This article is about Eega, a 2012 Indian bilingual film, which narrates the story of a murdered man reincarnating as a fly and avenging his death. This is my first solo attempt for FA. I thank my friends Kailash29792 and Ssven2 for helping me throughout the process. A special note of thanks to Miniapolis, copy-editor from WP:GOCE. Looking forward for constructive comments. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to FAC delegates: In order to avoid any resemblance to a case of WP:VOTESTACK, i hereby list the names of those editors whom i have requested to take part in the discussion; other interested editors are welcomed to comment: J Milburn, Krimuk90, Cowlibob, FrB.TG, Bede735, Jaguar, Jimfbleak, Yashthepunisher, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Vensatry, Dharmadhyaksha, Bollyjeff, Krish!, and West Virginian. Nikkimaria and SNUGGUMS were requested to conduct source and image reviews respectively. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you citing the Youtube version for runtime?
I could not find a better alternative for the same.
Is there not a DVD version or a runtime mentioned in a review? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, The Times of India mentions the runtime in its reviews. It didn't for Eega. Neither Amazon nor Flipkart did mention the runtime of the DVD version. Thus, i am directly citing the DVD. Would that suffice? My friend found help from BBFC official website. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you use Rediff.com or just Rediff
Fixed.
FN100 and similar: missing italics on publication name
International Business Times (ref. 100) is an online newspaper which has no print edition. Thus, i treated it similar to a website by not italicising it.
Our own articles on IBT shows that it is typically italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I've italicised all the three instances for IBT. Did it for Twitch as well. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the Sify refs appear to be republications of other sources, of varying credibility. What makes these high-quality reliable sources, and if they are why not cite the originals? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. Sify is listed as a reliable source in WP:ICTF and has been a part of many featured contents here, esp. lists. As per a discussion at WP:RSN, i came to know that the website mentions a note "The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com" if something is not published or checked by the website. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the sources I'm talking about aren't by Sify originally, they're by other sites and are being republished. So whether Sify itself is reliable or not, that doesn't really tell us whether these other sites are. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the Sify sources which have republished the content from Telugucinema.com. Coming to Moviebuzz, i learnt from the discussion at WP:RSN that it is a part of Sify and no separate website with such name and content existed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FN70 is from telugucinema. Do you have a link to the RSN discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed ref no. 70 and the statement there. This is the discussion at WP:RSN regarding Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I was hoping there was a link to show the connection, as I haven't found one on the site itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching Moviebuzz on Google and managed to find it only as a topic/author at Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Moviebuzz is a part of Sify that deals with the things that are going on in the industry (like how the Cinema Plus section is to The Hindu). If it were a private news/agency, it would have a website of its own like IANS, Press Trust of India (PTI) or Reuters. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 06:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered a c.e. herehere and here for the "Critical Reception" section. Feel free to revert any changes you disagree with (though IMO the section is now in a better shape).
I do have some concerns though -
Certain reviews are not qualitative additions - point(s) in case: Rediff.com DNA, IANS (the last one could do much better with some commentary)
I believe if you decide to keep the DNA review you need to expand it, and add it to the previous paragraph as it does not belong in the last para which is mostly critical of the film.
@Numerounovedant: Thanks for the c/e and the comments. Ssven2 has managed to resolve them in my absence. Coming to the DNA review, i have merged it with the above paragraph, but i see no actual use of expanding it. Let me know if you have anything else to say. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for me. I see that you have a couple of supports and the article underwent an extensive PR too, so I'll leave it to the rest of the editors. Good work though and Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took part in the PR and I conclude that this article is in a better shape since the last time I read through it. I think this meets the criteria, so I'll support. Well done! JAGUAR 19:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not an area of expertise for me, but I was involved in the PR, and it reads very well now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not an expert when it comes to writing. An article with an understandable and concise prose is worthy enough to be FA to me, which is the case here. Well done! FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments: I had a quick look at the plot section, and did a quick copy-edit (and feel free to revert anything you don't like, or that I messed up). Just a few quick points on that section. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In a chain of events, his money is burnt to ashes": I think we need to say what the chain of events are, rather than just saying "in a chain of events"
Added a footnote regarding this. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a contract affecting his professional life is rescinded due to the death": Can we clarify what this means?
In the film, Sudeep undertakes a construction contract which can be his fate changer. He begins the meeting on a promising note, but completely messes it thanks to his poor mental conditions worsened by the fly's acts. The meeting ends on a very bad note, and the other party plans to sue them. As his business partner is dead, that contract is rescinded and an insurance of 7 billion is claimed. I thought this detail would be too intricate and abstained from adding it. Thus, i request you to suggest me a better way to include this into the plot. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about "a potentially lucrative contract is rescinded owing to the death"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think normally we spell out units of currency on their first mention, and link them. It makes it easier for the reader in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused where to do so. Can you kindly mention the place where should i mention rupees? That would be a great help. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "₹1.25 billion" in the lead (and it is sufficient to link to the ₹ I think) and "₹1.5 million" in the plot section (the first mention in the main body). I've usually seen it done like this "₹1.25 billion", although the MoS doubtless says something else! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Budget is already linked in the lead. I've linked the INR in the plot as per your suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, the article looks generally OK but I think another copy-edit might be needed in places. Also, the Origin section is a little tricky to follow for someone who is unfamiliar with the film. For example, "Rajamouli chose the concept of a man reincarnated as a fly for the script" does not really say what script we are talking about, and "For the first time in his career, Rajamouli began casting after the script was completed" is a little abrupt: I assume he usually cast before the script was done, but why not spell it out for the reader a little more? These were just two points that jumped out from a quick skim, so I think a few more eyes would be beneficial. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the sentence. Do make sure the corrections are alright. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a slight mix-up in refs. "Rajamouli revisited Eega's script, since he wanted to "try something which had never been tried by anyone", adding that comedy, horror, and romance did not suit him. He decided to make Eega a bilingual film in Telugu and Tamil languages as the script had less dialogue. Each scene with dialogue was filmed twice, once for each language" is cited to ref 11 in this version, but that does not support the given information. However, ref 10 does support it. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last part i.e. bilingual was sourced by ref no. 11. I've shifted ref no. 10 to the end of the sentence "...comedy, horror, and romance did not suit him". Hope that solves the issue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thanks for leaving some constructive comments. I await a full review from you and opine that it would help me polish the article well. :) Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Origin, scripting and casting: I've read to the end of this section now. I've made a few little tweaks, but there's nothing particularly standing out here. Just a few queries and things I'd like to know a little more about. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Daggubati Suresh Babu presented Eega with his Suresh Productions": This is a little difficult to understand, so I would suggest moving the text in the accompanying note into the main body.
I respectfully disagree. It surely would distract the focus as the article of presenter is already linked. A footnbote was added only to avoid confusions if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Samantha turned down other offers to appear in it, calling her decision "well-thought out"": Do we know why she turned down other roles?
Perhaps to avoid scheduling conflicts. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"due to creative and scheduling conflicts": Do we know more about the creative conflicts?
"The original version, filmed over a six-month period, cost nearly ₹110 million; Rajamouli felt that the quality of the outcome was poor and started from scratch": If I've read this right, he spent ₹110 million, decided he wasn't happy, and remounted the whole film! I think we need to know more about this, such as how much of the film had he shot, why wasn't he happy, what did the producers and cast think about this; was it his decision alone?
Wish i really could. Though i found something, it wasn't much encyclopaedic. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing missing: we don't really find out what role, if any, the production company had in all this. Presumably the film had backers of some sort or other. But maybe it's there and I've missed/misunderstood it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Hopefully, i've managed to answer your concerns here, and am thankful for your participation. Let me know if you have further comments/suggestions for this article in store. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in reading this, reading shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the short first paragraph in plot really necessary? Can't you merge in a continue with the story there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is, Dr. Blofeld. I wanted to start and end it as a bed time story, just like what the director did. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Tamil version, Naan Ee, was his Tamil directorial debut." -why link Tamil?
Mentioned it properly as Tamil cinema. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Sudeep called his character the "only human being who is battling against a fly and carrying all the emotions",[18] and considered his character a "bad guy" with "grey shades" rather than an antagonist." =rep of "his character"
Changed the first one to "eponymous role". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"would check low-end" -what is "low-end"?
Removed it as i too couldn't understand what it was. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Indo-Asian News Service called Eega the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2012,[106] Bangalore Mirror called it the second-highest" -rep of "called"
"Although Indo-Asian News Service called Eega the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2012,[106] Bangalore Mirror called it the second-highest (after Gabbar Singh) in box-office revenue.[" - would write as "Although Indo-Asian News Service stated that Eega the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2012, the Bangalore Mirror claimed that it was the second-highest (after Gabbar Singh) in box-office revenue."
"In Hindustan Times, Anupama Chopra gave the film four out of five stars and called it a "mad roller coaster ride that's worth taking" and the "most outlandish film [she has] seen in years".[120] Shabana Ansari gave Eega " -rep of "gave"
"In a September 2012 interview for The New Indian Express, filmmaker Sekhar Kammula said that "good, sensible and alternative" films are favoured by audiences and cited Eega as an example." -strange context, seems like padding.
"In a September 2012 interview for The New Indian Express, filmmaker Sekhar Kammula said that "good, sensible and alternative" films are favoured by audiences and cited Eega as an example.[146] Speaking about the centenary of Indian cinema at the CII Media & Entertainment Summit 2012, filmmaker Shekhar Kapur said that regional cinema is surpassing Hindi cinema in content and story and cited Eega as an example." -again rep of "cited as example"
When the above sentence is removed, this issue too has been indirectly addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In July 2015, Geethika Chandrahasan Sudip of The Hindu listed Eega for the letter E in "ABCD of Telugu Cinema"." -trivial, not sure why we care, or why that matters.
While I think this article meets the FA criteria in terms of research and content (being a contemporary Tamil film) I wasn't too impressed with the quality of prose. In many places I admittedly found it a little plodding and lacking the flow and panache of an FA quality article. There were a number of examples of repetition and poor choice of wording. I think it could use another copyedit by a native English speaker before this is promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The prose just isn't up to scratch and I suggest it is copy edited to within an inch of its existence. I struggled to understand the plot, and had to take two or three reads to fathom it out. I'll take the opening paragraph from the Release section as an example:
Eega, with Naan Ee and Eecha, was released on 6 July 2012 in approximately 1,100 screens.[73][i]": This may be Indian English, but in screens? I'm more familiar with in cinemas (or theatres/theaters) and on screens.
"The premiere of Naan Ee took place on 5 July at Sathyam Cinema in Chennai, with the cast and crew in attendance.[76]": Why are we going back in time a day? When I read this, my (admittedly factious) mind asked what, all of the cast and crew? (and the cast and director are nearly always at a premiere – name the key ones and drop the rest)
"The Central Board of Film Certification gave the film a U/A certificate without any cuts, citing a few instances of actors smoking.[73][77]": Was this after the release and then premiere? Why do we need to know about smoking? Of all the insubstantial details of a film and it's release, this is one of the smallest
"A 30-percent entertainment tax was levied on Naan Ee by the government of Tamil Nadu.[78]": Where did this sentence drop from, and what's the context? Taxed for the making of, the broadcast of or something else? This, and the remainder of the paragraph on distribution rights are a separate point to the release info and should be in a separate paragraph.
The opening two sentences of the next para are a mystery too. They are about the film and its production, not the release, so why are they here? (I also see we have the names of two pirates of the film: do we care about their names? I also had to read the section more than once to understand that the piracy wasn't the counterfeiting of DVDs, but the broadcast in a cinema of a pirated version)
This is just one quick look – skimming through I see other problems with the prose and context. From the Origin, scripting and casting section: "K. V. Vijayendra Prasad jokingly suggested the concept of a housefly seeking revenge on a human during a conversation with his son, S. S. Rajamouli, in the late 1990s". Who and who, is what I'm wondering when I read this (so much so I may click on the link to find out who one of them is and never come back to read the rest of the article). "The Indian screen writer and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad..." may be more helpful in providing context for me. This isn't just a one off - there are a few parts where I need a little more context.
The article seems to cover all the areas of information I would expect and seems to be full and interesting, but I struggle to read this smoothly and have had to re-read too many parts to understand the prose. – SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat: Thanks for taking out time from your busy schedule and providing your comments here, which are surely helpful. I have requested the GOCE for a thorough c/e. I will let you know once it is done, which i expect would satisfy you. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think part of the problem with the flow and readability on this is that I detect a lot of "padding" in places done to lengthen the article and appear more like featured article length and weight, which is very common in Indian cinema articles. Personally I think the article will read much better without a lot of the padding, even if shorter. I'd be tempted to trim it throughout and revamp the way a lot of the information is presented to the reader to improve the flow and standard. I would suggest you remove anything which you added to pad it out and stick to what is of primary importance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: I wanted the article to be comprehensive enough, but that never meant i would add "padding" to lengthen something; i don't stoop to such a worse level. Anyways, i did, do and will believe in your expertise and skills as a copy-editor and a reviewer. If you are willing to, please ruthlessly trim the article wherever you feel necessary. You have also watched the film, so that may help you to an extent. I await your response. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but sometimes when you try to make something really comprehensive that happens.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you willing to trim? If you let me know, i can think about my next moves. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'd like the result if I edited it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to accept whatever that is going to happen with a smile. It is your decision that matters. My efforts will not go in vain. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the delegates: I don't think so that i can do proper justice to this due to my current state of mind and real life disturbances. I thus am withdrawing the nomination. Thanks for everyone who has participated in the process and tried to make Eega a better article. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially concerned that this was because none of us had edited the article, but Pavan seems genuine on this. I've made a start on it and I think it needs even more work than I'd initially thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about Canadian virtuoso classical and flamenco guitarist Michael Laucke. Lots of research and hard work by over sixty Wikipedia editors has gone into crafting this article and it is now worthy of a promotion to Featured Article. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article is over-stuffed with cheesy hyperbole. I was gonna copy edit it out, but it isn't my job. bring it back when the glare from the praise has been dimmed to human levels. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the first note, which is three notes(?). And the references forex number 37 that looks like this: [33][34][35][36].. and a sea of inline links. I think this all needs considerable work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lingzhi. If you click on [37] in the body, it will take you to [33][34][35][36] in the References section. If you click on any of those singly it will jump up to the germane reference that sits right above [37]. They are in sequential order like this: [33][34][35][36][37] in the References section. [37] is a grouping of the four. Reduces visual clutter in the body. And, instead of having to go back up to the body three extra times to visit the four references you only have to go down to the one group once and the four are right there at your fingertips. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was in a rush and didn't explain. Here's what I think:
1- First, IMO many statements are over-cited. AFAIK, there are only three reasons to have more than one citation per assertion. Perhaps the statement is controversial (that's the strongest reason), or it is really important enough that people might want to look at more than one source, or (finally) to avoid linkrot. But I really doubt much of anything in this article meets either of the first of those two criteria. If you are trying to avoid linkrot, other methods are less distracting (see WP:LINKROT).
Done.
2- Second, it's very strange and confusing to have {{sfn}} or {{Ref}} style numbered boxes inside the References, ESPECIALLY if those boxes are sitting there without any textual explanation, and since moreover they just point to other things in the same References section.
Done.
3- In the Notes section it's very strange to have notes 1, 2 and 3 link to the same note, esp. when two of them point to the exact same spot in the body text.
The first Note, "A guitar transcription consists of ..." is unnecessary. The wikilink to Transcription (music) is completely sufficient. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Then in the Notes, 4, 5 and 6 "Virus Montréal... In 1980... MusiCanada" could easily be combined into a single note with three sentences. Or moved to a "Critical reception" section. Or just as easily, simply deleted. Perhaps you could look at other musician FA articles to serve as a model.
Done.
The two sentences beginning "Pell's former campaign manager.." are irrelevant and should be deleted IMO. The article is not about Pell's former campaign manager Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
User-friendly solution to grouped references implementation
@Checkingfax: Hello Lingzhi. First of all I would be amiss not to thank you for your time in helping us improve this article, and of course your wonderful work for Wikipedia in general over almost 10 years! I might just ask you for some survival tips .
You pointed out some interesting issues which I have admittedly thought about in the past. It turns out that with a little coding wizardry, they are now resolved. Hopefully you concur with my implementations to simplify this matter, and will be pleased. (After 1,787 edits by 63 editors in this article, what's a few more.)
So all these are gone:
Notes 1.^ 2.^ 3.^
reference 37. [33][34][35][36]
reference 74. [33][34][35][36][73]
reference 129. [33][34][35][36]
Yet the information is still available in a non-cumbersome way. If you go to Notes 10 and 11 you can see how I've reworked this.
I followed the suggestion of user MPJ-DK, who was our GA reviewer. He offered a tidy solution whereby Notes would simplify the user experience; it helped avoid disruption in reading, promoted flow and assisted the article in keeping focus.
For example, in the Early career section, I noticed the Grand Prix du Disque caused quite a stir in the media. But instead of cluttering up the section with newspaper quotes and interviews, we simply said 'Music critics took note.[1][2][3]'and moved on! We had simply included a few of the more important critiques in the Notes section, quite out of the way. So the reader can enjoy reading unimpeded, or if something piques his curiosity, he can quickly click to the Notes section and back; ...easy, plain and simple navigation. So that worked quite well although it was a bit tricky code-wise (having a diploma in computer science comes in handy sometimes), and I was able to switch the code around a bit. But the result for the end user is simple. Also, since Laucke apparently performed in 25 countries, we thought it would be interesting to show, by way of mainstream newspapers, the reaction of different cultures to at least some of these concerts, and fortunately good quality, mainstream sources were amply available.
Again, I very much appreciate your input and your help to rectify an issue I have long pondered about. Please feel free to share your thoughts, as time permits of course. kind regards, Natalie Desautels...as within, so without 12:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. By the way I was delighted not only with the beautiful image on your userpage but also the Wallace Stevens poem; his "The Man with the Blue Guitar" is one of my favorites.
Yes I've spent time pondering the blue guitar as well. As for Laucke, you missed a spot at [109][110][111][112]. I'm still also wondering why seemingly uncontroversial points have multiple cites, as at "He also published articles on classical guitar.[39][40][41]." Is it because of concern about WP:LINKROT? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lingzhi. I will let Natalie.Desautels fix the references with her new method. Getting to your 2nd point, several early editors demanded citations so we had to provide them. There is one citation for each publication (39, 40, 41). The same goes for the rest of the citation bloat in the article: everything was challenged, so citations had to be provided, even in the lead. Cheers! PS: Up top, you mention "forex"; what does that refer to? {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I have attended to the matters you pointed out above, which have been fixed as follows:
Because of a discovered redundancy, I deleted the three citations in "He also published articles on classical guitar.[39][40][41]" because "... articles on classical guitar" is already wikilinked to the Articles section where we find these same cites.
[109][110][111][112] have been deleted and are now available in the Notes section, in a non-cumbersome manner. Nice catch!
And now it is made up 'of things exactly as they are' (...on the Bule guitar) .
PS. For the record, a technical limitation of the 'Notes' linking system, for all of its clarity and other advantages, is that an editor cannot Preview. The link will not work until the page is saved so preparation must be fastidious, and preferably supported by having 3 windows open for reference points. kind regards, Natalie Desautels...as within, so without 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax:@Natalie.Desautels: If we're gonna keep the multiple cites on multiple statements, can we at least bundle them? [There are many ways to bundle refs, see (WP:CITEBUNDLE). I prefer {{sfnm}}, but some people find that awkward to use, and you are not using {{sfn}}.] I just personally find even more than two of those numbered boxes to be an eyesore. Actually, I dislike to see even more than one in the body text, but perhaps I am a little crankier than the average reader. Checkingfax, you asked about my use of "forex" above. Perhaps Natalie.Desautels fixed the small problem I mentioned so quickly that you didn't see it? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lingzhi. We are using List Defined References (LDR). I believe these two strategies are not compatible. That is why I used refn before.
@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I concur entirely regarding bundles and multiplicity. And I'm eager to proceed after my thorough analysis last night, both with refs and Notes. I'm excited about this fine tuning and I hope you'll be pleased too. I'm taken today until this evening but I plan to finish all implementations over the week-end; will be combing over all 139 references—they will end up somewhat fewer—and Notes (they will end up a little more); any consecutive Notes/refs of 3 or more will be bundled and a few multiple cites of 2 as well. Does beginning next week suit your schedule? PS. No, you're not crankier than the average reader; you should only know what's out there . kind regards, Natalie Desautels...as within, so without 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled all multiple citations on multiple statements. The maximum number of references now in a sentence is two. As a rule, when 2 consecutive references were found they were kept and when 3 refs were found, one was deleted.
All duplicate links deleted, first re-occurrence kept after lead, and in infoboxes, tables, and image captions. ...used 'Highlight duplicate links' tool
Deleted Note 1 about music transcriptions since there is a wikilink to Transcription (music) and it's sufficient.
Notes 4, 5 and 6 were bundled, combined into a single note with three sentences.
The two sentences regarding Laucke's first manager/impresario, and Senator Pell's admin ass't, were deleted from body and relegated to Notes section. ...considered relevant info, since Nelson was essential to Laucke's early career as he organized every U.S. concert.
...remains to decide on English or French spelling for 'Three Gymnopedies' or 'Trois Gymnopédies'. I opt for English in the en-Wikipedia...
I honestly don't see any point in including the "Selected Works" section, since it is perfectly duplicated in Michael Laucke discography and filmography. I don't know whether we have a tradition of leaving these sorts of things in, though.@Laser brain:, @Ian Rose:, would either of you tell me yay or nay on that question? Tks.
@Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi I noticed many WP music articles list a few select albums in the main article along with a link to a mainspace discography. I'd be eager to learn what the opinions are and excited to get to work on trimming/selecting; the discography is stable I think. Thanks again. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout the concert, Laucke's playing was a model of clarity, evenness, control and good sense" Once may or may not be too much, but twice certainly is. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"claves, maracas, special castanets" Ditto.
Done. The works Legend and Flamenco Road each employ different instrumentation with some similarities, hence 'claves, maracas,' are repeated in each group; clarification added.
"The tracks employ five guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical, and electric guitars), a rhythm section consisting of bongos, four congas, and a rock drum set blended with other percussion instruments such as claves, maracas and castanets, three dancers performing typical "palmas" (hand-clapping) in synchronization, three trumpets, three pianos, and a "country-style" violinist" Oopsie, this needs quotation marks, or rewriting. Prefer latter. Wait... should we be concerned about copyvio or wp:close paraphrase elsewhere in the article...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In progress.
@Checkingfax:. Lingzhi, No copyright concerns as the entire Flamenco Road production is licensed under Public Domain Dedication (CC0), all rights waived. I put this text in my own words, but it's way too long and clumsy. You made a good point. The source information from the CD jacket is here, lower right-hand side. I'd be happy to rewrite—I can certainly do better—or we could direct quote the original version; I feel it's a nice quote:
"It started with five guitars – all of them either flamenco, Spanish or classical and all natural acoustic guitars played the Spanish way, that is, with all the fingers of both hands and without a pick. The electric guitar with its steel strings was added later for contrast. For the rhythm section, bongos, four congas and a rock drum set were blended with other percs - claves, maracas, and castanets. Our dancers did typical “palmas” or hand-clapping in synchronization. Finally, trumpets, and then a “country-style” violinist…"
@Jerome Kohl: You gave this as an example where a logical quote is needed: Vivier states that he had: "hardly ever met a musician as committed and dedicated, of such great quality and, above all, of such great completeness and intense capacity for work". But... although the period would have gone after the word "work" in the original source, the text inside the quotation marks here is not a complete sentence. I do not know what to do in this case.. treat it as a phrase, period after quotation mark, or treat it as a case where the period goes inside..? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi. I didn't grow up with logical quotes, so I take my cue from the MoS. I hope you don't mind if I share the way I see it. Here is the second paragraph in MOS:LQ:
If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside.
Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."
Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".
