metacritic source. For a variety of boring reasons I won't go into here, the Film Wikiproject considers sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes less reliable when aggregating scores for slightly older films such as this one. The film did indeed polarise critics at the time, but neither of these two sites reflects that. A pair of different sources could be used. After the film's appearance at the Venice International Film Festival, The Ottawa Citizen reported of Fight Club that "Many loved and hated it in equal measure". (Gritten, David (September 14, 1999). "Premiere of Fight Club leaves critics slugging it out in Venice". The Ottawa Citizen. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). I think this could be used to support the "polarized reaction" assertion. The Citizen piece goes on to say that concerns were expressed that the film would incite copycat behavior akin to that which greeted A Clockwork Orange's debut in Britain. The Australian picked up this theme (Goodwin, Christopher (September 24, 1999). "The beaten generation". The Australian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) in an article that cites filmmakers' calling Fight Club "an accurate portrayal of men in the 1990s", contrasting with some critics who called it "irresponsible and appalling". It goes on to say, "After only one screening in Venice, Fight Club is shaping up to be the most contentious mainstream Hollywood meditation on violence since Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange." Some, none or all of this may be useful; I leave it here for your reference only. All the best, Steve T • C 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggested change to the wishy-washy "variety" was in accordance with the provided source. It's fine by me, if there are reliable sources that supports "polarizing", to change it back. Brianboulton (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, didn't mean that to sound like an insult. What I meant was that using the phrase "a variety of" seemed to me to be no different to saying "The film received some reviews." All the best, Steve T • C 08:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No offence taken, your point is good. Let ThinkBlue decide what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I would much rather re-add "polarize", since the film article does have the term used. Also, I would use the sources that Steve has provided above. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, after much thought, I've re-added "polarize" to the Fight Club paragraph. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I copyedited some of this article before it was nominated for Featured Article status, but I see that any other tweaks it needed have been ironed out, with only maybe a few needed tweaks left. You guys have been doing an excellent job on further improving this article, and it really reads well. I cannot see at all why it should not be promoted to Featured Article status. I am also in agreement with ThinkBlue about the chronological order of sections (mixed in with personal life) suggestion. I do have to suggest, though, that we do not literally state things such as "Entertainment Weekly's film reviewer wrote...," LOL. I mean, Entertainment Weekly has a lot of film reviewers. If we are not going to say a magazine said this or that, then we should name the reviewer's name. However, sometimes with reports such as from the Associated Press, there actually is not an author of the article you can name, and it may be best to say "the Associated Press said..." or "the Associated Press reported..." Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sometimes someone reviews something, but there's no name; Ex: Seven review was written by a staff member. Also, in regards of not including the reviewers name, I've been told that there's no need to add the reviewer, unless he or she is particularly a notable author. (Ex: Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Janet Maslin of New York Times, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, etc.) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know where you've been told that, but the reviewer does not require independent notability to be named. In cases where the author of an independent opinion piece (e.g. a film review) is specified, he or she should be named. Only when appearing in a journal or newspaper's official editorial might it be appropriate to omit the author information from the article text. Steve T • C 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:EnemyOfTheState told me that. He has it modeled that way in Angelina Jolie's article, which is a Featured article. I mean, I have no problem re-adding the reviewers name in the article, is just that there's one that might cause a fuzz; the Seven review doesn't say who wrote the article, just that it's by a "staff member". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggested to only include notable reviewers, because I think mentioning the names of unknown film critics has no relevance for the article's subject, plus it offers no information or useful insight for the reader. To me, its only function is to increase the word count of the text. I think it's clear that film reviews are usually not written in an editorial fashion, therefore if only the publication is named in text that clearly isn't meant to represents the opinion of the entire staff. EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: no issues with the images, they are verifiably licensed or in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inconsistencies between "Early work" section and "Filmography":

  • In the latter, you list some of his television work but not all of the shows mentioned in "Early work" (including 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class, and Growing Pains). Either list all of his TV work in "Filmography" or create a separate chart for it. In the "Filmography", you give the name of the Friends episode he appears in; that's not necessary for the other TV series, but do list how many episodes of each he appeared in.
    • There's no need to create another chart, the filmography is plenty. See Kirsten Dunst as an example. I think you listed all his TV work with "TV work". The Friends episode earned him an Emmy nomination, I think it warrants to stay. If you want, I'll list the names of the episodes, that's if I can find the names of them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point. The "Fimography" appears to show all of his TV work. It does not. There are many ways to deal with it, but leaving it as is is unacceptable. So...(1) You can include all of his TV work. (2) You can create a different chart exclusively devoted to his TV work, which includes all of it. (3) You can retitle this chart "Films and selected TV work".DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Early work", you say "in 1988, he made his feature film debut in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." The "Filmography" lists four feature film appearances in 1987.
    • The other films were minor roles, uncompared to a starring role in the 1988 film. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, what does "uncompared" mean? You have retained the error. This is unacceptable. The main text of the article should indicate that he had several minor movie roles in 1987, and that his first significant film role was in The Dark Side of the Sun. That movie does not represent his "feature film debut."DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dismiss what I said, I was in a bit of a hurry. I added the films before The Dark Side of the Sun. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Early work", you say "in 1988, he made his feature film debut in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." (Déjà vu!) The "Filmography" lists it as a 1997 film.
    • The film was released years later. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you need to indicate that in the text. You can't identify it as a 1988 film in the text and as a 1997 film in the "Filmography" and leave it at that. That sort of discrepancy is unacceptable. You need to say in the text that the film was completed in 1988, but not released until nine years later--or whatever will clarify matters for the reader.DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "FIlmography", if he appeared in six episodes of Glory Days, surely you can find out the name of his character somewhere.DocKino (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally Support. I did some work on this article during the peer reviews. Some minor issues:
    • Paragraphs were changed since the article's peer review. Paragraph two (about his tv work) and three (about his first film work) in the career section were combined, while the text on Fight Club was split into two paragraphs. The original formating made much more sense to me.
    • Successive paragraphs starting with "In [year], Pitt ..." don't look like "brilliant prose" to me, they should be avoided I think.
    • It's probably better to call Troy his 'highest grossing film', not his 'most commercially successful' - with a considerably smaller budget, Mr. & Mrs. Smith made a higher net profit than Troy.
    • Was Brad Grey really only Jennifer Aniston's partner? The source doesn't support that. Why not just "along with Jennifer Aniston and Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, ..."?
    • His appearances on the Time 100 in 2009 and the Forbes Celebrity 100 in 2008 should be updated.
    • Regarding the discussion above how to expand on his relationship with Paltrow, I think the most interesting fact missing is for how long they were actually engaged.
    • I still think the succession boxes are unnecessary. However, if other people feel they are useful, that's fine with me.

EnemyOfTheState|talk 12:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead section, it is fine to bend the chronology a bit to mention the Ocean's sequels right after Ocean's Eleven, but what is the rationale of having a chronological structure and then totally breaking it at the end of the paragraph, by unnecessarily putting Benjamin Button (2008) before Troy (2004) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)? It makes for a sloppy read.DocKino (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : I really like this article. I think you've discussed his film career without congratulating him, and you've discussed the hoopla surrounding his personal life without becoming part of the circus. The tone and balance throughout the article are just right, it flows very well in most parts, and I wish there were more articles like this. Some minor comments:

  • Agree with User:DocKino's comment above, regarding the placement of Benjamin Button before Troy" and "The Smiths. It is awkward.
  • "with late renowned acting coach Roy London." - using "late" is a problem. It means checking the article constantly over the next 50 years and adding "the late" as people die.  ;-) Is it important that London was "renowned" - by this I mean is it a reflection on Pitt that as a newcomer someone notable saw his potential? Or is a comment about London himself. If the point relates to Pitt, that's fine, but otherwise London's renown should be left for his own article. I'm not sure what is intended here.
  • "His love scene with Davis, which showed Pitt shirtless and wearing a cowboy hat, has been often cited as the moment that defined Pitt as a sex symbol.[1]" - I think it's true that this scene is "often cited" as a milestone in Pitt's career, but the source doesn't seem to support the "often". Is it necessary to say it is often cited, when other roles are described with the milder "has been described as". It's hard to quantify, and is it even necessary? Maybe just "has been cited" - and with a more compelling source, would be better.
  • "Variety wrote that Pitt's take on Louis is handsome and personable..." - this doesn't read as paraphrasing because it says they wrote, and "handsome and personable" are too specific. I think it would be better to just quote Variety rather than break their comment into three seperate pieces. Saying "in conclusion" suggests Variety discussed Pitt at some length and that we're condensing it, but that's not the case. This paragraph could and should be simplified to more accurately portray what Variety wrote or it could supplemented by comments from a second review to give it depth. It looks a little like padding, as it currently reads, especially when comparing it to the source website.
  • "but many critics enjoyed Pitt's performance." - it then goes on to quote from two of them. "Many" is a problem. Maybe something like "The film was met with a mixed reception by critics,[25] but Pitt received some positive reviews" (or something)
  • "Pitt garnered his first Golden Globe Award nomination in the category for Best Actor,[28] but lost to Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump." I have a bit of a problem with people "losing" awards. They don't lose the award, they just don't win them. You could almost read between the lines as saying Pitt was robbed, you know. It's the only nomination where the winner is spotlighted. There's no real connection between Hanks and Pitt, so it's not completely relevant.
  • "In the 1999 film Fight Club, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden. The character is a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club." A bit awkward and stilted. How about : "In the 1999 film Fight Club, Pitt portrayed Tyler Durden, a straight-shooting and charismatic mastermind who runs an underground fight club."  ?
  • "Pitt's character, an Irish Gypsy boxer, speaks in a barely intelligible accent. Pitt's delivery of the accent drew criticism and praise." Two short sentences spoil the flow, and this could be one sentence. Maybe "Pitt's performance as a Irish Gypsy boxer, and his delivery of a barely intelligible Irish accent, drew criticism and praise."
  • "Stephen Hunter of The Washington Times commented that in a role that requires larger-than-life dimensions, noted that he is pretty terrific." Grammatically, the sentence is wrong and needs to be rewritten. If this is a quote it needs to be cited a quote, within quotation marks, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia paraphrasing Stephen Hunter. "Pretty terrific" is OK for a reviewer, but it's doesn't look good if it appears like we're saying it.
  • " Pitt has been reluctant to discuss the production company in interviews.[96]" This begs the question "why?" This is quite enigmatic and could suggest something more than is there. Certainly the interview used to source this, gives no clue. If it's relevant enough to mention, it needs to be clarified. If not, it's not relevant. (and I tend to think it's the latter)
    • If you read the source, and I quote, "Take his production company, Plan B. Much of the publicity surrounding it has had to do with Pitt's split with Jennifer Aniston, former principal Brad Grey's divestment when he moved to Paramount as chair-CEO and the company's shift from Warner Bros. to the Paramount lot. [...] Pitt hasn't granted many interviews about Plan B, especially since a tumultuous 2005. That year saw Grey (longtime chairman of Pitt's management company, Brillstein-Grey) take the Paramount job, Pitt and Aniston split, 'Mr. & Mrs. Smith' usher in Brangelina tabloid fever, and the company get dragged into the fallout generated by James Frey's controversial megaseller 'A Million Little Pieces', for which Plan B owns the films rights",[58] it reasons why he doesn't discuss Plan B. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, my mistake. The source gives a lot of information but it also speculates. Going back to the article it reads "Pitt was credited onscreen as a producer. However, only Graham King was ruled eligible for the Oscar win.[99] Pitt has been reluctant to discuss the production company in interviews.[96]" The first thing I thought when I read that was that he has a conflict or ill-feeling with Graham King over the Oscar thing, because the two points are presented together. The way it's written in the article, unless it directly connects to King, it's a random fact that reads as being connected to the preceding sentence. I think it's fair to refer to an external link to find out more about a statement made in an article, but for me, the paragraph is unclear and to make sense of it, I have to read through the source material. It needs to be presented with enough context and clarity to give a basic understanding, and reading further into the source material should be optional. "Due to..... whatever reasons..... Pitt is reluctant to discuss the company" Sorry, but the whole paragraph isn't very clear. Maybe it's just me. I'll read it again tomorrow with a clearer head. Rossrs (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mixed reviews" or "mixed reception" are somewhat overused. At least some of them need to be replaced if for nothing more than to make the writing more varied and engaging. I'm not sure what some suitable alternative would be, maybe variations like "critics were divided in the comments" or something similar, but the repetition of these two terms within the space of a few paragraphs, is problematic. Rossrs (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Thoroughly informative and truly well written . I think it fulfils all the featured article criteria and shall be made a FA.

Princeaditya (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails 1a, in ways that also make its 1b case weak. There are glaring problems with the prose. A selection garnered from an examination of just the first 20% of the article (and a comparison of its content with the "Filmography"):

  • The central paragraph of the lead establishes a chronological structure, then insensibly breaks it at the very end.
  • In "Early work", we find a description of Pitt's film appearances in uncredited parts. The very next sentence informs us that he "began his acting career" afterward.
  • No Man's Land and Less Than Zero are mentioned, but not the film in which Pitt actually made his onscreen debut: No Way Out.
  • His featured role on Dallas is described. Subsequently, we are told, "Later in 1988, he acted in his first featured role in the drama The Dark Side of the Sun." (Yes, one's a featured role on TV, the other in a motion picture. FA-quality writing handles that switch. This doesn't.)
  • Three sentences are devoted to Dark Side of the Sun, which was not released until 1997. But the first film in which Pitt played a featured role to actually be released, Cutting Class, is not mentioned at all.
  • In back-to-back sentences we find grammatical error--"His portrayal of the character has been described a 'career-making' performance"--and writing of obviously low quality--"In discussion of the film, Pitt admitted he felt a 'bit of pressure' when making the film."
  • We have a section called "Filmography" that includes some but not all of the actor's television work. It includes The Image, which is not mentioned in the main text, but not 21 Jump Street, Head of the Class, and Growing Pains, which are.
  • Cutting Class is listed as a 1987 film in the "Filmography". That's a significant error, as it was the first film with Pitt in a featured role to be released. It's a 1989 film. DocKino (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1987, Pitt starred in television guest appearances, which included a role on the CBS primetime soap opera Dallas." Oh, so he made other television guest appearances in December 1987? What were they? And did he really "star" in them?
  • "Following this, Pitt appeared in an episode of the police drama 21 Jump Street in 1988, with additional appearances on the situation comedies Head of the Class and Growing Pains the next year." Run-on. Ungrammatical. Opens with unnecessary phrase.
  • As noted above, text indicates that he first appeared on Growing Pains in 1989. But the first of the two episodes of that series named in the "Filmography" actually aired in 1987. November 1987, in fact, before we were led to believe he made his television debut on Dallas.
  • "The movie was later released in 1997." See the problem?
  • Cutting Class has been added. Good. Now, can you explain why three times as much space is devoted to The Dark Side of The Sun, a film no one saw for nine years? Do you think the balance here is appropriate?
  • "In this same year, he appeared in a supporting role in the HBO television movie The Image (1990)." See the problem?
  • "Soon after the film, Pitt attracted broader public attention with a supporting role in the 1991 road film Thelma & Louise." "Soon after the film"? How about "Pitt soon attracted..." DocKino (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the subsection to address the couple of issues raised above that remained unresolved and a couple of additional ones. I trimmed a bit of the detail about the fate Dark Side of the Sun--that detail's not too significant in the context of an article about Pitt. I also added the mention of a couple early TV guest appearances (steered to them by, yes lord help me, IMDb). If you see no problem with them, we can add them to the Filmography. I also changed the number of Dallas episodes to four; it didn't appear as if you had a source for the claim of five episodes. If you have reason to believe it is five, let's try to nail this down with good sourcing.

An issue with images: I believe I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm afraid it doesn't look too professional to have an image related to 1995 and 2000 (which I see is from 2007) in a section that covers 1987-93 and an image identified as from 2001 in a section that covers 1994–98. If nothing else, at least the captions should be changed. DocKino (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. He appeared in five episodes. [59]. I see nothing wrong with the images. If the images are there, I don't see how they shouldn't be there. Why should the captions be changed? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a fair amount of WP:V-standard sourcing for four episodes. Here's a few:
  • Scotland on Sunday
  • Daily Record
  • Movie City News
  • Dallas Morning News (though it is the "MetroBlog")
  • My sense is that the right number probably is four; of course, you could rephrase the text to say "several" episodes.
  • The first source listed above, the Scotland on Sunday article/interview is very interesting--it may have some material that could be useful to you.
  • You "see nothing wrong with the images"? Let me try once again. The article has a chronological structure. In the section that covers 1987–93, the image relates to 1995/2000. In the section that covers 1994–98, the image relates to 2001. If you truly see nothing wrong with that, I'm not surprised that the article continues to fail 1a. DocKino (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People magazine is a more reliable source. Also, I've fixed the image settings. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, for sure, People magazine is a very reliable source. However, your source is not People magazine. It's a "Celebrity Central" timeline on People.com. According to our policy, that's a less reliable source (electronic media) than an article that was published in the print edition of Scotland's leading Sunday newspaper (mainstream newspaper). In addition, you have offered one source; I have offered three (or four, if we accept the Dallas Morning News blog).
        • Well, they are very reliable when it comes to their information. Also, I made the change. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In terms of the images, now the image that relates to 1995/2000 is in the subsection that covers 2004–present; furthermore, it appears after two images that relate to 2001. Bizarre. Suggestion: Retitle the "Critical success" subsection "1994–1998", which brings it into line with the chronological titling of the other "Career" subsections. Then move the 1995/2000 image into the newly renamed "1994–1998" subsection. Problem resolved.
        • No, I will not change the "Critical success" title to "1994-1998". He earned Critical success with Interview with the Vampire, along with the other film's mentioned, thus it warrants the title there. It was your suggestion to move the images that didn't correspond within the year. I did exactly that. Now, the two images from the 1999–2003 section indeed correspond there, since they are from 2001. But, now because of this change, I've removed the image from there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Truly bizarre. Here is the Variety review of Interview with the Vampire excerpted in the article: "Brad Pitt's Louis is handsome and personable, but there is no depth to his melancholy, no pungency to his sense of loss. He also doesn't seem to connect in a meaningful way with any of the other actors". Is that what you mean when you say he "earned Critical success" with the film?
          • Also, exactly how do you imagine that I'd support moving an image that relates to 1995/2000 from a section that covers 1987–93 to a section that covers 2004–present? Why do you insist on placing the image in a section to which it does not chronologically relate? Look, you've got a section, whatever you want to call it, that covers the period 1994–98. With the caption "Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People in 1995 and 2000", the image in question relates to that period. Why exactly will you not move it to that section? DocKino (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, on the article's 1a problems, I have pointed out twice the issue with the lead section's central paragraph, in which the chronology is needlessly broken by placing Benjamin Button before Troy and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. I attempted to correct this once directly, and you reverted. Rossrs, above, has concurred with my view. You have never explained your resistance to this change. What's the problem here? DocKino (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has DocKino been asked to return to the article? I am having trouble determining whether his objection has been satisfied. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not. But, I've gotten his concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator has not "gotten my concerns". Prose quality (1a) is an issue throughout the article. Aside from tortuously dealing with the many issues that I specifically noted were merely from the article's first fifth, no effort has been made on the rest since my objection. (And even in that first fifth, we are left with a subsection, "Critical success," [1] whose title breaks the chronological rationale employed for the surrounding subsection titles and [2] that begins with the discussion of a performance that was critically panned.) The article needs a tip-to-toe copyedit, and it clearly needs it from someone whom the nominator is more comfortable working with than he is with me. I believe the article is within striking range of meeting the standard, but the nominator does need to enlist a good copyeditor to deal with things throughout such as:
  • "The film failed to meet expectations at the box office, and received polarized reactions from film critics." (Nonidiomatic: critical "reactions" aren't "received".)
  • They're not?
  • "The film was well-received by critics and a prominent success at the box office". (Nonidiomatic: "prominent success".)
  • Fixed.
  • "The movie earned $478 million worldwide, one of the biggest hits of 2005." (Ungrammatical.)
  • Fixed.
  • "In total, the film garnered seven Academy Award, as well as seven Golden Globe Award nominations." (Confusing. Poor construction gives appearance of grammatical error.)
  • Fixed.
And so forth. DocKino (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been copy-edited. Believe me, I wouldn't have nominated the article if someone didn't copy-edit the article. Also, I'd like to point out that I am not a "he", but a she. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly on 1a. I looked at the the lead only. This nomination has sucked in reviewing resources for 26 days. Please prepare future nominations to a higher standard before launching them; that would be fairer to other nominators and to our hard-pressed reviewers. Convince us that the rest is better than the lead:

    • Opening: "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt[1] (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and film producer. He has been cited as one of the world's most attractive men and his off-screen life is widely reported.[2][3] Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations and has won one Golden Globe Award out of four nominations." Does the second sentence sit there logically, and in terms of its importance? Do the two ideas in the second sentence, linked by "and" combine comfortably?
      • It does have importance.
    • "Pitt starred in the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven, a major international hit, and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007)." Chain of ands. Just two dashes might help: "Pitt starred in the 1999 cult hit Fight Club, as well as the 2001 heist film Ocean's Eleven – a major international hit – and its sequels Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007)."
  • Pitt, Pitt, Pitt (start of three successive sentences).
    • Done.
  • Remove comma after Jolie?
    • Done.
  • "Pitt owns a production company named Plan B Entertainment, which has produced, among other films, the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Picture, The Departed." Could be ordered more neatly: "Pitt owns a production company named Plan B Entertainment, which has produced the 2007 Academy Award winner for Best Picture, The Departed, among other films." Tony (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a hidden template in the "Children" section, it needs to be show by default. I'd change it myself, but I don't know how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I worked on this article in the early days and it's good to see a lot that I wrote remains!! I think this article has come on leaps and bounds since passing GA noticeably in terms of the reviews of his performances which were missing as well as citations. It now looks like a featured article, a solid, well written, structured article. Maybe it could still use some minor copy editing in places to avoid short sentences but well done to the developer. This guys name seems to pop up in a huge number of articles so a featured article is excellent progress. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But you have not convinced anyone, as I asked, that the rest of the prose is worth it. Taking a few random spot-checks:
    • "Pitt's film career broadened after being cast as vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac"—So his career was cast as a character?
      • Re-wrote sentence.
    • Same grammatical glitch: "Reception for the movie was mixed,[38] but grossed over $165 million worldwide."—The reception grossed that amount?
      • Fixed.
    • "in order to"—spot two redundant words.
      • Where is this at?
    • "Despite the mixed reviews, Pitt's performance was favored by critics." We haven't heard about those mixed reviews yet ... why "the"?
      • Fixed.
    • he ... he ... he: "Pitt had a cameo role in George Clooney's 2002 directorial debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and he appeared in an episode of MTV's Jackass, where he and several ...". Remove the second one (a technique used in the subsequent sentence).
      • Fixed.
    • What is the "present"? 2009? 2012?
      • What do you think?

Needs fine sifting to remove these infelicities. Someone new to it is needed; anyone at the TV or film WikiProjects a good copy-editor? It's not a big job, so why not finish it off.

Again, it is disturbing that professional reviewers have had to weigh in to this extent; the process is not meant to work this way. Please take note for the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm keeping a cool head here, and will ignore this criticism that is being given to my part. I was debating this issue as well, whether or not to nominate the article to FAC. I received several feedbacks from very generous users, as well as an excellent copy-edit from a kind user. If neither of that would have occurred, my name wouldn't show up here. But, that did happen and now I'm here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry I cannot add my support. The prose is not of FA standard; it lacks flow and is choppy and repetitive. The word "mixed" is used over and over to describe critics' reviews and Pitt always seems to be acting "alongside" someone. Redundancy remains, here for example, In total, the film garnered seven Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominations and here Pitt stated his reasons for the stance. "Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," he said. The dull prose becomes strikingly apparent after reading an engaging well-phrased quotation. The article needs some more work. PS. Are the Interview with the Vampire links back to front? Graham Colm Talk 14:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 9 June 2009 [60].

Necrid[edit]

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article for a third time after tackling any and all issues mentioned in the previous nominations. The prose should now hopefully be up to snuff, and the content of the article sufficient for a FA status article. All resources have been exhausted and so forth, all sources checked for reliability, and all images meet fair-use rationale. As usual any issues come up, mention them and I'll tackle them.Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article is much improved since its previous FAC, and as the prose was the main problem last time I am pleased to support this nomination now. Graham Colm Talk 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my opinion hasn't changed from the last nomination. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just copyedited the article, and am leaning towards supporting, but this confused me: "A physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, that is controlled through the jewel on his chest." Does "that" refer to "Maleficus" from the preceding sentence? —TKD [talk][c] 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Combined it with the previous sentence, does it flow better?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a missing "and". Now it works. —TKD [talk][c] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check that; I ended up breaking up the sentence again and repeating "Maleficus" in order to avoid ambiguity. —TKD [talk][c] 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And reworked again, along with the rest of the article, for flow. The one image in the article has a proper description page and meets the NFCC as increasing the user's understanding of the character's visual appearance. I'd prefer that the references consistently use the cite templates, but that's, in my view, a minor detail. The article appears well-researched and neutral to me, so support. —TKD [talk][c] 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I supported it last time and it's even better now. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • If you're using {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, and the rest, you should really just use {{cite web}} for the other references and have them all formatted out uniformly.
      • This might be a problem for a short bit...the internet connection at my home has died limiting my time online until I get it fixed. So it might be a short bit before I can convert those...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All raw url citations fixed and changed to use cite web. That just took a helluva while to pull off (that and I wanted to finish doing it for Rufus (Street Fighter) first :X).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some reviewers have called Necrid one of the best characters introduced to the series; others deem him one of the worst." - can you just say who instead of the nebulous "some"?
      • Expanded the sentence, does it read clearly? It's kinda early and I was consciously trying to avoid repetitive wording :X--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kung, I'm going to make a virtual wiki-stick I can whack you with with big bold letters that sink "DELINK THEM WORDS!" If someone doesn't know what "visual appeal", "power plant", "resurrected" and "limited edition" are, they need to be smacked over to Simple English wiki. :)
    • The prose is still choppy and a bit too passive for my tastes, but I'm not going to torture you by posting line-by-line "spot the corrections" bits at FAC... this time. I'll get to it at some point in the near future. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've run through the prose again with an eye towards flow and active voice. —TKD [talk][c] 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks fine to me now, but Ling is prolly a tougher critic for these things, so I defer to him. That basically takes care of my concerns. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar and punctuation errors further copy edit needed. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that three different copyeditors have been over the text in the last 24 hours, examples would be helpful. —TKD [talk][c] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are from this morning; may already have been fixed. Sorry too busy to do more:
  • "While there, his body and mind were warped until he escaped." Warping causes escape?
    • That sentence is rather hard to confuse, but expanded it to try and make it clearer.
  • "it was the result a collaboration"
    • adding missing "of"
  • "built on—and completed—the design" Purpose of the dashes?
    • Removed the dashes.
  • "that the sword's spirit Inferno" punct.
    • Added commas.
  • "A physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, that is controlled through the jewel on his chest." Not a sentence.
    • This was fixed by TKD
  • manila bulletin? Is this a common source for game reviews? If not, then it makes you look kinda desperate for a source that offers praise...
    • It has game reviews, and is also used in Talim. There's nothing desperate about it, just other sources were repeating the same points.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose:
  • 1a, needs a great deal of rewriting.
    • After this many copyedits this sounds...rather odd. But pointing out any issues might help readily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, I had a couple simple goofs that I corrected (I'm not the master of cutting and pasting text around in an edit window), and I found a few more redundancies and odd grammatical constructions. —TKD [talk][c] 05:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the promotion and critical reception sections under a subheading "cultural impact"? This game character's cultural impact is not significantly different from zero, and none of the text in those two sections asserts otherwise.
    • This would be the first time I've heard of any complaint regarding it, though I'm not sure how becoming synonymous with "shit" for a time amongst people couldn't be considered cultural impact. The section is used without qualm under the same name by several other articles, include FA character article Cortana.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Critical reception is info directly related to the game, not "culture" in general. That someone happened to call the character "shitty" obviously doesn't mean that it's directly associated with feces. Same deal with promo and merchandise. It's all about commercial depictions of the character in its original context as a video game character. Trying to call that "cultural impact" is merely misleading. Peter Isotalo 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is 1UP.com mentioned in the lede but not the body? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mentioned there through Retronauts, which is a part of 1UP.com (which is also pointed out in the prose by describing them as "1UP.com's Retronauts".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I sincerely hope that I don't have to go plowing through every single cited source. I found a couple clunkers after a moment's search... For example, "Soul Calibur II Updated Impressions" at GameSpot is cited for two assertions. The first is that "McFarlane received sole credit for [Necrid]". However, this is never mentioned at the linked subpage of Gamespot. The second is "GameSpot shared the sentiment in their review of the game" What sentiment? The nearest one is that Necrid is "filler", and that is clearly not mentioned in GameSpot... are there more of these problems?
  • "Necrid, the other McFarlane character", that line is pretty blatant and that paragraph follows the one on Spawn. Retronaut's statements might've been a better citation (they referred to it up front as him "polluting" all three versions with his design), but most of the references cited cite him as the sole creator without noting it was actually a collaboration.
  • "His monstrous form makes him look somewhat out of place among Soul Calibur II's cast." That's the line being cited there, which was a similar sentiment to the previous one (that he looked out of place). Looking at it now though I've changed "the sentiment" to "similar sentiment". Just bad wording on my part, a lot of this was done in the wee hours of the morning one night.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lotsa talk about how necrid was "unbalanced" but no real explanation of how or why. Unbalanced visually, or in terms of power [google for "When his full arsenal is employed, Necrid is hands-down the most powerful character in Soul Calibur II"] or in terms of move-sets [google for "if Namco introduced new move sets that weren't well-researched, which in turn broke the character balance (ala Necrid in Soul Calibur II)"; I saw another one, too, but didn't copy it..]
  • Since the opinion is his gameplay is unbalanced reworded the sentence to encompass that, does it work?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a small amount of rewriting. Revert if you dislike. I think the whole thing needs more rewriting for flow etc. I saw grammatical errors as well. I fixed a couple, but I think others remain. Gotta work now. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only changed hairless back to bald, seems to imply something different. Thank you for fixing the misquote, not sure if that was my fault or an old copyedit, just know it's been there for ages...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about only McFarlane being credited is.. well, if it isn't WP:OR (and I think it may be), then it's certainly "on the warning track". The other problem I mentioned was not fixed by the "similar sentiment" hedging you employed. Similar to what? No one else mentioned "filler", and since that is the last clause before the cite, that's the sentiment that logic would suggest that others share. In general, great care/precision should be used when citing things; you run the risk of putting words in peoples' mouths. Of course, no game reviewer is gonna care. No Wikipedia reader is gonna care, either. I'm trying to holding you to academic standards, and perhaps I shouldn't be trying to do so... even so, parts of the article are still too vague, choppy etc. Forex, what does "out of instinct" mean? What instinct? Why does he have this instinct? It's far too vague. I saw one source somewhere that said that in his initially mentally altered state, Necrid perceived all other people as enemies (sorry, I didn't write it down!). If you're gonna try to mention some vague "out of instinct" idea, you need to explain it clearly, and you need to cite it very carefully. And so on. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. I posted some comments about the prose on the article Talk page after the last failed FAC. I'm unsure if these were addressed satisfactorily (there was no response) but I'd like to look at the research and sourcing. After considering Ling.Nut's concerns above, I decided to deep-dive into a sample section to examine the quality of research and accuracy of representation. I picked "Gameplay". Based on what I see, I'm going to oppose this nomination until a neutral party can audit the sources and make sure they've been accurately represented. If this section is any indication, a lot of work is needed. Examples:
    • "Using a fighting style Yotoriyama described as 'horrific splendor'" is a mischaracterization of what Yotoriyama says. He refers to Necrid's fighting skills, which is quite a different matter. You even wikilink "fighting style" which leaves the reader with the impression that the source said anything at all about fighting style.. which is a fair bit apart from fighting "skills". This is sloppy application of research that basically produces WP:OR.
    • "Through the jewel on his chest, he can control Maleficus" The source you list for this statement mentions neither jewels nor Maleficus.
      • I'm...actually not sure how that happened. The references must have gotten mixed up somehow. Fixing...
    • In fact, with statement like "creaming pants", it's a wonder Minkley is considering a good source or serious journalism at all.
      • He's a writer for Eurogamer as well, which the wikiproject notes as a reliable source too.
    • "The majority of Necrid's attacks are copies or derivatives of those used by other characters in the series." Original research, no source.
      • That's actually meant to be covered right here as a reference, though the IGN reference works better for it.
        • The only thing I see there even remotely close to what you write in the article is "His borrowing of certain moves and weapons" which is a huge leap. I hope you understand where I'm coming from here; this example is quite indicative of how liberally the sources have been interpreted throughout the article. It needs a lot of work to get up to an acceptable standard of research and sourcing. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, his weapon appears and disappears into his hands ..." I wasn't going to comment on prose, but...
    • As for the rest of the two paragraphs, sourced to game guides, which is probably fine for basic statements. But, what is GameNOW? A magazine? If so, page numbers, publisher, etc? A web site? URL?
--Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has sucked in reviewing resources for 26 days. Please prepare future nominations to a higher standard before launching them; that would be fairer to other nominators and to our hard-pressed reviewers. Tony (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 [61].

Paul Reubens[edit]

Nominator(s): The lorax (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone sufficient vetting and appears ready for Featured Article status. The lorax (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed dead link.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Done. Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Link removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Subsidiary of Gothamist; reliable.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Interview with Reel Video; Reel used to be in the same league as Amazon.com but bit the dust during the dot-com bubble.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a bit more showing reliablity here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Staff written subsidiary of Hollywood Video, their struggle as an online retailer is chronicled by the San Francisco Chronicle.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Link removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed. Changed source to staff-written Tv.com article - which is indexed by Google News.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Established film news site owned by AOL.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is it a staff written site or in other words, who writes the content? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Staff written.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Passes the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb test.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HOw does it pass? Generally, it should be used only for the most basic of facts ..Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, IMDB's information came from WENN, an entertainment news wire service based in London.--The lorax (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Newsday article linked from Amarillo Globe-News--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fixed and NBC's official corporate blog is a legit source.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 84 is just a bare url, needs publisher, title, last access date at the very least.
Done. Removed.--The lorax (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a child, Reubens would frequent the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, whose headquarters was in Sarasota during the winter. The circus' atmosphere sparked Reubens interest in entertainment and influenced his later work." This level of detail certainly does not match what the given source briefly touches on. Was there another source used here? BuddingJournalist 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity Fair article has further details on this, added reference.--The lorax (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed graphics, per WP:FAC instructions. It can mess with the transclusions, apparently. Steve T • C 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Otterathome (talk)
  1. Ref 67 is IMDB, not a very good source. Any other sources to use with it instead?
    It can be removed if need be. It appears to be referenced legitimately in regards to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Isn't image:1991-07-30 NY post front page.jpg a bit too small? It's barely readable.
    I tried to hunt down an original copy of the cover unsuccessfully. I think the point was to show examples of tabloid saturation of the story.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked for an original copy for ages, don't waste your time. The image is so small because its actually a scan of a scan, I got it from a magazine article.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excess space at the end of the last sentence. and 'The Blues Brothers.'.
    Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The infobox seems very small, can't more information be added to it?--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Please fill in as many of the Template:Infobox_actor as possible.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Since 2006" in lead, wouldn't From 2006 be better?
  7. Is he really known for the child pornography allegations that it belongs in the lead? On from that, is all the info in the child pornography section relevant and non-trivial?
  8. I'm still worried about the IMDB source as it is in the child pornography section and may be touching upon WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm concerned about this passage: "Reubens remained in shock and feeling paranoid for the following months, with the arrest still haunting him during the following years. He refused to give interviews or appear in talk show, unlike other celebrities that got involved in "sex scandals" during the 1990s, like Hugh Grant or Robert Downey Jr.,[15] which Reubens later declared made people start 'blacklisting' him." Aside from the awkward phrasing, I see no support in the sources for the claim that "Reubens remained...feeling paranoid." Also, the source referenced by citation 15 doesn't say a single thing about "in talk show" (I suppose you mean "on talk shows"), "other celebrities", "sex scandals", Hugh Grant, or Robert Downey Jr.

Removed Ref 15, cited US Weekly interview (ref 55) where he says "I couldn't tell you a lot of what was going on when it all happened, because I was so in shock. I'm not sure I even knew the scope of it at that point. Because I really was in a kind of clinical shock - like your brain sort of lets you go somewhere else, and you're not, you know, 100 percent yourself. And I didn't realize that until maybe two months after it happened, when someone said, "Well, you're in shock." The source for refusing to go on talk shows is from Vanity Fair. (ref 38.)--The lorax (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, except I didn't say a word about the claim of "shock". Please allow me to quote myself:
I see no support in the sources for the claim that "Reubens remained...feeling paranoid."
I still see absolutely no support for that claim, which is of a sensitive nature. DocKino (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now on to this claim: "He refused to give interviews or appear on talk shows...which Reubens later declared made people start 'blacklisting' him." Please check your source, the Vanity Fair article (more precisely, its second online section). Reubens nowhere makes this claim; "blacklisting" is raised by an unnamed source and by producer Phil Rosenthal. Also see Reubens's response to a question about "being blacklisted" in that US article you mentioned. Edit away. DocKino (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed for accuracy: "Some collaborators believe this made people start "blacklisting" him."--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the ref for Hugh Grant and Downey [62] and as for the paranoid thing, in the vanity fair interview's second page he says "I was a wreck. I was convinced people were listening on the phone, that I was getting photographed through the bushes." That first month, he says, was the hardest. "I was so in shock, and I didn't realize that's what was going on with me. (...) I never contemplated anything like suicide. But I see how one could." I thought it was appropriate to summarize that with "paranoid". thoughts?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cite. We need to be very careful about introducing words like "paranoid" on our own to describe a living person's mental state. If you wanted, you could do something like this:
In the immediate aftermath of the arrest, Reubens says, "I was a wreck. I was convinced people were listening on the phone, that I was getting photographed through the bushes." He remained in a state of shock for weeks, and was haunted by the arrest for several years.
I've suggested "weeks", as the US article has him realizing he's in shock when someone tells him so "maybe two months after it happened". After that, he says, "it was like I'd had a diagnosis, and that made it easier," so I don't know if we can pull out his "shock" over a longer period. DocKino (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited IMDb material actually originates with WENN (World Entertainment News Network). It's a gossip news wire, bearing roughly the same relationship to the National Enquirer as the Associated Press does to the New York Times. Query: Do we regard the National Enquirer as a reliable source or not?DocKino (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be removed, but how contentious is the claim of the source? Does anyone dispute that Romano recast Reubens' part?--The lorax (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that we take a source like WENN on a case-by-case basis. There's nothing to suggest that this report is inaccurate in any way. Unless someone has a good policy-based rationale for excluding WENN entirely, I think it's fine to keep it. DocKino (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran through the lead—some MOS, some improvement in expression, a few on the personal-pref. side. it's OK, but could do with a polish throughout. Tony (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 [63].

Blue Dragon (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): --(NGG) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have been working on this article for a while and now I'm ready to push it to FA criteria so I can move to other projects. I would appreciate it if all reviews were clear and contain something that can be fixed. Thanks, --(NGG) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A video game database. See: ToTheGame.--(NGG) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whattheyplay is a website used by parents to help them pick games for children. See: What They Play--(NGG) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews can be regularly used for plot sections if the part is talked about in the review which it is.--(NGG) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A highly trusted game database. See: Kotaku
  • Current ref 2 ... it should be "Australian Classificiation Organization", not "Austillian Classification Orginization"
  • Current ref 6 (Stewart, Bob) is lacking a publisher
  • Is it "Prima Games's Blue Dragon Official Game Guide, Prima Games" or "Blue Dragon Official Game Guide. Prima Games"? (Last one lacks page numbers too)
  • Current refs 24 thorugh 29 lack retreived on dates
  • Current ref 41 (needs to note its in Japanese)
  • Current ref 48 (Juba, Joe..) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 49 (Ouroboros) lacks a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. For Kotaku, the author of the piece determines the reliablity, why is this author reliable? As for planetxbox, the site itself needs to satisfy WP:RS before the review can be used for the plot section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well to start, Planet Xbox is operated by Game Spy which is reliable because it's operated by IGN, a first person source to news.--(NGG) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen from exploring the site, Kotaku is a first person source also and not just anyone can edit it. But Kotaku is a trusted source and is used in lots of FA so I'm not sure what else to say.--(NGG) 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of your concerns were fulfilled to the best of my ability.--(NGG) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the dispatch I linked to? It explains how to best address my concerns. Just because something has been used in an older FA doesn't mean it's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About.com is a first person source run by The New York Times Company which is also trusted.--(NGG) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About.com covered here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "first person source". Do you mean "primary source"? Or do you mean something else? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe(scratches head embarrassed)yes thats what I meant. So I'll find a link to replace about.com and I have replaced the Kotaku citation.--(NGG) 18:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link to ToTheGames was replaced with another link.--(NGG) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whattheyplay is partly owned by 1UP.com but if thats not notable enough I'll find a replacement.--(NGG) 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done – Link removed.--(NGG) 19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The plot section could use some tightening. I'd take a stab at it but it's been too long since I played it, but points to consider are:
  • A "setting" section may help, moving much of the first para in the plot into this to explain the storms and land sharks.