Since a fragment is a phrase or clause that is not a complete sentence, in your example, above, since the quoted material is not a complete sentence, it would end:
...of such great completeness and intense capacity for work". – Corinne (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinne: thanks! And yes, as far as I can tell, your explanation fits with my understanding, but the problem (from my perspective) is that the example that you and I both think should be "period outside" seems to be dealt with in Jerome Kohl's excellent comments as one that should be "period inside". I am a poor and confused little editor. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with either Jerome Kohl or Natalie.Desautels, but if Jerome is right, then the guideline at MOS:LQ is misleading and should be changed. – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Natalie.Desautels: Jerome and I discussed that logical quotation example on his talk page, and he agreed with me and Corinne that his example was wrong. You can undo your edit. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flamenco road's music video: I assumed the CD and video were separate beasts, but then I read the "Album Notes" section here. Seems some info on that website is missing from our article?
Done. ...clarified enhanced CD with two videos
I don't think he was "discovered" by Pell (mentioned twice). he was performing concerts before that...
Done. ...second occurrence of 'discovered' deleted. ...clarified Senator Claiborne Pell's role as impresario/representative.
What song required 24 tracks? Did all 10 songs require 24 tracks? Did we mention that there are 10 songs in all?
Done. ...clarified which work comprises 24 tracks, and 10 works on CD
Hi, Lingzhi. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"that would later make him a national hero in Spain" citation needed.
Done. Changed phrase to 'which has become arguably his best-known composition' and implemented a more solid source from Billboard
How can it be "arguably the first time a guitarist other than de Lucía himself would record these works"? Do we not know who has recorded them? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ...changed to 'In 1991, he recorded compositions de Lucía taught him' as sorces in nationla magazine 'El Popular'. (...could no longer find origianl source)
"arguably the only version for guitar to include all of the notes of the original piano composition" Ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ...Satie guitar transcription claim sourced from original sheet music published by Waterloo Music Publishing Co.
"their secrets and knowledge jealously guarded". All direct quotations always need a citation Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to suggest thatthis should be deleted: "Nelson helped organize U.S. President Jimmy Carter's inauguration and dedicated a photo of the event to Laucke" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about performing for jet set calvin klein etc. is offered twice in body text. Please choose one location and delete the other.[Is it notable enough to mention in the lede? if so, shorten shorten shorten.] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Laucke was introduced to flamenco by"; 'Although Laucke had played flamenco for his own pleasure since he was a child' spot the contradiction. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For music samples (whether audio or video), we need to account for the copyright status of both the music and the performance (and, where relevant, the arrangement). This means that several files are lacking complete licensing.
Hi, Nikkimaria. Natalie.Desautels has been around the block a few times with the copyright issues so I will let her take on those answers.
The Media section is messy looking. Can you please fix it? A single row may not render well on small screens or on mobile devices. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. Please take a look at the Media section now and ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Checkingfax - it's certainly better, but is there a reason we need those type icons? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. As far as I know the speaker icon is a system default. The camcorder ones are added for visual harmony and to be an icon to show that it is a video vs. a song or an image. The "play" triangle is hard to spot on videos as it is not a high contrast. Please advise. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria, Many thanks for your interest and helping us make this article the best it can be; much appreciated. I did lots of translation work for SOCAN, our Canadian copyright organization, so I do understand copyright concerns; yes, we have to account for music, performance and arrangement copyright permission status.
For the two photos, see these two links and kindly look at the description text here and here for provenance.
For the audio and video files, please see one example here . They have all the same permissions: Public Domain Dedication (CC0), with an all rights waived license, and, importantly, Commons has an OTRS attached to all files signed by Laucke. He has 100% ownership and is, verifiably, at times composer and always arranger, performer and producer of these works. As it says, 'Producer' which means that he paid for the production, he owns the work and has made this sample available for free, pending correct attribution. ...solid authorization. It's not surprising since Laucke is quite the businessman according to this mainstream article. ...things are ok to me in the copyright area. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Natalie. I did look at the media description pages and the URLs linked from them, but I still have some questions about copyright here.
File:Michael_Laucke_With_His_Great_Friend_Paco_De_Lucia.jpg: yes, I see that the photo was taken by an employee or hired photographer. However, it was signed in Canada, under Canadian law signatures are typically eligible for copyright protection, and Paco De Lucia is neither an employee nor a hired photographer. Has he agreed to the licensing?
For the audio/video files, where Laucke is the composer and arranger of course he can license the work as he pleases. But for several of the samples in the article, he is the performer but not the original composer of the works. For example, File:Satie_Gymnopedie_No_1_performed_by_Michael_Laucke.flac was originally composed by Satie. For such works, we need to know the copyright status of the original music as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows US law, which per that list applies life+70 only to works published after 1978 - the original works in question here were published before that, even though the derivatives were published later. Wikimedia Commons also requires that files hosted there are in the public domain in their country of origin. In both cases the files will need licensing tags explaining their status. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
De Lucia signature: a signature only needs copyright status if it is a trademark. In this case, de Lucia autographed a photo for Laucke and this is considered a celebrity autograph. Once an item such as a photo, poster, etc, is autographed, the person who signs it is deemed to have given consent for it to be used freely and this right is automatically assigned to the recipient (Laucke), who has every legal right to even sell the signed item. The photo, taken by Laucke's photographer, is owned by Laucke as is the autograph. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true - any signature, whether a trademark or not, is copyrightable in most common-law jurisdictions. See commons:COM:SIG. You would need to check whether Canada is an exception to that. While Laucke may own the physical copy of the signature, he won't hold the copyright unless there was some kind of arrangement to that effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). I read commons:COM:SIG several times and my takeaway is that in this case the signature is only copyrightable if it is deemed to be a work of art.
This page in a nutshell: There is no legislation or precedent that deals specifically with signatures. Common sense must be used:
The usual signature, that reproduces a permanent model and is used by its author as a personal identification, bears no artistic significance. Its legal status is similar to that of a brand or logo: it may be reproduced, as long as the reproduction cannot be mistaken for an authentic signature.
Some signatures are drawn with an artistic intent, usually as part of a work of art. Being the result of an artistic work in its own right, such signatures characteristically do not follow a fixed model. They must be considered protected by author's right.
@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria , Thank you very much for your further help. As per your kind advice, I will do research to find the licensing tags you mentioned, explaining each work's status, over the weekend. I am busy off-wiki at the moment but I shall take the pleasure to get back with my findings within the next few days or sooner. PS. The list I sent you, to wit: List of countries' copyright lengths, may not be that useful after all; a closer look shows that it talks a lot about 'publications', not that much about music. kind regards, Natalie
Public domain issues for works by Satie, ALbeniz and JS Bach
@Checkingfax and GrammarFascist:. Hello Nikkimaria, Following your kind advice, I found some licensing tags explaining the status of each audio and video work we were discussing, as well as some relevant links, to wit:
Public Domain tags found on Discussion pages (not on main page) for Satie Gymnopedies 1 , 2 and 3, Albeniz and JS Bach. Meanwhile, here are
Complete list of transcriptions, arrangements and original works by Michael Laucke. All works are registered with the Canadian copyright organization SOCAN. and there is a pdf link to the full SOCAN catalog here. All works under discussion appear in this pdf from SOCAN, as registered by them. N.B. The status is in French: DP means 'domaine public'.
Ruling on Unpublished works in the USA is 'Life of the author + 70 years' for works from authors who died before 1946. 'Unpublished' means the work was registered in another country, Canada in this case.
In same document, we find 'Works First Published Outside the U.S., Before 1923'. The copyright Term in the United States is deemed 'In the public domain'. (Peter B. Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States)
Rule of the shorter term does not apply as per 'In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed' according to the Berne Convention, article 7(8). That would be Canada in this case.
Regarding the signature issue, same tag is found for the signature we were discussing hereand also an OTRS tag on main page.
Once again, I very much appreciate your time in helping us advance. Kindly let me know your thoughts, if you feel all is now in order and what else I might do to be of further help. Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The case of Satie is a bit more complicated. Take a look at WP:NUSC - it is quite likely that the wartime extensions apply.
The Albeniz term would actually have been 80 years, which still means it's PD but this should be clarified on the image description page
What about the music in File:Between_Two_Seas_("Entre_dos_Aguas")_by_Paco_de_Lucía,_arranged_and_played_by_Laucke.flac, File:Legend_(Leyenda)_performed_by_Michael_Laucke.flac, File:Pour_Guitare_by_Claude_Vivier---written_for_and_dedicated_to_Michael_Laucke.flac, and File:Me_duele_Espana_by_Francois_Morel.flac?
I don't have OTRS access - do you know what was submitted? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria. It will be my pleasure to attend to this toward the end of this week. It is extremely busy as I have been once again engaged as one of many interpreters (eng, fr., es, de) for 2016 International Olympic Games in Rio this summer with talks taking place here in Montreal until Thursday. But I'll be back in the WP saddle right afterwards and I'll chime in by smartphone ...just a thumbs up. Many thanks again for your wonderful input. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria, I delighted to report that several administrators at OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System) all agreed and have now approved every single audio, video and image file used in this article and none are missing at present. Every one of these files in Wikimedia Commons now displays, prominently and right on the file page, “This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission ...”.
You can click on any item to see this. For example, click the very first photo, and then once in Commons scroll down to Permissions where the brave little OTRS tag and text can be found under Permission. I would be amiss not to send my sincerest thanks to you for spurring us on to perfect the overall copyright security and bring this aspect to FA worthy status. Without your help I really don't think we would have thought to put so much effort into securing such solid permissions. This is important going forward too, because it means that the article will not end up with dead links because Commons responded to a file delete request. I'm delighted to have their stamp of approval and I'm sure other contributors will be as well. We still have to attend to the many very good suggestions by Jerome Kohl below, and that will be attended to over the next few days. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 09:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that they've added OTRS tags. However, I don't see that those tags apply to the underlying compositions as well as the performances? Do we know what the OTRS message said, or could we invite an OTRS admin to comment on what it covers? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS tags issued on all audio, video and image media found in article
Done, with copyright issues.
@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, I've started this new section as the above one seemed to be getting somewhat long and hard to navigate. Yes, on all files stamped by OTRS, the copyright overseers, the message says "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket # [different ticket number depending on item]." ...example. My understanding is that this applies to the compositions as well as the performance since it refers to the totality of this work. There is an email address for them; perhaps Checkingfax knows it.
I'm about ready to defer to their higher understanding of the issues. I see that many experts in copyright over at Commons have deemed all works used to be in proper standing, content and performance, so I'm quite happy about this since just as an article about a painter should have at east a few examples, so it is for musicians. And it seems WP is now protected. I imagine Commons copyright experts did their research and perhaps one of the things they discovered was that the atonal works by Vivier and Morel, not written by Laucke (which seems to be your concern) were commissioned by him, written for him, paid for by him and that of course means he owns them. Of course, I cant know what went on behind the scenes but certainly all these aspects must have been considered. At any rate, the onus falls on the person who issued the copyright, and that would be Laucke himself I suppose. That alleviates WP of any responsibility which is a good thing for us.
My experience with copyright has been in translating SOCAN's annual report for 3 decades as well as their monthly newsletter. Translation means that you really have to understand the original intent before rendering into a different idiom, but I admittedly don't live copyright law. In this case, I am happy to defer to the experts in Commons. My understanding is that even when a work is written by someone else, that does not mean they own the work; it depends. For example, I could commission a work from Paul McCartney and if I pay him to write it for me, I own it. So Laucke can play Claude Vivier and still own the work. Then again, there's copyright and royalty distribution and it can be broader than that. Usually, anyone can play material copyrighted by anyone else; if you have no share of the royalties, it just means that you are not entitled to receive any money, but you can always play the work. For example, the SOCAN catalogue tells us that Laucke has 25% on the Satie arrangements he made. Laucke has the right to play Satie anywhere, and he decided to make his arrangements of Satie freely available at Commons, so as we say "chapeau" (hat's off :)) There would be a problem if Laucke declared that he composed the original Satie work and is entitled to 100%, or other such nonsense but that’s obviously not the case and the SOCAN catalog is clear on percent of ownership. I have only seen one exception, ever; that was a work by singer Sting where felt that only he should sing a certain song, for a while anyway. It makes perfect sense really; either let other artists perpetuate your art or let your work fade into oblivion in many cases.
If I may offer another example: One could record an instrumental album for classical guitar of Beatles' song arrangements; the musician would not get royalties, but he would probably sell albums ...happens every day but no copyright restrictions prevents him from playing his Beatles arrangements. So I feel comfortable with the present situation and see no risk, and no danger, further comforted by the fact that several experts in copyright at Wikimedia have assigned due authorization. There is a slight caveat though, since each file has a condition in the description that must be respected, and, indeed the article does respect these demands. ("If you use this photo, you must use the correct attribution"). Your thoughts, time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. Kindly tell me which compositions you may still be concerned about, if any, and I will follow up as always. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 23:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully an OTRS admin can weigh in on what exactly was said. Generally speaking, it's not necessarily true that someone commissioning a work would own the copyright of that work - it may be a work for hire or the composer may retain copyright, depending on the nature of the agreement made. (And of course the Satie works were definitely not works for hire). It also isn't necessarily true that an absence of royalties equates to an absence of copyright protection, and it's the latter that matters for Wikipedia's purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Yes, it would be interesting if an OTRS admin could weigh in with greater detail. Be that as it may, I am happy with their decisions. To conclude our discussion, for works by Satie and Albeniz, they were published well before 1923 (Satie in 1888, Albeniz in 1892) and are therefore deemed 'In the public domain' as per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, as I imagine the OTRS experts realised. SOCAN, copyright's largest representative in Canada, (catalog here) also shows Laucke owns 25% of his arrangements of the 'public domain works' by Satie and ALbeniz. I concur that—one does not own a work simply because one commissioned it, depending on the agreement made, as you stated, and that no general rules apply to something as complicated as copyright law. Still, even if Laucke did not own the copyright, I believe he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, just like these arrangements of The Beatles for Classical Guitar. To clarify 'absence of royalties', I simply meant that a performer is free to play whatever he likes, but will not get royalties if he does not own at least part of the work. Again, my appreciation for your time, care and kind help. Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 22:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - if someone other than he holds a valid copyright on the underlying music, then the files cannot be hosted on Commons, and could only be hosted on English Wikipedia under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. Yes, of course; good point. I should have included that caveat, to wit: If Laucke did not own the copyright, he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, if no one else holds a valid copyright on the underlying music; otherwise, a Wikipedia fair-use claim would be needed. Many thanks. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 00:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Checkingfax, I'd still like to see confirmation from an OTRS admin of what exactly underlies those tags. I also think the life+70 tag on the Satie works may be wrong given the timeframe - have you verified that the wartime extensions did not apply to his work? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks so much once again. I've done a bit more research into the life+70 tag on the Satie works and the wartime extensions. My findings are as follows: The first and third Gymnopédies were published in 1888 and the second Gymnopédie was published in 1895. As per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, works 'First Published Outside the U.S. before 1923' are deemed 'In the public domain'. Further considering wartime extensions, and that 'The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work', one would add 6 years and 152 days for World War I and 8 years and 120 days for World War II. Even though The Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004, if the extensions are applied, my understanding is that Gymnopedie nos. 1 and 3 became public domain in 1972 (1888+70+6+8) and Gymnopedie no. 2 in 1979. Thanks once again for your input; ...hope this helps. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 07:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting publication+70? French copyright law is that for known authors copyrights on musical works expire at life+70, plus any applicable wartime extensions. And even if the works are now PD, we still need accurate copyright tags on them. Same with the Bach piece, which currently lacks any tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria I'm sorry I couldn't get back earlier. We've been busy putting the final touches on the article ...busy off Wiki as well; life is a busy affair. The life+70 for copyright info in France is here: Droit d'auteur en France where it says the normal time frame is 70 years before considering Wartime copyright extensions here Regarding Satie’s Gymnopédies, the publication dates are 1888 and 1895, and he died 1925. Bach died in 1750 and the copyright tag is here; you have to scroll down to the Permissions section. Since you mentioned above that what counts for Wikipedia is the US copyright law, that's where I originally directed my research as noted above. I now looked further into French copyright and found no illegality either. I guess that if the copyright experts at Wikipedia Commons have deemed that all these files are in the public domain, well, I wont argue with them as I'm sure they know a lot more than I do in this area. According to their OTRS tags for Satie and Bach works, the copyright has expired, the works are in public domain, and they may be used by anyone for any purpose the OTRS team says. However, if your research turns up anything to contradict this, kindly advise and I will certainly ask more questions; I am always eager to learn of course. Thank you very much for your kind suggestions, and along with everyone else's wonderful comments and recommendations the article stands quite improved, regardless of the FA outcome, and of course I'm delighted about this. What a wonderful collaboration! PS. I'm sorry I really don't understand the concern over public domain issues regarding Bach since he died 266 years ago; could you kindly help me understand this? Kind regards, Natalie
The original music by Bach will be in the public domain, no one disputes this. The issue is accurate representation of that fact. The file you indicate currently has a CC tag; that tag does not cover Bach's original music (as there is no possible way Bach licensed anything under CC). We need a public-domain tag to explicitly indicate that Bach's work is PD and why. Similarly for Satie, those works may well be in the public domain also, but we still need accurate tagging to indicate why. The larger concern though is still the works that are not old enough to be obviously PD, and so I'd still like to hear from an OTRS admin about what exactly the releases for those say. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks so much once again for your time and feedback. After a bit more research, I think the following will provide more information on why OTRS copyright experts concurred on granting free rights and their rationale. Here’s a sample for the work by J.S. Bach where the OTRS tags on the main page say 'may be used by anyone for any purpose, without any conditions ...you do not need to request permission' and so on. My new findings on the Public Domain tags you mentioned are here: for more details, one clicks the associated Discussion page, to find a detailed explanation where the OTRS experts have laid down their rationale ("This file is in the public domain, because composer J.S. Bach (died 1750) is from Austria and copyright there, which is life + 70 years or less, has expired.") and which they highlighted in bold. The second tag, just below this one, talks about this work as a 'piece of music that has been released into the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.' One finds the same authorization for the Satie works. Also, when one clicks their public domain link, Wikipedia says Works published before 1923 are in the public domain.' Thank you again for your kind participation; ...hope this helps. best regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 13:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So why not put the tags from the Bach discussion page on the main image page? In the case of the Satie works though, it's unclear whether life+70 is correct, and for the newer works that wouldn't apply at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels and Corinne). Per your suggestion I have copied the PD tags from the file Discussion page to the File page here. Is that OK? Do any other media files need a similar treatment to pass muster? Thank you for your patience and participation while we resolve this. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Suggest doing the same with the Albeniz file; the others will need more in-depth checking for resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. Done, for Albeniz here. Please provide a checklist of the ones open for discussion. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Between_Two_Seas_("Entre_dos_Aguas")_by_Paco_de_Lucía,_arranged_and_played_by_Laucke.flac and the Satie works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. What would you like to see added to "Entre dos Aguas"? Right now it has CC BY 4.0 and OTRS on the File page. On the discussion page, Laucke states this:
In simple terms: I registered this work with the Canadian copyright organization SOCAN and I, Michael Laucke, detain 100% of its copyright ownership of this public domain work. I am arranger, performer and producer of this work. 'Producer' means that I paid for the production, own this work and make this sample available for free, all rights waived, pending correct attribution.
Please let me know how we need to bolster this. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see confirmation that he is the copyright holder of the original work and not just the arrangement. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must say that I'm very surprised that some of the media in this article are useable, the photos with Paco and Bream especially. It does look like a copyvio or COI or something, but if you did get permission fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dr. Blofeld. Thank you for visiting this FAC. Your peeking in is an honor. We are not worthy. If it puts your mind at ease or makes any difference, the photos with Bream and Paco were by an employee of Laucke's under Laucke's direction, so they are considered a work for hire. Laucke has done an OTRS validated release of their use on the Wikis or anywhere. See you around, hound. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sainsf ...very excited about your kind visit, care and excellent suggestions, with which I mostly agree; ...should be completed within 2 days. ...always a pleasure. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Checkingfax has diligently fixed most things. Sainsf(talk·contribs) 12:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General
As we discussed in the GA review, the tone of the article does not sound too positive anymore, but I feel the lack of counter-views. Has Laucke been criticised or been involved in any controversy? It would be amazing if he has not been, as almost every biography I come across here does discuss some criticism or controversy.
Done. I did finally find a less favorable critique in The Washington Post on one work performed at the National Gallery; see end of World Tours section.
Check that the article is completely in either American/British English.
Done. Article now conforms entirely to Canadian English.
"Highlights and awards" looks more like, and could be renamed as, "Timeline".
Done.
Lead
The lead does not seem to cover the aspects of Laucke's life before de Lucia's entry. I would recommend adding a few lines covering the sections before "Styles and influences" to the first para of lead.
Done. ...added a few lines, hopefully not too many. Have a look?
I think you should follow a chronological order in the lead. As such, the line he began performing in 1965, recording the first of 16 albums in 1969 (early life) appears misplaced.
Done; better chronological order
I think the third para may be praising Laucke a bit too much. Could be trimmed.
suggestion for trim?
As the lead should mention only the most important facts, I would suggest trimming it to "Laucke has studied with several classical guitar players, including Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Rolando Valdés-Blain. With his more than 100 transcriptions of classical and flamenco music, Laucke is credited with having broadened the guitar repertoire. Several notable Canadian composers have written atonal works for him. SOCAN's The Music Scene magazine considered Laucke to be one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists". He has received many awards and honours throughout his career, including the Grand Prix du Disque for Best Canadian Recording." I am worried this para appears to praise him a bit too much, but if you honestly can not find any controversy involving him to present counter-views, we must have to make do with this. Sainsf(talk·contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trimmed lead; good compromise I think.
Early life
I think Laucke's brother and any other siblings should be mentioned in the first para, as a general introduction to his family.
Done.
Early career
Laucke studied with several classical guitar masters Their names should be linked here, as they are in the lead.
Done.
Laucke was introduced to flamenco by Spanish guitarist Paco de Lucía Wikilink Paco de Lucia, it is his first mention in the main article
Done.
Music critics took note A pretty short line, can be combined with the earlier one.
Done; made into one sentence.
The device measured eight by four inches Can use convert template
Done.
Consistently say "de Lucía" throughout the article.
Done.
Teaching
from his teachers Andrés Segovia, Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Valdès-Blain Looks a bit like repetition to me. Just "his teachers" could do, as you discuss them in the previous section.
All removed.
Styles and influences
He was given, by the Canadian federal and provincial governments When?
Done; reference now indicates date as to 'when', quote and url
and is one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists" "is" looks vague, as of when is his in the top five? Is he still there?
Done; reference now indicates date as to 'when', and url.
Wikilink percussion instruments, acoustics
Done.
Paco de Lucia
He was asked by his mentor, Valdès-Blain "mentor"should be apparent by now, you have mentioned often that he was one of his teachers
Removed.
I think this subsection does not belong to this section, it should rather go to "Early career", where you discuss de Lucia first. The part from Laucke was frequently hired to play at the launches... until the "Teaching" section can be made into another subsection, so that we have three subheadings under "Early career".
It is a bit of a restructuring in this section, but I have conceived how to implement this, ...tomorrow; your outline is good. The three subheadings under "Early career" will be called "Teaching", "Paco de Lucía" and I am trying to find an appropriate name for the third ...perhaps "New York", or "Early accomplishments"?
Done.
"the closest thing to the 18th century intellectual and artistic salon to be found anywhere these days" This quote does not look very relevant here
Deleted.
Contributions to the guitar repertoire
Wikilink "atonal"
Done. Atonal is wikilinked in the lead, and in the Early career section.
The changes fix the issues I found, thanks for your cooperation. However, as I am new to music articles, I would feel more confident to support once someone more acquainted with this field posts a review. Will wait till then. Sainsf(talk·contribs) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sainsf. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but only after at least two of the other three (who are reviewing the prose) have !voted. I am keeping an eye on the goings-on here, by the way. Sainsf(talk·contribs) 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably going to seem rather petty, but I notice some inconsistency in punctuation usage throughout the article. In particular:
Serial commas, or not? Although there are more instances with serial commas, there are also a substantial number of cases where it is omitted. For example, under Flamenco Road album, there are two examples in a row: "(claves, maracas, special castanets mounted on wood blocks, chimes and a large gong), bass and flute", and in the second paragraph of the same section, two more: " claves, maracas and castanets" and "three trumpets, three pianos and a 'country-style' violinist", alongside two counter-examples using the serial comma: "five guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical, and electric guitars)" and "a rhythm section consisting of bongos, four congas, and a rock drum set". Naturally, this criticism does not apply to direct quotations from sources (or to institutional names) not employing the serial comma,.