Done. --(NGG) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bit too much detail on the hestitation of the characters to take the spheres (it's an important plot point re: Zora later, but not in that much detail)

Done. --(NGG) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assume the reader has no familarity with the game world; city and village names without context make little sense.

Done. --(NGG) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ending is weak: there probably needs to be more on the ancients and the "change in configuration" that takes place.

Done. --(NGG) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fixable, and again, if I were surer of details I would take a stab. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a revision to the plot section - again, there was too much focus on some details, too little on others. You may want to include more about Destroy, which IIRC, is discussed when you explore that city populated by paintings? --MASEM (t) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should be moved to Blue Dragon (game). 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Um...why? There is no other article by the name Blue Dragon.--(NGG) 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed graphics per WP:FAC instructions; it can mess with transclusions, making the page load time slower, etc. Steve T • C 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Twas Now

  • "It was also the longest Xbox 360 game" — The longest game in what sense, expected gameplay hours, or something else? If you mention this in the lead, it should be addressed later in the article. This also needs a reference.
Well to start off, Blue Dragon is clearly the longest because it takes all the space from 3 full DVD disks as noted here so that statement does have a ref. Right now I'm mentioning it in the Gameplay section.--(NGG) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of disks doesn't determine the length of the game. It's a good indicator, but I think you are putting your original research into the article by saying "There are many disks, therefore it is long." The content of those disks could just as well be filled with graphics, high quality sound files, and so on, or with bonus content that isn't even found in the game. A ref that says "this was the longest Xbox 360 game" is needed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--(NGG) 13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a Blue Dragon faceplate" — Is there a more descriptive term instead of "faceplate". I had to Google the term, and I suspect it is a term only familiar to Xbox owners.
Done.--(NGG) 13:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gameplay [...] is more traditional than many modern console role-playing games" — "Traditional" is ambiguous. Is it "more traditional" because it resembles early CRPGs, or because of something else? Perhaps rephrase this to avoid the word traditional altogether, because the reader probably doesn't know what makes a traditional CRPG different from a modern CRPG (assuming that's what is meant).
This looks better now, but still reads a bit awkwardly. It repeats: "older Japanese role-playing-games [...] older role-playing-games" in the same sentence. Are these turn-based elements from the older Japanese role-playing games (mid 1980s: Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, etc.), or from even older role-playing games in general (early 1980s: Akalabeth, Ultima, Wizardry, etc.)? This is now a minor issue—you fixed the major problem, which was clarifying what "traditional" meant. But I'm interested in this part. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a number of genre-standard elements" — Clarify what these elements are. The typical reader probably doesn't know the standard elements of CRPGs.
  • Explain in the "Gameplay" section that the player controls a party of characters, rather than controlling only one at a time (and include a link to Party (role playing games)). Based on the screenshot with the shadows, I guess you control all five at once?
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization of "Shadow"/"shadow" should be consistent. How is it capitalized in the game?
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose of the "Story" section could use work. A lot of it seems to skip explanations of seemingly important plot twists.
  • "Following this, they must journey through the world, locate the survivors of Talta Village, find and defeat Nene, and shut down his multiple mechat bases." — Is this necessary here? The article describes this in the next two paragraphs (although it only mentions shutting down one mechat base).
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the King decides to implement a plan to destroy one of Nene's bases near Jibral using Shu and his friends along with Zola. After the base is destroyed..." — Was this really such a quickly executed attack that the actual battle doesn't even warrant mention? What about the other bases they were supposed to destroy?
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nene absorbs their Shadows (except Zola's, who had been separated from the party earlier). Shu, [...] teleports the party, except Zola," — Just mention earlier that Zola was separated, then you don't need to explain twice that she isn't around.
Done.--(NGG) 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ever happens to Kluke and her exploding collar?
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has not been addressed. All it says is they attempt to remove it. Was that attempt successful? Or did they remove it later? Or did it kill her? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--(Next-Genn-Gamer) 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The party then reunite with Zola, who supplies an airship—the Land Shark." — I thought the Land Shark was used by the bad guys. Explain how Zola got this. Also, where do they meet up?
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now this part has another problem: "the party reunites with Zola, who supplies a mechat for them to peruse Nene". I don't think "peruse" is the word you want. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zola was working for Nene all along [...] Zola then betrays Nene." — Why does she betray him? This seems like a rather important part of the story, so take the time to explain. (Did she just have a sudden change of conscience? Did the others persuade her? Was she only pretending to help Nene all along?)
Done.--(NGG) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the boss themes, "Eternity", was written by Sakaguchi, composed by Uematsu" — What's the difference here? Usually "writer" and "composer" are used interchangeably in regards to music. Does it mean Sakaguchi was the lyricist?
  • "were sold out in Japan well before the December 7, 2006 release date" — How long is "well before". A more precise timeframe can probably be found, e.g. "sold out in Japan by August 2006".
  • The "Reception" section seems a bit short. Look for reliably published reviews listed at GameRankings or Metacritic, and you might find that some of them cover aspects of the game that weren't mentioned in the reviews already used.
  • A lot more references are needed all over the place (I can be more specific, but I'll let you address everything else first).
  • The formatting of dates in the references throughout the article should be changed from the "2000-01-01" format. The standard in the article's text is "January 1, 2000", so the rest should follow that standard.
  • Some of the references do not seem to support the statements. One example is "Viz Media later released the first volume of the manga as simply "Ral Grad" in February 2008." — The reference doesn't mention this is based on Blue Dragon.
  • At least two sources are questionable:
  • A couple more print sources would be beneficial, but this isn't a showstopper for me.

That's it for now. I may do a full reference check later. You should find someone to do an image review, as well. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 [64].

Yukon Quest[edit]

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Jeez ... Jappalang's nomination spiel is a tough act to follow, so I'm not even going to try. This is the second FAC nomination for Yukon Quest. It failed about a month ago with two supports and one oppose. Since that time, I've added a few more photos, edited the article to meet the concerns of reviewers, added a couple citations, and stubbed most of the redlinks in the article. I felt this article was ready for FA the last time I submitted it, and I feel even more the same way now. If you have any questions or concerns outside of a normal review, don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope you'll review the article and find it worthy of FA. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - To be honest, I'm a little stymied about this repeat nomination so soon after the first (less than 30 days), especially since the article doesn't seem to have changed substantively (other than images and minor tweaks) since its last FAC was archived. I left off last time asking for a third-party copyedit, which hasn't been done. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you posted this comment, I finished my third copy edit on the article. I'd invite you to take another look. I don't intend to apply for a formal copy edit for two reasons:
  • I don't believe it's necessary — I don't think the article is perfect, but if you asked me if I think the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", I'd answer yes.
  • Looking at the writing holistically, I'd say that the article is as a whole well-written; that is, the flow is pretty good and there are no glaring errors. However, the blemishes on the clause level, as indicated by my examples below, need to be smoothed out for the writing to truly be "brilliant". To your credit, your articles are well-organized (in paragraphing and multi-sentence cohesiveness), which makes it much easier to find these problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other articles need copy editing assistance more than this one, and I don't want to take up the limited time of the copy editors who already have an overwhelming demand for their services.
  • If you believe it's necessary, I'd encourage you to apply for one. It's not my article, and you certainly don't need my permission. I don't think another formal copy edit is necessary, but I don't want to discourage editors from going through the article and pointing out places where the explanation isn't clear to someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Thanks for your comment! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big thank you goes out to Magicpiano for copy editing the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Not sure exactly what to make of this one. I supported before but am concerned there are flaws that I'm missing, considering the opposition from the last FAC. One thing I do see is that the lead has a couple of small paragraphs that would be better off merged elsewhere in the opening. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I think you're right about the lede ... I've shoved those two short paragraphs -- the ones about the route length and the 2010 race -- into the paragraph that separated them. Let me know if that makes the paragraph too long; it's the reason I didn't do that the first time around. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

map - would this be in order? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've managed to put something together that's acceptable. Check it out and let me know how I did. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Last FAC, I was more focused on getting through the entire article rather than focusing on one area. On intense scrutiny, however, I find glitches:

  • "Owing to the hazardous conditions encountered by the dogs that participate in the race, many of the Quest's rules are geared toward ensuring animals' health." 1) I think we've established that the dogs that are referenced to are participants in the race—maybe "wing to the hazardous conditions encountered by the participating dogs"; 2) You go from "dogs" to "animals", I wasn't aware that other animals were directly involved in the race.
  • How about "their" for No. 2? I didn't want to repeat dogs, but maybe that would work.
  • "This process begins before the race, when all dogs are required to undergo a check by race veterinarians" Could be "This process begins before the race, when all dogs must be checked by race veterinarians" (I think that a better word could be used instead of "checked")
  • Instead of "checked," how about "examined"?
  • "who certify that the animals are in good enough health to participate and are suitable for arctic travel." Could be "who certify that the animals are healthy enough to participate and are suitable for arctic travel." (should "arctic" be capitalized"?)
  • I don't think "arctic" should be capitalized in this sense ... my copy of Webster's doesn't capitalize it, and in this case, the term could be referring to the temperature rather than the region. Given the possible meanings, I suggest leaving it lower case.
  • "must finish with no fewer than 6 dogs."-->must finish with more than 6 dogs.
  • They can finish with six dogs. Saying they have to finish with more than six means they can't finish with six.
  • "During the race, dogs are visually examined by veterinarians stationed at every checkpoint." Is there any other type of examination that could be done?
  • Blood work and chemical tests, which aren't done until after the race. During the race, they're mainly worried about exhaustion, frostbite, sores from running or friction from harnesses, that sort of thing.
  • You really emphasize the penalties assessed for dog mistreatment. Can you provide a concrete example? For example, what did "Donald Smidt" that earned him disqualification?
  • I haven't been able to find a reliable source that states what happened to him. I did run across a forum posting talking about sores on the dogs' feet, but I haven't found anything that's reliable.
  • "Five hundred-dollar fines" It would be more readable as "Five $100 fines..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The writing is not good enough. Why is this here less than a month after the last attempt? And why has it sucked up our precious reviewing resources for a whole 24 days? This is not the venue for article improvement drives: they should occur before nomination. Sorry to talk plainly. I read only part of the lead, as an example of the whole text.

  • Tony, if you'll allow me to be equally frank, posting such a comment after reading only "part of the lead" of a 65k article is akin to reading three pages of a book, then writing a damning review. I appreciate your comments in regards to things I can fix in regards to the text, but your comments about how this review was submitted are irrelevant. FAC reviews the content of the article, not the content of the review. It was not my intent to use the FAC process as an article improvement method, except by what was needed to achieve the support of other editors. In the first review, the article received two supports and one oppose. The condition of the oppose — that it receive a thorough copy editing — has been resolved thanks to Magicpiano.
  • No metric conversion at the opening.
  • The official name does not require a conversion.
  • Few readers will know that Yukon is in Canada, directly to the east of Alaska.
  • That's why it's been wikilinked.
  • "harsh winter conditions"—It's summer in February in half the planet.
  • Good idea.
  • What is a musher?
  • Wikilink moved to first reference.
  • it is considered the "most difficult sled dog race in the world".[1] It also has been called the "toughest race in the world".[2]—Why two quotes, nearly the same? Can't one be used below?
  • They're two different categories, as I understand it. Forex, "toughest race in the world" would include things like marathons or the Dakar Rally. Sort of like someone saying she's not only the toughest human in the world, he's the toughest mammal in the world.
  • "Musher", I see, is linked on second, not first appearance. Shouldn't have to hit the link to learn in a phrase what it means.
  • See two comments above. As to the second part, I'm sorry, but I disagree. This is covered under the section of WP:LINK that deals with technical terms. I've written 10 previous FAs, many of which dealt with individual college football games. In no instance was I required to explain the rules of college football or what a down, touchdown, or extra point are.
  • Is Whitehorse in Yukon? I know that Fairbanks is in Alaska, but most won't.
  • Fairbanks, Alaska, and Whitehorse, Yukon are the terms used in the first sentence of the article.
  • Permitted and allowed? drops drops. "and" rather than "or"? "Racers are permitted to drop sled dogs at checkpoints or dog drops but are not allowed to replace the dogs." --> "Racers are permitted to leave sled dogs at checkpoints and dog drops, but not to replace the dogs." Then ... "They also cannot may neither replace their sleds without penalty, nor accept help from non-racers except when they reach Dawson City, the halfway mark of the race. Tony (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you're going. The only part I'd contend with is the removal of the prepositional phrase identifying Dawson, since the article hasn't defined its importance to that point. Removing it would cause readers to ask the question "Why Dawson City and not some other point?" JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:14, 6 June 2009 [65].

Rob Pelinka[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is a high quality article of a sports agent. I don't think there are currently any sports agent FAs and he is as interesting as any, IMO. I also feel that he is an interesting example of what a Walter Byers Award winner might become. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Really not that happy with what I saw early in the article; hopefully it improves as it goes into his college years and career as an agent.

  • In the lead, NBA and NCAA need to be spelled out on their first usages (NBA is spelled out in its fifth usage. You might want to do the same for MVP as well.
  • Four straight sentences in the first paragraph start with he. Please mix it up a little.
  • "He has also been the agent for NBA All-Star Carlos Boozer, which has been controversial." What is "which" supposed to be referring to? I think this sentence's organization can be improved.
  • four of whom play for Los Angeles teams and a likely 2009 draftee."
  • "As a basketball player he is former high school All-American." Missing "a" word.
  • In the third paragraph, I don't think University of Michigan needs to be repeated; for the team name, Wolverines, or Michigan Wolverines, should be fine.
  • Check the punctuation throughout. I see some places where there should be commas, and others that have unneeded ones. An example of the latter is the second comma in "Nonetheless, scouts who questioned his true height and dribbling, doubted whether he was talented enough...".
  • "Even previously doubtful scout Kaplan noted...". Who's Kaplan? Is he the scout Pelinka questioned through the media? And what is his first name?
  • "After selecting Michigan, he had memorable performances in his regional all-star games, including a 27 point performance in the annual City-Suburban all-star game."
    • I don't see what is wrong with this sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgot to say earlier that I don't know how many people would consider his performances in high school all-star games memorable. Also, "27 point" needs a hyphen. The POV-sounding part is my main concern here, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I make no promises about returning, as I have four or five new FACs that I'm interested in reviewing. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally was able to come back for some more.
  • College: "As a guard, he became the first athlete to reach three NCAA Tournament Final Fours during his Michigan Wolverines career." Is this only for Michigan athletes? I can think of many UCLA basketball players who have appeared in three Final Fours. That just confused me a bit.
  • The WP:LEAD says "he has the distinction of being the only person in school history to have been a member of three National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Final Four entrants", but I will say it clearly in the body too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes surely UCLA, UNC, Duke, Ohio State and Michigan State, to name a few, have many such athletes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize final four in the second sentence of the section.
  • "He did have an opportunity to take a 20-foot shot with five seconds left in what turned out to be a 76–74 loss to Texas on December 29, 1990. He missed the shot." Instead of having such a short sentence at the end, why not work it into the previous sentence?
  • Education: Notre Dame and North Carolina could be linked.
  • Typo: "he be came the home game color analyst...".
  • Possible grammar issue: "on a 16-station broadcast network that originated from a WGR-AM." Remove second "a"? Giants2008 (17-14) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) 1a and 2a problems. These are just examples from the top.

  • Is there nothing about his life before high school?
    • Notice that this article was compiled without almost any biographical sketches. It is more of a scrapbook of his life and there were no significant scraps before high school. I.E., his notability has not produced WP:RS of his entire biography, just events, based on what I have found to date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just realized that when I first wrote the article, I only had newspaper archives from the state of Illinois. Now I have the entire world. I am going through Michigan newspapers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm baffled as to why the lead doesn't go in chronological order, and indeed, the order of the body of the article. It makes more sense to mention his basketball playing career and then his work as an agent.
    • The issue here is that if in three words you were going to describe this guy you would say "Kobe Bryant's agent". Thus, to help the reader understand who he is immediately you need this in the first paragraph. I will try to rearrange things a bit though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out MVP on its first appearance for our readers who don't follow sports.
  • "As a sports agent, he is best known as NBA MVP Kobe Bryant's agent and President and CEO of The Landmark Sports Agency, LLC." Spot the four redundant words (repeated information).
  • "and he will be the agent for James Harden in the 2009 NBA Draft." The "he" can be deleted through ellipsis.
  • "a role which has been controversial." "which"-->that
  • "As a basketball player, he is a former high school All-American." Too wordy. Try "Pelinka played basketball for Lake Forest High School, earning All-American honors." Is there a link for All-American?
  • "and his impressive season statistics made him highly recruited by the end of his senior year." "made" is unidiomatic.
  • "He eventually went to the University of Michigan where he has the distinction" Needs a comma after "Michigan". You could probably do away with "eventually".
  • "that were best remembered as the Fab Five teams. " "that"-->which
  • The section title "Basketball player" doesn't sit right with me. Why not "Basketball career"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pelinka grew up with a religious faith." This is so random and vague, either add detail or remove the sentence altogether.
  • "By the time he was a junior teammate of long-time Chicago Bears quarterback Bobby Douglass' stepson, Bill Douglass, he was regarded as one of the best shooters in the Chicago area." More unnecessary detail. Why do we really want to know about a relative of a football player?
  • "Pelinka also played in the Chicago pro-amateur leagues where he played against local stars such as Mark Aguirre, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Duckworth, and Kendall Gill." You go from talking about his junior season in high school to pro-amateur leagues. Can we have a time parameter please?
  • "However, he was not a national preseason top 500 pick by Street & Smith's basketball magazine, which may have been because his senior season marked the first season that the three point shot was adopted by state high school associations and Pelinka was mainly a shooter." I'm trying to make sense of this. If Pelinka was a shooter, then surely he would benefit from the change and would be more likely to be selected to the top 500?
    • I think the point is that the rule might have been adopted after scouts had evaluated talent without adjusting for the rule change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the four-game December 1987 Elgin tournament, in which he was named MVP, Pelinka made all 41 of his free throws and recorded a career-high 139 points, including 45 in one game." I put in "career-high", does that sit well with you?
  • "By the beginning of February of his senior year, Pelinka was listed as one of the top ten Illinois Class AA (the larger school class)" "larger school class" is unclear. Is this going by population?
    • In almost all U.S. states high schools are broken into classes based on enrollment. Would you like a change in the text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even previously doubtful scout Kaplan noted" Doubtful of what? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I think this is missing some hyphens, but a better prose person should check: ... Big Ten Conference and was the preseason number one ranked team ... All of these numbers together are awkward, can the sentence be recast to avoid the numbers together? ... free throws in a January 29, 1992 89–79 road ... Text sandwiched between images in "Professional career", see WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [66].

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. I'm sorry but this is a long way from ready. The level of preparedness here indicates that the article required a peer review at the very least. There are basic problems apparent just in the lead; where I started reading randomly throughout the text, I easily located issues. A thorough, substantive copyedit is needed. Some random issues follow:
  • I responded to each item line-by-line. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for, but I did and of course am willing to continue responding any other objections this way. As with the topic's previous two FAs, I didn't put in for a peer review because I thought the GAN process would serve as an acceptable alternative, but if it's really so bad that it can't be fixed by the FAC process (which I hope isn't the case) I will put in for that. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In this episode, the boys send money ..." This needs to mostly stand alone as an article. You don't have to list out "the boys" but at least include a link for people wanting context.
    • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia himself, where he learned activist Sally Struthers is actually hoarding the charity's food for herself." Mixed tenses.
    • "The episode was written by ... writer Pam Brady." Written by a writer... you don't say.
    • "The episode simultaneously serves as a satire for both American indifference toward the Third World and the humanitarianism industry itself." Mixing up tenses again; you've been writing about the episode in the past tense until now. Also, "both" is unnecessary.
    • "which was then about eight times the channel's average viewership." By now, I've forgotten it was Comedy Central, so it probably bears repeating.
    • "The episode reportedly offended Sally Struthers and made her cry." The last bit is not really of a proper tone. Later on, you could say it "affected her emotionally" or similar but let's not be this familiar. In the lead, cut it after her name.
      • I supposed you're right. I've replaced the wording in the lead and removed it from the article. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia himself"; "the humanitarianism industry itself"; "In addition to the Starvin' Marvin character himself" All these phrases, just from the lead, demonstrate a penchant for inserted pronouns of dubious value at the end of things. Remove all of them and you haven't changed the meaning.
      • I've removed all of these you pointed out and a few others from the article you didn't. I'll keep this advice in mind for my future writing in general as well
    • "McDaniels, however, thinks he is crazy and ridicule him behind his back."
    • "Despite this however, it was given a PG rating in the United Kingdom."
    • Inconsistency with logical quotation (see WP:LQ). The guideline is under discussion but you need to be consistent.
      • I only found three examples of inconsistency. For the most part I think it's OK (periods and commas outside the quotation marks for clauses, episodes, phrases; inside for full sentences). If you find any that I missed, please feel free to point them out or fix them yourself. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Hunter Kahn: Thank you so much for addressing these points quickly. I understand your reason for foregoing the peer review, but it seems clear that the GA review was woefully inadequate in this case. GAN should never be considered a substitute for peer review or a good copyedit, in my opinion, for this very reason. I do think it warrants a thorough copyedit, as I mentioned above. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 13 (Kuypers, Janet...) needs a page number.
  • Is current ref 28 (Williamson..) a newspaper? It seems to be lacking the title of the newspaper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's just not FA. I too suggest a PR. Dincher (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dincher, it would helpful to the nominator if you explained which criteria you are opposing on. Are you concurring with my 1a opposition? --Laser brain (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is very poor and the are problems in almost every sentence. Here are some examples:

  • "In this episode, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan send money to an African charity to get a sports watch, but they are instead sent the Ethiopian child Starvin' Marvin." - hoping to get, or in return for?
  • "Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia, where he learns activist Sally Struthers is actually hoarding the charity's food for herself" -why actually?
  • "The episode simultaneously served as a satire for American indifference toward the Third World and the humanitarianism industry." - the expression is "satire on".
  • "the episode introduced recurring characters Gerald Broflovski (Kyle's father) and Kenny's family members Stuart, Carol and Kevin McCormick." - recurring characters?
  • "After seeing a commercial about starving children in Africa, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan, not caring about the starving people there but rather wanting the free sports watch that comes with the sponsorship, send money to Sally Struthers' charity organization" - hopelessly convoluted.
  • "The boys take Marvin to an all-you-can-eat buffet, where he is shocked by how much food the townsfolk are consuming compared to his home country" - are we comparing a town with a country?
  • "Back at school, Mr. Garrison announces the food drive is a failure because students have brought in only a cans of creamed corn." - only a cans of creamed corn?
  • "the turkey DNA is growing so rapidly that they might take over the world if they cannot be stopped in South Park." - the DNA or the turkeys? Try "turkeys' DNA".
  • "Cartman, who had previously shown little care for the people living in poverty in Africa, is sent to Ethiopia and is unable to bear the lack of food and horrible conditions there." - but is unable, and horrible is much too vague.
  • "During a prayer to God says he is sorry he made fun of poor people." - Why on earth is God linked?
  • "Sally Struthers encourages viewers to donate money to provide food to starving children in Africa"- provide food for.
  • "The animators enjoyed creating the turkey battle scene, which was animated in widescreen aspect ratio while the rest of the episode was animated normally." I am sure it was not animated in widescreen aspect, it was probably filmed in it.

I could go on and on, but I am in danger of pasting the whole article here. The prose is the poorest I have ever seen at FAC. Graham Colm Talk 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess I was too hasty in this nomination, and should have at the very least given it a thorough copy edit myself instead of depending on the GAN process. I'll definitely be putting it up for a peer review after I make the changes you guys have given. I do intend to bring it back after I do that, though, because I think the content is good, even though the prose needs work. Before this gets closed, do any of you guys have any feedback as far as the content? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the content is good, and most importantly, the sources seem reliable. Please point me to the PR when you are ready. I would like to help in return for your not shooting the messengers. Graham Colm Talk 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A peer review could help the article with its flaws and weak spots before being nominated for FA. I suggest a peer review. —Terrence and Phillip 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [67].

No Jacket Required[edit]

Nominator(s): CarpetCrawlermessage me 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, everyone! This is my first ever FAN, so my apologies if I misunderstand anything. I am nominating this article, because I feel that after giving it a huge expansion (This is what the article looked like before I got ahold of it,) over the course of many many months, having received two peer reviews, numerous copyedits, as well as a ton of help from a lot of friends along the way, that this article is ready to be promoted as a featured article. The article has come a long way from what it used to look like, and I look forward to doing my best at addressing any concerns anyone may have over this article. Thank you, and I look forward to any comments! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, looks good and meets the criteria. Just a few comments:
  • Using WP:REFTOOLS, I can see that more than one reference is named 'NOR'.
Done, I didn't add those refs, so I assume the original editor accidentally copy and pasted incorrectly. Either way, they're fixed now! CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65's retrieval date differs in format from the rest.
Done. Fixed that and properly formatted in. CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, everything else looks good. Disambiguation links are up to speed, according to the dab finder tool. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe this currently meets the 1a bar. Examples at random, all from lead:
    • The second sentence: "The album was named after an incident at The Pump Room in Chicago, where Collins was denied admittance to the establishment because of his attire." Weak use of the passive and problematic ambiguity of "after". Why not the simpler, tighter: "The name of the album refers to..."?
    • How exactly is something "based on improvisation"?
    • "Other songs, like "Long Long Way to Go", had a political message." Use of "other" suggests the two are mutually exclusive.
    • Cite your quotations.
    • "Rolling Stone reviewer David Fricke said that the album, "Like his '81 and '82 outings, Face Value and Hello ... I Must Be Going!, No Jacket Required is not an album that waits to be liked"." <-- ungrammatical
    • "went to number one in various parts of the world" Bland, elementary prose.
    • "The record has been certified diamond " Link? "being certified for 6x platinum." Is it certified or certified for?
    • "Many of the songs, including "Take Me Home", and "Long Long Way To Go," also appeared in various episodes of Miami Vice," Also?
    • "Collins embarked on The No Jacket Required World Tour concert in 1985 which was also successful." Another puzzling also. Which v. that (or comma). Why not just "embarked on a successful"?
    • "During the tour, Collins also recorded a song with" Good thing Tony hasn't reviewed this yet...
    • In general, the article suffers from simplistic prose. For example, take a look at how the article strives desperately to achieve narrative flow in the Production section (first sentences of each para):
      • "Some of the songs from the album were works that were originally improvised by Collins"
      • "Another song that Collins created mostly through improvisation was"
      • "Another song based partly off improvisation is "One More Night""
      • "Other songs were written with a more personal message."
      • "Doesn't Anybody Stay Together Anymore?" is another song in which Collins was making a personal message. "
      • "Take Me Home" is another song in which the meaning was originally very vague." (and who knows what "originally very vague" means)
    • This needs quite a bit of work before it meets FA criteria. Might want to withdraw this one. BuddingJournalist 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with the above, apart from the suggestion to withdraw. The article requires a thorough copy-edit, and I have made some suggestions. [68] This contribution certainly lacks flow, and this is not helped by trivial sentences such as " The Phil Collins Big Band played this on tour", carelessly inserted into the article, and odd expressions like "collaborator of Live Aid". This is a pity, there is much interesting content here—but more work required.Graham Colm Talk 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd withdraw, but I'd rather hear if anyone else has any comments. Honestly, about this needing a copyedit, I had quite a few people copyedit this article, and another user completely guided me through various stages... so I don't know what to say, really. Also, I apologize for the sloppy prose. I am not a good prose writer, which is why I had some many copyedits done in the first place, but oh well. I'd rather see what anyone else has to say before I withdraw this. CarpetCrawlermessage me 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. When it comes to copyediting, it is often not quantity but quality that counts. Yes, let's see what others have to say. This is not the end of the world, but an opportunity to improve the article. And, most importantly, please no apology required. We are friends and collaborators working as volunteers on an important project. This article may or may not be promoted on this occasion, but given the content, and providing that the sources are reliable, it will eventually. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [69].

Loihi Seamount[edit]

Nominator(s): ResMar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is my second shot. Since the first nominations, we've been tightening the article, and Mattaise has done a great go-over of the prose. Try, try again... ResMar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on macro organisms had material that was copied without understanding and without quotation marks. Probably the article should be more carefully checked before some author finds their work as a featured article in wikipedia without their permission. It's also useful for the reader of the article if the material copied (although prefer it not copied, but rewritten and developed with proper attribution and expanded and placed in pointed context) is directly related to the article. Data in the table and lists were about species found in general by expeditions to primarily other seamounts, not this one, or were not found at the linked site, or were used in ways that did not show the relationship to this article and its unique sealife that is a function of its historical activity and location relative to the hotspot. Please check sources carefully. Also please read carefully to see if the article makes sense. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, article abstracts should never be used as references (that's where the disputed material came from), only the articles themselves. In any case, 69.226.103.13 offers excellent criticism and I hope it will improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that editors were using just the abstract for the information. My corrections, however, are from the article, not the abstract, and if the reference as is means that only the abstract is used for this section it is incorrect. I will change this to the UH link to clear this up. The 213 species out of 250 taxa photographed, is, yes, for the entire series of dives mostly concentrated at Johnston and Cross and should probably remain deleted until additional information is included about the colonization of the seamount from the surrounding areas. For this last piece of information is an important aspect of the colonization of the seamount. The comment about lack of faunal zonation is also an important ecological description for a young volcano, and an attempt should be made to find the reference and include the information in this section. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Just one observation, if you're only using the abstract of an article as the source, you must make that clear in the referencing. I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't even begin to opine on whether that's good practice or not
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to check out the sources and links.
This particular abstract should not have been used as the source for information because the article was primarily about two other locations, not Loihi. This has been fixed in the Loihi article.
In general, for writing encyclopedia articles, scientific information should be well-established. If it is published as an abstract only, as in the case of a convention, the information may be too new and not as vetted as one would want for an article in a general encyclopedia. Most information should come, also, from within an article, rather than from its abstract, for the same reason: the abstract is the new information, the text contains discussion of well-established information. Within the article, the introduction, relating the basis of the experiment to prior information, and the discussion section, relating the results to prior information, are the most appropriate areas to find usable information for a derivative piece, such as a general encyclopedia article or a popular science or newspaper write-up. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Enough inaccuracies have been found to make me quite wary about this article. Examples include the macro-organism material mentioned above, the seamount's height (diff), and the issues around the 1996 eruption recently discussed on the article's talk page. As 69.226.103.33 suggests above, the article needs to be thoroughly checked against its sources. There is a lot of good work being put in, though, so I'm still hopeful. -- Avenue (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend closing this FAC, for the second time. It isn't ready. One thing I noticed early in the article development was some confusion caused by the reliance on HCV web sites. These sites were, for the most part, using data found in published sources. For example, the paper in the further reading section, "Researchers rapidly respond to submarine activity at Lōʻihi volcano, Hawaiʻi", supports much of the current article. Whenever possible, however, editors should try to review the published literature before using web sites which extract partial data for public consumption, and compare it to multiple sources to determine accuracy. Some of the initial editing of this article was rushed and copied haphazardly from web sites without careful attention to detail and comparative fact-checking from the original sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • I've gone through and made a quick round of changes based on things I picked out in the article. Let me know if any of the changes created problems as you see them.
  • Several of the changes I made include adding fact tags where I think a citation is needed.
  • The expression "the most recorded for any historical Hawaiian volcanic activity" in the lead is a bit awkward. Is there a way you could rephrase it to something like "This series included more earthquakes than any other swarm in Hawaiian history"?
  • I'm a little concerned that the fourth citation is used so heavily. For me, anything more than 10 uses indicates that more research could be needed. I'd strongly suggest finding additional citations to replace the multiple uses -- those new citations might reveal new facts about the seamount as well.
  • The caption for the bathymetric map of the seamount uses a period for an incomplete sentence. I didn't change it since there's another sentence there, and you could probably combine the two.
  • In the geology section dealing with Pele's Pit, there's a bit of redundancy and confusion. You mention that Pele's Pit is the youngest pit twice; I'm also not clear what Pele's Vent was -- there's no explanation; also, when you talk about the thick crater walls, is that referring to all the pits or just Pele's Pit.
  • Where are the other two pits located, and what's their structure? You mention so much detail about Pele's Pit, the absence of information about the other two was noticeable.
  • You mention how the rift zones create the "distinctive shape from which its Hawaiian name derives". The problem is that you don't mention what Loihi means until later in the article and in the infobox.
  • In the sentence "transported with the seafloor itself to its location in the Hawaiian Islands", you may need to mention crustal movement, since the natural question is to ask how a volcano can be transported.
  • I hesitate to offer this as a suggestion, since it would be a lot of work: Consider merging the exploration and activity sections into a "history" section and move it in front of Geology. I say this because the Geology section contains a lot of information that is tough to grasp unless you understand the history of the seamount. Forex, the article mentions about how until 1970, it was thought that Loihi was a defunct seamount moved into place by the moving crust and that scientists discovered in 1970 that it was an erupting volcano. You're using historical marks to discuss the geology, and that makes me wonder if it'd be better to move the history of exploration and eruptive history up. For examples of where this worked really well, check out the featured article Jupiter Trojan.
  • The summit depth in the infobox and the one given in the geology section don't match.
  • There are a lot of double and triple-spaced words in the article. I think I nailed most of them, but I'd suggest doing a find/replace for them.
  • In activity, you say the volcano was known to be active before recordkeeping began in 1959; that seems to contradict the assertion in the geology section that it was thought to be a dormant seamount prior to 1970.
  • I like the table of major events. It's a good idea and presents its information clearly.
  • In the activity section, the 1991–1992 earthquake lasted several months? Or did you mean eruption?
  • When you say a "low level" of activity, by what definition is it low?
  • The sentence "detected 10 times the amount of quakes that were to be found on the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) seismic network" leaves me more questions than answers. How many quakes were found by HVO? Is that a lot? What does HVO cover? How many volcanoes? How do those volcanoes compare to Loihi?
  • When you say the swarm was the "largest" recorded for any Hawaiian volcano, does that mean intensity or number?
  • You've got moment magnitude scale wikilinked twice in quick succession in the activity section and again later on in the article.
  • Why were scientists unable to study iron-oxidizing bacteria at any time other than the 1996 quake swarm?
  • What is a "significant" amount of shore-based research? It's not a very clear amount.
  • In the earthquake swarm section, you use the word "event" a lot. The problem is that it's often not clear whether you're talking about the swarm or the eruption that preceded it, especially in terms of the effects. I know there's probably no way to tell in some cases, but the formation of Pele's Pit was a result of the eruption, not the quakes, yes?
  • Calling the volcano "alive" might be a bit too much anthropomorphism. Same for the use of the word "born". Be cautious.
  • "temperatures exceeding 250 °C, a record" ... for Loihi, hydrothermal vents, underwater volcanoes, or something else?
  • In the last sentence of the swarm section, you say "the study" ... which study is this referring to: the quick one in August or the longer ones in September and October?
  • Is there any tsunami danger from Loihi quakes or eruptions? Any danger to human operations of any kind?
  • There's a lot of relative terms in the article: "ideal", "famous" and so on.
  • The iron-oxidizing bacteria information in the exploration section might be better sited in the ecology section.
  • Why is the first mention of Kapo's Vents in the microorganisms section? If it's a significant feature, I'd suggest putting it in the geology section. I'd also suggest moving discussion of the makeup of vent fluids in a similar fashion.

Well, I think that's about it. I don't claim that this is everything, but it should get you started, at least. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [70].

Osteitis fibrosa cystica[edit]

Nominator(s): Strombollii (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because having recently received GAN, I feel that the article articulately and professionally explains the subject. The article has undergone four intensive reviews and multiple multi-party edits, and I feel meets all FA criterion.Strombollii (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The pathophysiology section could be more in depth and involve a diagram of the process.
  • The section on epidemiology touches on the USA and Asia. Any data from the rest of the world?
  • In the history section it is mentioned that the rate has decreased in the western world with better treatment. What was the rate before and what has it decreased to?
  • It seems that there are 4 causes. I would be best if each cause had its own section rather than being numbered.
  • I have seen some gross anatomy images of these tumors as mentioned at the GA. People will often release images if you ask much like radiopedia did for the images of the hands.
  • It discusses x ray findings under signs and symptoms. Should be moved to diagnosis.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you removed it? Haha It was a placeholder until I replaced the info.
I didn't remove it. It's still there, current ref 39 "Engel..." Ealdgyth - Talk 11:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference: info substantiated in other two references at the conclusion of that sentence.Strombollii (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a cleanup/expand banner in one section.
That was inserted by Doc: I'm trying to find data to change that, but there really isn't anything available as far as I can tell.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw at least one one-sentence section that should be expanded, and noted several MOS issues in edit summaries. I'm concerned that some physicians should look at this article for 1b, comprehensive, as several sections are short and stubby. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - and I hate doing this because the article is from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 that I was involved in. I have been watching this page hoping for comments from the medics, but they do not seem interested. There are many problems with the article. First, it reads as though the targeted readers are medical professionals, and, although this is often difficult to get round, no effort seems to have been made. The prose, although generally good, fails on occasions. Simple improvements such as quick redundancy checking for "as well as", "also" and more complex redundancy such as "which is a term used to refer to", would be a start. The deeper faults include:

  • Abnormalities affecting the parathyroid glands cause a surplus of PTH, which, in turn, increases the activity and frequency of such cells. - it is far from clear that "such cells" are osteoblasts and osteocytes.
  • Increased PTH triggers the release of stored calcium through the dissolution of old bone, as well as the conservation of said serum calcium through a cessation in the production of new bone. - "as well as" and "of said serum calcium" - need attention, particularly the latter, I do not understand the need for "of said"
  • Muscles in patients afflicted with OFC generally appear unaffected or "bulked up" instead of diminishing in mass. - why would they be expected to diminish in mass?
  • Often the article seems more about hyperparathyroidism than OFC. This is particularly noticable in the History and Epidemiology sections, but occurs throughout the article; If muscular symptoms appear upon the onset of hyperparathyroidism, they are generally sluggish contraction and relaxation of the muscles.
  • What is deviation of the trachea?
  • The section on blood testing is very poor; there is not enough detail. What do the results of the tests mean, how should they be interpreted, what are their normal ranges, when should they be performed, are they reliable? These should all be explained.
  • There is a big difference between a sign and a symptom. The usage is wrong in the Radiology section, which again is not very good. X-rays may also be used to diagnose the disease - no they aid the diagnosis. Only humans diagnose.
    I respectfully disagree with this point. Humans use x-rays to diagnose the disease. Therefore x-rays are indeed used to diagnose the disease. [Although I accept that re-writing the sentence might be helpful.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, brown tumors, especially when manifested on facial bones, can be misdiagnosed as neoplastic. - this sentence is targetted at medics.
  • skull x-rays may depict - skulls do not emit X-rays; we are writing for medics again.
  • Cysts may be lined by osteoclasts and sometimes blood pigments, which lend to the notion of "brown tumors." - where have these "cysts" come from all of a sudden, this is the first time they are mentioned. What are they, where are they and they important?
  • Fine needle aspiration can be used to biopsy bone lesions, - "biopsy" is not a verb.
    Actually it is used as a verb. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delivered intravenously - writing for medics again, delivered intravenously, with medications - what medications?
  • is the recommended route of treatment - writing for medics.
  • the lesion healed and the autonomous material blended rapidly and seamlessly with the original bone. - does "autonomous material" mean "the transplanted bone?
  • The epidemiology section is about hyperparathyroidism and not OFC, as is the history section.

In summary, I think the article does not satisfy the FA criteria. Much more work is required, which I doubt can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm Talk 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Graham makes several good points. The image at the top right has bizarrely shaped arrows. Perhaps a standard shape of arrow could be used? The "References" need to be standardized. Please include volume and issue numbers if appropriate. It is preferable to use journal titles in full. The "Bibliography" section uses textbooks that only have a single page number referenced in the article. These books should use standard in-line citation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [71].