Done.
Logical quotations. I see many article on Wikipedia that assume logical quotation means always putting a closing comma or period after the quotation mark, but this is not the case, and this style seems to be well-implemented here, but there are some cases that may be mistakes. The difficulty with this style of punctuation (preferred on Wikipedia) is knowing when a closing punctuation mark is part of the quoted material or not. For example, the section Original works ends with a quotation from Claude Vivier (translated from the French) that ends in a complete sentence, so the period at the end belongs inside the quotation mark. (The reference note here has a typo in it, by the way: "Canadian compser Claude Vivier", and this title does not appear to be exact, since the title in the URL begins with the word "Renowned" and continues "for Michael Laucke". The next section, "World tours", contains apparently conflicting examples. In the first paragraph, one newspaper quotation (from Soleil) ends with the period before the closing quotation mark, but this is immediately followed by another with the period after the quotation mark. This might be correct, if the second example (from Guitarra magazine) is actually an incomplete quotation, but it has the appearance of a complete sentence, just like the first one. The second paragraph also has two quotations from the Washington Post, both of which appear to be complete sentences, but the first has the period after the quotation mark, and the second one before it.
Done.
I share the concern of other commentators about the over-intensive use of citations. One thing that would help a little is if clusters of citations could be combined into single footnotes. The additional use of content notes aggravates the problem. I have always felt in such cases that, if the material in the note is worth retaining, then it should be incorporated into the main text. Banishing it to a footnote not only makes it appear unworthy of notice; it is also distracting for the reader.
Done. Maximum number of sequential citations is presently two, mostly at the end of sentences or paragraphs. Several citations, mostly critique quotes and such, were moved to footnotes in order to keep better focus, improve flow and be less disruptive. Using these footnotes is more in keeping with the general thrust of the article. Instead of deleting slightly divergent information which the reader may still find relevant, it is relegated to a footnote instead of in the body where it felt slightly intrusive.
The footnotes need to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to make the formatting consistent. I notice that an assortment of templates have been employed, which need to be handled with care. These all contain two sets of parameters, the "author=" parameter, and the "last="/"first=" pair. It is common on Wikipedia (though not, in my experience, in the publishing world at large) to confuse the intended use of these parameters. The former (in which the author's name is given in normal order) is intended for footnotes, while the latter, which inverts the name, is for alphabetised lists. There are several citations here using the correct name order for footnotes ("Nancy Louden", "Hazelle Palmer; Nancy Louden", "Alfred Fisher", "Nancy McGregor", "Eric McLean"), but many more using inverted name order (e.g., "Urquhart, Carl", "Plant, John", "Deschênes, Bruno"). While I personally deplore the latter practice in footnotes, the important thing is that a consistent style be adopted. The placement of bracketed year of publication (and, worse, day-moth-year of publication) immediately after the author's name is also a layout feature for alphabetical bibliographies (and the day-year matter belongs wityh the issue number, not in the brackets after the author's name), but objecting to this is futile, since there is no option offered by the templates, as far as I am aware.
Done.
On the whole, I find this not only an informative but also entertaining article (the bit about yo-yo championships is particularly endearing), though despite recent toning-down it does still occasionally veer into an overly promotional tone (too many laudatory newspaper reviews, for example). I think this aspect should be given serious reconsideration, though I have no opinion on what should be cut and what should be allowed to remain. I hope these rather finicky comments will prove useful, and result in an improved, Feature-worthy article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jerome Kohl. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things have definitely gotten better, but I think a vote is premature. Punctuation is still rather scrappy. For example, in the section Paco de Lucía, the second and fourth sentences each contained a superfluous comma: "He was asked by Valdès-Blain, if he would mind sharing ..." and "In the Quebec, French-language newspaper Le Soleil, ...". I have removed these already, as they seemed uncontroversial edits, but the entire article should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to discover if there are others like them.
The main thing that still bothers me, however, is the superfluity of reference numbers, and the mish-mash of content and reference notes. Are 140 citations really necessary for this article? There are quite a few cases where a single verifying citation ought to be sufficient, and yet there are two in a row. For example, the section "Style and influences" has three such cases (notes 37/38, 39/40, and 5/43). This problem is compounded by the fact that each of the first four contain extended commentaries or quotations (at least some of which properly belongs in content notes, since they are being used separately in this article anyway). This already extravagant situation is compounded by having citation notes embedded in many of the content notes—most notably the tenth and last content note, which contains no fewer than eight footnotes. The confusion is increased further by having a cluster of content notes (3, 4, 5, and 6) all linked from the same number in the text, so that the following content-note numbers do not correspond to the numerals found in the text. At least one of these (content-note 7) fails to link back to its place in the text, making it impossible to tell what it is meant to be commenting on. Another example occurs in the section "World tours", where the first sentence ends "on the Great Wall of China", followed by two footnote numbers, 76 and 8. The first note seems relevant ("China Minister of Culture letter"), but clicking on the second appears to link to the footnote with "Building Is His Hobby", about seven-year-old Michael's toothpick-boat project! It takes some detective work to discover that this "note 8" actually links to content-note 10, "Other countries where Laucke performed include ...". One makeshift solution would be to cause the content notes to be identified with letters instead of numbers but, in my opinion, the content notes should be eliminated altogether, by incorporating the information into the main text where it is useful, and simply omitting any that are not. The excessive annotation gives a defensive appearance to the article. It should not be necessary to annotate separate words in the same sentence, as in the third sentence of the Transcriptions section, or the egregious content-note 10 (alias 8). It is usual to collect all the supporting citations at the end of a sentence, and WP:CITEBUNDLE should also be considered here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax and Jerome Kohl: I am eager to attend to these interesting and generally excellent recommendations over the next few days. Although the LDR (list-defined references) technology used is incompatible with bundling, I have quite a few ideas on how to clear up the navigation, content and reference notes issues; and many of the above ideas will be helpful in this regard. Indeed, a single verifying citation may very well be sufficient in most cases. Jerome Kohl's reasoning seems very sound to me; considering this broad overview, it is perhaps time to reduce citations which exist simply because editors insisted on them and reduce their abundance. Merci Jérôme; j'apprécie beaucoup votre contribution et votre temps. Je veillerai à ce que la mise en œuvre de vos commentaires soit fructueuse. Cordialement, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 08:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax:Jerome Kohl Here is a quick update. Following your excellent suggestions, I subsequently made 70 edits, deleted 20 references—down from 140 references to 120. The content Notes section (11 references) was eliminated altogether by incorporating the information into the main text, where it is useful, and deleting any that were not. I more carefully matched references with precisely the correct sentence and did some reference bundling too. So that was an amazingly productive collaboration , for which I send once again my profound thanks. Work remains to be done on citations and the discography section. ...and the question raised on my talk page about '|Quotes=' translated in Citations and original language inclusion, or not. If you would like to peruse the article again, I would be delighted and of course any further recommendations are most welcome. ...more soon. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 07:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Michael Bednarek (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). The Michael Laucke article is more than a biography. In fact it originally was all about the music and little about the person. Furthermore, this article contains multimedia: images, a signature, audio, and video, including atonal works and the Gymnopédies. The discography/filmography article is new and still being refined. Thank you for your observations. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hello Michael Bednarek Thank you so much for your interesting input, and also for your posting at Category talk:Gymnopédies. I am most interested to learn of the results there and have 'watched' that page. Regarding the related discography article, you are correct of course in that it does need some refining when it comes to categories. Thank your for spurring me on in this area; I now intend to put more time on this task. Expanding on Checkingfax's comments, at its inception the Michael Laucke article seemed to be almost exclusively about atonal music, one of my main interests/passions. Besides the 25 atonal works written for, dedicated to and performed by Laucke, some in Carnegie Hall, there's also the fact that most of these 25 composers are wikilinked in the article, so a rich tapestry emerges here around atonal music. Laucke is also one of 3 guitarists in the world to have performed what has been called, arguably, the world's most difficult atonal composition, Boulez's 'le Marteau sans Maitre' (The Hammer without a Master). ...a 21 minute atonal work won the guitarist a Grand Prix du disque, and so on. So there are just so many connections to atonal music that we think the atonal music category should remain. Again, your time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 22:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax and Lingzhi: Hello Michael Bednarek, You are correct. Seen from a broader perspective, you have deftly made a very valid point. "Laucke' is not an atonal composition just as "Donizetti" is not an opera himself. If there is ever a category called "Performers who play atonal works", than that might fit the bill. Until then, I have deleted Category:Atonal compositions since its links should be to atonal compositions. ...even godfather Arnold Schoenberg doesn't display this category. So it is gone, withered away like the proverbial tide over the sandcastles until we say "What was it, where did it go" . Many thanks, kind regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Michael Bednarek. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you requested, I have gone through the whole article, including the 'Notes' section, in order to check all punctuation. There are three comments I would make: 1. Serial commas - I decided to re-instate serial commas, because of this specific case, where I felt we really needed the serial comma, otherwise the adjectives 'classical' and 'electric' would have seemed to qualify the preceding 'Spanish', which made no sense. Yes, I am aware that the enumeration makes it clear that we are talking about four types of guitars (I added 'types' in the prose to strengthen the point even more) and so, logically, we shouldn't need the serial comma. However, I added it because there were already some serial commas upstream in the article and, therefore, I decided to apply serial commas consistently and throughout the article. Having said all this, I just hope I have really been consistent, as I was also needed away from the Wiki today. In any case: you are the creatrix of this article and I will let you decide whether you want them or not; if not, then I will go through another pass of removing all serial commas. It makes no difference to me, so please don't hesitate to indicate your preference and it will be done with grace. 2. Other edits - As you have already noticed, I have done a bit more than check punctuation. In fact, it is this simple task of checking punctuation which has made me re-read the prose with greater scrutiny than ever before () and, as a result, I found several opportunities to re-word it in a way that I thought might improve the reader's experience. If there is anything you dislike in these changes, then please don't be bashful () and tell me exactly what you want changed. Better still, feel free to revert or "re-improve" (there should be such a verb...) any of my changes; I promise I won't mind... 3. Possible regressions in the prose - If I have done anything wrong, then please forgive me and simply go ahead and revert/change anything you don't like.
Finally, I didn't add any supporting comments in the article's talk page, but please feel free to crib any of the above, to add it as a summary to some other talk/project page if you deem it appropriate or necessary.
Enjoy the final stretch and, as ever, I send you my very best wishes of success with the heady heights of your current drive towards FA. (Wow, just writing this last sentence makes me feel so high I am having a 'mental nosebleed'... ).
With kindest regards, as ever;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax: Hello Pdebee. Thank you so much; ...much appreciated. I have taken the pleasure to carefully study each and every one of your fine edits and found them all tastefully and deftly done indeed! Serial commas are now consistently implemented throughout, in fact, very consistently , and no further adjustment is required. The re-wording was excellent and I only reverted the SOCAN/Montreal Gazette sentences to point to the correct references. Finally, as you can see, I transcluded your comments to this Featured article candidates comments page. It remains for me to send my gratitude for your astute, meticulous, and skillful editing, 'et d'avoir passé le peigne fin'. If I can further be of help with your Québécois/French translations, or with other languages for that matter, you know where to find me . Toutes mes salutations les plus amicales et mes vœux les plus aimables, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 07:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi, Pdebee, and Checkingfax: In the interest of continuing this thread and at the same time respecting the conciseness of this FA revew page, I have copied Pdebee's kind response onto his talk page here. His comments were immensely helpful and his acknowledgement deeply appreciated. I believe I may be responsible for the mix-up since I simply copied the text without implementing the transclusion code. ...too much haste I guess... 'you have to run twice as fast to stay in the same place '. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels…as within, so without 14:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open around six weeks and we're clearly a long way from achieving consensus to promote; I'd suggest that after further improvements Peer Review should be the next stop before considering a re-nomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the first first-class cricket match played in Australia and therefore holds significant historical relevance in the world of sports, as Australia is one of the major cricket playing nations. I had nominated this article in February 2016 as an FA candidate. While Nikkimaria had helped then in ensuring the media usage notices for each of the images was appropriately placed on the relevant image files, Casliber and AustralianRupert had given quite helpful suggestions with respect to improving the article. I had become quite indisposed at that time, so wasn't able to complete the suggested changes then. Since then, I have added thousands of words and details to the article as per the suggested edits of Casliber and Australian Rupert. I have to mention the additional guidance of AustralianRupert and Anotherclown, who provided critical improvements to the article in between then and now. Below I have reproduced the comments of the reviewing editors in the first FA review; the comments in red by the side of their reviews are my new replies relevant to this FA review.
The archive of the main comments from the first FA nomination discussion; my new comments are given in Red
Ok, reading this through now - interesting topic. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get a sense of context - i.e. how soon was the second first class match played..why was there none before this and why (and when) was this made the first one. Was this the "official" Tasmanian team or was there another team in Hobart? You don't have to add much but a little context would help alot here. (Done and details added. Xender Lourdes (talk))
Also, with the crowd - any mention on how much tickets cost? was this a bigger than expected turnout? Or smaller? (No idea about tickets cost in any reference, but have added a few details of the crowd. Xender Lourdes (talk))
Some of the sentences are a bit on the abrupt side. (Identified and repaired. Xender Lourdes (talk))
Rather than link "intercolonial" to the wiktionary adjective, you might wanna link that to Intercolonial cricket in Australia....(that article also mentions something about the match being related to Victoria becoming a colony, which I think would be relevant to this article) (Done both. Xender Lourdes (talk))
The match could be buffed a bit - e.g. maybe add who were the openers who came in at first -more sequential... (This took the maximum time. Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
It's a bit of a list, but either the facts are there or they aren't if not available, just note them. back later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))[reply]
G'day, fascinating topic. Long time cricket fan, but I rarely edit such articles, so I can't say I'm really qualified to give much advice here, although I will try to offer something. These are my suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to see a larger lead section for a Featured Article - perhaps if you expand the context per Cas Liber's comments, it will give you more content to summarise; (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
I wonder about the title of this article, perhaps "Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land first-class cricket match, 1851" might be more intuitive? (I tried this, but was reverted back by another editor who commented that the changed format was not the name style followed. Also, as there is a redirect of First first-class cricket match in Australia and similar sounding terms to this article, I think it's okay to have this title. Xender Lourdes (talk))
"11 February 1851 – 12 February 1851" --> "11–12 February 1851"? (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
"over (cricket)" is overlinked (no pun intended); (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
I think you could get away with moving the images of the captains up the page a little, so that they are not impinging on the References section (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
I'm not sure about the formatting of your references. I know it is not a requirement to use a template like {{cite web}}, but the current formatting looks a bit strange to me. For instance, it is more normal to include the wikilink with the title, rather than the by line. Also, some of your citations begin with authors, and others don't, giving the impression of an inconsistent approach (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
There is a large focus on stating someone was the first to do something, and to be honest, I think this is a distraction from the actual narrative. E.g. "so so was the first opening batsman", I don't think this is really worth a mention. It was the first first-class match, so it kind of goes without saying. (My opinion only, please feel free to disagree); (As I've written a lot more in the match proceedings section, I believe this issue reads much better within the article now. Xender Lourdes (talk))
"Melbourne Cricket Club chose the colours red, white and blue..." --> what colours did VDL wear? (Could not find out from any source. Xender Lourdes (talk))
perhaps explain what a "timeless cricket match" means? (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
in the Background section perhaps you could state whether the players were paid, or if they were amateurs? How were the teams selected? i.e what competition did they come from (local club cricket, or something else?), were they from all sections of society, or just from a small group, etc. (Done and added a lot. Xender Lourdes (talk))
perhaps you could add an Aftermath type section that discusses when the two teams met again, and maybe when they changed their names to Victoria and Tasmania (as opposed to Port Phillip and Van Diemen's Land)? Did this match up develop into a significant rivalry between the two states? (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
did the players in the match go on to represent their colonies again, or was this the only match they played? (Added. Xender Lourdes (talk))
I will reiterate what I had mentioned in my first nomination; that I am still a fairly new editor here so apologise in advance if either this nomination is not in order or there are issues with the article. I hope this article can be given guidance and suggestions to enable it to come up to the FA criteria. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret: The article has been much expanded since its previous FAC nomination in April, but a brief glance reveals serious problems related to overdetailing, uncited statements (whole paragraphs in some cases), single-sentence paragraphs, etc. And there is some weird prose, e.g.: "the cricket ground was rough and wobbly..." – wobbly? Is that a description of a cricket ground?
Other strange phrasing included "the toss was taken", and "with Tabart and Arthur batting at 2 and 0 respectively". There's much, much more, and the account of the final stages of the match is particularly confusing. So I think the text needs a pretty thorough overhaul, preferably with the help of someone with FAC experience who is knowledgeable in cricket, like User: Sarastro1 if you're lucky enough to get him. I respect the effort that has gone into researching this interesting and historic match but unfortunately, at present, the prose is not near to featured standard. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Also with regret but I fear this will become a very lengthy exercise in rework, and FAC is not intended to be the place for that (though it does happen, more than it should). I endorse Brian's suggestions and recommend also that you try a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that. Thank you Ian (and Brian too). Will reapply once the article is edited to FA standards. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines and current congresswoman. She is famous for her shoe collection and her marriage to former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. During her time as First Lady, she traveled the world met with world leaders and buy artwork. She still serves the Philippines through her work in Congress. Imeldific (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Should use scaling rather than fixed image sizes, per MOS:IMGSIZE
Can you explain how the flags in Legacy meet MOS:FLAGICON?
File:Imelda-alone.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Marcos_Clark_Air_Base_cropped.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. I commented on the previous nomination of this article, and have made some comments on the recent RFC on the talkpage.
Firstly, I am pleased to see that many of the problems I had with the article in its previous candidacy (and one that I didn't raise, but noticed) have been fixed. I haven't yet gone through the article properly, but a few comments:
The images don't appear to have any alt text, which is important for accessibility.Fixed
The gBooks link to Pedrosa (2016) is broken for me. It returns "Your search - isbn:6214100834 - did not match any book results." (I haven't systematically checked the links, others may also be broken). Fixed (though NB there may still be broken links).
There are various references to books without specifying page number/chapter/anything which would help a reader find the claim which is being cited. Currently to (in order of appearance) Garcia (1969), Garcia (2016), Pedrosa (2013), Sagmayoa (1986), Kumar (2004), Pedrosa (2016). Could the pages referred to be cited?
The citation format for the bibliography is inconsistent. Location, publisher, ISBN, and OCLC number all appear for some but not all of the items. Also, the "Lastname, firstname" order is not always respected (e.g. in Aquino et al.).
Done, except for the oclc part. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Serin et al., the date is given as "179". Is this meant to be "1979" or something else?Fixed
There are also prose issues:
In the lead: "Imelda Marcos was born in Manila but later moved to Tacloban prior to World War II after the death of her mother during her childhood."
Also in the lead "The Marcos family were forced into exile, and Aquino's widow Corazon was installed as president. After her husband's death, she returned to the Philippines": make it "after her husband's death, Marcos returned", otherwise it appears that the article is referring to Corazon Aquino.
Hi, Caeciliusinhorto. I believe I addressed this confusion while I was passing through. Go have a look-see. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In "Power struggle": "The location where her shoes and jewelry were destroyed and the contents stolen."
On reflection, some more comments (for clarity, made after Checkingfax's endorsements of my comments).
I'd like to see more detail, especially about Marcos' role as first lady. The article says that she was Minister for Human Settlements, but only gives very brief details about what she did in that role. The comments on her role as ambassador basically just say that she made lots of powerful friends, which I'm sure is true, but she must have done other things with greater historical significance than go out to dinner with the Nixons! Her involvement in the Libyan peace treaty, for instance, must have more to say about it than simply that it happened.
The description of the Green revolution given in the article ("intended to address hunger by encouraging the people to plant produce in household gardens") is entirely different from the article linked. I'm not sure whether this is because the article is referring to something else also called the Green revolution, or whether the article is misunderstanding what the Green revolution was; in the first case it needs unlinking, in the second, fixing.
Books published by Lulu.com are generally considered to be self-published sources, which are generally not considered reliable. Why should we consider The Great Gold Swindle reliable?
Similarly, CreateSpace, iUniverse, and AuthorHouse are all listed as self-publishing companies. Why should we consider the books cited as published by these companies reliable?
eBookIt.com isn't listed in that list, but appears from its website to be a self-publishing company. Again, the same question.
About content
The section on Legacy appears to be just a list of trivia in prose form. Has there been any discussion of her legacy in reliable sources?
What is her legacy outside of music? Did any of her actions as first lady have lasting effects on Filipino politics, for instance?
Why are foreign honours she was awarded as first lady in the section on her legacy?
Hi, Imeldific. I made several deep polishing passes starting here. I agree with everything Caeciliusinhorto said. Ping me back when the FA review process has moved further along and I will be happy to comment or !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding 2 more varied images. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go down into the Bibliography, find the two Pedrosa sources, and click their links. Go ahead. I dare you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having arguments between nominator and other significant editors? If so, please spare everyone the headache and withdraw nomination now – resolve your probs before coming here. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Checkingfax. Imeldific (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Imeldific. You are welcome. Now, take each line item from Caeciliusinhorto, fix it, and mark it as Fixed. as you move down their laundry list. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete actually fixed Checkinfax's edit before you left this message. Pincrete could see that this edit was constructive unlike the many that preceded it which were in direct contravention of talk discussion.Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pincrete (with cc to Imeldific). Thank you for putting one of my two fixes back. That leaves one more to put back. Why are y'all having parallel discussions on the talk page? You need to unify. Bring your constructive comments and constructive criticism over here. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Checkingfax, I don't believe I removed the other one, if I did I will restore and apologise. I'm sorry, as far as I know the place for article discussion is the talk page, where ongoing participation of all involved editors, ongoing RfC's etc is possible. I have no objection to your specific points, however FaC is being used by Imeldific to 'sneak edit' in order to bypass the talk processes on certain key issues. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry book error was my fault, fixed.Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Need feedback from Caeciliusinhorto and Lingzhi. Imeldific (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy for feedback from either, however proper place for discussion of content is article talk page, not by Imeldific using FaC to go against views of other article editors. Pincrete (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is now in the talk page. Imeldific (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'm going to archive this nom and recommend that all interested parties work on improvements outside the FAC process and try for another peer review before considering a re-nomination. A few pieces of advice in passing, based on a quick scan:
Procedural: There's no need to transclude the FAC to the article talk page, there's already a link at the top of the talk page (leave comments).
Quotes such as "the other half of the conjugal dictatorship" should be attributed inline, as in according to so-and-so, she became "the other half of the conjugal dictatorship".
"she forced a plane to do a U-turn mid-air just because she forgot to buy cheese in Rome" -- the "just" is unnecessary.
"Her claimed fortune came from Yamashita's gold" -- perhaps you mean "it is claimed that her fortune came from Yamashita's gold", but it's hard to tell the way it's expressed.
Comments by Nick-D (edit conflict during FAC closing)[edit]
Strong oppose This article fails FA criterion 1b as it is much too short to provide adequate coverage of Marcos' life and 1d as it's non-neutral. It also fails 1c as many of the works in the biography are self-published, and no serious attempt appears to have been made to consult good quality works on Filipino history of the Marcos era. Marcos has been an internationally-known and highly controversial figure for decades, yet the article has only 30 kb of prose text, and quickly passes over major details. For instance:
"Her role in the presidency was controversial partly because she was involved in altercations with celebrities" - not really. She's controversial for being half of a dictatorial couple and allegedly being involved in very large scale corruption
" She purchased property in Manhattan in the 1980s, including the US$51 million Crown Building,[51][52] the Woolworth Building in 40 Wall Street, and the US$60 million Herald Centre.[53] She declined to buy the Empire State Building because she felt it was "too ostentatious." - where did the money for this come from?