Gulfton, Houston[edit]

Nominator(s): WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Since the first FA nomination, I have replaced old photos with new ones. Also User:Remotelysensed copyedited the article after I placed a copyedit request. With the errors indicated in the first FA nomination corrected, I would like to see how a second FA nomination would do. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Still not fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed as many all caps as I could find. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other references are lacking authors, publishers, last access dates, etc. (Check your houston chronicle articles, that's where I especially noted lacking authors, etc.)
  • Five deadlinks in the link checker tool.
  • This was noted in the previous FAC, but not everything needs to be italicised. Websites dont' need to be italicised, only newspaper and journal titles.
still not fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed more italics. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, the only things italicised should be newspaper titles, magazine titles, and book titles. The titles like City of Houston, Harris County, etc. don't need italics. (There are still more, but I'll strike this because it's much improved and will trust you'll get the rest) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A concern is that large chunks of the article are sourced to primary sources, such as the organizations, schools, etc. Other reviewers should check the article for inadvertant bias
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Some of the Houston Chronicle articles don't have authors indicated. What should I do in that case?
"Staff" works as an author. On the couple I spot checked, there were authors on the articles, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works :) - Anyway, I'll look at the remaining references.
I improved some more refs. Are there any more that need attention? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Which ones are dead? I'll have to use web.archive.org to fix the dead links - For publishers, which references do not have publishers? Which ones don't have access dates? (Please use the numbers)
3. Many of the primary sources I used are to source school boundaries and stuff that isn't analytical. Even so, please feel free to look at the sources.
4. Should I un-italicize the websites in the references too, or just in the article body? EDIT: It is talking about sources, so I'll have to un-italicize non-newspaper source names.
Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the Chronicle citations, I caught one ("Afraid to be counted") that needed more info (author, date, access date) entered. There were two ("Mexican village" and "sports anchors") that needed an access date. There was a Houston Business Journal article that needed author info. There was a Chron article that needed an author info ("Hurricane Rita") - I also caught one all of the dead links with the link checker WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I de-italicized and filled in info for some sources with incomplete information. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this needs significant work on its prose (in particular, the organization of the prose) to meet the FA bar.
    • I find the first sentence problematic. In particular, the location of "including" at the very beginning bothers me. Are the apartment complexes the defining feature of Gulfton? The way the first sentence is structured now, Gulfton's location seems to be an afterthought; the focus is on these puzzling apartment complexes. Try perhaps "Gulfton is a community in southwestern Houston, Texas, United States that..."
    • I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?
    • The lead, which should summarize an article, seems a bit short.
    • "with new apartment complexes " missing a verb here.
    • "In the 1980s, the economy declined and the community became home to newly-arrived immigrants." Are these two ideas connected? Seems odd. If so, might need some further explication here.
    • "and aspects of Latin American culture and recreation." Jarring after a long list of buildings...
    • "the Shenandoah subdivision was built," How does this relate to Gulfton? Explain.
    • "Rice Center" I assume this has something to do with Rice University. Link?
    • What impact did the young northerners have on the community?
    • "DRG Funding" What's this?
    • "Lantern Village" Italicized because?
    • "rent rates at poorly-maintained apartments in Gulfton and other Houston areas were about the same as at well-maintained apartments in other areas of Houston" I thought the previous sentence mentioned that landlords reduced rates in Gulfton?
    • "pouring money down a perceived rat hole." Citation for quotation?
    • "Goodner lobbied for services such as a satellite health department clinic for apartment renters." Does not fit well with the rest of the paragraph.
    • "In July 1989, members of the Houston Resident Citizens Participation Council...did not like to see funds" Odd, awkward construct.
    • So the HRCPC did not want to see funds diverted...what actions did they actually take?
    • What's the implication of being designated a "Community Development Target"?
    • "Public Life in Gulfton: Multiple Publics and Models of Organization, a 1997 article," If this is an article, it should not be italicized.
    • "Robert Fisher, a professor and chair of Political Social Work..." This paragraph seems rather out of place, and breaks up the chronological flow.
    • I stopped reading at the end of 1980 through 1992...I got really bogged down by the organization and flow of the prose. I think you'll need to rethink how you're using your sources to build a cohesive story. The 1950s through 1979 led me to wonder about how the development of Gulfton was related to the development of Houston as a whole. Where did it fit in with that story? How did this influx of northerners affect the community?
      • The jumping from description of the history to description of the sources used is particularly jarring. For example, "In that article, Gaines" <-- why do we need to know that Gaines said this in a particular news article? That's not the important or interesting part. You're using footnote citations...that's their purpose. I'd suggest, "According to Gaines, the complexes in Gulfton began to cater to illegal aliens, and landlords allowed renters to "double-up" housing, with several individuals and/or families sharing the same unit."
    • Cite your quotations.
    • Not really related to FA criteria, but the first two maps need some work. Both are zoomed out a bit far, and hard to make out what is important to note. The first one seems awfully busy. Think about your data-ink ratio... BuddingJournalist 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look at the rest of these later, but for right now I'll start with these:
      • 1. You said: "I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?" - This particular complex is discussed in the history section of the article. It became well-known in television advertisements featuring Michael Pollack, who had an over-the-top advertising style. It is indicative of the economic troubles because this complex became bankrupt and foreclosed (it says so in the caption and in the main article). Is there a way to make this more obvious/clear to the reader?
      • 2. You said: "Cite your quotations." - The quotations I used come from the citation afterwards. I.E. the quote "double-up" is to citation #5, "conservative" is to citation #13, "lost its focal issue" is to citation #15. Each block of text has its citation at the end, with everything sourced from the citation. How should I modify the citation structure?
      • 3. The instance of the italicized Lantern Village was changed to quote marks
      • 4. Regarding "with new apartment complexes" - This is the full sentence: "Gulfton was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, in the midst of an oil boom, with new apartment complexes geared towards young singles from the Northeast and Midwest United States who came to work in the oil industry." - The verb is in the previous part of the sentence.
      • 5. You said: "Are these two ideas connected? Seems odd. If so, might need some further explication here." - The sentence referred is from the lead of the article. Does the lead need more explanation taken from the body of the article? The body explains that, since the previous group of tenants left since there was the oil bust, the owners of the apartment complexes needed new tenants and attracted immigrants. - Since the lead needed more content, I decided to add an explanation.
      • 6. You said: "How does this relate to Gulfton? Explain" regarding Shenandoah - The later sections explain that Shenandoah became threatened by the deterioration of Gulfton and tried to block its streets; this connection is regarding events that take place at a later time (mid-1980s) than the beginning of the development of Shenandoah (1950s). Here's my question: What should I add to this sentence?
      • 7. Regarding Rice Center, the Kim Cobb article doesn't give any further explanation to what Rice Center is. Rice Center is a part of a name. (the point is that the person is from the "Jesse H. Jones Center for Economic and Demographic Forecasting at Rice Center") - Should I explain what the Jesse H. Jones Center is?
      • 8. You said: "The 1950s through 1979 led me to wonder about how the development of Gulfton was related to the development of Houston as a whole. Where did it fit in with that story? How did this influx of northerners affect the community?" - The 1950s through the mid-1980s was an economic boom time for Houston and there was a need for housing for the many white collar workers coming from the north. The apartment complexes were built to house these workers. The community of Gulfton did not begin until the apartments opened. Regarding "What impact did the young northerners have on the community? " - The young northerners were the Gulfton community. Of course Shenandoah, the adjacent subdivision, had no problem with them. It was only when the demographics changed in the 1980s when the Shenandoah subdivision began to react.
      • 9. Regarding the construct about the funds being diverted, I decided to alter the order of the sentences and explain what a "Community Development Target" is.
      • 10. You said: '**"rent rates at poorly-maintained apartments in Gulfton and other Houston areas were about the same as at well-maintained apartments in other areas of Houston" I thought the previous sentence mentioned that landlords reduced rates in Gulfton?' - Neither statement conflicts with the other - One can reduce rent rates in X neighborhood, but people in Y neighborhood can reduce their rates at the same time.
      • 11. I explained what DRG Funding is. It is headquartered in Washington; I don't know which Washington the article is referring to.
      • 12. As for the maps, I got them from a U.S. Government website and pieced them together from screenshots. Do you know of any GNU or public domain map services I could use?
      • 13. Regarding the Goodner sentence not fitting; the whole sentence is "John Goodner, a Houston city council member representing a district including Gulfton at that time, said that more changes occurred in his district in the several years leading up to 1988 than in any other area of Houston; Goodner lobbied for services such as a satellite health department clinic for apartment renters" - What I am saying is that his city council area changed, and then he lobbied to serve the new population of the area.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll respond on this FAC's talk page, so as not to clutter up this page. Seems like we may be talking past each other on some of these points. BuddingJournalist 06:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I read about half the article closely and skimmed the rest. Therefore, the comments listed below are not comprehensive; the whole article needs to be looked at from the perspective of these examples. Overall, I thought the article wavered between including too much trivial detail and not including enough relevant background information - I think it would be difficult for someone not familiar with the Houston area to understand all of the history section, for example. The prose is adequate but needs improvement to meet the FAC standards, and the sourcing could definitely be improved (although I was pleasantly surprised at how much you were able to find in journals and newspapers).

  • Lead issues:
    • Is the image of the apartment complex really the most suitable for the very top of the article? I would expect to see the map of the neighborhood's location, as people unfamiliar with Houston would likely be confused by just the text description.
    • Vagueness (example from the lead: the schools were increasingly overwhelmed; - what does that mean? overwhelmed by what?)
    • The chronology of the third paragraph in the lead is off. Why discuss 2000 information then go back to the 1980s? Some of the information in the third paragraph also seems much too detailed for the lead.
    • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. What about the government section?
  • History section
    • The focus seems off. The first paragraph is geared more towards the Shenandoah subdivision. Much of this information is probably useful, but it could be reworded to keep the focus on Gulfton rather than making it seem like we are backtracking into a different article.
    • The chronology is off. Why do we hear about Shenandoah's future clashes before we ever even hear of anything happening in Gulfton?
    • Watch capitalization -- White people?
    • The history section never actually tells when the neighborhood of Gulfton was created - when did it gets its own name? Why wasn't it part of Shenandoah? Who was responsible for first developing the area? Did its boundaries always match what they are now? Who designed the "widely-spaced grid road pattern"? Was this done on purpose to attract apartment complexes (and if not, why use that type of road)? If it was always intended to be apartments, what did the Sheanndoah people think at the time - were there any protests or grumblings?
    • the development of apartment complexes was not well planned or coordinated, and there was often little interest in building a quality product. -- is this specific criticism directed at the apartments in Gulfton or is this more vague - apartment-building in general in this timeframe?
    • Might want to put in a bit more background on what caused the decline in the economy in the 1980s.
    • Why include the trivia on the advertisements for the Colonial House Apartments? If they were only well-known through the Houston area, then this doesn't seem that important to the article, especially since Michael Pollack is not exactly a well-known name (I've never heard of him, and no wikilink).
    • Why such a focus on the Colonial House Apartments, that they get an entire paragraph? Is there a reason they are singled out over other apartments? Was this the largest complex?
    • Why didn't the new residents have easy access to government services? There needs to be a bit more background tieing this in together.
    • Did the Central American Refugee Center target its work at Gulfton, or was its reach much broader and it was just based in Gulfton? If the latter, it really isn't worth mentioning in this article - that is essentially more trivia.
    • I'm still not understanding why the merger of the GANO and the GAAC affected relations with the Shenadoah Civic Association. This needs more detail.
    • Did nothing happen between 1992 and 1998? Any more details on the apparently growing difficulties between Shenandoah and GANO?
    • The paragraph on the Navarro killing needs to be totally redone. Lose the irrelevant details (do we care about the time?), and include more background - this paragraph does not tell someone who didn't follow the case what was actually going on and why this was a big deal.
  • Is it normal to have a history of elementary schools in a neighborhood article? This seems inappropriate to me. The information would be better placed in a school district history article.
  • Sourcing

Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll explain more about some of these points in a sec. But first:
          • Regarding "the schools were increasingly overwhelmed" - Overwhelmed with excess students. I'm going to correct that now; it shouldn't be vague.
          • You said: "The chronology is off. Why do we hear about Shenandoah's future clashes before we ever even hear of anything happening in Gulfton?" - That was from a suggestion by BuddingJournalist. I'm going to get the two of you to talk about that one, because to be it seems like what he suggested seems contradicts what you suggest (maybe I'm wrong, but what I wrote was a direct result of his comments).
          • The name - First, it didn't become a part of Shenandoah because Shenandoah is entirely made of single family homes and Shenandoah refers to the homes. "Gulfton" refers to the apartment complexes. The area simply got the name by the 1980s; there is no story involving one group suddenly deciding that this community needs the name "Gulfton"
          • Schools - On the contrary, the history of the elementary schools is very important to this neighborhood. The sudden filling of the area elementary schools is one of the main points of the development of the neighborhood. Also moving this info to the school district article would be worse because this would seem off topic. Remember that the Houston Independent School District is the largest in Texas and has many schools, so a specific history detailing individual schools would be very long and drawn out. What is here is specific to the neighborhood. Considering that many of its residents are children and that the filling of the schools has been detailed in newspapers, I feel that the section is vital and must be kept.
          • METRO: You said: "Why source info on the new Metro lines to the Metro website? - I know that has been widely covered in the Chronicle, and there is no reason to be going to the self-published Metro site instead. The Chronicle will at least give additional background and reactions" - The source "Public Life in Gulfton: Multiple Publics and Models of Organization." mentions that a group lobbied for an increase in METRO lines. That is one thing. Two, the Houston Chronicle mentions people asking why Gulfton doesn't have a stop on the proposed University Line. For specific lines going through the neighborhood, I feel that primary sources are appropriate for this particular piece of information. I would like to check the archives of Houston Chronicle more regarding METRO specifically in Gulfton, though.
          • Regarding Rice, I'll have to see if there is a source that talks about Rice's headquarters. BTW the website source is used for the **address,** which confirms the location.
          • The primary sources are generally used to confirm basic details and not analytical details. The analyzing comes from reliable sources.
          • WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why addresses should be included in this article at all. That is overly detailed information. I also highly disagree that primary sources are satisfactory if secondary sources exist, and I still think the school chronology is overly detailed and out of place here. We don't need (and the majority of readers of this article won't care) that X school opened in Y year. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with removing addresses on the page. What I discussed above was using an address as a source. Anyway, I feel that the "X school opened in Y year" is actually very imporant in three places: When Gordon re-opened in the 1980s, Benavidez opened in 1992, and when Rodriguez opened in 2003, as they directly were responses to the results of the socioeconomic changes in the Gulfton neighborhood. On the other hand, the opening dates of Cunningham, Braeburn, Long, and Lee had little effect on the neighborhood. I could remove the opening dates of those schools. Also I could remove the opening dates of the charter schools. How does that sound?
You said: "Did nothing happen between 1992 and 1998? Any more details on the apparently growing difficulties between Shenandoah and GANO?" - Stuff did happen between those years, but they are mainly mentioned in specific subsections. I would have to look at that source to see if it has any other information.
Regarding: http://www.escapesexpo.com/speakers.asp?id=1 - The only way in which this was used is to state what Rice Center is; Budding Journalist suggested that I explain what Rice Center is. For what it is being used for it should be reliable. An official website of an EXPO would take care to say the truth, no?
http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/uploads/gulfton1_english.pdf - Only being used to confirm that these three elementary schools were connected to Gulfton.
Regarding primary and secondary sources, Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." - So therefore one has to use the different sources in appropriate matters. I feel that simply using primary sources to state that these particular METRO routes go through the community would be a good usage of primary sources.
The information for the exclusion of Gulfton from the rail line was sourced to a source. I'll have to see when the Chronicle covered some basic details of the METRO new line and if any details need to be backed up.
I revised the Oregon paragraph. I'll have to see when the lawsuit concluded.
The press used the fate of the Colonial House as an example of what every Gulfton apartment was going through in the 1980s, so having Wikipedia repeat with using Colonial House as a fate, with sourcing directly from the Chronicle, would be appropriate. Also that is why I used the Colonial House image at the top, as it represents a typical Gulfton apartment complex.
So far I cannot find any press sources which describe the Rice Epicurean HQ as being "in Gulfton" - So far I only have the address, which puts it in the area. There was an article that described the Fox News Center, located in the same area as the Epicurean HQ, as in the Gulfton area.
The guidelines about primary sources do not say use them as little as possible - They say to use them properly. There is a difference. If you wish to contest primary sources, please state how the reference is not appropriate.
You said: "Might want to put in a bit more background on what caused the decline in the economy in the 1980s. " - Sounds like a good idea. There is a wider oil bust that may even merit its own article. I could ask the people at the Houston WikiProject for help.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until my colleagues' issues are fixed, and it's generally better written. The sheer number of critical comments above indicates that this text has not undergone the appropriate level of copy-editing and scrutiny WRT the other criteria. This is unfair to other nominators and to our overworked reviewers.

  • Is the huge caption at the top all relevant to the pic? Can't some of it be in the main text?
  • 1950s–1979? 1980–92? Much neater.
  • 1992–present is a "quickly dating" problem. When is the present in two years' time? Delimit by stating 2009.
  • Why is "US dollars" linked? Is it exotic, like the Tibetan razu?
  • Parts of it are overcited. Here's a doozler: "The attendance boundaries of Benavidez Elementary School, Braeburn Elementary School, Cunningham Elementary School, and Rodriguez Elementary School cover sections of Gulfton.[4][118][119][120][121][122]". Really contentious statement, that one. Can it be conflated into ONE ref. note?
  • Acres convert to hectares, please, not square metres.
  • For pity's sake, why is "English language" linked?
  • No hyphen after -ly adverbs. See MOS.
  • What a desert. Those pics make me depressed. (This is not part of my review.) Tony (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [72].

Norton 360[edit]

Nominator(s): Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. It is a software by one of the largest security software company Symantec. This product is widely used by many people worldwide. Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose,
  1. missing publish dates some sources do not have publish dates, however are reliable
  2. incomplete titles for references did not find any problems
  3. missing author names no author mentioned sometimes
  4. ref 15/16 are duplicates done
  5. screenshot is of trial version true
  6. where's the reception/reviews/criticism section? incorporated in article; still need to expand
  7. version/date releases with source? Is that information likely to be contested?
  8. if it contains a number of security features, why is it classified as an Antivirus in the infobox? done
  9. browser dab link ?
  10. http://www. can be removed from address in infobox. done
  11. If it is so widely used then why isn't there more coverage information available?--Otterathome (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - it's good but i really need properly formatted references and maybe a release and reception. I.e. what did reviewers think were its best features, how many units were sold etc. --Thanks, Hadseys 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the reception section and researching market share
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. You really should put the authors of the references first and not italicise them, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Suggest withdrawal there is clearly much work and development needed here, it fails criteria 3 of WP:GACR, see the associated article Norton Internet Security to get an idea of the length and layout of how the article should be. A simple news search shows many sources which can be used in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestions are great

Replies from User:TechOutsider

I did not reach a consensus with User:Tyw7 before nominating this article for FAC; we never even discussed it at all. However, now that the article has been nominated, the pointers given are very useful. Thank you.

  • Some of the articles used do not have publish dates.
  • Comments – Change Version History section header to Version history, because "history" isn't a proper noun. Also, reference 25 has a linked date, which has been discouraged in the Manual of Style for some time. References shouldn't be in all capital letters, either. If this does end up not passing, I suggest another peer review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish Tyw7 gave me some time to consider and improve the article beforehand. I don't really have the patience to sit down and do all this in one day, however it has to be done in a timely manner. Too bad Tyw7 is taking a wikibreak ... TechOutsider (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [73].

Jackie Robinson[edit]

Nominator(s): BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...

This article was nominated for FA status back in December 2008, unsuccessfully, but retained “Good Article” status. IMO that was itself probably a stretch at the time I noticed the article, in early April 2009. The following week I substantially reworked the article, which now has grown to a 850+ edit process. A summary:

I’ve inserted about 50 internet references, about 30 of them unique. The major sticking point at the last FA review was a lack of book reference sources, given the published information on Robinson. I’ve done a comprehensive review of all web-accessible books and added six new book sources as well as citations to the others already cited. Some non-web accessible books exist that are not cited. There were also some non-web-accessible books (particularly the Rampersad book) that were previously cited for a lot of claims. Instead of eliminating theses unverifiable citations, I’ve left them in place (except in one instance where there was a patent misquote of the Duberman book), and instead double-sourced and reworded the claims as necessary. I think there are only a couple vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web. Some of the web-accessibility book features scroll through pages occasionally, so it might take some time (or cache clearances) to see various pages of a book.

This article went through peer review which is now archived. I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball and the prior FA nominator user:Peregrine Fisher and prior contributor user:RyanCross, although they are now wiki-retired and did not respond. Thanks to user:Killervogel5 and user:Timpcrk87 for substantive suggestions.

The FA nomination administrator might want to review the status of the article for WP:peacock claims, which have been hashed out by myself and user:Timpcrk87 during peer review. Also note the claim under the Pasadena Junior College sub-section about a prior run-in with police that may be overboard by user:Timpcrk87‘s standards.

A lot of content has been moved to Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson and Racial integration in baseball, so check there if you contributed any information. As a sidelight to this article I’ve substantially reworked those sections as well as added/improved a number of other articles including Bullet Rogan, Chet Brewer, Marques Haynes, Johnny Wright, and others.

BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger comments
OPPOSE for the unresolved issues below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stagger images located here: Jackie_Robinson#Negro_Leagues.
    • The current stagger is incorret on two counts. First, images should not be left aligned below level three headers so the other side shoud have been lowered. Second, the stagger is not sufficient to keep the images from squeezing text at the most common screen resolution (1024).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure I understand your statement that "images should not be left aligned below level three headers." If you can provide a WP:MOS or other citation for this proposition, that would be great. I've re-worked the staggering so there should be no more left-right overlap, although this creates a bleedover of the second picture into the next section. That itself looks fine, althoguh if the pictrue were swapped ot the other side the subsequent section header would be affected. Please see if it looks satisfactory now. BillTunell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:MOSIMAGES.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understand now – thanks for the citation. For visual imapct purposes, the image is still on the left (this may change again as things progress), although I've lowered it away form the heading to meet the WP:MOSIMAGES standard, and the other image we've been talking about is now eliminated.BillTunell (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe most of my issues from the prior FAC have been addressed. I will begin reading the new version.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is confusion created by naming siblings including Mack and then subsequently referring to Matthew. The later reference should probably by Matthew "Mack" Robinson.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "That year the Pasadena Star-News newspaper reported on the young Robinson" leaves the reader wondering what they said. Did they report on his athletic prowess, a record, his race, or something else.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the football team comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must reorganize to avoid the one line paragraph at the end of the UCLA and afterward section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References must follow punctuation so instances like "neither drank nor smoked[56])" must be fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made all these changes with the exception of the "Pasadena Star-News" reference. I agree that this is a teaser comment, but it was written by another contributer, and cited by reference to the Rampersad book, to which I do not have access. As such, it is one of the "vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web" to which I refer above. I have not deleted this because, although unverified, it is potentially useful information that hopefully some other contributor can flesh out during the review process. If it ultimately becomes a barrier to FA status I will remove it. BillTunell (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • convert $400 in 1945 dollars to present day dollars (see conversion at Fountain of Time).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a WP:MOS provision for this? I don't mind inserting this addition if there's a policy on it, but the inserted claim, in my view, would be stylistically distracting, need constant update, and (absent some agreed formula) would likely be controversial. BillTunell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template I was referring you to updates itself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The way it is written it confuses the reader with monthly and yearly comparisons. It is especially confusing because baseball contracts are often for six months or less. It is difficult to conceptualize the comparison. Compare monthly numbers to monthly numbers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've changed my mind on this issue since there's a template. In fact, I've added another parenthetical to one of Robinson's later (annual) salaries; this is why I've worded it this way, to give the reader a reference point for Robinson's career earning trajectory. Since there's a flipside either way, I'm ambivalent about changing it.BillTunell (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are ambivalent and I am not. You don't convert meters to inches or kilos to ounces and you don't convert 1945 monthly salary to current day yearly salary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I still don't see a policy on wikipedia about this kind of thing, so I consider the matter a stylistic choice. If that ends up being the basis for your oppositon, then no hard feelings, but I think it's a miniscule issue. BillTunell (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reorganize to avoid all one line paragraphs such as "That winter, on February 10, 1946, Robinson and Isum were married by their old friend, Rev. Karl Downs." and "The next year, six days before the start of the 1947 season, the Dodgers called Robinson up to the major leagues."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
    • One more: "Robinson's eldest son, Jackie Robinson, Jr., served in Vietnam, later struggling with drug problems. While working as a Daytop Village counselor in 1971, Robinson, Jr. died in an automobile accident.[143] He died one year before his father."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has been changed and expanded per the anti-plagiarism changes outlined below.BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't double play, run, home run, a triple, a double, and a single all have links?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Initial instances are all linked, but I've avoided multiple redundnat links per WP:Linking.[reply]
  • Link 1948 World Series and each year like 1952 World Series, The New York Times, New York Post, Baseball Commissioner, Puerto Rican Winter Leauges, diabetes, second baseman, shortstop, and other positions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • Further information: Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson seems out of place in the middle of a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I've repositioned the futher information tags to be immediately below the section header per WP:Layout, although I have to admit I don't like this policy, because it forces tags in places where the topic has not yet been discussed. The Paul Roberson/Jackie Robinson issue used to have its own subheader in this article, but I've removed it because it was cluttering up the Table of Contents and is, IMO, a pretty tangential subject for its own section header. The whole subject must have been created by someone with more of an interest in Robseson than Robinson. BillTunell (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1951 comma, During the final game of the regular season against Philadelphia comma, In 1953 comma, That year comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • "defend the Johnson Administration's policy there" has a superfluous there at the end, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • Further information: Racial integration in baseball belongs at the top of the section, I beleive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done. See above comment under the Robeson issue.[reply]
  • link Yale School of Nursing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • Check that all refs follow punctuation. I found another "[165])." as well as Chicago, Illinois[171]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done. As before, though, I'd like to see the WP:MOS mandate for this if you know it.[reply]
  • In December 1956 comma--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • One more thing. I did a lot of editing at Walter O'Malley and there is a lot of text referencing Robinson in that article. See if you fieel any of those subjects belong in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you make any editorial changes in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No changes made -- The unique claims in that article deal with personal friction between Robinson and O'Malley, and all seem to be attributed to a non-web accessible book by Golenbock. Since I don't have access to the book, I don't feel comfortable citing it for anything. But if you, or anyone with paper access to the book, can verify the claims, I think any additions would go best in the paragraph on Robinson's retirement.BillTunell (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DocKino comments
  • Comment This is a very good article. It requires some copyediting, which I'm happy to pitch in with when I can over the next week, and I'm sure we can get it to FA standard. One issue that leaps out at me at first glance is that the two photos in the "Negro Leagues" subsection severely crowd the text in virtually any screen size and configuration. I'm afraid one of them has to go. As the KC Royals picture already has a prominent home in the baseball Featured Article, I suggest dropping that and retaining the image of Robinson with Paige.DocKino (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the above discussion and let me know if the most recent work-around looks acceptable. I'll delete one of the photos if necessary, but between re-sizing and further staggering, I think there is no more left-right overlap. Not sure about all screen sizes, though. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing, and this is important. In editing the "John Muir High School" subsection, I came across an instance of inadvertent plagiarism. Here is how the passage in question read before my edit:

His older brother, Matthew "Mack" Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

And here's the pertinent passage in the cited source:

Robinson's older brother, Matthew Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

Even with the citation, this is impermissible. Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then please go through the entire article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely. I'll hold off on further copyediting till you've done that.DocKino (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Understood. I've re-phrased tons of stuff in the article, but apparently missed a couple expamples. I've taken another comprehensive look, and made one additional paraphrase – at the end of the "Minor Legaues" subsection, to avoid plagiarizing note 10 (SportMag.com). Let me know if you see anything else. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found another case in the first note I happened to look at (I was interested in a factual detail): note 73.DocKino (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the KC Royals image has moved down to the "Minor leagues" subsection. That takes care of the crowding problem, but now it's totally out of place (the Royals were not a minor league team) and out of time (the picture is from late '45; the text of the subsection begins in spring '46). It really is OK to lose the picture: (1) It depicts a very brief part of his career; (2) it appears prominently elsewhere on Wikipedia; and (3) there's clear pictures of his face in the article already from 1944 (Army photo), 1945 (Dodgers signing photo), and 1951 (comic book cover). See below for why I struck this a few minutes after writing it.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doc? Regarding one of your comments, I requested a photo of the City Hall sculpture years ago. It's of monumental proportions and situated in a location of particular honor. For a city that has had many famous residents--not just Hollywood celebrities but also five Nobel Prize winners including Albert Einstein--it's noteworthy that they express this much civic pride in Robinson. DurovaCharge! 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Durova. If there were no available free images to illustrate the section in question, I'd have no issue with the image's inclusion. But there are free images available. This image is undoubtedly superior in informative value to those free images, so if we could find a reliable source that says something along the lines of what you just said, that would resolve the issue. I imagine there are newspaper reports from when the sculpture was unveiled that could serve this purpose. DocKino (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've linked the Los Angeles Times article from the sculpture's unveiling. Let me know if that resolves your concerns.BillTunell (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Robinson's family's house no longer stands, although a (copyrighted) plaque exists at that location. So in terms of commemoration within the city where he grew up we're left with fair use images. DurovaCharge! 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 21

Oppose – Criterion 3. Normally I'm not an image reviewer, but I can't stay silent when I see five fair-use images in an article, and at least four have wholly inadequate rationales. What's puzzling is that we have free images of Robinson in the article, so why are these fair-use images even necessary? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably these images were submitted by me -- let me know the ones to which you refer, and why you think the rationales are bad. BillTunell (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image review I've looked them over. Here's my appraisal:
      • The images of Robinson at UCLA and in the army are both of significant historical value and fully pertinent to the article's text, but need full rationales.
      • The photo with Satchel Paige should probably be cut. The rationale is inadequate, and there is another image in the article that is also representative of Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues that is both free and provides a much clearer view of his face.
      • The photo with Branch Rickey is a historic image, and fully justified per policy. But the current rationale is, indeed, wholly inadequate.
      • The image of the Pasadena sculpture fails our NFCC policy in the absence of discussion of that sculpture. In addition, the "Awards and recognition" section already includes two free images relating to posthumous recognition. The image should probably be cut.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks to Doc for the more detailed review. For more on writing acceptable fair-use rationales, please read Wikipedia:FCDW/September 22, 2008. While I'm here, there are still issues with referencing. The "staked a claim" bit sourced to reference 122 is a very close paraphrase (I happen to have the book), and some sources are shaky. Reference 29 is to Hoopedia (a wiki, which is unacceptable as a source), and I see other facts cited to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen (another wiki), his official website and Brittanica. No distinction is made in the citations between the Jackie and Sharon Robinson books (adding years to the citations would do it), and some references, such as numbers 43 and 45, need further formatting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to both you and Doc, I'v done the following: (i) cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since does not illustrate the Negro Leagues), (ii) updated the fair use rationales/summaries on all the non-free picture pages, (iii) mentioned the pasadena sculpture in the Awards and recognition section, (iv) re-worded the claim behind (prior) reference 122, (v) elimianted the Hoopedia reference (which had also been a sticking point in peer review), (vi) double-sourced the baseball-reference.com wiki citation, (vii) added Jackie's first name in the autobiography template citation. I think I've also addressed your concerns about additional citation information, but let me know. I'm not sure why there is an objection to citing the official website or Brittanica, but let me know if I'm missing some policy or another. BillTunell (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bill, I'm sorry but this response on the images falls short. As I'm sure many habitués of this page will confirm, I'm a strong defender of the proper and judicious inclusion of fair use images, but your explanations for the retention of the Satchel Paige image and the sculpture image are insufficient. What in the world, by the way, do you mean when you write that you "cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since it is the only one that illustrates the Negro Leagues)"?
            • Look, we have two images that represent Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues: one is free, one is not free. In addition, the free one offers a much clearer image of his face. While his time with the Monarchs is more significant than his brief tenure with the Royals, there is little question that per our policy the free image takes precedence--that's the image of Robinson alone, as a Royal, not the image of him and Paige as Monarchs.
            • As for the image of the Pasadena sculpture, how does this significantly help us understand who Robinson was and the depth of his significance? As I noted, the relevant section already contains two free images that, in different ways, depict the extent of his posthumous recognition (one shows the president of the United States!). On the basis of image glut alone, there's no need for a third image in this section, let alone one that is not free. Furthermore, that non-free image is of a public sculpture--it unquestionably falls into the category of "readily replaceable" by a free equivalent.
            • There is no way I can support the article while the sculpture image is included; unless you have a much better defense up your sleeve for the Monarchs image, I can't consider supporting while that's included either. The proper and judicious use of non-free images brings great value to our encyclopedia and its mission of excellence—this kind of injudicious, weakly defended use does that cause a disservice.DocKino (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I misspoke before. The Kansas City Royals photo does not portray the Negro Leagues. I can't find a free Negro League image despite multiple efforts at finding one. as such, I care about the inclusion of the Monarchs image. By contrast, the Pasadena sculpture image is not one I care much about. But it's been there for going on three years, and was not a bone of contention in any other peer review or nomination in the past. I can't see any policy that prohibits its inclusion. If there is, please direct me to it -- I could easily be missing something. IMO your suggestion of an alternative "free" image isn't really possible in this case since, by nature, any such image would be a derivative work. BillTunell (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The photo of the sculpture is a simpler matter, so I'll start there. First off, it's obviously irrelevant to our policy whether or not it's ever been "a bone of contention." Next, you are correct--under U.S. copyright law, any photo of the sculpture would be a derivative work and non-free. However, in the context of an article on Jackie Robinson, the photo pretty clearly fails criterion 8 of our policy on non-free-content: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The overall topic Is Jackie Robinson--I can't see a reasonable argument that an image of a posthumously created sculpture significantly increases our understanding of him. The specific topic is the recognition his life and career have received--the article already includes two free images that illustrate the topic; a third, non-free image can hardly be claimed to significantly add to our understanding of the recognition he's received. The photo would be acceptable in an article on the sculpture itself, and probably in an article on the artist who made it or on Public sculpture in Pasadena, but it is not acceptable here.
                  • I think I understand what you're saying now. I thought your objection was that the image itself was not free and you wanted soemone else to submit a non-free version. user:Amble had created the image and submitted it under the GNU license, so that didn't make sense to me. Assuming it still requires a fair use rationale because of the derivative work issue (which might be debatable, but user:Raul654 has expressed his opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_FAQ/Archive_1), I don't really have a problem with removing the image. But I'll let user:Amble know in advance, as a courtesy. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Whoa. There's no debate. Under U.S. copyright law, that image is unquestionably under copyright. It is not free. Our policy requires that it have a fair use rationale. Period. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Your patronizing tone is not helpful. Oppose if you wish, but I'm not interested in turning this into a personal confrontation. BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for the notice. Yes, the sculpture itself is copyrighted, and only my part as photographer is freely licensed. I tagged it with the "Non-free 3D art" template to make this clear. User:Durova, who is an admin on Commons and very knowledgeable about image copyright issues, had requested the image here, so I trusted that it was probably valid fair use. You might ask Durova if she now believes it's justifiable. --Amble (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As for the Monarchs photo, I appreciate that you care about it. But you need to make a stronger case for it. From my reading of the literature, it strikes me that barnstorming squads such as the Kansas City Royals were considered part of the "Negro Leagues"; they were unquestionably part of the black side of the ledger of segregated baseball, which is what's most significant here, I believe. Why exactly is it so much more important to show Robinson in the uniform of the Monarchs--for whom he played only 47 games--than that of the Royals? Why is it so very much more important that its importance outweighs the fact that it is non-free, while the Royals image is free? If those questions can not be clearly and convincingly answered--not just in this venue, but also in a way that would work in the rationale on the image page--then the image fails criterion 1 of our policy: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"--or, more precisely, it fails the combination of criteria 1 and 8.
                  • BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)I respectfully disagree. The California Winter League is just not the same as the Negro Leagues. If it were, the whole integration issue would be moot, because white players participated in it. I think illustrating the Negro League era in the article is more than a mere nicety. That being said, I understand your point, and if the FAC administrator says otherwise, we'll lose the image. I will supplement the image page to more clearly state the no-free-image-alternative issue. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay. I certainly don't feel as if the inclusion of the image warrants an oppose on its own. I did a little research to see if the ways in which respected institutions in the field define "Negro Leagues" would include the Royals or not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association? Pretty clearly not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum? Probably yes. So, your position has an edge there. But, if you care about presenting your strongest case here, see my last observation below.
                      • I don't see anything in either of those links that supports the Royals as a Negro League team, so I consider your characterization argumentative.BillTunell (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, I'm glad I could help you out on this. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Finally, you should be aware of how the process usually works here. It is very unlikely that the FA director is going to jump in with a thumbs up or down on this specific image. But silence, in this case, does not equal consent. Sandy and Karanacs will analyze the reviewer critiques you've received and your responses to them, and make a judgment based on that. While possible, it's still unlikely that either of them will engage in specific image review. In other words, as you craft that rationale (and I've already seen that it has a glaring error--"No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues"), I wouldn't sit around waiting to see if an administrator bothers to object. It's wise to keep your focus on bringing the issues raised in the review to a resolution--in the review. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please refrain from the argumentative claim that I've committed a "glaring error." If you want to submit a free Negro League image, please do so.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Watch it, Bill. I have made no argumentative claim. You have made a glaring error. Period. In describing a non-free image, you have written, ""No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues." Do you see that "other" that you wrote, Bill? That "other erroneously indicates that the image under discussion is free. It is not. In the context of a rationale for an image that you profess to care deeply about, a rationale whose quality is crucial to the image's retention, that's not just an error, that's a glaring error. I gather that this is all too much trouble for you, so I'll simply register my opposition now and withdraw from further input until and unless I see all the problems with the article's images resolved. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • For your edification, here's a pretty hardcore (so to speak) fair use rationale I did: File:RotJonesMatCook.jpg. For yours, I would seriously consider citing the Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association link I provided above to support the position that the Kansas City Monarchs were the one and only Negro Leagues team Robinson played for. Also, here's a widely published and, I believe, superior fair use image of Robinson with the Monarchs: [74] (and contextualized with info: [75]). DocKino (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The reason I've submitted the combined image of Robinson and Paige is to be able to use the same image in both articles and therefore limit the extent of non-free use. Your proposed image is not a free image.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, that's why I referred to it as a "fair use image," Bill. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A reminder: the inadvertent plagiarism associated with note 73 has still not been addressed. DocKino (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I thought I had addressed that before, although the numbers may have changed. I've paraphrased what is now under note 73. In the future, please quote any offending language so there's no misunderstanding. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's interesting to note how your paraphrase reads: "In late September, he signed with Chet Brewer's Kansas City Royals, a post-season barnstorming team of the California Winter League, which competed against other Negro League teams..." You do realize that phrasing suggests that the Kansas City Royals were a Negro Leagues team, don't you? DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Changed. At this point, however, I don't see that you are proceeding with the conversation civilly, so this will be my last commentary in the string.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I fail to see what's uncivil about making sure you see how you're undercutting your own argument on a matter that you consider crucial, but so be it. I'll find it painless to devote my time elsewhere. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support

  • I'm very glad the quality of sourcing in this article is improved from its previous FAC. I believe the meat of the article is ready to support.
  • There are some MOS issues all through the article. The images are overlarge, and at least on my 1200 px wide browser, the article, aesthetically, is not pleasing. Try using the upright tag on the portrait-shaped images. I suggest merging the Post-military and Death sections into ones above or below them. Watch for overlinking: terms should ideally be linked at their first occurrence and not again. There are several ambiguous links and a dead ref link at UCLA today. She's not going to like it, but I'm going to suggest you ask User:Maralia for assistance in cleaning up some of the MOS issues. She's a stickler and much more accurate than I am. You know what works well with her? Whining. A lot. If there's one good I can do today on my time on Wikipedia, it's point users to her talk page to whine. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken out all the size-specfic tags on pics to reset them to default size, and put in |upright directors in the appropriate picture tags. Let me know how it looks. I've also invited user:Maralia What are the "ambiguous links" to which you refer? I'll consider merging the shorter subsections, althgouh I'm not sure how to deal wtith the "Post-military" section because it doesn't fit neatly anywhere else. Thanks BillTunell (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails criterion 3. Rationales for each of the five fair-use images remain wholly inadequate, with little or no attempt made to explain how they meet the NFCC #8 test. Rationales aside, the use of one image clearly fails policy, as described above. Another has a serious NFCC #1 challenge to handle--again, no serious attempt has been made in the rationale. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Plagiarism Changes

Since we've had a number of complaints of inadvertent plagiarism in the article, I did a comprehensive review over the long weekend, and changed the following (in the order they appear in the article) as a result:

  • Note 52 (Tygiel article): “black officer’s wife” and “believing that his companion was white”; in addition to being extended quotes, these statements contain subjective assessments, the racial identity of the woman is not verified by the source material, and the whole thing has little relevance.
  • Note 52: ‘including insubordination, disturbing the peace, drunkenness (despite the fact that Robinson neither drank nor smoked), conduct unbecoming an officer, insulting a civilian woman, and refusing to obey the lawful orders of a superior officer” the list is probably too long to be quoted in full.
  • Note 52: “the actual incident on the bus that had precipitated his prosecution was mentioned in neither the charges nor at trial” This is kind of redundant anyway.
  • Note 68: “Rickey wanted a man who could restrain himself from responding to the ugliness of the racial hatred that was certain to come” This direct quote is now re-written.
  • Note 4: “The nation was initially divided on whether Robinson should be allowed to play. Virtually all blacks and many whites applauded the decision as long overdue, but a large number of whites also objected, as did many major league players. Most newspapers supported the move. Robinson's integration and subsequent high level of play was a major blow to segregation and caused racial barriers to fall in other areas. Robinson criticized hotels that did not allow him to stay with his teammates, and a number of hotels and restaurants that the Dodgers frequented integrated as a result.” Part of this was an (unattributed) quote from the sportmag.com article, so I reworded and resourced the first phrase, and relocated the second phrase below to a more topic-appropriate location.
  • Note 88 (History Channel) “During his first season with the Dodgers, Robinson encountered racism from fans and players, including his own teammates” Reworded and moved to an adjoining paragraph for topical consistency.
  • Note 4: “He anticipated that some pitchers would aim pitches at his head and that other players would try to hit, tackle, and even try to push him off the basepaths” Reworded and placed in a different paragraph setting.
  • Note 98: “Asked by sportswriters what Greenberg had told him, Robinson said:’He gave me a few words of encouragement.’” Reworded.
  • Note 111: “although two studios turned the project down when the film's promoters refused to include a white man teaching Robinson how to be a great player” Reworded and clarified.
  • Note 114: “Robinson stood with hands on hips and watched Thomson's feet in case he failed to touch all of the bases” Close paraphrase of the source cited for the next sentence. Reworded.
  • Note 117: “That year, Robinson accused the Yankees of prejudice and challenged general manager George Weiss to prove him wrong” Close paraphrase; reworded and consolidated with later sentence.
  • Note 73: “but, according to the New York Post, Commissioner Happy Chandler withheld his approval, forcing Robinson to cancel his plans.” This one is my fault. Re-worded.
  • Note 120: “That year, he served as editor for ‘’Our Sports’‘ magazine, a short-lived periodical focusing on coverage of "famous Negro athletes in every field of endeavor" and "Negro athletes in your town among your own neighbors". Topics included "What White Big Leaguers Really Think of Negroes" and "My Toughest Fight", an article by boxer Joe Louis about golf course segregation.” Close paraphrase. Edited down.
  • Note 121: “He also succeeded in getting the five-star Chase Park Hotel in St. Louis integrated. He and Don Newcombe approached the hotel's manager and asked why blacks were not allowed. The manager said, "It's the swimming pool ... a place where everybody socializes." Newcombe explained that they were ballplayers, not swimmers, and the manager relented. That season black players had their meals delivered to their rooms and were not allowed to use the Chase's dining room, but the next season the dining room was fully integrated” A lot of issues here; the extended treatment of the Chase Hotel issue is kind of ancillary, anyway, so I’ve removed the extended discussion in favor of a brief mention of Chase Park Hotel and and secondary link in the prior section's treatment of the hotel issue.
  • Note 174: “Mets owner Fred Wilpon said that the club and Citigroup would work with the Jackie Robinson Foundation to create a Jackie Robinson Museum and Learning Center in lower Manhattan and would fund scholarships for ‘young people who live by and embody Jackie's ideals’.” The non-quoted part passage has been reworked.

This plagiarism check should be comprehensive. But if I've missed anything, let me know. BillTunell (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasadena image resolution

Per User talk:Durova's opinion, the image of the Pasadena sculpture is defensible as fair use, provided there is a more substantial treatment of it in the "Awards and recognition" section. I've fleshed out this portion of the article, and moved it to proximity with the image. Thanks to user:Amble for contacting user:Durova. Let me know if anyone has any contrary opinions.

The source cited for the discussion of the Pasadena sculpture is We Heart Public Art. This is a personal blog and does not meet our sourcing standards. DocKino (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is double-referenced. The blog reference is there for image illustration purposes in case the image in the article gets removed. I'm still ambivalent about that issue, but since there's a difference of opinion I've left it as-is.BillTunell (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As both of these are unique sources (i.e., only referenced once), they can be brought together into a single citation. This reduces visual clutter in the article. Placing the L.A. Times article first in such a merged citation should also help clarify that the primary source is of WP:V standard. DocKino (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidating multiple references in a single footnote would be stylistically inconsistent with the rest of this article. But I have re-ordered the Pasadena sculpture-related footnotes so as to place the LA Times link first.BillTunell (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits

More than a few users have contributed copyedit help recently. Thanks to all, especially user:Maralia.BillTunell (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The two deadlinks in the references need to be replaced (they're marked as such), and urls sourced should have accessdates as well. Wizardman 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Congressional Gold Medal link with one from the House of Representatives Clerk. For both the Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal, I've inserted archived webpages as sources, and tagged today's date as the access date (of the web.archive.org search result site). For all the other wesbite footnote references that didin't already list access dates, I've clicked on them this morning and added 2009-05-27 as the access date (no other web links are dead at this point). I haven't done that with any of the books – let me know if I should.BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any more changes you want, let me know. To help summarize the above discussion for you, there's only four suggestions from reviewers that I haven't implemented (each of which has a rationale):
  • While I've inserted current-dollar templates in two places, I have not taken user:TonyTheTiger's suggestion of restating the resulting current-dollar amount from the first template in monthly terms (in order to facilitate comparison with the yearly salary referenced by the second current-dollar template later in the article);
  • I've not inserted any material from the Walter O'Malley article into the Jackie Robinson article – also a suggestion by user:TonyTheTiger (material would be duplicative, plus the underlying source for any of the unique clims about Robinson form the O'Malley article is a non-web-accessible book that I do not have);
  • I have not removed the image of the Robinson Pasadena Memorial statue, instead fleshing out the article's description thereof (conflicting opinion by reviewers as to whether this image qualifies for inclusion under WP:NFCC);
  • I have not removed the historical image of the Satchel Paige and Jackie Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs (I claim it meets WP:NFCC, over the objection of user:DocKino).
Everything else I've dealt with (or meant to and simply missed something). Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have missed is dealing with the primary basis for my !vote of oppose above. You have not gone into the source pages of the first four fair use images and made sure the rationales are of FA standard. (The rationale for the sculpture image is about as good as we can hope for.) I don't want to see this article promoted and then return to it in a few months to discover that it's been stripped of its fair use images for inadequate rationales. I offered you an example of a more rigorously presented rationale for a fair use image which comes from an article, like this, that also has several free images of the article's subject(s) and that, like you wish for this, is Featured. (There are other such examples out there, if you care to look for them.) This has been ignored.
Specifically, I do believe that the Paige–Robinson image can pass NFCC--like the others--if it is accompanied by a suitably strong rationale. I gave you specific advice on how to make it stronger, which has been ignored. Given the current conditions, it is easy to anticipate the following scenario: Someone comes along; finds the K.C. Royals picture somewhere; says, "Gee! Here's a free picture of Jackie in the Negro Leagues"; checks out the existing rationale for Paige–Robinson; says, "Oops! Guess they didn't know about the Royals pic"; and moves to delete your beloved image. Similarly, for the other images, none of the rationales deal with the problem that Giants 2008 originally raised--there are several fair use images in the article that show what Robinson looked like. So what's the particular value of also including these non-free images? Look: You believe they're valuable to the article. I believe they're valuable to the article. Now write rationales that will help keep them in the article. DocKino (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments, re-worked each of the fair use image pages accordingly, and told you of that fact. You simply don't like the extent of my edits. While that may be the basis for a criticism, that is not the same thing as saying that I have been unresponsive, or have ignored your suggestion. FWIW, I have looked at your Sex Pistols image example, and I can see that you go into more wordy detail in the template data cells. But I am using the same fair use template as you, and filled each of them out with all the substantive information I know. All of these images (for quick reference, the four we're talking about are: UCLA Track, Army uniform, Robinson with Satchel Paige, and Robinson with Branch Rickey) have survived the deletion hurdle for over a month. If there is some specific piece of information you want me to add for a particular image, please let me know. I am willing to do the work.BillTunell (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, that's simply false. It's very easy to see from the record that you didn't do a single thing with the rationales in response to my previous round of advice. If you've done something now, someone else can spend their energy dealing with you about it. I'm through wasting my time on you. DocKino (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history pages for each of the four images clearly document my revisions of May 21 and 22, 2009, in response to the suggestions on those dates by yourself and user:Giants2008. I doubt anyone else cares, but in case they do, for the record here are the history pages for the four images:
If you do not like these changes, that is fine. But denying that they were made is a false and disparaging personal claim directed against me. I can only conclude that you are not acting in good faith, and are instead deliberately attempting to subvert the FAC process for reasons ulterior to the article itself. For the life of me I can't figure out why, since I don't know you from Adam. But I think we can both agree that your further comment here is a waste of both our time.
FWIW, I updated these image pages again yesterday with supplemental information as a follow-up to your renewed suggestion. I do not want you to comment on whether these changes are satisfactory, but I remain open to discssing the issue with any other reviewer having a similar concern. BillTunell (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 28, 2009 -- Reliable Source check

Per WP:RS, I've double-sourced using third-party sources (the Eig, Falkner, and Lamb books) for any potentially controversial claim previously attributable only to a (potentially biased first-party) Robinson family source. In doing so, I've decided to revise the substance of the text/footnote dealing with the reason Jackie left UCLA. The first-party citations also now follow the corresponding third-party citations, to indicate the third-party sources as primary (with only one exception to keep footnotes in numerical order). A couple of family sources were wholly replaced with a third-party source, both dealing with statistical issues. The only things left that are atributable solely to family sources should be relatively uncontroversial events like Jackie's marriage, early life, etc.. BillTunell (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to criteria 3 as follow:

  • File:JackieRobinson UCLA1941.jpg, File:Jackierobinson army.jpg: what parts of this photo cannot be readily imagined by any reader with just text itself? Is Robinson not readily identified by his free photo above?
    • File:Jackie robinson longjump.jpg: the possible significance of this photo is better than the previous, but not much better. "To illustrate his athletic career" is not needed with this image. However, the significance of the image can be enhanced by reporting on Robinson's athleticism at UCLA. Evaluations, reports, biographies, comments (coaches, trainers, reporters) that talk about Robinson's performance should be in the article (and should be to the effect of talking about how good Robinson's physical performance was). The photo could then be used to illustrate his performance that elicited such praise (which should be related to his long jump). As of now, there is no such commentary in the article (Robinson's UCLA stint is simply reported matter-of-factly). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is already over 100,000 bytes long, and is stretching the summary style barrier as-is. Rationalizing a photograph isn't really the purpose of a namespace page. We've done it with respect to the Robinson Memorial statue image, because of the specific WP:Non-free content requirement under Images" No. 8. But otherwise I'm loathe to put in more distracting text. In any event, I don't think any amount of words can demonstrate to a reader how high Robinson could jump.
      • Moreover, additional text wouldn't change the more basic dispute here, namely whether the image serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." As I understand it, you interpret the "topic" as Robinsons's UCLA long-jump career, which leaves no room for comparative historical photographs to have any useful basis. I interpret the "topic" as Jackie Robinson, an understanding of which is benfitted by representative phtographs of historical periods in his life. Whichever of us is right, the additional text you propose isn't going to change the resolution fo the matter, as I see it. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jackie robinson signature.jpg: as said earlier, a military career does not require illustration. Being in uniform serves nothing, unless it was a particarly defining issue for the subject. Creating an example, in a biography about an author who was a soldier, a sentence such as "Although non-descript in civilian attire, Ahdooday impressed many in his military uniform, projecting a steely aura and commanding presence." could warrant a photo of the man in uniform that inspire such praise (of course the smiley version would not qualify). Getting back to this photo, Robinson might be signing a piece of paper, but what does it serve to illustrate "the breaking of the baseball color barrier"? As mentioned earlier, a newspaper article that broke the news or a photo that shows a warm and hearty reception of Robinson by white fans (or the baseball club) would be better to illustrate such a moment. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another point of departure for us. Nothing in any article "requires" illustration, if there is no limit to the narrative description allowed. But this is not possible in a summary style format. On the military/signature photo specifically, the fact that Robinson chose to memorialize the signature in his military uniform, which was not necessary, says a lot about the public-relations lengths he and the Dodgers had to go to to smooth over potential resistance to the signing. That goes to the heart of Robinson's historical significance. Again, this could be described narratively with a bunch of gratuitous unsourced commentary rather than an image, but which is more efficient and helpful to the reader? BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robinson paige monarchs.jpg: what significance (if any) of this photo cannot be rendered with words?
    • At a minimum, the relative physical stature of Robinson. But again, the heart of the issue, as i see it, is whether the image, in contexxt with all the other images showing Robinson's aging, etc. gives a better understanding of Robinson in general, whci is the subject of the aticle. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robinson-contract.jpg: I fail to see how a significance of inter-racial barriers is expressed with just this photo. If this was a scan of a newspaper article with a headline that screams "Major break: first black player" or something, then there would be some context to this photo, but as it is...
  • File:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg: it is just his head, how can that not be simply explained with words, especially since free pictures of his mug have been displayed twice. Is there something metaphysical or critical about his head that requires illustration? What is significant about this statue? For reference, please refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith for Ozzie Smith's statue.
    • That's why the article was edited (by both me and other contributors) to include commentary about the statue itself, to confrom to WP:Non-free content.BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was called to offer advice on this subject.[76] Fair use images must comply with ten criteria. The first three images fail significance (8) and replaceability (1). Very little is gained from looking at Robinson going through wardrobe changes. If one wishes to illustrate his athleticism, surely a photo of him in action (ignoring significance for the moment) would be better than him standing around in track uniform. Does one need to see him in uniform to know that he was in the military service? Does one need to see him with Satchel Paige just to know he played with Paige? A photo of a person is signficant if it is highly publicised and has become representative of the subject, i.e. the person has become associated with that persona (portrayal) by the public (media). (Even so, a copyrighted photo might be disqualified on Wikipedia if it can be replaced by a free equivalent—debatable.) None of these photos qualifies on the signficance front: a general reader does not need those pictures to know what they show Robinson was doing. Note: for best use of the fair use rationales on the image pages, the "whys" of the image's significance and non-replaceability should be clear. Plain "identification of subject" is a straight fail unless it is the sole identification photo (Infobox/leading image) of a dead subject. Jappalang (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I can understand the concern about mere wardrobe changes. I've done two things in response to your comments:
  • Replace the UCLA track photo with an "action shot" from the Bettmann archive, whic I agree is more informative than a posed shot.
  • Delete the miliary photo and the Rickey-Robinson signature photo and replaced this with another image, which portrays the follow-up contract signature from October 23, 1945 with Robinson in military uniform. The photo therefore comnsolidates two items of historical significance (his military career and breaking the color barrier). In addition, the reolcation of the image takes away a prior criticism related to the placement of the Robsinon-Rickey image within the article.
Since there is a difference of opinion about the statue photograph, I've left his as-is for now.
I've looked at a lot of other articles' commentary about NFCC#8 by now, and the only constant theme I can glean is that there is a subjectivity about the "significance" requirement that different contributors look on very differently. The changes above are meant as a reasonable accomodation. My take on a comprehensive life biography like this is that images teken throughout an entire subject's life aid significantly in the readers' understanding of the topic for many reasons. In this case, the images left (even though I've deleted a net one picture) portray sdeveral things: how a Robinson character aged, his relative physical statutre to otehr persons, his athletic performance, etc. I'd agree that NFCC#8 requries more than images to simply "spice up" the text. But in a case like this I think at least a few images are warranted. The converse, of ocurse, is that eliminating the images doesn't make free transmission of information any ess possible; it simply puts the onus for someone who wants to transmit the non-free images, in addition to the text, to make their own fair use decision.
I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible, because readers can always imagine the text being described. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this isssue, but I just have a different slant on it. As I've noted before, if an adminsitrator feels differently on the NFCC#8 issue, I understand. If the non-free image concern is the only thing holding up FA status, I'd appreciate the administrator pointing that out. If so, I don't think the article would be best served by FA status. BillTunell (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible,. because readers can always imagine the text being described." Please read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward (Featured Articles with fair-use images) for an inkling of my "hard-core" interpretation of NFCC#8. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through your previous submissions, which I actually enjoy reading. I'm learning more about these issues as we go along. Although I do not necessarily disagree with your take on NFCC#8, I do note that there has been quite a lot of give-and-take in the prior FACs you reference, and I just don't see that any one contributor's interpretation is authoritative. As a nominator, I feel the obligation to balance approaches, even if they aren't my own.
I've also noted that the Noel Coward article has a parallel to the Jackie Robinson article, in that it contains a freely-licensed but "derivative work"-image of a bust/sculpture of the subject. That should support, at least in part, the inclusion of the sculpture image in the Jackie Robinson article. That being said, I realize that FA elevation isn't necessarily a determination about any given image. BillTunell (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
June 2

Thanks to everyone for their input. This nomination is headed for archive over the issue of inclusion of non-free images. I've become convinced the article can't reach FA consensus without removing all non-free images, and that the article won't be elevated while there are any pending non-free-image-related complaints. At the end of the day I care more about an informative, well-illustrated article than I do a star at the top, so I am not going to pursue the FAC again after it dies. But if any contributor wants some low-hanging fruit for a successful FAC-elevation feather in their cap, this would be it. Thanks again for your input. BillTunell (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [77].

Synthetic diamond[edit]