"While her husband began to suffer from lupus erythematosus, she effectively ruled in his place" - from what dates, and what did she do as the (effectively) acting president?
"With accusations against her beginning to rise" - what accusations?
"Ferdinand created the Agrava Commission, a fact-finding committee, to investigate her, ultimately finding her not guilty." - did this commission have any legitimacy?
"The exact number of her shoes varies with estimates of up to 7,500 pairs. However, Time reported that the final tally was only 1,060" - why is the 1986 Time story being privileged over the 2006 CNN story which provides a higher figure?
"Her claimed fortune came from Yamashita's gold, a semi-mythical treasure trove that is widely believed in the Philippines to be part of the Japanese loot in World War II" - what total and utter rubbish. The money is believed to have come from corruption with many reliable sources being available to attest to this (eg, [5], [6], [7], [8]) yet this is barely mentioned.
Why is her 1993 conviction for corruption [9] not mentioned?
It's dubious to present Marcos' various legal victories without context - even a quick review of the literature indicates many were dubious at best. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the sophomore studio album recorded by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. I strongly believe that the article overall satisfies the criteria needed, with it being well-written and properly sourced.
Comment
Dear lord how many different tracklists does that section have?! All you need is the international version (since the others are so very similar) and a note that says something like "Different versions of Unlocked were released for the Japanese, Spanish and German markets. They feature modified tracklists, bonus tracks and remixes." There is no need of listing out every last variant.—indopug (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'm afraid this nom has been a bit of a non-starter so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given so little commentary, you can re-nominate without observing the usual two-week break that's required between unsuccessful noms, but I think it'd be worth having a go at Peer Review to try and generate some interest before returning here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Let's try this again. Ben Crosby was an early football player and coach who died before he could really do anything. This might be the shortest article I ever bring to FAC. Researching it was a pain because he's the second-most obscure of all Navy football coaches, behind the guy who my primary source said has disappeared from the historical record. There is not much to this article; it's all about either playing football or coaching football or being forgotten by football. I nominated the article earlier this year and got an image review. Hopefully I can get someone to copyedit my choppy prose. Thanks, A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Notice: I will probably be limited in my ability to respond to your concerns for the following month because of IB exams. Sorry for any inconvenience.[reply]
Comments – Sorry that nobody has stopped by to give you a review so far, and that you didn't receive much commentary at the first FAC. I made some copy-edits here and there which you'll want to check. Here are some things I spotted:
You have a tendency to "bury the lead" in a couple of places in the lead, reversing what seems to be the logical order of items in a sentence. For example, the very first sentence of the article is "Benjamin Lewis Crosby , Jr. was an American law student and football player and coach." Why is the law student part put first in this sentence, when Crosby's football career is the reason an article on him is considered notable in the first place? The fact that he was a law student might be worth mention, but not as the first thing the reader sees.
Corrected.
"Crosby attended Yale University beginning in 1889, where he was a popular student and sportsman." Since "where" is in reference to the school and not the year, the sentence should be changed so that the school comes directly before the comma.
I attempted to fix this.
"Crosby was a backup on the crew team and a two-year starter on the football team." Again, I'd move the football part up in the sentence, since that is more important than his time on the crew team.
Done.
"Notably" should be removed, since I'd hope something in a lead would be notable.
Got rid of it.
I see a couple of "however"s in the lead, which is usually a sign of wordiness. Try finding ways of removing some in the article, through rephrasing or just taking them out.
Down to just two "however"s in the article.
Early life and college: "both he and John A. Hartwell ... were both injured in a game." Remove one of the "both"s to avoid redundancy.
Got rid of the latter one.
Coaching career: We don't need two Army Black Knights football links in this section, even though I do love the team (as bad at football as they may be).
Only one link now. Also, 14 years and counting...
"against the Penn Quakers. The Quakers...". Try not to have the team name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this. You could try "against the Penn Quakers in Annapolis. The Quakers...", which would at least move it a couple more words away.
Reworded it per suggestion.
If you fix these prose issues, the article should be in better shape. While I wish there was more to read, there isn't going to be that much material about a man who is primarily notable for one coaching season, and I don't think that should be a barrier to FA by itself. The article appears to be extensively researched, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't comprehensive. When I typed the subject's name into Google for kicks, around half the articles that popped up related to Bing Crosby, so I'm impressed you found as much as you did. I could see myself supporting this, but would like a quick scan for further writing points like the ones I found. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to respond. I have made all of your suggested changes and I went back through the article and made a couple more changes. There might be more that can be improved, but I'm not good at spotting it. Thanks again, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There was one remaining duplicate wikilink, which I took the liberty of fixing. That was the last thing that I spotted. As I said before, this is a solid piece of research, and I think it meets the standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed, per discussion last time around. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something
his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)
Comments – I just removed a bunch of extraneous blank spaces that our templates seem to put in. Not a requirement for any review, but eliminating them decreases bytes on server usage. Other comments:
"Navy had requested that Camp serve as coach" At this particular place, it reads awkward to me. Did the team make the request or did the Academy? Possibly change to "The Academy requested", or perhaps "The Navy team requested"
Section Death and legacy could use some improvements, and loses me a bit on how it's put together.
"Crosby had, reportedly, contracted a "severe cold" during his time as a head coach, which continued to affect him after the season." Seems to have a lot of commas. Personally, I think you could eliminate the commas before and after "reportedly" and still convey the same thing.
State the year of his death.
The sentence "Crosby's coaching position was filled by Yale teammate John A. Hartwell." should be right after his death.
"who was subsequently replaced by another Yale teammate, William Wurtenburg." doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article. Can this be taken out, or do you think it has significance to the article?
Break into new paragraphs right after his death, or a sentence or two followed by a sourced mini-list. For instance:
"Crosby has been largely forgotten outside of Navy football history, however..." (complete the sentence)
His replacement as Yale end by Frank Hinkey was discussed in magazines until at least the 1920s. (What were they discussing? Why is this significant?)
In his one season as a head coach, Crosby amassed a record of 5–2 and his team outscored their opponents 146–64. The five wins are tied for the seventh-fewest of any Navy coach, but third-most of single-season coaches.
Crosby has the third-fewest losses among Navy coaches. His .714 win percentage is tied for the tenth-highest of any Navy coach.
(my rewording on this) The most significant impact that Crosby had with Navy was through his hiring of Dashiell. The latter would serve as assistant until 1903 under the eight Navy coaches. As head coach from 1904 to 1906, Dashiell brought Navy to national prominence and won 25 games. He later became one of the longest-serving members of the college football Rules Committee, helping to legalize the forward pass and ban the flying wedge, among other things.
Hope this has been helpful to you. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note - A Texas Historian, where are we on addressing Maile's comments? I will need to archive the nomination if you are no longer attending to it. --Laser brain(talk) 16:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not replying earlier. I've had exams for the past couple weeks and I haven't been able to do much editing. The exams are over on Wednesday, so after then I'll be able to address the concerns. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 16:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever" and "succumbed to the effects of typhoid fever" within a couple of lines of each other; can this be rewritten to avoid repetition?
I've looked at the sources and they seem fine; I have not done a spotcheck, and I have not looked at the images. I expect to support once the minor issue above is fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month since Laser brain asked for responses to Maile's comments and we're still waiting so I think we need to archive this and give the nominator time to work on things outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Wings for My Flight, a small, yet deeply engaging book about author Marcy Cottrell Houle's challenges protecting a family of peregrine falcons at Chimney Rock National Monument in Colorado, at a time when peregrine falcons were on the verge of extinction. The events described in the book happened in 1975 – the ensuing global effort to save the peregrine falcons was remarkably successful. In 1999, nine years after Wings for My Flight was first published, the peregrine falcon was removed from the U.S. Endangered Species list, securing the victory for Houle, which she comments on in the 2014 revised edition of the book.
This article was reviewed at GAN by User:Cirt last October, and I took it for a peer review these past few months, getting some great feedback from User:J Milburn and User:Moisejp. Ultimately, this is my first FAC, so hopefully I haven't screwed anything up too badly. Respectfully submitted, Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like you @Mz7:, I am also a newcomer to Featured Articles, having only critiqued one other and having just nominated my very first FAC article. However, I do have a very strong interest in this subject (I established a peregrine falcon webcam project on an urban nest site in England ten years ago which I still run today.) So, I understand the subject matter well, am clearly extremely biased, but have not read the book!
My initial impressions is that this is well-written and well-referenced article which provides a good flavour of what the book was about, how it was received and, of course, the background to the story. I found it very interesting (but am somewhat biased, as I said).
It could do with some minor tweaks to the text, which I will outline below on a sentence-by-sentence basis, and over various posts. I'll omit wikilinks and references. If I make any mistakes as a reviewer I'd welcome being corrected by other more experienced users.
Two of the three images are lacking alt-text.
Lead section. This seems of an appropriate length. I felt the first paragraph focussed just a little too quickly on the details of causes of the demise of the peregrine falcon. The article is about the book, and I suggest the demise of the peregrine is put a little lower down within the lead. I need to know about Chimney Rock, too, of course, and shouldn't have to rely on wikilinks anywhere within the article to help me understand a name or a term.
"...where one of the last pairs of peregrine falcons was discovered" tense suggest: "had been discovered" (give date if poss)
Done. Couldn't find a specific date, unfortunately. Mz7 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"To protect the falcons, Houle had to halt a million-dollar project to build a tourist attraction for ancient Anasazi ruins in the area and faced harassment by the Chimney Rock community as a result." reword I don't think the facility was designed to attract ancient Anasazi ruins, was it? Would "opposition and harassment" be an appropriate description?
Done. I rephrased it as: To protect the falcons, Houle had to halt a million-dollar project turn ancient Anasazi ruins in the area into a tourist attraction and faced opposition and harassment by the Chimney Rock community as a result. However, doesn't "harassment" already imply opposition? I suppose that not all of the opposition was harassment, though. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The community eventually showed concern for Houle, however, after her trailer was burglarized." I write this, not having read further on, but the simple act of burglary (is burglarize actually a real word, btw?) does not quite make the link for me. I'm guessing her trailer was broken into in an act of intimidation to get her to leave)
I just reread the relevant passage in the book. Houle never found out who broke into her trailer, so she never found out exactly why it was vandalized, but it was probably to intimidate her. It's not our job to speculate, though. "Burglarize" is an Americanism that another British editor at WP:PR got annoyed at too, heh heh. I've changed it to "broken into and vandalized" – hopefully that looks better for international readers. ;) The community's response to the burglary is surprisingly heartwarming. Houle expected the community to rejoice at her misfortune, given their indignation towards her presence at Chimney Rock, but they would not tolerate such a massive crime – thousands of dollars in scientific equipment was stolen, and that provoked the morality of the community and caused it to rally behind Houle. It's an interesting twist in the story, one that I fear I didn't explain well enough in the summary. I'll look into it over the weekend. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wings for My Flight was originally published in hardcover by Addison-Wesley in 1991. The book was republished in 1999 by Pruett Publishing and again in 2014 by the University of New Mexico Press." Get rid of the red link and tighten up these two sentences. Is it republished, or reprinted? Or a revised 2nd edition with extra content?
I tried to make it more clear by adding additional details: Wings for My Flight was originally published in hardcover by Addison-Wesley in 1991. The book was republished in 1999 by Pruett Publishing with a foreword by Robert Michael Pyle and a new preface and epilogue by Houle. The book was updated again in 2014 and republished by the University of New Mexico Press with photographs and a preface by Houle touching upon the recovery of the peregrine falcon.Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The book co-received the Oregon Book Award in 1991 and was also awarded a Christopher Award for books in 1992" It might be nice within the lead to know briefly what these awards were both for without having to follow the wikilinks or to read further down.
Done. Briefly added a description of both awards. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Library Journal described the book as "well-crafted and compelling",[1] while the Los Angeles Times referred to the book as "heartfelt", although "naive and overdrawn at times".[2]" Two comments here: 1) I'm sure I was read another reviewer say that FA leads should not contain citations', so think about removing this and ensuring it is cited later on. 2) Try and avoid the use of the same word (book) twice within a single sentence. FA writing should flow well and be a pleasure to read. Just use 'it' or something similar to give more balance to the sentence.
Not done and done. You're right that lead sections should generally not contain inline citations to avoid redundancy, per WP:LEADCITE. However, WP:BURDEN specifically states that all quotations should be cited. LEADCITE advises us that a case-by-case approach is needed, and I think the citations here are appropriate, so that we know exactly where the quotes are coming from. I've changed the repetition of the word "book" to "it" as you suggested. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"By the 1970s, there were no peregrine falcon nests discovered east of the Rocky Mountains,[4]:xii and in the West, peregrine falcon populations had declined by 80 to 90 percent.[3]" The link between these sentences could be enhanced with a 'however' or something similar. I suspect the statement that "no peregrine nests had been discovered" is incorrect. From the similar situation described by scientist, Derek Ratcliffe, here in the UK in the 1960s and 70s, nests were definitely being occupied (=discovered), and eggs were laid, but none were successful at hatching chicks because of the egg shell-thinning problem. This is an important distinction to make. Why is 'West' capitalised?
I'm not sure if "however" is the right link. The second clause complements the first by furthering the description of the major decline; it doesn't oppose it. I did a bit of research, and I'm not sure if the part about the east is inaccurate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when they took the peregrine falcon off of the endangered list, published this directive, which states that Peregrine falcons in the Great Plains states east of the Rocky Mountains and south of the boreal forest in Canada and the United States were also extirpated in the DDT-era. On the other hand, the state of New Jersey published this report in 2010, which states that The eastern population plunged from an estimated 350 active sites in the 1930's and 1940's to no active breeding birds in 1964 or 1975. I think means that some peregrines were found (i.e. discovered) but just not breeding, so they became essentially extinct in that area, so you may be right. I'll keep looking. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Oh, and "West" was capitalized since the Western United States is conventionally referred to as "the West", but I've made it lowercase since we are talking about west of the Rocky Mountains and not the western U.S. in general. Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"By the events of Wings for My Flight, which take place in 1975, only 324 pairs of peregrine falcons were known..." This sentence is a little clumsy. Maybe something like this might be better?: "By the time the events described in Wings for my Flight took place in 1975, only 324 ..."
Done. Reworded to read: By 1975, the year in which the events of Wings for My Flight take place, only 324 pairs of peregrine falcons were known to reside in North AmericaMz7 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In the midst of the peregrine falcon decline, Houle studied biology at Colorado College in Colorado Springs." This seems an odd way of linking two events. Could it be better worded?
How about During the peregrine falcon decline, Houle studied biology...? Mz7 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The institution's block scheduling system allowed Houle to frequently travel to experience various ecosystems in addition to her academic studies." Again, clunky wording. Without following the wikilink I have no idea what block scheduling means, and "to experience various ecosystems" seems an odd phrase to use.
Changed to The institution's block scheduling system meant that Houle had fewer classes each day, allowing her to travel frequently to experience various ecosystems in addition to her academic studies. It might still be a little clunky; I'll think about it. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the experience, Houle had to decide whether to continue pursuing wildlife biology or to instead commit to her passion of writing..." Which experience? Just tweak the wording a bit here. And the split infinitive ('or to instead commit') doesn't sound good either. There's another in the previous sentence, too.
Done. Tweaked to read Following her experience with the peregrine falcons, Houle had to decide whether to continue pursuing wildlife biology or to commit instead to her passion of writing. Also tweaked the split infinitive in the earlier sentence. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wings for My Flight merges both fields and documents Houle's observations of the peregrines and the community at Chimney Rock during her first summer there." a little clunky here. Try: " Wings for My Flight combined both of Houle's interests; it recounted her observations of the peregrines as well as her interaction with the community at Chimney Rock during her first summer there.[6]"
"The peregrine falcon became an endangered species primarily due to the use of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT,[4]:xii, 15 the breakdown of which lowered estrogen levels in the female peregrine bloodstream and inhibited the production of calcium, causing eggs to grow thinner by up to 20 percent. Since peregrine falcons lay their eggs on rocky ledges rather than nests, the thinned shells break under the stress of both the rocky ledge and the weight of the parents during incubation.[4]:15–16" This is very complex I suspect the lay reader needs a phased introduction to this concept. How about something like this: "The peregrine falcon became endangered [around DATE], after almost every clutch of eggs cracked during incubation at their nest sites. This was eventually found to be caused by the widespread use of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT,[4]:xii, 15. Widely used as a seed-dressing [confirm], these passed up through the food-chain and built up in the peregrines' bodies. The breakdown products of DDT lowered estrogen levels in the female peregrine's bloodstream which inhibited the production of calcium. (is 'production of calcium' the right phrase? This caused the eggshells produced by affected birds to be up to 20 percent thinner than normal. These shells then shattered during incubation because of the weight of the parent birds against their hard, rocky nest ledges.[4]:15–16"
I probably fall under the category of "lay reader" personally, and I could understand the concepts. Nevertheless, I see what you mean, and I will be thinking about this over the next few days. Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...and recovery teams in North America and Europe were successful in breeding and training peregrines in captivity to later release to the wild, a procedure called hacking" I've not checked your references, but I am not aware of any European projects breeding and training peregrines in captivity for later release, and almost certainly not in the UK. I'm not saying this hasn't happened - just that in my experience I have not heard of it in Europe - so, I would ask that you re-check this source and ensure it is absolutely correct and supported by a full citation(s) later on.
Done. I was sitting in the library as I was looking over this. I didn't have the source on hand, but it turns out, it was no more than a few steps away from me! Page 34 of the Reader's Digest book says nothing about the hacking procedure performed in Europe. Accordingly, the mention of Europe will stay removed, and I will update Peregrine falcon#Recovery efforts. Thanks for catching that! Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough for now - I'll work on more sections later on (in between monitoring my own breeding peregrines!) Parkywiki (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parkywiki: Thank you so much for your thorough review! Looking through them, your comments are very helpful – should I respond by addressing each bullet point separately, underneath each issue, or should I respond to all of them together in a paragraph underneath the comments? Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it's what you want. I'll try and work through a bit more over the next few days. I'm not sure if there is a protocol for this, but what I found helpful when reviewing Nothomyrmecia was when nominator responded beneath each of my bullet points. Don't use a bullet point or colon to indent, and start each sentence with Done or Not Done, followed by your response/discussion. This lets you and me easily see what's been addressed, and what's left to do, as your response won't be indented. It might not be what others do - but it worked for me! Parkywiki (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parkywiki: Thanks! That sounds reasonable. I should mention that I would consider myself very much a "lay person" on this subject matter. This is a book that I found one day and that piqued my interest – I have no experience actually working with or studying peregrine falcons, so I consider you far more knowledgeable on this topic than me. ;) With regards to the "breeding and training peregrines in captivity for later release," I followed the lead of Peregrine falcon#Recovery efforts, which says that it was done by teams in Germany and Poland, in addition to Canada and the United States, and I borrowed the Reader's Digest source from that article. I've removed the mention of Europe for now and will double-check the source to make sure. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I don't respond now for a week or two - various difficulties at home mean I may not have time to follow up as I'd initially intended. I will do as as and when I can, and it may have to be piecemeal. Parkywiki (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parkywiki: I totally understand. Take your time. :) Mz7 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have responded to most of the concerns. Regarding image alt-text, my understanding was that alt-text was not necessary if the caption or file name adequately explains what the image depicts. I tried to structure the lead similar to how the article is structured, starting with the factual background and moving into a summary of the book's content, then awards and reception. I can see how the lead might put too much emphasis on how the peregrine declined, and I will muse on how I could modify it. Mz7 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parkywiki: Just to let you know, due to a real-life commitment, I will not have access to Wikipedia from June 23 through July 16. I'm not sure how long FACs are allowed to remain open, but it is highly unlikely I will be able to respond to anything during that time. If we're unable to promote this article this time around, that's totally fine. Mz7 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- after remaining open for quite some time, this nom should have been closer to achieving consensus to promote, and also given the nominators's planned absence, I'm going to archive it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been writing articles about Briarcliff Manor, New York, with the ultimate goal of every article reaching the highest status. I wrote most of this over the course of a week and had it reach GA soon after. I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Briarcliff_Library_pre-2007.jpg: the FUR presents this as a logo, which it is not - this needs reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better. I would suggest though using {{Non-free fair use in}} instead of the historic-images tag - it's usually applied to images that are themselves of historic significance (eg. File:TrangBang.jpg) rather than just those that depict historic things. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", paragraph 1: "World War I delayed the progress of the library; in 1921 it was revived, largely due to the efforts of Mrs. Alfred G. Bookwalter; at the time, the Library Board consisted entirely of women." I appreciate the desire to avoid very short sentences, but the double semi-colon is not elegant. Is there a better way to phrase this? Axl¤[Talk] 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the text slightly. Axl¤[Talk] 11:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", paragraph 4: " In 1959, the library received its absolute charter." What is an "absolute charter"? Axl¤[Talk] 10:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", last paragraph: "The library, which had 3,200 square feet (300 m2), had no wireless capacity and poor shelving and lighting, among other problems." It is unclear as to when these problems were highlighted. Given that the subsequent sentence refers to 1980, I infer that the statement applies to 1980 or earlier. If this is the implication, it is unsurprising that the library had no wireless capacity—or indeed internet access at all! Moreover, wireless capacity is not mentioned at all later in the paragraph. (Wi-Fi is mentioned in the subsequent section.) "Among other problems" is somewhat vague. Axl¤[Talk] 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", last paragraph: "The community center has been in development since as late as 2013." Why "as late as 2013" rather than "since 2013"? Axl¤[Talk] 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "History", last paragraph: "an estimated completion date of 2016 and cost of $1,800,000." The reference is from October 2015. Has the community center been completed? If not, is there a more precise estimate for completion date? Axl¤[Talk] 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From "Operations": "As of 2014, the Briarcliff Manor Public Library is open seven days per week, except in August when it is closed each Sunday." Is there a more up-to-date source for opening hours? Most readers won't want to know the opening hours from two years ago. Why is/was it closed on Sundays in August? Axl¤[Talk] 10:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Axl:, thanks for your comments! I fixed the first issue. An absolute charter is a New York State thing; libraries, museums, historical societies, and even public tv & radio stations are registered as educational organizations with NYSED and charters bring all sorts of benefits related to becoming an "official" educational organization. I'm going to look into incorporating this as a note, as it's not really explained elsewhere on Wikipedia. The problems sentence was cited to a 2005 article, which makes sense that no wireless in the late 90s/early 2000s would be an issue, however the library's small size and poor shelving and lights would have likely been a problem for the last 20 or 30 years. I didn't really find it necessary to associate a date then, as long as the reader understands these issues existed prior to the library's expansion. What do you think? I could state "In 2005, it was noted that....", or "In 2005, The New York Times noted that..." The 'among other problems' phrase is vague, however I didn't want to list all the minor problems on the NYT article, and still wanted to express there were more problems than just size, wireless, shelves, and lights; the reader could view the reference to read more?
I wanted to express when the community center was being developed, and the earliest source I found was from 2013, although there's a good possibility it was in development before then, ergo as late as 2013.
There haven't been any more recent online publications about the community center's completion date. I'm inquiring about print resources.
The library schedule hasn't changed (nor has the ref); I'll update to 'as of 2016'. It always closes on Sundays in August for special events to be run, as can be seen here! ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 17:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be clarification of the meaning of "absolute charter", even if this is just a link to another article or a dictionary definition. Incorporation as a note sounds fine.
@Axl: I added a note about provisional and absolute charters. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph about the problems needs to be rewritten. If the formal assessment was undertaken in 2005, that assessment needs to be placed in chronological seqeuence within the paragraph. If, in your opinion, the "other problems" are too trivial to be described in the article, then don't even mention them at all. If you aren't going to do this, I could do it.
It is in chronological order, seeing as the 2005 source was describing problems in the location for its early history (1959-1980). The mezzanine added in 1980 gave it more shelf space, one of the problems listed. I disagree that "other problems" should be removed. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dates of beginning and completion of the community center need to be included—this article is supposed to be reaching FA standard.
Generally it would be good, however you know that nothing in Wikipedia should be unverifiable. The only information I can find about beginning and completion is not verifiable. The information about its planning should be sufficient, and with the actual opening in a week or two, it'll be more complete without a doubt. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The library schedule hasn't changed (nor has the ref); I'll update to 'as of 2016'." Why didn't you do it? I have fixed the problem with a reference to the current opening hours. Axl¤[Talk] 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must have forgotten. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have an ongoing disagreement about the presence of "other problems". You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so. Of course everything should be verifiable, but this does not excuse the absence of relevant information when an article is striving for FA standard. Moreover, the presence of vague or confusing statements is not acceptable.
I realise that Ɱ has worked hard to bring the article to its current state – thank you for improving the article. Unfortunately I don't think that it reaches FA standard yet. Axl¤[Talk] 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so." That statement is unfair, as not only do I acknowledge by stating that the statements are in chronological order, but I won't take up your offer to change it if I don't think it needs changing... Nor should a minor issue like this be an obstacle for FA, nor a sole reason for an oppose vote. Thank you for your input. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Axl: Upon further review, I have edited that sentence, and as well added the (finally published) completion date of the community center. I hope this fulfills your review responses? ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these improvements to the article. However it remains unclear as to when "no wireless capacity" was identified as a problem (and by extension, "poor shelving and lighting"). The start of development of the community center remains vague. Axl¤[Talk] 11:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you write historical articles, but there's always information that can't be known or can't be cited. Sometimes it's merely specifics, like the dates you desire. In this case, I don't think any one party could reliably state when wireless, shelving, and lighting became a prominent issue, nor the exact date when planning for the community center began. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't write historical articles (I have reviewed one GA candidate historical article in the past) but I think that describing this article as a "historical article" is stretching the definition. Anyway, I know that you have rigorously searched for sources so I accept that there is information that cannot be found. According to the FA criteria, the article should be "well-written" and "comprehensive". The absence of any possible source to provide missing information is not a reason to bypass the "comprehensive" requirement. Axl¤[Talk] 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Axl: I appreciate your honesty and recognition. I was indicating that the historical section is similar to historical articles, and likewise will always have absences in information. Those types of articles are my preference and what I usually end up writing about, which influenced me to write this article (I've never written one on a library before). My previous FACs allowed for even greater truths to be left unknown; many elements of history can never be known for sure or will never be known for sure, as opposed to topics like mathematics or science. FA criteria on comprehension recognizes this, that the article must neglect "no major facts or details". I don't believe the dates you request are among major facts about the library. Regardless, I'll restate that these issues aren't well defined that I doubt anyone even then could absolutely state when those issues became a problem or when the community center plans were 'officially' started. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the year it was founded should be mentioned in the first few lines of the lead rather than the 2nd para?
The second lead paragraph has a summary of the entire history, including all the most important dates. In my opinion, a mention in the first lead paragraph would be more disjointed here. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was Mrs. Alfred G. Bookwalter on the staff? What was her position?
The following clause answers that question, though I'm not sure if it's clear enough. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I don't think we need a reword. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On September 22, 1921, the library was registered with the New York State library system, and on March 8–13 of that year, the Briarcliff Free Library was officially opened. Are we going back in time, or is it March 1922?
I double-checked with the source, apparently March comes before September! My mistake. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Around 1939, the library received recently an efficiency rating Why is there a "recently" here?
Elizabeth Kelly was the next librarian We say "librarian" in the preceding and the following line, better say something like "She was followed by Elizabeth Kelly" for variety.
I wrote this out, and it seemed to say Kelly stalked Miller for a year, so I hope my wording suffices! ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current director is Melinda Greenblatt Since when precisely?
2011, according to LinkedIn and the website (weak as it mostly relies on the 'last revised' date). There's no more reliable source for that, or for directors between 1990 and 2011, which is unfortunate. Perhaps I can inquire there for its publication. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the changes. This article has my support on prose. Cheers! Sainsf<^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: pinging other users today for this to receive more attention. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Intro: Too many hyphens at times (see "young-adult", "local-history")
Done.
"World War I delayed the progress of the library, though progress resumed in 1921." Sounds repetitive and clumsy
There was some above talk of rewording, and I was happy with the results. How do you think it could be reworded to be improved?
What exactly does the source say? I'm not quite sure what is meant by "progress" and "progress resuming". The previous rendering said "revived". Forgive me, but I'm going to need the exact meaning in order to suggest an alternative.
The source (Pattison, 1939) says "The war delayed the library's progress and, in 1921, it was revived, Mrs. A. G. Bookwalter being largely instrumental." Progress is hinted to be in developing the library - building its collection, cataloging, and establishing itself with the state.
When indicating changes due to inflation avoid using "today". Try something like "in 2015" or "in 2016", etc.
The inflation template I use actually auto-updates the inflation figures, so the template recommends using either 'today' or using the currentyear template within. I preferred 'today' considering that the template updates; is that sufficient?
Well that guideline states "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date." (emphasis added). Seeing as the template doesn't allow those constructions to go out of date, I don't really see an issue here. In many cases I'd change it, but I'm aiming for consistency with Book:Briarcliff Manor, where those articles' FACs and GANs passed with usage of "today".
Also, and I know it may sound obvious, but briefly indicate that it's US Dollars.
Done.
Be consist when using the percentage sign. I see both percent and %.
Okay.
Full stop should come before the citation at the close of the third paragraph.
That's a really weird instance. The inflation template uses the citation (here, [6]) right after the parentheses, where a full stop and sentence citations would normally follow. So technically I believe the current situation to be correct, however perhaps we should move the sentence citations and full stop before the inflation citation?
Yeah, I was thinking maybe reword the sentence so it doesn't come up like that. Perhaps "its expenditures were ... in 1951."
"In the late 1900s, videocassettes were increasing in popularity..." I assume you mean "late 1990s"
I'm using 'the 1900s' to refer to the century, which is perhaps too ambiguous. I changed it to 'the 1980s and 90s'.
In most instances, 1900s refers to the decade 1900–1909. Late 20th century would be preferable since it keeps the intended meaning, but late 1980s and 1990s is fine too.
"In 1995 a referendum was voted on for a new library of..." Who voted? The library council? "Was voted on" sounds a bit awkward. Consider changing.
Fixed.
"Directors": This section appears rather short and doesn't fit cozily with the length of the others. Consider making a list of directors with their years of service indicated in one bar and comments/notes of the brief history of their work in another.
I'm not sure I get what you mean; can you provide a similar structure existing in another article?
I was thinking of a wikitable with a header reading Name, another header saying Tenure (where the years in which the individuals served would go), and the final one being Notes, where you can provide information relating to the person's time in office. Basically a short list. Was that better? 23 editor (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So like this? --->
It highlights the gap between the 1990s and 2011, and it makes the operations section almost nothing, and would cause the images to shift down pretty far, into the "see also" section or further. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 16:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I see nothing wrong. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just make sure to uses endashes in the table. Support23 editor (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Fencer2013
I checked through the article. The only date that I found that was incorrect was the addition of the mezzanine, which Cheever's book said was installed by Don Reiman, the architect, in 1984, not in 1980. Other than that, the article has all the essential information. If you want to add anything else, there is information about where Mrs. Bookwalter lived and information about Ruth Draper on page 76 of Cheever's book, and information about exhibits at the library on pages 151-152.
@Fencer2013: That's interesting, because the source I cited (a BMPL publication) says 1980. Link. Though considering the BMPL link gets a few other minor details wrong, I'll take Cheever's word. I wish a c. 1980s source could be found; I just checked Google and the NY Times and came up empty. I'll change the date and add the architect, thanks. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – . Hi, Ɱ. Support as long as you do not revert my edits. All my edits are rock solid and improve the article towards its Featured Article promotion. If you have issues with any of my edits, please contact me, and I will advise you of the exact guideline, policy, or style decision behind each edit I made. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on tone and wording. Unfortunatly the article very often reads as the opening page of a website; i picked up from a short scan, the first para I now just read - "The Briarcliff library is open seven days per week, except in August when it is closed each Sunday.[27] The library hosts four computer workstations and eight laptops, and has its own Wi-Fi network.[28] Hmm. Also, the nominator canvassed me for a quid pro quo source review, which in fairness seems to have been in innocence. But I cant support at this time. Sorry Ɱ. Keep on going however. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Information about the organization's hours and equipment is important, and noted on many other encyclopedia articles. Heck, the article on the US Supreme Court even goes into detail about visiting hours and the like. Plus the tone here isn't at fault; the wording is very neutral and encyclopedic, and there's no way to convey the same information in a manner more neutral than I have. I am disappointed that you refer to it as Canvassing as it's simply not, nor was it inappropriate at all. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 15:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two things. First the article is a credit to you, and I am delighted you have brought it this far. Well done, and you should be proud (I have something approaching a book fetish, and anytime we go somewhere the first things I establish are the locations of the libraries and bookshops, also my wife is a librarian.). Second, I dont think you canvassed me, more that you just want to get things done, which I admire. Sorry if I seemed off in my response, I was conflicted while thinking it through. Lastly, my oppose is "at this time", not indefinite. Its more of a challange, other things I'm reading that I dont like too much are "On September 1, 1922, the Club's library funds were transferred to the Library Committee, and the village government donated US$500 ($7,100 today)[9] to the library in 1924. At that time, it had 1,900 volumes; it grew to 3,000 in 1926 and to around 6,000 in 1939. In 1952, the library had 8,000 volumes, 1,000 of which were in storage due to a lack of shelf space.[1](p62}/. Fact/fact, stat/stat. I prefer more context and a less dry style. I am hopeful you can make this a better article. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I appreciate your changes to correct this, and I made a few further changes. Sources make context difficult, I'm afraid there's not much I could add to make it seem less dry. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Will take another look later tonight. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the extent of the Westchester County Bike Trail is needed as a separate lead para. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you rather see it placed? ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 21:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed altogether, to be honest.
I see no reason why we should, it's a nearby element that helps people understand where the library is, and things immediately nearby, and it's relevant that the trackbed by the train station is now the rail trail by the library. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd explain, in the text, via a bluelink, or via a foot note, what an "efficiency rating" is; its mentioned twice in one para. Also the word "recieved" prefaces both - vary the wording. This sect seems to contain a stray ref remenant (p61) - "its expenditures were $1,875.86 ($17,100 today)[9] in 1951.[1](p61). Still reading through. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you want me to explain here. The NYSED gave ratings of a library's efficiency; that should be clear from the text. Varied the wording. I don't see a stray ref remnant, perhaps you're not familiar with Template:Rp as part of a citation style? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- This nom has been open over two months without two opposing reviews apparently being resolved, but I'll give those reviewers a chance to re-check the article and see if their positions have altered. Axl, Ceoil? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I still don't think that the article meets the FA criteria. Axl¤[Talk] 19:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Victoriaearle
Lead
Are two sources required to verify that the library is part of the Westchester Library System? Or is one of the sources there to verify its address? If so, I'm not sure that's necessary.
"It is staffed by a director and two and three-quarters full-time and eight part-time employees, including reference and youth librarians." > Sentence is difficult to parse. There's a director, and two full-time librarians?
"The building houses the village's historical society and recreation department offices." > The building hasn't been introduced yet. Is the library in a building which includes the village historical department and the recreation department? If so perhaps something like this is better: "The library is housed in a building with the village historical society and recreation department offices."
"The original station was renovated and reopened as the William J. Vescio Community Center on May 30, 2016." > Which station? Is the building a station of some sort?
I see that the building is explained in the second para >> suggest restructuring so that the station isn't mentioned until after it's been introduced.
History
Text squash with the image on the left, the infobox falling down into the right, the image directly below, and the table needs to be resolved.
"The building, built as a public school in 1898 at the current Pleasantville Road southbound ramp to Route 9A, was sold to the Westchester Parkway Commission in 1928 and burned down in 1929." > hard to parse. Suggest removing the information about highway ramps because as written the sentence covers three decades and presumably the ramps weren't there then.
"World War I slowed its expansion, though progress resumed in 1921." I thought the building burned down? Needs a transition or some explanation that despite the burning of the Club the library continued to build its collection, albeit at a slower rate.
"This was achieved largely due to the efforts of Amy Bookwalter, at a time when the Library Board consisted entirely of women." Because the men were at war? Because women worked in libraries? Is there context for the sentence that the board consisted entirely of women. Was it only that year or have there been other years when women dominated the board?
"On March 8–13 of that year, the Briarcliff Free Library was officially opened" > this is confusing because the first sentence in the paragraph tells us that the library was founded in 1914 by Edward S. Arnold. Did he only begin the collection but not make it publicly available?
Oppose - sorry, but I'm stopping here. This is an interesting article but I think it still needs some work. The "History" section is very stuffed, the lay-out needs work, the structure needs some work - generally to provide more context - and I think the library's story (which seems interesting) is overwhelmed with factoids that smother the underlying story. My suggestion would be to allow it to archive, to take a step back to regain perspective and then to start trimming out some of the irrelevant material in favor of the more interesting material that perhaps can be built up more. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about...a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by Pharrell Williams for the 2014 film Paddington. I previously nominated this for FAC, but was informed the prose was not up to the standard of a featured article. The article has been copyedited and I believe it has all the qualities for a FA. Thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry. The prose is still not FA standard; there is overuse of "also" and "while" (both are often redundant) and the article lacks depth and detail. Why is "official" used so much? Are there unofficial examples of each usage? What key is the song in? (It sounds like E minor from the clip). What is the harmonic structure? Where was it recorded? What instruments were used? The article is worthy of a GA, but it's not ready for the Main Page. I suggest the article should be withdrawn from FAC; there is too much work still to be done. Graham Beards (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: Thank you for your response. I have removed the repetitions of "also", "while", and "official". It is important to remember the song is unreleased, which means information on its composition and recording would not be made available so it is not possible to add some of the information you are requesting, but I will look for it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: I have added some information about the composition of the song (key, tempo, range instruments. etc.) I also somewhat restructured the page to include a separate section for the "Concept and development" and "Composition and lyrical interpretation" Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not ready for promotion. I am not convinced all available sources have been mined and there are still problems with the prose; for example "The lyrics discuss". Lyrics cannot talk. Graham Beards (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: I appreciate your comments. I have changed the part about the lyrics mentioned above. We will just have to agree to disagree as I honestly believe that I have mined all the available sources out there about this song. I do not believe there is a reliable source out there saying where the song was recorded (I have looked everywhere) A majority of the information on the recording locations is gathered from an album's liner notes and since the song was never released that would next to impossible to find. Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: I was wondering if I could get your feedback on my recent expansion of the article. Thank you in advance. If you still oppose, then I will withdraw this from FAC and give up on attempting to get this article promoted further in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: I would still appreciate your opinion of the article after its expansion even though I am withdrawing the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AJona1992
You should add the genre of the film in the lead like most soundtrack song articles do.
Done
The article lacks any description on the character of the film (when first mentioned), odd if the song is basically a tune about him and the fact that he seems to be a "beloved classic" character. Who is he? What made him deserving of the title?
I am not sure how to add more information without it seeming distracting or out-of-place with the page's focus on the song. I included the quotes from Williams, Stefani, and the Weinstein Company about the song's connection to Paddington, but I am not sure about adding general information that is not directly tied to the song. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You link basic instruments, but omitted vocal range?
Done
This is the first time we hear about No Doubt, you should have added that Stefani is the lead vocalist of that band or showed what connection the singer has to them.
Done
Why link Paddington Bear in the second subsection but not the first time he is mentioned?
Done
FN#6, FN#11, FN#13, FN#20, FN#24, FN#25, and FN#31 are not published publications and therefore should not be italicized.
Done
Overall the article has improved from your previous nomination, and I'll still support it once these issues have been resolved. Also, if you're not too busy, I currently have an article at FAC if you can leave a review that would be appreciated, but not required =) Best – jona✉ 00:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AJona1992: I greatly appreciate your comments! I have tried my best to expand the article today with all the information I could find on this song. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that you've decided to withdraw your nomination, hopefully more information from this song can be found and don't give up hope. Best, – jona✉ 12:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AJona1992: Thank you for your comment and your previous support on the last nomination. I agree with Graham Beards's comments (so I apologize to him if I came across as rude) and I will try my best to expand the article in the future. If I ever decide to pursue FAC for this article, I will make sure that all of the comments have been addressed. Good luck with your nomination as well! I do not feel comfortable leaving a review on your FAC as this nomination made me realize that I need to learn a lot more about the criteria for an FA; I hope you understand and I apologize for not being any help on that front. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I would like to withdraw this nomination. I would like to thank both of the people who commented. While I still strongly believe I did the best I could with this page and mined all possible sources to create a comprehensive article on an unreleased song, it is highly unlikely this will ever be able to be improved to an FA. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A lovely lady, Catherine Zeta-Jones is the perfect combination of beauty and brains. I first expanded the article during the Wales-related contest held by Dr. Blofeld. It has since received a thorough peer review from SchroCat. Zeta-Jones' roles and awards page has recently been promoted to featured status as well. Happy reading! Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Checkingfax – I will be sure to !vote on this article's promotion when it is further along in the review process. Ping me back. I performed two series of edits, here, and here, to bring it a few steps closer to being Featured Article worthy. Good luck. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits, Checkingfax. I've adjusted the size of some of the images in the article to space them out a bit. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Krimuk90. You are welcome. May I ask why you are downsizing select images to 80 percent? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because if the images are too large, they either crowd together or bleed into subsequent sections. I believe keeping them at 80% allows more space. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Krimuk90. On my 14" low-res laptop screen they do not bleed at all at the default size. Do you have the size jacked up in your preferences? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I guess it's just a personal preference to arrange the pictures a little apart from each other. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Krimuk90. Per the intent of MOS:IMAGES downsizing images is to be used only for last resort. The guidelines encourage us to leave images at their default resolution. This is very important for readers with vision impairments. I would encourage you to leave the images at their default resolution and to arrange them differently on the page so they do not bleed in ways you do not want them to. Check your preferences to see if you have images set to the default size. Otherwise, you can adjust your personal preferences to show them smaller, while allowing the default size, or their custom resizing to prevail for all other readers. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The intro should read British actress. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! You can't oppose an entire nomination for a personal preference. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this oppose is unfair, having Welsh in the first sentence and Wales in the second is redundant/repetitive.—indopug (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Thanks for pointing that out, Indopug. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal. Wales isn't independent, but is rather a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading now, comments to come... CassiantoTalk 19:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My first observation would be the infobox, which is currently a WP:DISINFOBOX. It tells us nothing that the lead doesn't. It is filled with irrelevant information and bloat such as the following:
Name and date of birth. Both of these are not hard to find as they are the first few words on the very first line of the lede. Also, the name is used no less than 4 occasions which is far too repetitive; not only is her name the name of the article, it is mentioned on the first line of the lede; above her image, below her image, and below in the box. Too much repetition here.
"Actress". We know, and the first line of the lede tells us this.
As a reader why would I care where she resides? What makes this relevent and worthy of being in such a prime position such as this?
"Children". Again, why do we need to be told this? They're not even named; it's just "2". Pointless.
Obviously omitting the box altogether will not stop this article from gaining FA, or indeed influence an oppose vote from me. But just so you are aware, lots of articles pass FAC without an infobox; all of my FA biographies are without an infobox, for instance. These can be found on my user page should you wish to look. In infobox disputes the main reason cited by the "for" camp are "because we would struggle to find information quickly, blah, blah, blah..." Not so here; everything in the current box can be found in the lede. But I appreciate this is a stylistic choice so this is very much up to you. Review to follow... CassiantoTalk 19:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can be removed with a reference made in your edit summary to the fact that there was no consensus for it in the first place. You are then operating under WP:BRD and the person protesting it's removal will have to then discuss why they want it. It works both ways; all articles start without an infobox. Therefore any addition of an infobox should be discussed first. Leave this to me. CassiantoTalk 05:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"She has two brothers, David, who worked as an electrician and Lyndon, who worked as a sales representative before venturing into film production." -- Relevance? Why are her brothers' careers relevent to her? I can see why Lyndon's is, kind of, but certainly not David. I would say: "She has two brothers, David, and Lyndon, who worked as a sales representative before venturing into film production." Also, are they older or younger?
Tweaked.
"The family came from a modest financial background, but their fortunes improved when they won £50,000 in a local bingo competition." -- I don't like this line. If their financial background was modest, it's a bit stretched by saying "their fortunes inproved". I can see this if they were flat broke, but not modest. Also, in what way did their life improve?
Well, after winning the money they could afford to send her to a good dance school and a decent private school. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to mention this here, but don't go into too much detail. Certainly mention the dance school and how the money helped with the fees. CassiantoTalk 13:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed the amount as well, as The Independent seems to be a more reliable source than the Daily Mirror. Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Because she was a hyperactive child, Zeta-Jones' mother sent her to the Hazel Johnson School of Dance when she was four years old to better channel her energy." -- I don't like the "better channel her energy". Who was the dance instructor, Derek Acorah?
Haha, I've removed that bit. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I've re-read the article and I've noticed a huge improvement since I last read it a week ago. I think the infobox removal has also helped it to become a stand-out article compared to most other biographies. I believe this now meets the criteria. CassiantoTalk 21:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Cassianto. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose: I'm not too thrilled with the prose at the moment, just from a skim of the lead and first section. There is nothing major, just a few little fiddly things. I'm leaning oppose, but I don't expect that to stand for long, just a bit of a polish needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead tells us barely anything about her other than she won some awards. For me, this should go at the end of the lead, but whatever your preference it seems strange that the only information is that she is an actress and she won some stuff. Surely we need her place of birth at least! I would reorganise this somewhat.
"and had her stage breakthrough with a leading role in a 1987 production of 42nd Street.": I don't like "had" here, and would prefer "made" but we have that in the next sentence. I would be inclined to reword this as "and made her stage breakthrough with a leading role..." and reword the next sentence.
"She went on to make her screen debut with the unremarkable French-Italian film 1001 Nights": That's a bit harsh! I don't really think we can pass judgement on that poor film. We could reword this to "Her screen debut came in the French-Italian film..." which is a bit less wordy and allows us to use "made " in the previous sentence.
I think the "unremarkable" bit helps explain the fact her film debut was not a success, and she went on to find success later in television. Although I've tweaked the sentence per your suggestion. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer something more factual, such as "unsuccessful" or "low-budget". "Unremarkable" is too much like editorial voice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a regular on the British television series": Would it not be a regular in?
"Zeta-Jones relocated to Los Angeles, and was cast in the superhero film The Phantom (1996)": Do we need to specify this film? The point is her relocation, and we talk about her films in the next paragraph.
"with roles that highlighted her sex appeal in the action film The Mask of Zorro (1998) and the caper thriller Entrapment (1999).": There's nothing actually wrong here, but would it be better to insert "such as" after "sex appeal"? (And what is a "caper thriller"? I'd be happier with just thriller, but maybe an entire genre has passed me by.)
"In addition to acting in films": As we have just said that she won a stage award, I think "in films" is inaccurate. In fact, we could remove this entire phrase with no great loss.
"Her parents are of Welsh origin, and she also has Irish ancestry on her mother's side.": Can we not just say her parents are Welsh? And maybe rephrase the latter part to "although her mother has Irish ancestry"
"Because she was a hyperactive child, Zeta-Jones' mother sent her to the Hazel Johnson School of Dance when she was four years old": I think we have a dangling participle here; as written, Zeta-Jones' mother is the one who was a hyperactive child.
"The family came from a modest financial background": Something a bit off here. Can you have a modest financial background? I've heard of a modest background and modest finances, but never both together.
"Zeta-Jones participated in stage shows at her school from a young age, and gained local attention when she was featured in a newspaper for winning a Junior Star Trail talent competition, where she sang a Shirley Bassey song": Wordy, and I'm not sure we can say "where" for a competition. Maybe "Zeta-Jones participated in school stage shows from a young age and gained local media attention when her rendition of a Shirley Bassey song won a Junior Star Trail talent competition."
"where she would audition for roles in the theatre": Why not "where she auditioned"?
Do we need to know that she was a tap-dancing champion? At least we need to say what the competition was to give an idea of the scale: local, national or international??
I've mentioned that she became a national level champion.