Nominator(s): NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Reference 47 needs a publisher. Mm40 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an official web site of a scientific project started around 1997 or so.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? It needs a publisher listed in the article, as do a few other references. Mm40 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now from Cryptic C62 · Talk:
    • "is diamond produced in a technological process, as opposed to natural diamond, which is produced by geological processes." First instance of "process" uses the preposition "in". Second instance uses "by". These should be consistent; my !vote is for "by".
      "Produced by a man/woman IN technological process" and "produced BY geological process" might not need unification. 3rd opinion needed. If unify, my vote is for "in".
    • "Synthetic diamonds should not be confused with" Wikipedia is WP:NOT a diamond buyer's guide. This sentence should be reworded to avoid the abuse of the phrase "should not be confused with". I think the inclusion of enhanced diamonds is unnecessary at this point. I suggest that the section be reworded to emphasize the difference between synthetic diamond and diamond simulants.
      done Actually, I have deleted this part before, but some copyeditor restored it.
    • Throughout the article (including the lead), you switch between "synthetic diamond is" and "synthetic diamonds are", where the singular is used to describe the material and the plural is used to describe the gemstones. I realize that these are different, but in situations where you have a choice between the two (such as the very first sentence), consistency would be helpful for the readers. Although the plural seems more intuitive to me, I suppose it makes more sense to use the singular, as this makes it clear that the article is not limited to jewelry, but to the various applications of this material.
      done
      Striking for now. I'll let you know if I catch any other instances. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the lead begins with "Synthetic diamond is made using two major processes: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) synthesis." There are several instances in this paragraph in which there are apparently comparisons being made between the two processes without making it clear which ones you are talking about: "some synthetic diamonds" and "Certain synthetic diamonds". What is the point of introducing the two processes if they aren't included in the discussion? Conversely, what is the point of discussing the processes if it isn't made clear which one(s) you're discussing?
      done
      Erm, not really. Simply cutting out material and adding "(either HPHT or CVD)" doesn't quite cut it. I'm particularly concerned with the following statement: "Its properties depend on the details of the manufacturing processes, and can be inferior, similar or superior to those of natural diamond." I assume that the broad spectrum of possibilities is due primarily to the variety of ways in which synthetic diamond is produced. If this is the case, and if you are keen on keeping this somewhat useless sentence, you should elaborate upon which properties are better/worse for each process. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Notes: mentioning those two major production processes is essential for the lead. However, the spectrum of possibilities does not hinge on the process (i.e. imagine one process does not exist - most applications would remain). Properties do depend on the process. The questioned sentence "Its properties depend .." is for introduction only. It is detailed by the next sentence. Comparing all properties of CVD and HPHT diamond is beyond the scope of the lead and the article. Please reconsider or explain what is needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps I am being mislead by the fact that you've essentially lumped a summary of Manufacturing technologies with Properties. I suggest splitting this paragraph of the lead into multiple paragraphs. This would also allow you to expand the manufacturing technologies bit to include explosive detonation and ultrasound cavitation.
      I've reformulated the lead as requested. Please check. If style comments, please propose a sentence or rewrite yourself.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend not to rewrite material unless I am certain that I fully understand it and that I won't change its meaning by rewriting it. When I am not certain, but have a good idea, I'll propose a replacement sentence. It is when I really don't understand the purpose of a sentence at all that I do neither. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Their advantages for electronic applications have been demonstrated." If I were a Spartan, and my wife begat this sentence, I would have left it on the hillside, as it appears to be entirely useless. "have been demonstrated" is ambiguous and WP:WEASELY. "Their advantages" is vague. That this sentence appears after the bit about heat sinks is also odd, as heat sinks are often used in electronics.
      done
      The replacement sentence is still (perhaps even more) awkward, and you response to my next point says that electronic applications don't exist yet. This has not been made clear in either version of the sentence. Also, heat sinks are used in electronics, aren't they? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, heat sinks are used in electronics, but not only. I feel this comments hinges on writing style and now tried to carefully separate "passive" and "active" electronic applications. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Detectors of UV light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond, are being applied at high-energy research facilities and are already available commercially." The use of "already" implies that the reader should, at this point in the article, be somewhat familiar with the timeline of synthetic diamond UV detectors, which won't be true for the vast majority of readers.
      "Already" leaned on the previous sentence, saying that electronic applications are not here yet, but detectors are already available. No slide to knowledge of detectors.
      See my response above; it is relevant to this issue as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      see response above and in the text.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps instead of just saying "electronic applications", you should actually list some potential applications. This would be more useful for the reader and might make this section flow better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of a unique combination of thermal and chemical stability, low thermal expansion and high optical transparency in the wide spectral range, synthetic diamond is becoming the most popular material for optical windows in high-power CO2 lasers and gyrotrons." Why "the" wide spectral range? Shouldn't it be "a" wide spectral range? Also, avoid the use of the indirect "a" for "unique combination", as it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the unique combination belongs to synthetic diamond or to optical windows.
      done
    • "either clear white or colored yellow, brown, blue or even green or orange" This is a very poorly constructed list: It uses "either" despite there being more than two items in the list. It uses "or" three times. "Or even" is unnecessary unless you go on to explain why green and orange are unusual colors.
      done
      Not yet. Please reread the last sentence of my comment. It still applies to this version. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This creates major concerns in the diamond trading business" What creates major concerns? The wide variety of colors? Or the mere fact that synthetic diamond can be cut into gems? Also, "creates" implies that these synthetic gemstones are a source of perpetual consternation for diamond traders, but the rest of the paragraph implies that these concerns have been taken care of by the "special" spectroscopic techniques.
      done "Techniques" were introduced to fight the problem; they did not take care of it. The problems is serious and remains.
    • A few little things: I'm fairly certain that "et al" is supposed to be italicized: et al. Non-breaking spaces should be used between numbers and abbreviated units; see WP:NBSP. All ranges of numbers should use endashes, not hyphens; see WP:DASH. I've corrected a few instances of each of these problems in this diff.
      done
      Looks good for now, I'll keep my eye out for others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LEAD states that the lead must summarize all of the main sections of the article. Unless I am misreading, I don't see anything in the lead which pertains to the History section.
      done.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but none of them could be confirmed." If the attempts have been documented, why cant they be confirmed? Also, "could be confirmed" implies that the person who did the research (you) could not find the sources, which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist.
      I can't find a better word for "confirmed". "Reproduced" would mean diamond had been grown, which is not. Many claimants later retracted their own claims (e.g. ref. [9], C.H. Desch (1928)). Further, there was a series of investigations into success of those early attempts, analyzing the conditions and products. Trying to be as neutral as possible, they carefully selected respected and neutral scientists (talked to one of them). No single report could confirm the diamonds were produced (e.g. ref. [5] K. Lonsdale (1962).NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. I interpreted "none of them could be confirmed" to mean "none of the attempts could be confirmed by secondary sources", but what you meant was "non of them could be confirmed to have been successful." Suggestion to reduce ambiguity: "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but it is unclear if any of these attempts were successful." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose because every attempt was investigated later (unique history, demonstrating the power of diamond business world) and was found unsuccessful. I slightly rewrote. Please have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (former NIMSoffice - changed name)[reply]
      Valid. I also slightly rewrote for grammar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first reproducible synthesis, by the HPHT and possibly CVD methods, was reported around 1953." The "possibly CVD methods" bit tells me that there may have been some discrepancy between the sources. Readers who are less familiar with research might misinterpret this. In any case, this piece of information isn't really critical to the lead. Suggested rewrite: "The first reproducible diamond synthesis was reported around 1953."
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In this method" Which method? It would be helpful to include the name of the process.
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fourth diamond synthesis varity" Uh... what?
      Typo. Should be variety. Has no name yet. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption:"Synthetic diamonds of various colors grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique, the diamond size is ~2 mm" Improper comma use. Either incorporate the diamond size into the sentence or split into two sentences. Also, what dimension does "diamond size" refer to? Height? Radius?
      Tried to fix, meaning the longest measure of the largest diamond in the picture. Please reformulate if needed. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hrm. On second thought, it might be better to simply include a scale in the image itself.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yikes, that's a pretty pathetic scale bar. The image should be able to exist on its own without requiring a caption to explain the purpose of the white smudge. I'd be happy to try to try making a scale bar myself in MS Paint, but you've brightened the original image. I'd like to preserve that change, so if you upload a brightened non-smudgebar version, I'll make a scale bar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving on to the History section: "many attempts were made to alter the cheaper forms of carbon" It's not entirely clear what the goal here is. What exactly does "alter" mean? Were people trying to make diamond exclusively, or were they trying to replicate the various allotropes of carbon?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ruff claimed in 1917" The first instance of a person's name should include that person's first name(s). The person's profession is also helpful.
      Name added. A previous sentence said that Ruff was a scientist, not much more is known. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were the result of seeding by well-intentioned co-workers" What is "seeding"? "well-intentioned" seems somewhat speculative and fanciful. Even without that bit, this seems to be an unusually specific conclusion. Surely the sources must present some other ideas, or at least a more general one.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad that the sentence is clearer (although somewhat informal), but it is still fundamentally flawed. I read through Ref 6 (Lonsdale 1962), and there is no mention of the possibility of seeding by frustrated technicians, and with good reason: This is too specific a conclusion to make based on such old and unclear information. I don't have access to Ref 7 (O'Donoghue 2006), but I suspect that if it does indeed mention this idea, it treats it as just one possibility. Assuming this is the case, I suggest either rewording the sentence to make it clearer to the reader that it is speculative, or just deleting it entirely so as not to mislead the reader. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 5 (Lonsdale 1962) is just a list of citations. Perhaps I can't see the whole article because I don't have access to the subscription-only database. Assuming that it is indeed just a list, I don't quite see the point of including it.
      Seeing only reference list universally means you don't have access to full text; the latter is available at http://67.50.46.175/paperspdf/lons-k1962.pdf (no, not my server, and I don't know how comes its free there. By far not the first case though). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most definitive duplication attempts were performed by Sir Charles Algernon Parsons" Suggest "replication" instead of "duplication". Also, approximately when did his work begin?
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He devoted 30 years and a considerable part of his fortune" Not very neutral language. Suggest swapping out "devoted" with "spent". Suggest including some sort of numerical estimate like "over $300,000" instead of "a considerable part of his fortune."
      Swapped. No info on money spent. Parsons was a Knight and had a fortune from his steam turbine invention; might well be he never disclosed the amount (at least, he did not have to).Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as well as those of Hannay" Who? Also, the note after this sentence, Ref 7 (Hannay 1879) is authored by Hannay. It seems to me that instead of using the ref to verify the statement, you are using it as an example of Hannay's work. While both uses of the citation system are acceptable, they should not be mixed. Separate lists should be used: one for "further information"-type notes, one for references.
      I'm glad to fix, but don't see a problem: the sentence in passing mentions another diamond synthesis attempt (by Hannay) and the reference supports the fact of that experiment (not the fact of its reproduction). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how I interpret it, and I seriously doubt any reader will see it that way either. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hannay moved up with his ref, which is actually more fair for history and text, and should solve the problem.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However in 1928 he authorized C.H. Desch" Who is C.H. Desch? A student of his? A journal editor?
      Dr. Desch. Scientist. No further information. Not assistant or student of Parsons. Unusual - yes, but so was the whole story. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was believed that on one occasion a diamond was produced, but since experiments could not be reproduced such claims could not be maintained" Several problems. "It was believed" is a weasel phrase. That section should be more definitive: Was anything published about this supposed diamond? Also, does "experiments could not be reproduced" mean that the experiments were attempted again but were unsuccessful? Or does it mean that, because of the inherent complexity of the apparatus, it was impossible to reproduce the experiment at all? Does "such claims could not be maintained" mean that the authors of the claim later retracted it?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but it still includes the weasel phrase. I suggest trying to incorporate "the team reported" or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press" What is meant by "elegant"? Large? Energy efficient?
      Deleted (technical weasel). Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C" It is unclear to which apparatus what you are comparing the belt press. The tungsten carbide anvils? The 1941 experiment?
      Explained. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press apparatus which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C, using a pyrophyllite container, and having the graphite dissolved within molten nickel, cobalt or iron, a "solvent-catalyst"." Once the specific issues are resolved, this entire sentence needs to be rewritten. It is unclear if the belt press, pyrophillite container, and dissolved graphite clauses are all specific components of the breakthrough or if they relate more directly to each other.
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but still a bit awkward: "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C as compared to hydraulic presses." It's clear that the pressure is being compared to the hydraulic presses, but it's unclear what the deal is with the temperature. It might be clearer to just drop the comparison altogether and give straight numbers: "which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 C."
      Indeed. Thanks. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "clearly unsuitable for jewelry" Another weasel word. Why "clearly"? Too big? Too small?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hall was able to have co-workers replicate his work" This is oddly worded. Why not just "Hall's co-workers were able to replicate his work" ?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was the first person to grow a synthetic diamond according to a reproducible, verifiable and witnessed process and received a gold medal of the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work" Incorrect usage of "according to". How about "using"? Suggest changing "witnessed" to "well-documented". This is a long unbroken sentence. I suggest splitting it or adding some punctuation.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and three years later developed a completely independent apparatus for the synthesis of diamond (the tetrahedral press with four anvils)" Not sure what you mean by "completely independent". Perhaps "entirely new" ? The explanation should not be preceded by "the", nor should it be in parentheses. These imply that the reader should already be familiar with the device.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture: The image of the belt press is clearly very modern. This may be misleading to the readers since the paragraphs next to it deal with the 40s and 50s. I suggest expanding the caption to more clearly indicate the era in which the photograph was taken.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hall received a gold medal from the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work." Did Hall really receive a medal in 1972 for his work from 1954? Or was this sentence supposed to be at the end of the paragraph? In either case, it should probably be verified by another ref, one specific to the ACS.
      Indeed, the award did not specify which diamond work (I assumed 1954, BTW 18 yrs delay was usual in mat. science :). Fixed, with references.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Another successful diamond synthesis was produced" Odd wording. Should probably be either "Another synthetic diamond was successfully produced" or "Another successful diamond synthesis was achieved."
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sweden's major electrical manufacturing company" This would probably going to be a source of contention if any of ASEA's competitors read this article. I would suggest rewriting to a somewhat weaker statement: "one of Sweden's major electrical manufacturing companies." or some such.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as part of a top-secret diamond-making project" The use of "top-secret" seems a bit childish. Is this really how the source described the project?
      No kidding. Nothing was known about Swedish project until 80s. (I see relation between diamond business and diamond synthesis as a modern version of the medieval church-to-astronomy history :) Even now, few sources document details of that project (names, dates, publication titles, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I believe that it was a very secretive project. I'm just asking if the sources actually used the phrase "top-secret". If not (and perhaps even if they did), we could probably come up with a more encyclopedic alternative, such as "highly secretive" or "classified" or "clandestine". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I actually copy-pasted the term from the reference book. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Baltzar von Platen (1898–1984) and Anders Kämpe (1928–1984)" Not sure why their lifespans are included, especially since none of the other scientists mentioned in this article are given this treatment. Indeed, the fact that they died in the same year may be confusing for some readers, as it implies that the design was completed in 1984 and that they had been working on it for a long time.
      Years deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A few small crystals were produced, but not of gem quality or size." Crystals of diamond?
      Yes. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a new competitor emerged in Korea named Iljin Diamond" When I first read this, I thought Iljin Diamond was someone's name. I was like "wow, that's convenient. He's working on synthetic diamond and his last name is Diamond?" Suggest rewording to make it clearer that that is the name of a company, though I'm not sure how you would go about doing that.
      Reformulated. (I know one good scientist with this last name, but not in the diamond field :) Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "followed later by hundreds of Chinese entrants" Entrants in what?
      Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished this" accomplished what?
      Diamond synthesis. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished diamond synthesis by misappropriating trade secrets from GE via a Korean former GE employee in 1988" This sentence is somewhat ambiguous. What happened in 1988, the synthesis or the misappropriation (or both)? Did Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplish diamond synthesis, or did he definitively accomplish diamond synthesis by means of an alleged misappropriation?
      Fixed. BTW, this was another display of power (of diamond business): not only that difficult, ("international") case was won, but the Korean government had to revise their laws, and GE managed to close down the diamond production at IIjin. The case entered law books as example of trade wars. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Later developments section seems to be out of order. Why is there information about the 1980s before the information about the 1970s?
      I understand the concern, but please note the word gem-quality which is the key there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, I suppose it's not that critical that it be in chronological order. It does seem to flow more logically with the gem-quality diamonds coming after the rest of it. "Gem-quality" doesn't need to be italicized, though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Synthetic gem-quality diamond crystals were first produced in 1970 (reported in 1971) again by GE" The "again" is somewhat ambiguous. Had gem-quality diamonds been produced before, making this the second instance? Or does "again" refer to GE's consistent ability to provide breakthroughs in the field? In the latter case, I suggest removing "again" to avoid the confusion.
      "Again" removed. Yes, the latter was meant. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Large crystals need to grow very slowly under tightly controlled conditions." This sentence disrupts the flow of the paragraph. The information it provides is not relevant until several sentences later.
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first successes used a pyrophyllite tube seeded at each end with thin pieces of diamond and with the graphite feed material placed in the center, the metal solvent, nickel, was placed between the graphite and the seeds." This is a run-on sentence. I suggest reworking to split it up or otherwise make it flow better.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The container was heated and the pressure was raised to ~5.5 GPa" Scientists and mathematicians will know what the tilde represents, but many readers will not. I suggest replacing all instances with "approximately" or some variant thereof.
      ~ is replaced all through.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The graphite feed was soon replaced by diamond grit, as there was almost no change in material volume so the process was easier to control." As this sentence is written, it is unclear what the causes and effects are. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please do. If not, would you mind explaining it to me so we can figure a better wording?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but now you've introduced technical jargon. What are "morphology" and "crustal"? Suggest explaining, wikilinking, or avoiding.
      morphology→shape and crustal→crystal.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Removing all nitrogen from the process by adding aluminum or titanium produced colorless "white" stones, and removing the nitrogen and adding boron produced blue ones. However, removing nitrogen slows the growth process and reduces the crystalline quality, so the process is normally run with nitrogen present" [Bolding added for emphasis]. The first sentence is written in the past tense, whereas the second sentence is written in the present.
      Converted to the more appropriate past tense.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In terms of physical properties, the GE stones were not quite identical to natural stones." I assume that this sentence is trying to convey the following: "Although the GE stones and natural diamonds are chemically identical, their physical properties were not the same." Yes?
      Yes, thank you. Placed in the text. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The colorless stones produced strong short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively) under short-wavelength ultraviolet light but were inert under long-wave UV (among natural diamonds, only rare blue stones do this)" A couple of issues here. First, this rather long sentence can be shortened by removing "short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively)" with just "fluorescence and phosphorescence". Second, if you wish to use "UV" rather than spelling out the entire phrase again, you must put "(UV)" after the first instance of "ultraviolet". Finally, the second parenthetical remark would probably be clearer if it were set off into a separate sentence and expanded slightly: "Among natural diamonds, only the rarer blue gems exhibit these properties."
      Shortened. UV defined (my fault, in science literature some abbreviations should not be defined).Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. When in doubt, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All the GE stones also showed strong yellow fluorescence under X-rays" While the previous sentence made a clear comparison between the GE stones and natural diamonds, this statement does not. I suggest either expanding or deleting.
      Could well be deleted, but I reformulated instead.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has since grown, for research purposes only, stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g)." At this point, it is unclear what "since" refers to, as the last mention of a date was 1970. "for research purposes only" seems redundant. The name of the organization includes the word "research", does it not?
      "Since" deleted, "research" not. Names mean little in the business world (you might hear fancy brands like "Rhodium Heart Charm" with no relation to rhodium, etc. :). To get serious, De Beers is the king of the diamond world, and the biggest sponsor of the diamond research. For a good reason, they have separately stated, everywhere they could, that they never grew diamonds for gems.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, but by inserting that into the middle of the sentence, it almost reads as though you're advertising what nice guys they are. I think a suitable compromise would be to move it to the end of the sentence: "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has grown stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g) for research purposes." Alternatively, if you can find concise examples of how they use the diamonds for research, that would work too. If you really want to make it clear that De Beers is research only, perhaps it would be better to show the reader rather than to tell the reader, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Moved to the end. Its Ok to tell about DeBeers research, but in another FA :) Their range is vast and they tell nobody what they are up to. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For growing such diamonds, stable HPHT conditions have to be kept for 6 weeks." Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I suggest rewording to avoid the "have to" construction.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, most stones are 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg) for economic reasons, especially with the spread of the Russian BARS apparatus since the 1980s" First, most of which stones? Those produced by De Beers? Second, the second clause is entirely confusing to those readers (all of them, I'd imagine) who are not already familiar with the BARS apparatus. If you think it is important enough to be mentioned here, I would suggest expanding it. If not, I would suggest removing it.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Those large stones were a mere demonstration." Demonstration of what? To whom?
      I expanded to "demonstration of the growth possibilities." Not much meaning here. Please tweak as you like. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph flows much better without it. Do you agree? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the growth of most synthetic diamonds is interrupted" The word "interrupted" often implies that the process continues after the interruption has ended. Perhaps "halted" or "terminated" or "stopped"?
      Sure. I chose "terminated". Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "when they reach weight 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg)" I'm not familiar with diamond trade literature, but shouldn't this be "they reach a weight of 1 carat" ?
      Sure. Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a fact tag to the end of this paragraph. Some of the information about De Beers may be covered by Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge, but statements with numbers must be followed by an inline citation.
      Ref. added. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked the first few sentences of the next paragraph. Let me know if I screwed anything up.
      Somebody already tweaked Soviet Union, and I support that. I slightly changed the CVD statement. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eversole reportedly achieved vapor deposition" What is Eversole? A wikilink or a brief introductory phrase, such as "Eversole, a material engineering company," would be helpful.
      "William G. Eversole" :) Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol, humans ftw. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Russian team" It won't be obvious to all readers that Deryagin and Fedoseev are Russian names. Suggest replacing Deryagin and Fedoseev with "a Russian team" or "the Russian team" with "Deryagin and Fedoseev".
      For several good reasons I chose the latter. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:FAC instructions (do not use templates), and pls sign posts. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to decide if you're going with last name first or first name firsts for the references. Most seem to be first initial first, so suggest going with that. (Current refs 1 (Royere), 3 (Nassau), 8 (Hazen) are last name first)
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 7 (Parsons articles...) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source, it's a jewelry store?
Still need to tell me why this is a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That web-site posts rare diamond books for free, thereby hoping to attract buyers (nice trick, isn't). I have replaced that link by "genuine" books and peer-reviewed articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following books need page numbers:
    • Current ref 3 (Nassau)
    • Current ref 8 (Hazen)
    • Current ref 11 (Barnard)
    • Current ref 37 (Koizumi)
  • Current ref 10 (Liander) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 17 (Deryagin and Fedoseev) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 18 (HPHT Synthesis...) needs a publisher.
  • Current ref 35 (CVD...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 47 (Blind to the ..) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 49 (Heartwig...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 50 (Khousary..) needs a publisher
done all titles and publishers, the rest for tomorrow NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As far as I can tell, the properties and applications sections are unneeded because they are about diamonds generally, not synthetic diamonds. Furthermore, basically all of the pictures appear to be copyright violations. The ones uploaded by the nominator here are web resolution though high quality without metadata, and the one from the Hershey book seems to be under copyright still based on my cursory research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, maybe the first part isn't true. Copyvio problems remain. I deleted one blatant one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished with image and reference related issues.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image issues aren't resolved. I seriously am very skeptical that you personally took all the photos you uploaded. Why are they in varying web-resolution sizes without metadata? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you also haven't shown why the Hershey image is public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine for a moment that I am a professional scientist in this area. Would it explain your doubts ? Would it contradict anything ? I crop "empty" areas from virtually every my image - that is why pixels size is always different. A few crops might be exact for certain reasons (re-use as internal data). I never worried about metadata, but it seems the old free program I use chops off metadata. Some images (e.g. TEM of detonation diamond and perhaps scalpel) are taken from microscopes equipped with proprietary software. I can't speak for Hershey image as its not mine. Anything I can help with that or other images (no I don't have mine on this topic) ? Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2009&oldid=995365811"