Also, if we cut this, I'd be inclined to merge the two mentions of Annie. Instead of the rather wordy : "At the age of nine, she was selected to play one of the orphan girls in a West End production of the musical Annie, and in her early teens, she became a tap-dancing champion.[10][13] In 1981 she played the lead role of Annie in a Swansea production of the musical, which was staged at the Swansea Grand Theatre." we could have "At the age of nine, she was selected to play one of the orphan girls in a West End production of the musical Annie; in 1981, she played the lead in a Swansea Grand Theatre production of the same show."
"Two years later, she played the lead role of Tullulah in a West End production of Bugsy Malone.": It pains me greatly to admit that I know that this should be Tallulah. And I really, really hate that show... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 All done. I hope the article looks better now. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: I've read to the end of the 1998-2000 section, and there are just a few little problems. Nothing major, but just enough to make me think we still need a bit of work. The prose is fine, but I have a few worries about sourcing. I hope we can sort this a bit, for this has the potential to be really, really good. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The film was not well received at the box office but attracted attention for featuring Zeta-Jones in the nude": Not too sure about this, and not sure it reflects the source. This rung a bell, and I checked the link which states "but the film received little acclaim and is best remembered for its enjoyable nude scenes". It does not say that it attracted attention at the time for the nude scenes, but is remembered, a crucial difference. I think it was more like one of the "before they were famous" things. Crucially, this reference does not support that the nude scenes were Zeta Jones. I don't doubt that they were, but I think we need a clearer source.
Coudln't find any other reliable source on the topic, so I've tweaked the existing text. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"played the role of the eldest, voluptuous daughter of a family living in the countryside in 1950s Britain": I also question the choice of "voluptuous" here. Why we have chosen this word to describe the character, I am not sure. It is in the source, but is not a big deal. Is this really what we want to focus on here?
I was worried that this would come across as a bit too crude, but there were a lot of sources that spoke about her being a "big-breasted beauty" in it. Anyway, I've removed the word for now. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder do we say enough about Darling Buds? I was never a fan, but it was a huge success, and she was a huge star in the UK at this time. Does this fully come across? I'm not sure.
I think this sentence covers that well: The series was the highest-rated television show in the country at the time, and Zeta-Jones gained wide public recognition for it; she said, "Literally, with one hour of television my life completely changed. I couldn't go anywhere". Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"in the unremarkable adventure film Christopher Columbus: The Discovery (1992)": Again, unremarkable
Changed.
"though the critic Vincent Canby of The New York Times was appreciative of her comic timing": Not sure about this either. The source says "Very funny, too, is Catherine Zeta Jones, a new, sultrily beautiful young Welsh actress, who appears as a woman willing do anything to become a duchess"; this is not quite the same thing as comic timing.
Tweaked.
My other mild concern about this section is that it is cobbled together from film reviews and we say more about the films than her. That may be unavoidable without a full-length biography (I notice one exists from 2003. Has it been consulted?) but the danger is that we get an uneven account. There is no over-arching commentary about her life at this time, and I think we really need some to pull together a fairly ragtag list of film appearances.
"Dismayed at being typecast as the romantic interest in British films": This doesn't really come across, nor her comments ("I was a pretty face and a big bust and nothing else") on the subject. The list of film appearances does not give this impression. Either she is exaggerating or we are not quite striking the right balance when mentioning her films (see above!).
Tweaked.
She also said "There was all this fuss about who I was and wasn't dating... People in the business believed what they read about me". Other than her comments here, there is nothing about this either. We do not get the impression, as I mention above, that she was a big, big star.
I think the 1998-2000 section has similar problems. No over-arching commentary, just a list of films with facts cobbled together from promotional material and a few reviews. While it is undoubtedly well-written, I don't think it is telling us anything really important about Zeta-Jones. I appreciate this is an occupational hazard when writing actor biographies, but this just feels a little lightweight. We really need more "overview" sources. For example there is this on the BBC, or this from the Daily Telegraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about there not being a general overview/commentary on her career/personality in this section, but fret not, I've got that covered in the "media" section at the end of the article. I'm sure you'll see when you get to that section. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next batch: Down to the end of the Career section.
"that takes your mind off her not – always – fluid dancing": We have used dashes here, but it should be hyphens for "not-always-fluid", as given in the original quote.
We have "box office bomb" and "box office success" in close proximity; I'd prefer one less "box office"
"A biopic of Harry Houdini, entitled Death Defying Acts (2007), starring Guy Pearce as the eponymous escapologist": We can't really use eponymous here unless the film was called Houdini.
"Following No Reservations, Zeta-Jones' career trajectory became less noteworthy": A few problems here. How can a trajectory be noteworthy? And noteworthy is editorial voice as it is a value judgement.
"She instead chose to focus on her family and health": Health is a strange thing to focus on unless she was ill, and this is the first mention of anything in this regard.
The thing is she did become ill, suffering from bipolar disorder, which I've covered in the personal life section. That was a major reason why she took on less work during this period. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps a sentence to state this, just so the reader can make sense of this part of the career section; maybe simply "having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"which proved to be her third unremarkable production of the year": Another "unremarkable".
Having completed the career section, I remain a little underwhelmed by the use of promotional material. It becomes a little tiresome to read a succession of "She starred in XXX, she thought XXX about it, she said XXX, and the critics thought XXX," no matter how admittedly well-written the sections are. This is not enough to make me oppose, far from it, but I wonder if it could be better. Maybe it's just me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I know that in the biography of contemporary actors, the career section can get a bit repetitive, but I really have tried hard to make it less monotonous. Looking forward to your comments on the last few sections. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last batch: Nothing major here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful in the "Other work" section. We have two "In additions" in close proximity. We also have a lot of sentences beginning "Zeta-Jones" or "She", which is best avoided.
Giving the 1960 date for Spartacus is a little confusing, as I first read it as she voiced it in 1960. I don't think we need that date at all.
"Also that year, she was signed on by the phone company T-Mobile for an estimated US$10 million per year": Do we know what she did?
Well, she is their celebrity endorser, which I've mentioned in the later part of the sentence. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the rest of the press was not permitted to enter": Is the press singular or plural? I'd be inclined to say "the press were", but I know views differ.
"Due to the stress from both their illnesses": I always prefer "Owing to" as I'm slightly pedantic, but I'm not going to insist on it and I know many people disagree with me on that one!
"Zeta-Jones' beauty and sex appeal has been picked up by several sources": This seems a little clumsy.
Any suggestions on how else to mention this? Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference would have been to integrate the Personal life/media sections into the career, hence my comments above, but I appreciate that this is a perfectly acceptable way to do it.
That's it from me, and I'll be happy to support once these last nit-picks have been addressed, or replied to, or I have been politely told that I'm talking rubbish! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1: all done. Thank you so much for such a thorough review. The article is much stronger now. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There is one unaddressed point in my reply on family and health. But that doesn't affect my support, and this is a very good piece of work. Well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Sarastro. And the one remaining point has now been addressed as well. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am no expert on this actress but the articles looks to meet the FA criteria. It looks to be balanced, neutral, and comprehensive. No dead links were found when going through the references. Good work! Z105space(talk) 20:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable commentary on her performance available. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the film 'is best remembered for its enjoyable nude scenes'" - makes me wonder if Z-J was nude in these scenes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is, though the source doesn't explicitly state that. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Zeta-Jones gained wide public recognition" - does this mean she received positive critical commentary?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Public recognition" does not talk about critical commentary at all. It means she became well known with the public. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were all of her reviews for Splitting Heirs as positive as the NYT one? I.e, how was she generally reviewed for this role?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most reviewers didn't speak of her performance. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Juice, in no way, ranks as an important film in her career. The review cited in the article calls it ""superficial and predictable; of note only for the early-career presence of Zeta-Jones and McGregor". Now, if and when there is a critical analysis that adds something pertinent to her biography, either positive or negative, I have added it. And that makes the article adequately comprehensive. The few roles for which I haven't provided a review for her performance adds nothing of importance, whether positive or negative, to this article. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the obvious that Blue Juice, which is in the section before the one titled "Hollywood breakthrough and success", is a relatively unimportant performance for Z-J. She is an award winning actress who has appeared in many acclaimed films. I am just asking questions. 4 out of 5 Metacritic reviews are far more positive than the one you quote. Also, you seem to be mischaracterizing the film to the reader. Do you have a source for the "Stoner comedy"? It seems to be more of a surf film (seemingly the the first British one) according to various sources such as this and this. I'd consider saying something like the film offers an intriguing pre-star glimpse of Z-J according to TV Guide.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really nothing for The Phantom in dozens of reviews. For Emily Ratajkowski, I had to work hard to find anything for some roles, but there were a few crumbs.(Gone Girl and Spoils).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the film's genre, though I believe none of the quoted sources talk about her performance at all. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source for "surf film". Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Variety review has been summarised for The Phantom, which is the majority opinion as well. What else do you want? Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Phantom has 43 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and I have not looked at Metacritic. Did she really receive no commentary on her performance?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for Phantom and Titanic, nothing substantial in the way her performance was reviewed for them that's worth quoting. Most reviewers talk about how much of a stunning beauty she is. We aren't missing out on anything pertinent by not quoting reviews for these two performances. I have, nonetheless, taken note of what a Variety reviewer considered of her part. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I continue to read, I have trouble determining if you have randomly chosen a review or if I am reading about the consensus perception. In general, I would like to know what each role was and how Z-J was reviewed for each one. (see the other current FACs of actesses Kalki Koechlin, Emma Stone, Freida Pinto, Emily Ratajkowski). Z-J is not up to this standard. I am going to have to Oppose until her critical commentary is more detailed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I request the FAC co-coordinators Ian Rose and Laser brain to please take not that this oppose is not based on any exisiting criteria, but on a very personal opinion of the reviewer. This article is a biography of an actress, and in no way should it be a detailed commentary on critical reviews of the films she has starred in. As you can see from the previous supports by more experienced editors, who have authored biographies of film actors and actresses, the article does indeed meet the FA-criteria. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not requesting reviews of the films, but reviews of Z-J. Like I said look at all the other FAC actresses. You can tell how they reviewed in almost every role. This article is deficient.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're telling me that editors such as Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat who have authored several FA-class biographies of actors and actresses, and have supported this nomination, are unaware of this point you raise? Please show me a policy that states that how an actress is reviewed in each of her films needs to mentioned in her biography. You feeling that the article is deficient based on your personal preference is not a valid reason for an oppose. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are being a bit combative. This article is suppose to summarize secondary sources on the subject. Critical commentary on her performances is among the most important components of this subject. Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat can say what they want, but if she was reviewed in Blue Juice, The Phantom or Titanic, I should expect you to summarize that content, as should they.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And AGAIN, I ask you. Show me the policy that says that a review for every performance of an actor/actress needs to be mentioned. "I believe", "I think", "I want" are not valid reasons for an oppose. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every film and every review ever written for an actress doesn't need to be mentioned, in fact the article would soon likely demote to a plodding one which is monotonous to read if you did that. The balance is fine here, I see nothing of major importance missing. So if you're opposing on comprehension grounds I'm sure the delegates will see this and not place too much weight on it. It is comprehensive, but anybody who has written an actor FA will tell you that you don't need to do that for every film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Your argument that you don't want to expand an article is that it might become monotonous to include more details? The two FAs closest to Z-J in terms of stage of life and accomplishment (upon quick review) are Philip Seymour Hoffman (aged 46) and Judy Garland (aged 47). Those are 40198 and 37102 characters of readable prose and not monotonous. Z-J (age 46) at 29034 characters could be expanded by 25% and be short of both of those numbers. If you look at her article and the comments above, you will note that I am not requesting each and every role be expanded. She has content related to many works that do not even have articles on WP. It would be ridiculous for me to ask for a summary of encyclopedic content on her performance when the entire work is not a notable subject. However, the article as it reads to me includes many notable works that involved Z-J for which I am unable to assess her performance. Is there a reason why a performance that was likely reviewed was not included. Is there something to hide about these performances such as Blue Juice, The Phantom or Titanic. Are you as an editor cherrypicking reviews and works to highlight? If you have a good reason to hide her reviews let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I wrote the Philip Seymour Hoffman article myself with Loeba and I would never expect Zeta Jones to have the same level of prose count as Hoffman who had a lot more roles and more roles of greater substance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extremely misguided comparison. Hoffman has done 25% more films than Zeta-Jones has, so obviously the character count is much more for his article. Having said that, if you actually did take the time out to read that article, you'll see that critical reviews for several of his performances have not been included. If you want to compare, atleast read the article before you do so. And FYI, you still haven't shown me a policy that aligns with your demands, and yet you are vehemently contradicting two editors who have actually written FA-class biographies. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is misguided is to say that discussant X can not oppose because discussants Y and Z have supported, which is your argument. I believe that elements of Z-J's biography that I have read so far are omitted for no reason, thus violating comprehensiveness, which is part of the main relevant policy (WP:WIAFA). I have never encountered such arrogance as Dr. Blofeld has expressed that because he is satisfied, my queries should be ignored. I have written a few dozen FAs in my WP career (and more than either Dr. Blofeld or SchroCat according to WP:WBFAN). There are some bios included in that group.--03:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond further until the coordinators clear this up. If they feel that your oppose is justified then I'll do as advised. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure why you needed to and count FAC-size Tony (especially as we currently hold the same number of FAs)! I know that for the several bios I have done, I did not include all mentions in reviews (hell, for most of mine I didn't even list all their performances, film, TV or stage). I tried where possible to select reviews on the basis that they provided understanding on the individual and their work. As a summary article (as opposed to a full biography) we can only give highlights or examples of an individual: so long as we are balanced in the selection of those reviews then we are doing our job. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to counting FA size, the nominator has attempted to dismiss my commentary as if I am an unqualified reviewer. BTW, congratulations on your recent FA promotion if we now hold the same number of FAs. I am asking about certain roles and asking why no reviews are included in the article. It is the responsibility of the nominator to convince me that he has examined the reviews and found them all to be trivial to her biographical sketch. I think you should proceed as if I am a good faith reviewer asking questions about possible omissions rather than someone demanding trivial detail. You may or may not be aware that I have currently nominated Emily Ratajkowski. Because she is at a stage of her career where she is trying to get traction as an actress, I am curious about early stages of the career of a successful actress and wondering if there might be more that I might learn about how Z-J rose to fame. Look at the article for Blue Juice. Based solely on a glance at its promotional art work, it seems to me that Z-J must have been the subject of some non-trivial commentary for the role. I am not asking you for explanation regarding The Return of the Native or The Cinder Path. It is perfectly fine to reply that no worthwhile content exists regarding a specific subject. E.g. at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emma_Stone/archive1, I was satisfied with responses such as "This was an easily dismissed role, and there was no mention of her in other sources." and "Certain sources do mention it as a memorable role of hers, but there is no critical commentary on her performance that is mentionable or quotable." The fact that I asked for clarification regarding lack of content on certain roles is not bad faith on my part. It is the responsibility of the nominator to address my concerns assuming each concern is a good faith query. The nominator here is suppose to assume that my expectations will be reasonable as others have in recent discussions at FAC (I have been involved in the following active FACs Kalki Koechlin, Emma Stone, Freida Pinto and Courtney Love). There has been no claim by other reviewers that I was a bad faith reviewer. Yes my interest in lesser roles may be a bit higher than the average reviewer. However, look around. My expectations have been reasonable and I think I have helped improve the other articles by my FAC involvement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. You did not just "ask for clarification regarding lack of content on certain roles". You outright opposed an entire nomination. Now, that to me is bad-faith. Only because some other nominators did as you asked them to, doesn't mean I'll do the same. I'm not cattle. If I think something's unfair, I will speak out against it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have opposed for stated comprehensiveness reasons. It is not bad faith to oppose a nomination unless there is no cause. I am giving you a fair chance to respond to my list of concerns. I have stated reasonable issues for you to respond to. First and foremost is why a performance with Z-J promoted as prominently as Blue Juice and with a major co-star like Ewan McGregor is not being explained in the text. Is it unfair for me to ask you to respond to concerns such as this? I don't see why not. It is not a matter of you being cattle. It is quite fair for me to ask you to explain why such an omission of content is trivial or to correct an oversight. I have been fair with all other nominees at FAC and will be fair with you. However, at the moment, I would oppose promotion to featured.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Juice, in no way, ranks as an important film in her career. The review cited in the article calls it ""superficial and predictable; of note only for the early-career presence of Zeta-Jones and McGregor". Now, if and when there is a critical analysis that adds something pertinent to her biography, either positive or negative, I have added it. And that makes the article adequately comprehensive. The few roles for which I haven't provided a review for her performance adds nothing of importance, whether positive or negative, to this article. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to be responding to my concerns, it will be helpful if you could do so inline. I.e., respond to each concern above by inserting a response to the lines in between. I will copy your Blue Juice response to show you what I mean.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Between FAC, PR and GAs, I have reviewed hundreds of articles for WP. Surely at least 500. You are the first person to claim to have considered each of my concerns and dismissed all of them. When I checked in on the Blue Juice one, I find that the selected review differs from the majority of available reviews, but that there was no really important criticism of Z-J. I remains suspicious of being dismissed on all of my concerns. Admittedly, upon closer inspection you did make some changes to the BJ article. I am just finding it hard to believe that none of the dozens of Phantom reviews discussed Z-J.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, I didn't dimiss you at all. I raised a valid concern to your oppose, and was backed up by two other editors as well. I still stand by the fact we do not need to provide reviews for each and every performance of her. I hope you understand that now. As for The Phantom, the Variety comment on her performance has been summarised, which is the majority view-point as well. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a review for her performance in The Haunting. Her role in High Fidelity was a minuscule one, and not much is worth quoting here. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to finish reviewing this in the next 72 hours. However, you can easily anticipate many of my concerns. I have not looked past where I am in the article. However, for each role that you summarize the movie review and/or her role and do not summarize the review of her performance, I am going to point it out. You can just go through the rest of the article and start filling any such issues in with commentary on her performance, if available. You may want to trim back on commentary about the movie and substitute commentary about her performance or supplement the commentary. Your choice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I won't be adding any other critical reviews for her performances. The balance is just fine at the moment, and I am not willing to bloat it up. Having said that, I'll definitely be willing to address any other concerns that you might raise. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinterpretting balance and bloat. The bloat in the article is from you using the article as a platform to post reviews of ZJ's movies, which is inappropriate. A FA-level biography is suppose to explain her performances and not the reviews of the movies that she has been in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to summarize reviews of her performance in Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas than to describe how it did at the box office.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to summarize reviews of her performance in The Legend of Zorro than to summarize movie reviews and its box office success.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to summarize reviews of her performance in Death Defying Acts than to explain that the film was unsuccessful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to summarize reviews of her performance in Rock of Ages than to summarize the film's reviews and explain that the film was unsuccessful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to summarize reviews of her performance in Playing for Keeps than to explain that the film was unsuccessful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You provide three examples in support of the statement "Zeta-Jones briefly dabbled with a singing career". Do you have any critical commentary on these examples and were any of them successful?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I won't be intimidated by your threatening edit-summary. Secondly, your demands have been contradicted by no less than four editors in this review itself. And yet, you go on. I am done responding to you, Tony. Thank you for taking your time out for commenting here, but if you refuse to look beyond your point-of-view I can't go on like a broken record. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attempting to intimidate you. I am stating the obvious. In terms of an actress bio, film profitability it sort of fluff and performance reviews are sort of core material. This article attempts to summarize the profitability and movie reviews of almost every film she has been in instead of attempting to summarize her performances. That is not an FA-class article to me. If the article would be bloated by including the proper subject matter, then eliminate that which is less important. In an actress bio, it is not as important to state whether a film made money as it is to state what the actresses performance reviews were. There is nothing that I am asking you for that is not more important to the subject at hand than the fluff you have included.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A balance of the both is intended. Not one in favour of the other. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A balance of fluff and core material? My oppose will stand. Note the people all agreed with you before I enumerated my objections. If they would prefer to see box office results to performance reviews they can stand by you.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Box office performance of a film is not fluff. Also, all four editors disagreed with you much after you opposed the nomination. So that's that. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis comment criticizing the sourcing in the Zeta-Jones was left in the FAC for Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar. Just passing it on. That's the limit of what I'm doing here (exits stage right)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Singora has a vendetta against against a lot of us, ranting on about us on wikiocracy, so I wouldn't place much emphasis on anything he's said. He's been critical of Brian Boulton's work too, that says it all..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note - Since Krimuk90 above asked for input from a coordinator, I'll weigh in and say that I'd like to encourage everyone to cool it down a bit and maintain focus on WP:WIAFA. Any commentary that dials back to WIAFA is valid, whether or not reviewers and nominators agree on it. Editors disagree on issues such as prose quality and comprehensiveness all the time. Just because a comment is valid doesn't mean nominators are forced to action it, especially if it's subjective. If reviewers leave comments that nominators disagree with or decide not to action, coordinators determine how much weight the outstanding opposition should carry. Obviously being put in a position to potentially promote an article over someone's opposition is not ideal, but it happens. We consider the strength of the argument and the degree to which other reviews mention it, among other things. Hopefully this helps. --Laser brain(talk) 11:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing: A couple of points further to my review. First, I don't agree with TonyTheTiger above. I think we cover reviews of her career more than adequately. Additionally, Tony favours a style which leads to articles which are generally longer than most, and likes to include every details available. I prefer a more concise approach. However, Singora raises a valid point which is worth addressing. To quote from what was said on Wehwalt's page: "I glanced at it and noticed that sources include the UK's Sun (1 instance), Daily Mirror (4 instances) and Daily Express (3 instances), Australia's Herald Sun (1 instance), Fox News and People Magazine (7 instances). The article is an obvious oppose (you can't possibly use those sources), yet no one has picked up on this." WP:PUS says that these tabloid sources should "in general" not be used" and I think this is usually correct. Some of them need to go. With this in mind, I am striking my support for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun reference (currently ref 9) is to an interview which with ZJ which supports most of the text. BUT it does not support that her mum sent her to "the Hazel Johnson School of Dance"
Added the nytimes interview source inline that supports the dance school claim. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first Mirror reference (ref 8) is to an interview.
Replaced this anyway.
The second (ref 32) appears to be an interview, but I can't access it to verify the three times it is used.
This one is an actual interview, and I'm using direct quotations made by her. So I believe this can be used. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The third (ref 126) is more problematic. It is from the "3am girls" celebrity section and is not an original interview. My inclination would be NOT to use this as a source.
Although I can understand the concern over this, this source does nothing more than compile all the relevant information about her various relationships. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is, unfortunately. I'm not even sure it would count as a RS, and certainly not for a FA. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The final Mirror ref (ref 133) is also a problem as it looks like a rehash from somewhere else. It is used as a ref for "The family lived in Bermuda until 2009, and as of 2016, live in Bedford Hills in New York." I'm not sure what it is being used to support, possibly that they lived in Bermuda? That they live in Bedford Hills? It does not support that they live there in 2016 as it is a 2014 article and does not mention that the couple lived in Bermuda, only that her husband's family were from there. Digging further, the Telegraph ref for that sentence supports that they lived in Bermuda until 2009 but again, does not support their current home.
Replaced with a better source. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first Express reference (ref 38) is problematic as it is a piece which re-hashes a few old interviews but is not a straight interview. I would not be comfortable using it as a ref at the moment.
The source supports two statements. One, her preparation for the Zorro roles, and second, a quote by Geoffrey Macnab. I think that's okay, isn't it? I don't see anything overly problematic with it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do the statements come from a direct quotation? If not, I'd be inclined to try to find the original source; I doubt the Express did its own interview. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see why this should be a problem. I couldn't find this information in other sources, so it does seem to be written originally for the Express. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 93 from the Express is similar, and I am not happy using it.
Ref 94 from the Express is an interview but looks to be used to support that this was her comeback film. Probably OK.
The Herald Sun reference (ref 17) is an interview, BUT seems to be used to support statements that are not quotations from ZJ. A bit of a problem using this then.
I believe the Herald Sun interview to be quite legit actually. Even if some statements are not "direct quotes", they did conduct an interview with her and may be paraphrased statements. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK if it is an original interview, I'd support that. And I think that otherwise, the Herald Sun is dubious as it's a definite tabloid source. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 comes from a Fox News "Did you Know" type thing. This needs a better source as it is used to support her Irish Ancestry.
The People refs are also problematic, and I think we need a better source. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The People references are quite decent, and are used in multiple FA-class articles. I don't think there should be a problem using them. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that... I know little about this source, but a quick glance online and even at the article on it here makes me think it is a huge no-no as a source. And, to be honest, better safe than sorry I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the People source 7 times in this article to cite key information in it. The source is as much a part of celebrity pop-culture as Vogue and Vanity Fair. I strongly believe there's nothing wrong in using this. Firstly, People magazine is not regarded as a "tabloid" and is the leading magazine on Hollywood celebrities. In this article, The New York Times calls it the "leader in the field [of the celebrity environment]". I know that reviewers invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when they feel strongly about something, even though it's generally acceptable. However, unless we are explicitly forbidden from using the Express and People sources by the coordinators, I don't see why they shouldn't be used. Especially when these sources are the ones that extensively cover pertinent information about contemporary celebrities. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the links, but there is still nothing to convince me that it is a reliable source. Being a leader in the field of celebrity does not make you reliable; the Sun or Mirror in England would claim the same thing. I think I'd like some further opinions on this; it is the reviewers, not the co-ordinators, who make the call, and others may disagree with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for more eyes at WT:FAC to see what others think on this issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sarastro1 -- I saw your alert (I assume this is what's called a "ping") and am sending one back. Just flipped through the sources again. Have you changed things? This time I noticed Scotland's Daily Record (three instances) and the New York Post.Singora (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what's exactly wrong with those sources? Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Sarastro1's post on WT:FAC, WP:BLP says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There are several problematic sources in the article: Daily Express, Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Record, People, New York Post, AskMen.com. These are best avoided in BLPs, because they focus on trivia and scandal, and they're often demeaning to women. SarahSV(talk) 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources above, the usage of Daily Mirror is discouraged by WP:PUS. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've discussed with Sarastro above, the so-called "tabloid" sources are only being used when they've conducted an interview with the actress. In those cases, their usage is perfectly acceptable. These aren't being used to add salacious gossip, but only to cite claims made by the actress herself which are either quotes or paraphrased statements. The ones that were indeed focusing on the gossip have already been removed. And also, People magazine is not a tabloid, and is very much a reputable source for celebrities.Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AskMen reference isn't an interview, and it insults her husband. The Daily Express isn't an interview. I can only see part of thisDaily Record article, but it doesn't appear to be an interview. Is there anything in the tabloid sources that you can't find elsewhere?
I would remove the first paragraph of the "In the media" section: sex appeal, sexiest, etc. SarahSV(talk) 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the tabloid sources where the information found is "not exclusive". The ones that are in use at the moment are only used to cite information that I couldn't find anywhere else.
Coming to your second point, I see no reason in removing mentions of her "sex appeal" and her appearing in lists of the "sexiest celebrities". A person's sex appeal, regardless of their gender, will be spoken about if they have received significant media attention for them. In the case of Zzeta-Jones, her sex appeal has been well-documented by the media (similar to that of actors and actresses who have FA-class biographies such as Marilyn Monroe, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie). Please remember that it isn't our duty to cherry-pick information which we believe to be correct. If a certain section of the media considers her to be a sexy, opportunistic trophy wife, then I will make a note of that in the article. I will also add the same amount of emphasis on those media reports that believe she is an extraordinarily talented actress. The balance of both is required, not one in favour of the other. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the use of The Sun and The Mirror as sources are both fine in this context: as far as I can see, they are direct interviews and we are directly quoting CZ-J's words. If they were secondary quotes, or re-hashes there could be problems, but as it stands they are fine. Sarastro1, is that also your opinion after the changes? – SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk90, I've started reading through this, and it's a well-written article, so I want to thank you for the work you've put into it. My only concern at this point is the small number of low-quality sources and the way Zeta-Jones is portrayed at several points.
Featured articles have to be based on high-quality sources: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..." (WP:WIAFA). This is a BLP, so WP:BLPSOURCES applies too. It's about a woman, so it would be good if you could avoid the worst of the sexist sources. I know this isn't easy. But for example AskMen.com is used, and look what they say. This is a website that compiles lists of "least desirable women": their "most desirable" consists of "jaw-dropping beauties, noted intellectuals and chicks with big breasts." [16]
You've mentioned Brad Pitt and sex appeal, but it's barely mentioned in his article and/or prefaced with "perceived." Yet in this article it seems laboured and is in the lead. (There was even a "beauty and brains" reference in the nomination.)
Academic studies have shown that women on Wikipedia are often objectified by being described in terms of their sexuality, appearance and relationships. It's one of the issues we're meant to look out for. (For example, see Eduardo Graells-Garrido, Mounia Lalmas, Filippo Menczer, "First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia", Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext & Social Media, arXiv, 9 February 2015, p. 8).
Thank you, but I've already said everything that I've had to say about this, and I am not interested in making a political statement with my edits. I'll give equal weight to all different opinions, and the sex appeal aspect of her personality is pertinent information that should not be removed. I'll stick to that. Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you are making a political statement with your edits; that's what bothers me. I edited the lead and was reverted, so can you show me sources for "Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal ..."? It sounds as though you're implying she wasn't picked because she was a good actor, but because she was sexy. I'd like to see what sources you base that on. SarahSV(talk) 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making sexy a bad word. It isn't. You are doing both men and women a disservice by such narrow-minded thinking. No one said she was picked for being sexy, but the roles relied SIGNIFICANTLY on her sex appeal and that'a proven fact. Look at the reviews for her performances in Mask of Zorro and Entrapment, and most reviewers talk about her sexuality in them. Her roles in her first few films did rely a lot on her sexuality. Did it end there? No!!! She went on to establish herself as an actress next, with award-winning performances. Look at the first paragraph of her elaborate nytimes interview: "ON screen Catherine Zeta-Jones has been a famous smoulderer, a one-woman heat source. When Antonio Banderas unfastens her bodice in “The Mask of Zorro” — the 1998 movie that introduced her to most Americans, including her husband,Michael Douglas — you feel he ought to be wearing oven mitts. Watching her slither in her jewel-thief cat suit in “Entrapment” (1999), Sean Connery visibly liquefies." How the bloody hell does that not make a reference to her sex appeal? Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your repeated indignation over how the media writes about women or men is redundant here. Not being comfortable with well-sourced media reports is not an existing FA criteria, so i suggest we keep our personal opinions out of this. I'll write about what the media reports and not what other editors want me to write about. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing from this; I'm tired of being attacked as a "bad-faith" editor for asking for what amounts to a procedural hold. ~ RobTalk 05:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose on the basis of stability until the RfC relating to the infobox is closed. While one side of that dispute has decided not to continue reverting, that issue should be resolved before this article is promoted. Any editor has my permission to strike this oppose in good-faith after the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor, in case I forget. ~ RobTalk 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly disruptive and WP:POINTy oppose. There is a discussion on the talk page about the IB which has nothing to do with the FAC or whether this article passes or not. There is a consensus (from c. 5 years ago, if memory serves) that the question of IBs doesn't have any impact on FACs, and I urge the co-ordinators to ignore this oppose from one of the parties who is forcing the IB issue on the talk page. – SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stability is an FA criteria. I cited it in my oppose. The presence or absence of an infobox does not affect FA (and shouldn't). How that discussion is resolved does not affect FA (and shouldn't). But this is a significant dispute that has resulted in blocks for personal attacks. It began with edit-warring. That should be resolved before this goes to FA, whichever way it winds up being resolved. I'm not saying this won't go to FA. I haven't given it a thorough review, but based on what I have read, it should! But there's no deadline for that, and we can afford to wait a week for that dispute to be closed. I encourage the co-ordinators not to reject this FAC on the basis of my oppose. I'm just saying wait a bit, and I've even said any editor may strike my oppose once my concern has been resolved. ~ RobTalk 23:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
? This is not significant at all: it is minor and the to-and-fro has been minimal (not even enough to raise a report at 3RR, let alone an oppose here. There is no question over the article's stability. If you are going to "encourage the co-ordinators not to reject this FAC on the basis of my oppose" then it is not a valid oppose and you're just playing games with the system to be POINTy. – SchroCat (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very clear what my concerns are (ongoing dispute with past history of edit wars and behavioral blocks), how they can be resolved (waiting until the discussion is closed, which should be very soon), and how they relate to the FA criteria (stability). How is it gaming the system to suggest that an article with stability issues, which is a requirement for GA, let alone FA, should wait a very short period of time before getting promoted? ~ RobTalk 01:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The minor to-and-fro hasn't even reached the level of a 3RR report, so it's a straw man to claim that the article is unstable. The behavioural blocks are another straw man (two editors got heated over a minor point on the talk page - no effect on the article, or the FAC. Your own comment on ignoring your oppose is enough to show you're grandstanding for effect, rather than seriously opposing. I'm going to disengage now as your inexperience at FAC is showing too much and I can guess what the co-ordinators will make of your dubious claims toward "stability". – SchroCat (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a moot point as I'm not in a position to close the nom at this stage, but a talk page discussion about an infobox hardly constitutes a stability issue in itself. The wording of the FAC criterion in question defines stability as there being no ongoing edit wars, and no major changes to content unrelated to the FAC. An infobox is essentially a style consideration; by its nature it should be primarily about the presentation of selected content that already exists in the article, not content per se. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously an attempt by Light show to disrupt the stability of the article to further their own agenda. Not a coincidence after all, that his peer who supports the inclusion of infoboxs opposes the nomination for stability issues. Editors point out that there is none. So Light show goes ahead and creates a stability issue! This FAC is turning out to be a lynch mob! Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, I do not oppose based on stability issues related to Light snow's edits. I apologize if you feel attacked Krimuk90. That is very much not my intention, and I think you should get FA credit for this article. I'm just appealing to the idea that we should wait a very short period of time before doing the promotion to allow a dispute to settle. After all, there is no deadline. ~ RobTalk 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of the infobox should have no barring on this current FA review. The article is stable and has had some recent major improvements (great job Krimuk90 and al others) I support the current version for FA status. I normally dont comment in these reviews but felt that i should speak-up. I also had a concern with sources....however Krimuk90 has done a good job with replacing many and explain why some less desirable ones are there. I do encourage Light show to please discuss any issues here - because as seen above the edits may not be seen in a good light. I assume all here are more interested in a better article then a box or a misplaced quote -- Moxy (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Moxy. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would not support based on some of the problems I've found. I don't usually comment on FAC pages, but since I've already tried to correct errors at the article I'll link to them with my comments.
Misleading use of quote regarding one of her major films, Entrapment. My attempted edit is explained here. The misused quote from the NY Times, rather than being complimentary of her role, was almost the opposite. It was a stupid quote in that context and I honestly hope it was used there in error.
Misuse of source commentary. I explained here.. The statement I deleted was incorrect and not supported by any of the sources given. It was also one of the five times the overused phrase "sex appeal" was used in the article.
Another similar error here with the repetitious "sex appeal" term being the primary, if not the only contribution of her character.
The lead is obviously important and should be an accurate summary of key facts from the body. I rephrased a sentence here, which included irrelevant aspects. Namely, that her illness was "well documented by the media." In fact, as the article states with cites, she tried to maintain her privacy about her health issues until the media circus and tabloids uncovered it. Hence, the statement seems to reward the media for uncovering this private matter, rather than making the health statement simple. This was a borderline violation of BLP privacy issues which I tried to fix.
There are a number of large masses of introductory trivia, such as this one, which nearly buried the key fact about the film she was in. None of that trivia was worth including, and certainly not before the substance of the paragraph. As part of that cleaning up and rephrasing for clarity, I added what seemed like a valuable quote by her co-star about Z-J. It described, from someone who worked with her, some of her important attributes as an actress on one of her successful film. On the other hand, for one of her unsuccessful and less memorable films, the editor thought it was worth adding another long quote, "In a scathing review, the critic Mick LaSalle wrote that "Zeta-Jones seems less an actress and more a pretty face, and not an interesting one at that," which tells us nothing about the person, only the character.
Another overuse of the "sex appeal" phrase was replaced here with something more accurate, rather than implied and redundant.
Same overuse of that phrase in the lead. I did not find the use of that phrase in any of the cites where it was used. However, I replaced it here, with three characteristics she was noted for as an actress, and which came directly from the cited body text.
I wasn't intending to do any major edits to her article and only note some of the first issues that stood out. Nor did I visit this FAC until now, thanks to Krimuk90's gratuitious ABF and Moxy's suggestion to come here. The problems noted seem easy to fix, which I did, although I assume there may be others. I also commented about the edits at the article talk page.--Light show (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are comments are based on your personal preference and aren't related to any existing FA-criteria. The comments on her sex-appeal are all well-sourced, and any reviewer willing to do a source review can easily verify that. I'm absolutely sick of these editors who are opposing this nomination based on what they deem should be written. I can't make everyone happy, so if these bad-faith comments continue, I'm no longer interested in being involved with this process. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are used in over 90% of FA bios. The one deleted from the article against a 10-year acceptance and against current overwhelming consensus, downgrades it IMO for many readers. For instance, the last sentence of the lead says she is married to Michael Douglas and has two children. An infobox would clarify when they married and any of her previous marriages, if she had any, or other children. It would give her age. It would state what year she started acting. It would list any other career aspects besides acting.
Trivia from tabloids doesn't improve the article, especially without context. In this case, which I tried to delete, it harms it. --Light show (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any decent FAC reviewer can point out that Light Show's version is far off from FA, or even GA standard. He has removed well-sourced information from The Philadelphia Inquirer and has chosen to use this as a source: "source=Entertainment writer Gayl Murphy". No kidding, that's the reference! He has also added this quote to the article: "What can you say about Catherine, except that she's a gal? She's beautiful, tough, likeable and completely charming when you meet her in person. And most of all, she can really act" and is using something called Visimag as a source. He is also using youtube vidoes from dubious publishers. How does that count as an improvement? And you criticize this version that multiple editors have supported. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Inquirer cite was fixed 2 minutes after it was accidentally deleted. The massive trivia aspect of the cite has been commented on above. That indecent and atrocious Visimag source is actually from the review in Film Review magazine, as the source made clear. The atrocious quote by Gayl Murphy was taken from the same source you already used 7 times in the article. I avoid using tabloids as sources like the Daily Mirror. The dubious video publishers were all licensed companies with legal rights to post them on Youtube for promo. That was explained on the article talk page. They were allowable as fair use and added a lot to the commentary where they were used. Any other non-issues? --Light show (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-issue? You must be kidding. Those are basic FA-requirements. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the policy before you review another FAC nomination. In the very talk page, SchroCat called your edits "awful, both in terms of behaviour and in lack of standards". Nothing to say about that? Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FAC criterion defines stability as there being no ongoing edit wars, and no major changes to content unrelated to the FAC. Yet for no apparent reason you started an edit war and resorted to a PA and ABF blitz in your comments to me. As can be seen, most of my edits were minor word or phrase changes, and some trimming, but nothing major. All were explained. I did not create what you label a new version. Yet you needlessly created a hostile atmosphere instead of a collaborative one. You've made major issues out of minor issues. You don't need to keep repeating your PA comments here, so please stop replying to all my comments. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop replying to your comments? You are the one who decided to comment at an FAC in which I'm the nominator, and now you're trying to shut me up when other editors are disagreeing with you. How convenient. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the issue of sex appeal, read the first paragraph of her elaborate nytimes interview: "ON screen Catherine Zeta-Jones has been a famous smoulderer, a one-woman heat source. When Antonio Banderas unfastens her bodice in “The Mask of Zorro” — the 1998 movie that introduced her to most Americans, including her husband,Michael Douglas — you feel he ought to be wearing oven mitts. Watching her slither in her jewel-thief cat suit in “Entrapment” (1999), Sean Connery visibly liquefies." How the bloody hell does that not make a reference to her sex appeal? Each review of her performances in The Mask of Zorro and Entrapment (and a few other later films) makes note of how much her beauty and sexuality benefited the films. This Los Angeles magazine source makes a very similar claim. In addition, this Daily Telegraph source, this Marie Claire source are just few of the sources that talk about her sex appeal. There are many, many more. So stop misrepresenting the sources to further your own agenda of somehow making "sexy" seem to be a bad word. It's not. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one claims she doesn't have sex appeal, and yes that's a reasonable paraphrase. But that phrase is repeated throughout the article, and some of the cites where it's used did not support it. For instance, "...The Mask of Zorro (1998) and Entrapment (1999) relied predominantly on her sex appeal," was not only inaccurate per the sources, but undermined her other contributions per the sources. Most of the sources throughout the article refer to her beauty, intelligence, and acting quality in different degrees. You called it "fluff." But so you don't feel alone, I had a similar discussion with Marilyn Monroe's article editor about why the phrase "dumb blonde" was repeated 6 times, while most of the major book sources used in the article barely mentioned it. It's still used twice in just the lead. And for Z-J, a lead statement such as "established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal," when it's not well supported, effectively diminishes her other attributes and imbalances the bio.--Light show (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't diminish her abilities at all. That's why I said, she "initially" established herself due to her sex appeal. After that, she made a name for herself by sheer talent and that comes across by the numerous awards she won for her work. Also in the media section, I say:Zeta-Jones' success in her early Hollywood films The Mask of Zorro (1998) and Entrapment (1999) relied predominantly on her sex appeal, but Geoffrey Macnab, the editor of the Sight & Sound magazine believes that she went on to establish herself as an actress by defying "skepticism from people who doubted she would succeed". Both the initial phase and later stage is balanced out in this statement. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my opinion. The first part is false, as a straight fact and per the sources, and the second part is trivia and adds little. They do not balance each other. That was one of the reasons I felt the direct quote by Banderas would have helped a bit. --Light show (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. That's an atrocious quote. Anyway, that's it. I'm done replying to you. Please go ahead and spread your hate elsewhere. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delegates: I'm done interacting with Light show. His so-called "improvements" to the article were deemed "awful, both in terms of behaviour and in lack of standards" by SchroCat, and I stand by that argument to the "concerns" he raised in this review. I sincerely hope that this does not negatively impact this nomination. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about Light show and his reasons for posting here when he "doesn't normally comment at FAC" have been raised on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: I'm done being attacked by these crowd of horrendous editors such as SlimVirgin, Littleoliveoil and Light show. Let them write the article. I'm done here. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'll honour the withdrawal request but I hope that after tempers have cooled (perhaps after another peer review as well) we see this article back at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is something about this redhead's husky voice that really gets me. I have enjoyed some of her films. Anyway, after a GAN, I was fortunate enough to receive thorough reviews from Moisejp and SchroCat. Thanks to SNUGGUMS, images have been reviewed in the article's talk. Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews. As I explained on the PR, I have used IMDb to source the awards section, which I know is not considered reliable, but in this case, it simply lists (or should I say relists) the awards she has won or been nominated for. I think it is much more convenient to link one page than to repeat a bundle of sources in a section. FrB.TG (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Made some minor copy-edits throughout. Here's my comments:
Early career
There was already a listing for an "Emily Stone" when Stone registered for the Screen Actors Guild. —Not the best way to start a section. I would suggest to reword this as When Stone registered for the Screen Actors Guild, there was already a listing for an "Emily Stone".
Next sentence, She chose "Riley Stone" as her stage name initially, —Rewrite as She initially chose "Riley Stone" as her stage name,
That year, she also expressed a desire to become a film producer eventually. You don't need "eventually".
That's actually all I saw aside from the minor copy-editing. As to your comment about IMBD, although it may be more convenient, you should have reliable links for the awards. --JDC808♫ 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot JDC808. Regarding the IMDb bit, I would like to add that they are already sourced in the career section (I don't wanna repeat a bunch of sources which look weird). That source is just to not leave an unsourced section. FrB.TG (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating sources is fine, and doesn't look weird. Just make a <ref name=> for them. --JDC808♫ 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a little tricky. Even if I do repeat them (perhaps 17 refs for those two lines), nowhere in those sources do state that she's the nominee of two BAFTAs and two Golden Globes and such. IMDb is just fine to me and repeating 17 sources do look weird. Another article (of FA quality) has done the same. FrB.TG (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would put the ref after each entry of a reward (e.g., "Stone has been nominated for an Academy Award[1], two British Academy Film Awards[2][3], and two Golden Globe Awards[4][5]". and so on, that way it's not 17 refs or however many at the end of a sentence). If no other source states that she won those two BAFTAs and Golden Globes, than where did IMBD get their information? Who's to say they aren't lying? (By the way, the "list of awards" article has the sources.) Also, just because one article does it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's okay here. --JDC808♫ 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about I just remove the section (it does not state anything new anyway) and link it to in the media section, which is after all about honors and award polls. FrB.TG (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do it that way, that's fine. --JDC808♫ 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, done. FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of my points have been addressed. As I said earlier, there wasn't anything else that I saw. I am happy to Support this article's promotion. P.S. I also have the God of War video game series up for FAC. --JDC808♫ 20:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've read this article and found it to be nicely written and comprehensive which meets the FA criteria. Any issues with the article were addressed at GA and PR. Good work! Z105space(talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
Very well-written. Some concerns:
Stone has called this experience "rock bottom". ==> Maybe better as: Stone deemed it as her "rock bottom" experience.
She was nominated for an Oscar for Birdman. Surely there are better reviews that actually talk of her performance than the ones cited, which mention her as the films' "hottest star".
Replaced with another review by The Daily Telegraph which talks about her monologue (almost every other review talks about her presence in that particular scene).
" Stone is filming her third film with Ryan Gosling - Damien Chazelle's musical comedy-drama La La Land,". Please use the mdash.
Who is Kieran Culkin?
Why is her awards page linked in the "media image" section? Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the above discussion with JDC808. FrB.TG (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it in the filmography section, where it is better suited, though a separate section mentioning her notable awards would be even better. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having reviewed the GA and read through this again, I'm confident this meets the FA criteria. It is well written and comprehensive. Well done! JAGUAR 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Moisejp
Hi FrB.TG. The prose is in great shape, and I'm quite sure I'll be supporting. I would just like to maybe spot-check a few references. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have spot-checked several references and found no problems. And as I mentioned above, the prose itself is very good. Great job! Moisejp (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Numerounovedant
Just a very minor suggestion
"Her mother was diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer and was cured in 2008." = her "cancer" was cured.
Rest the article is really well written! Good job! It's a Support. NumerounovedantTalk 08:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this article is ready for WP:FA status. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had my say at PR on my concerns, and I see that the article has been strengthened further since then. Good work. – SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I've not been around FAC for a long time, and maybe expectations have changed, but I'm surprised to find seven supports for this article after a week. On prose alone, this cannot be FAC standard unless, as I say, expectations have changed remarkably. I also have a few concerns about the content of this article. I have no intention of providing a line-by-line review with fixes to be made but I think the authors need to take a close look at this one. Here are some examples only. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"is an American actress. One of the world's highest-paid actresses": actress...actresses in close proximity
I don't know what do you want me to do about it. I can't think of rewording it or a synonym for the word "actress". Besides, repetition can be found everywhere.
FrB.TG, please think about what you just said: "I don't know what do you want me to do about it". FAC reviewers will often suggest ways to solve prose problems, but it's not their obligation; we're reviewing, not copyediting. And "repetition" is not everywhere in good writing, unless there's a good reason for it. Here are several ways around this problem just to show that it can be done -- I'm not suggesting any of these is the best way to go, and in fact I think two of these have other problems. (1) "Emma Stone is an American actress, and one of the most highly-paid in the world. She has been nominated..." (2) Move the statement that she is highly paid to the end of the lead, as part of a summary of her career. (3) Move the statement to the end of the second sentence. This sort of re-working of material to balance rhythm, structure, and repetition, and to give a natural-feeling flow to the prose is part of producing high-quality Wikipedia articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, rephrased.
"has been nominated...": So the award has not been made, and she is still nominated? Why not just "was nominated", or "nominated"?
This one I'd let go; I'd even say "has been nominated" is the usual way this sort of information gets phrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to her acting career, Stone engages in various philanthropic activities." In addition? What is being added to her career? How are her philanthropic activities connected to her acting. And what activities? This is so vague as to be meaningless. (And its not too clear from the main body what these are. She looks to promote some causes, but that is hardly philanthropy.) At least give some indication in the lead. (Maybe something like "Outside of her acting career", but I don't really like that either.)
"Stone began her career with a role in a theater production of The Wind in the Willows in 2000": Far too wordy. Why not just "Stone's first acting role was in a theater production of The Wind in the Willows in 2000"
"She was homeschooled for two years; during this period, she featured in sixteen plays in a regional theater in Arizona": Why does this need to be in the lead?
Why not?
"She studied at Xavier College Preparatory for one semester, and dropped out to pursue a career in film. As a teenager, she relocated to Los Angeles with her mother. ": She relocated after dropping out? And I think again the first sentence could be tighter. Maybe "She dropped out of Xavier College Preparatory after one semester to pursue a film career".
I see you followed Sarastro1's suggestion here but haven't addressed the other point, which is that the sequence of events is unclear -- did she drop out and then relocate? This is an example of a problem that appears elsewhere: two adjacent sentences that aren't clearly narratively linked to each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Stone made her television debut in VH1's In Search of the New Partridge Family, a reality show that produced only an unsold pilot. Following a series of small television roles, she made her film debut in the comedy Superbad (2007), for which she won a Young Hollywood Award. She achieved further mainstream attention in the horror comedy Zombieland (2009).": Sorry, but I think this is trivia, especially for the lead. Nor am I a fan of the simple sentence structure "Stone made... She made... She achieved" Couldn't this be simplified to "After a series of small television roles, she won a Young Hollywood Award for her film debut in Superbad (2007) and received particular media attention for her role in Zombieland (2009)."
The third paragraph of the lead has the same problems: repetitive, simple sentence structure, apparently trivial facts which are just presented in a list with no cohesive theme and fairly meaningless words like "garnered", "breakthrough" and "received praise".
What else would you expect in a biography of an actress like her?
The material in that paragraph is:
First starring role and the nominations for it
Two subsequent roles, one a well-received film
Two films in which she received critical praise
Oscar nod for Birdman
Broadway debut
Of these, I'd say items 1, 4, and 5 clearly belong in a summarizing paragraph, and the order you have them in is right. Items 2 and 3 feel a little random; what's the basis for picking them? I particularly don't see why you single out Crazy, Stupid, Love; it's not her next film after Easy A, and you don't say it was better-received than her other movies. As for The Help, was her part well-received too? If you have sources that make it clear what her best performances are from Easy A on, then that's a natural way to structure the middle of the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have rephrased some words, perhaps reads better now?
And "receive" is mis-spelt.
Moving on from the lead, just some random observations:
"The media considers Stone one of her generation's more talented actresses": Ref 115 does not support this. It calls her "likeable" and "astonishing" but nothing bout talented, or that the media thinks she is talented. Even if it did call her "talented", such a reference would NOT support the opinion that the whole media considered her one of the most talented actresses around.
"As of 2016, she has moved back to Los Angeles": No, "In 2016, she moved back to Los Angeles".
"Her off-screen life is widely discussed by the mass media, though she has refused to speak openly about her private life. Concerned with living a "normal" life, she has said that she finds little value in the media attention": Three "lifes" in two sentences. Why off-screen life; is she dead on screen? Why not just "her life"? "Mass media"? Why not "media" or "journalists", or "entertainment journalists" or something less vague. Openly is redundant here, I think.
And the whole "Personal Life" section seems a randomly collected and organised group of facts. For example, "She has also named actress and singer-songwriter Marion Cotillard as another of her inspirations". Why is this important? Why is it in here? (And all I know about Stone is that she ended up in a relationship with Garfield after Spiderman. I would have thought that needed more prominence, but I know little about her.)
Why not? I can see some huge paragraphs covering about inspirations of music artists. And this is just a line about who has inspired her.
It looks like every film in which she has appeared merits its own paragraph. Why? I'm not sure rehashing all the media interviews she gave for the pre-publicity for her films is really the best way to fill a potential FA.
It's always nice to cover some background information on films an actor stars. Otherwise it would be the usual "played xx, was praised, won awards, box office success".
I am prepared to revisit this (though please ping me as I'm not around as much as I once was) and I'm pretty flexible, but I think this needs a lot of work. And just to reiterate that these are examples, and I suspect I could find many more if I looked through more carefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While some of your points were good, and I thank you for taking time to review this, I think it was just you being a little bit demanding. If you refer to other featured biographies, the structure and overall representation is pretty much the same. I urge you to take a look at articles of its kind before you choose to continue with your review. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of continuing my review at the moment. This does not meet the FA standards, in my opinion. That other articles are the same structure does not make this one good, and if you look carefully, I have not questioned the structure. I suspect the prose and sourcing of these other articles to be better, but you haven't named any. And if you do, yes WP:OTHER. I do rather know my way around FAC, and I have read and reviewed many articles. If you aren't prepared to accept criticism, so be it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully prepared for criticism when I nominate an article for FA, after all that's all it is for. I could name some articles of its kind (and someone of her generation) -- Josh Hutcherson and Sonam Kapoor (an article I wrote myself). Oh and I don't know what issue do you have with sourcing. I think the article is very well sourced. FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have described "breakthrough", "garner", the paragraphs about her roles and the likes as trivia; I don't know what else do you expect in the bio of up-and-coming actress like her. These are all the part of an actor's life. I am not sure how used you are to reviewing a film related article (and I am not questioning your experience), but this is how generally an actress' article is written. Again, what do you want me to write about in, say third para of the lead, which you consider trivial? The para discusses her films and the nature of her roles, which is perfectly natural for an actor's article. FrB.TG (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: After rereading my replies to your comments, I realize that they were very rude, for which I would like to apologize. I am not sure what could change your mind, but would you be kind enough to revisit this nomination. I would be really grateful to you. FrB.TG (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an avid reader, I sat for an hour, analysing the prose and references (I checked for formatting and reliability), but I could not find anything to crap about. I disagree with the above reviewer that it is written in a trivial manner and not quite up to par. This is clearly a very well-written and comprehensive article, without going into unnecessary detail, quite similar to other featured articles. Good work.
Whose review is this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's of a UK-based IP that occasionally reviews FA nominations. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The review is for her performance in the film, not her cover.
I slapped in the wrong title. I meant The House Bunny. I am just a bit worried that you are giving us a single positive quote rather than summarizing that her reviews were generally positive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that I could even find this. This was an easily dismissed role, and there was no mention of her in other sources.
Certain sources do mention it as a memorable role of hers, but there is no critical commentary on her performance that is mentionable or quotable. FrB.TG (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again for Empire, you seem to have found the most positive review? Please summarize critical commentary in an unbiased manner.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
I am hoping you are not cherrypicking reviews, but I see Crazy, Stupid, Love again has a positive review without critical acclaim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is only the review quotable or worthy of mention. There were only few reviews discussing her supporting role and/or performance.
With The Help you again give very positive criticism without stating that she was generally praised.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really necessary to discuss overall reaction of critics towards her every film? Besides, it's very difficult to find a source that discusses review round-up of her performance in certain film.
I am off the opinion that if she was critically reviewed in WP:RSs for any role you are suppose to summarize those reviews unless space is a consideration (the article gets well past 60k and probably towards 100k characters of readable prose).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I continue reading, I only see positive reviews highlighted (The Amazing Spider-Man, The Croods. Is this a proper summary?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some negative reviews. FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, there is criticism to summarize for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and likely for Magic in the Moonlight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the former was criticized, but her performance was generally well-received, as we can see in the source 78.
When I use the word criticism, it may be positive or negative. This paragraph is improved now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Is that really necessary for two two commercial failures? Besides, I have the whitewashing criticism. FrB.TG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are of the opinion that you are only suppose to summarize successful activities, I must Oppose this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that for the films you ask to summarize critically her performance, they were all supporting roles and easily dismissed. There were very few reviews mentioning her, so it's hard to say "overall positive/negative" based on two-three reviews. Anyway, I have added the overall reaction for the films I could find sources and have added negative reaction. I also have resolved the rest of your comments.
@TonyTheTiger: I have managed to add the critical commentary for almost all of the films. Please take a look. FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Checkingfax – . Hi, FrB.TG. I have made several edits to help make Emma Stone's article suitable for a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back and I will !vote soon. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Checkingfax! I am satisfied with the changes you have made. FrB.TG (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: This FAC has had a source review and spot-check of sources. A user opposed, raising some valid concerns, who has made it clear that they are not willing to not continue with their review. It currently has ten supports, including two after the oppose. Do you think there is consensus for closure just yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, basically backing Sarastro's comments, this is poorly written. Just some examples from a brief skim of just the first, Early life, section (I am quite sure I can find more later):
"As an infant, Stone had baby colic and cried frequently. As an adult, she developed nodules and calluses on her vocal chords." No, that's not what the source says, it says she developed nodules as an infant.
In addition, this line is out of place, the first paragraph is about her family origins, not about her as an infant.
Not really, it's about her growing up. Moved to second para.
"While Stone has not described herself as a "tomboy"": Other things she has not described herself as include a rutabaga, a wildebeest, and the Queen of Sheba.
"In a 2013 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Stone said" - this whole section is based on interviews, it's full of quotes like a picnic is full of ants, why mention which interview this particular line is from?
Because in this one she gave a large statement about her past and the interviewer is quite notable, too.
"Stone has acknowledged that she was drawn to acting from the age of four" - Acknowledged? Did someone confront her with this claim? "Ms Stone, we have seventeen witnesses to testify that you were drawn to acting from the age of four! Admit it!"
"She initially wanted a career in sketch comedy, but shifted focus toward musical theater and took voice lessons for eight years" - the fact that this is bracketed by "age of 4" and "age of 11" implies that she declared her sketch comedy intentions at the age of 4. Did she? If not, rephrase, reorder, or both.
"a local acting coach, who had worked at the William Morris Agency in the 1970s, and had film connections" - did she use those connections? If so, say it, and cite it. If not, remove.
The real reason I came here, however, was the "Personal life" section, which is a list of non-notable short term affairs. Remove them. We are not a gossip magazine. --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the other two relationships, but her affair with Andrew Garfield attracted wide media attention.
More:
"The media considers Stone one of her generation's more talented actresses;[120][121]" The media does? What, all of them? Most of them? For a big claim like that, we better have some pretty strong sources. What do we have? We have this (reference 120): http://deadline.com/2015/02/kristen-stewart-kelly-reichardt-project-1201383230/. The only place that seems to even mention Stone is ... the comments section?!? In a long list of other actresses? From some anonymous person named only Nicole? --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. While its writing might be short of FA at places, I look forward to more of your comments so that I can improve it more. FrB.TG (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on prose grounds. Since there is a discussion of some specific prose issues above, I'll add comments there. Sarastro1, if you'd prefer I move my comments to a separate section, rather than interspersing them with yours, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added some comments above. I'll add a couple more comments below, just to make it clear that the problems are not restricted to what's been pointed out already.
There are a few examples of "saidism": using words like "deemed" and "stated" to avoid the repetition of "said". It's quite hard to overuse "said", but even when "said" isn't the best choice, there are usually better ways out of the problem than substituting this sort of word.
The problem of disconnected sentences placed next to each other without any sense of narrative flow reappears in the second paragraph of "Early life".
Last paragraph of the "Early life" section: is there a date for when she dropped out of school? It seems as though she relocated right after she dropped out (and maybe that's why she dropped out) but it could be clearer.
"She played the love interest of Hill's character and to look the part, dyed her hair red": clumsy. As it stands it needs a comma after "and", but I would suggest rewriting it to avoid having to say "the love interest of Hill's character".
"she found the role difficult as the character's personality traits contrasted with her own": I don't think this is the right way to say this. A role with a personality that contrasts with one's own is not automatically difficult to act; the point is that she found it to be difficult. Perhaps "admitted that she found it difficult acting a character whose personality traits were so different to her own", though even that is probably not right, unless Stone admitted that any contrast would have been a challenge, not just this particular one.
-- I'm going to stop there as I think there is plenty of evidence this needs substantial work on prose. I'll revisit if you ask me to (no need to ping me; I'm watching the page) but please don't restrict the fixes just to the points I've listed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a never-ending discussion with a support followed by an opposed followed by a support and so on. I have resolved those concerns of yours (alongside some other ones which I noticed myself). I would be very happy if you revisit, though this does not seem to have a good chance due to the contrasting thoughts of the reviewers. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the fixes you've made, and scanned the rest of the article; I'm going to leave my oppose standing, I'm afraid, as I still think the prose is not at the level it needs to be for FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking whether or not the prose is up to par. I was rather asking if you could post more comments. Anyway, it seems like an mpossible task to satisfy every reviewer here. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. FAC is not for everyone. FrB.TG (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the climate of the various regions in Argentina. Argentina possesses a wide variety of climatic regions ranging from subtropical in the north to subantarctic in the far south. In general, northern parts of the country are characterized by hot, humid summers with mild winters and feature highly seasonal precipitation. The centre has a temperate climate with hot summers and cool, drier winters. Patagonia in the south is most arid or semi–arid except in the extreme west where it receives abundant precipitation to support dense forests, and glaciers. The article has been promoted to GA back in February and I have done copyediting, fact checking, and addition of more info to improve the content. I have also checked the sources to see if they have been copied and I do not see any copying. I believe this article should be promoted to FA class. All are welcome to critique the article and make recommendations on improving it. As well, anyone is more welcome to edit it to improve it. Thanks! Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Important note: I will be busy during in the next 2 weeks but after April 25, I should be free. However, I will try to respond in a timely manner if I can. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Regiones_geograficas_arg.png: on what data source or existing map is this one based? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The file is based on the subdivisions mentioned by Federico Daus (please disregard this crossed out name) in this link. Though the description is in Spanish, the description for the regions is the closest to the map. However, I could not find any much information related to the climate of the Sierras Pampeanas so they were combined into the Cuyo and Northwest Argentina based on more commonly used definitions used by the various governmental organizations in Argentina (Minister of Interior and Public Works, Minister of Energy and Mining, and the National Weather Service). For example, the Sierra Pampeanas located in San Luis Province would fall into the Cuyo region since San Luis Province is generally considered to be part of that region while in La Rioja, Catamarca and Tucuman, they are in Northwest Argentina). For Argentine Antarctica and the South Atlantic Islands (Falklands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands), these areas are disputed and the standard is to mention the climate of undisputed areas. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see this article here. Will return shortly to have a close look and add comments. Cheers, Sainsf<^>Feel at home 09:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of duplinks. You can fix them using this tool.
After reading the entire article to see if there are any duplicate links. I think there is one link per term on this page. Check to see and if not, I can fix it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a thick Yungas Jungle I think it should be "the" instead of "a", else it seems as if Yungas is a variety of jungle and not a proper noun.
Fixed it, see revision. Changed the phrase to "the". Also, in the section on Northwest Argentina, I also clarified that "a thick jungle" is "the thick Yungas jungle". Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a wide variety of climatic regions ranging from subtropical with hot weather in the north to subantarctic in the far south Should be a wide variety of climatic regions, ranging from the hot subtropical region to the north to the (cold, I guess?) subantarctic to the far south.
I changed it to the recommended form. Yes, it would be cold subantarctic. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I checked the revision. Those commas were needed. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in which the extension of the country along with its relief features determines the different varieties in the main climate types Could this be clearer? What does "extension of the country" mean? Should it be "along" instead of "along with"?
The Argentine government source, which did said the extension of the country would refer to the fact that Argentina is a large country, stretching from 22o to 55oS. I think it refers to the diversity in its latitudinal spread, which implies vast differences in the amount of insolation these places receive. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I understand now. I would suggest a rephrase like: In general, Argentina has four main climate types: warm, moderate, arid, and cold; the relief features and the latitudinal extent of the country account for the variety in the climate. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 05:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it. I think that the sentence you recommended is the most clear if placed in that order. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Link tropical, temperate, Atlantic Ocean
Done. I also removed one link to temperate climate since temperate is redirected to temperate climate. For the Atlantic Ocean, it was already linked. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Pampas is mostly flat area "area is redundant
Done. The word "area" was removed. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rain–bearing clouds from the Pacific Ocean from coming in You can say "the Andes obstruct the path of the rain-bearing clouds from the Pacific Ocean" Repeat in main text.
while its latitude puts it in a band of the subtropical high pressure belt, keeping this region dry. Could not understand
It refers to the area being located in the subtropical ridge, being close to 30oS. As well, it is trying to indicate that both the Andes and its latitudinal location are factors in keeping the Cuyo region dry. I changed the sentence a bit to clarify it. I hope it is more clearer with this revision. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the punctuation, thanks for the rephrase. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 05:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
air masses and frontal storms Links?
Done. I added links to these two. For frontal storms, it refers to precipitation by convection when warm air meets cold air. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its climate is classified as a temperate to cool temperate climate "Its climate is classified as temperate to cool temperate with the..."
Fixed that sentence issue. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is a precipitation gradient? It is recommended to include brief explanations in-line so that the reader does not have to chase links.
Since gradient refers to a function that relates to a change in a variable with respect to a particular location, I added a brief description saying that it is the "rate of change in mean annual precipitation in relation to a particular location". As well, I added a link to gradient since it is a mathematical term. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Link subtropical, Misiones Province and other provinces you come across later
Done for first two. Will add in links to other provinces if they are in the main text and not in the notes section given that most readers would see the link first in the main text. Done. I added links to any province I come across as I read through the article. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed it to hence. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the summer than in the winter "the"s not needed
Done. Removed the two "the"'s from that section. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
falls in the form produced by convective thunderstorms simply say "is caused by convective thunderstorms" in this and the line following the next.
I changed it to that format and a similar variant of that for fall. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is a frontal system and an air mass?
For the frontal system. It refers to extratropical cyclones or those large scale storms that occur in midlatitudes, similar to the storms that parts of Canada and USA experience during winter. I changed it to match more what the source says. For air mass, would a link be fine? Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
South Atlantic and South Pacific highs Is it "Highs" or "highs"?
In this case, it is lowercase h since it refers to the high pressure systems in general rather than the name which would be capitalized. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The area further west is the Puna region Is "Puna region" linked elsewhere before?
Yes. It is in the lead sentence. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Nope. Since it was only linked in the lead, it would make sense to link it in the section. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. It should have been hills and I changed it. Also for norte, I found the definition of it with this edit. It is a gentle wind from the northeast that brings hot, humid and muggy conditions (with cloud cover) to the Pampas. It is the wind that brings hot waves. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The climate of the Pampas is characterized as being temperate and humid with no dry season No need to include "characterized as being"
Thanks for your efforts. A few more comments: Sainsf<^>Feel at home 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is insolation linked once in the lead and once in the main article, at first mention? I think it is a term that deserves a link or an explanation.
I fixed it and added a link. The insolation term did not appear in the lead but did appear in Chaco (first paragraph), Northwest Argentina (on the paragraph related to the Puna region) and Patagonia (first section on general climatic influences). Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the term "adiabatically" in "Patagonia". Please see that this is linked at first mention in the lead (if it is there) and in the main article.
The term adiabatically or adiabatic is not in the lead sentence. The term first appears in the Precipitation section for Northwest Argentina and refers to the Lapse rate specifically where temperature changes as it ascends or descends a steep mountain. However, to clarify this, I linked adiabatically to adiabatic process and put (Lapse Rate) with a brief description in brackets for the term related to meteorology. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine. None of the meanings of the sentences were changed. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks for your efforts. I don't see any more issues with the prose, so Support. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 04:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to wait until the source review is also done. I think the majority of them are freely accessible (one can access the full text of publication) with the exception of most book sources where only a preview is available. I did edited the references for more accessible sources if possible. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sainsf: I have checked the sources for Patagonia to see if I am missing any info. I realized that I removed information related to sunshine (contains info stating that it is one of the cloudiest regions in Argentina and has one of the cloudiest places in the world by average annual sunshine hours) and I have restored it (albeit differently with a general overview). Could you check for the prose? Thanks. I will not add anything new unless otherwise stated. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssbbplayer: I have done some c/e, which you can see here. What is "possible" sunshine? Also, have you introduced any new provinces that were not linked earlier? Thanks for adding the information. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 04:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After searching Río Negro, Neuquén, and Tierra del Fuego Province were previously linked before this but Santa Cruz was not so I fixed that. Percent possible sunshine is the percentage of thereotical sunshine a place receives. Hence, having 60% possible sunshine means that it receives 60% of the theoretical amount of sunshine a place receives in which the theoretical amount is if there were no cloudy, foggy or any days that obstruct sunshine. I have added a note to that as a definition. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've made some notes below; the main reason for my oppose is prose issues. I'll be happy to revisit once these points are addressed and a copyedit is done.
Any reason the article is not titled "Climate of Argentina"? Not a problem for FAC, just curious -- it seems a simpler and more straightforward title and would presumably cover exactly the same ground.
@Mike Christie: This article was created after the parent article, Climate of Argentina became too large and had excessive detail during its expansion back in November 2015 when I requested copyediting with the Guild of Copyeditors. The climate of Argentina article has a similar structure to Climate of India in which it has a separate article called Climatic regions of India since it is the only featured article related to the climate of a country. The climate of Argentina article is more broad and includes topics such as climate change and climate related natural disasters (similar to climate of India), which is off topic in this article. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I should have checked to see if that article existed before commenting. You're right, there's a lot more in that article that isn't needed here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the lead is supposed to be in the body too, since the lead is a summary of the article, but the article doesn't have an introductory section that lays out the range of climatic regions in Argentina. I think you need a short section - probably a single paragraph -- before the Mesopotamia section in the body. This would probably allow you to shorten the lead a little, and would also let you get rid of the citation on the first paragraph of the lead. Similarly, each regional section should give the details of the region itself, just as you do in the lead.
I think I did lay out the climate regions by specifying how much they are and why they were done in this way. It also helped removed the citation in the first paragraph of the lead. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; there are some prose issues with the paragraph you wrote which I'll revisit on another pass, but it does fix the problem I raised. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some prose issues: "throughout the year" twice in the same sentence; you say the vegetation transits but I think you mean it transitions; "its rugged topography results in the climate being diverse, which includes the cold and arid Puna region" is clumsy phrasing; "Its climate is classified as temperate to cool temperate climate" is repetitive; and "One defining characteristic are the strong winds" -- verb number problem. That's just from a scan of the lead.
@Mike Christie: I spotted those errors too. I fixed them in this edit. That transitioning one was the one I could not catch at all in the lead. Regarding the issue with "its rugged topography results in the climate being diverse, which includes the cold and arid Puna region", I just mentioned it that it is diverse and cut off everything after that (see edit). I think mentioning the Puna, Yungas, etc is redundant. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The breakdown of the regions for the map doesn't match the breakdown for the article. That's not wrong in itself, but I think you need to make it clear to the reader at the start of the section on each region which parts of the map in the lead are included. E.g. I assumed "pampas" includes both the dry pampas and the Sierras Pampeanas, but apparently that's not the case.
I have uploaded two images that are more in line with this article with sources provided from each image (each of them permit usage as long as the source is attributed). I hope they are not deleted and I will wait tomorrow to see if they do not become deleted before putting them on. I think this would solve the major issue that has been lingering on for a while. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More prose issues in the first paragraph of "Mesopotamia". The first two sentences don't precisely repeat each other, but they're very similar; can they be combined into a single sentence that reads a little more fluently? More repetition in "...and abundant rainfall throughout the year. Rainfall is abundant year round since..." -- surely this can be compressed a little?
This one was a difficult one. After checking the sources many times, I changed it to "Mesopotamia has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa according to the Köppen climate classification)". I think adding in the fact that it has no dry season, despite coming from a reliable source is misleading since there is a drying trend in winter in many locations (it is just not that pronounced). Check to see if the edit is fine for addressing this issues (I removed one reference but it was put back by a bot so disregard the removal of that reference). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by the Köppen abbreviations (Cfa, for example) until I followed the link; I'd suggest rephrasing this to something like "has a Köppen climate classification of Cfa, which means ..."
I wonder if this minor change makes more sense to readers who are unfamiliar with the Köppen abbreviations ? Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Summers ... are one of the most humid seasons" is odd phrasing; it means there are several seasons that are the most humid, and summer is one of them. I think you mean simply that "summer is the most humid season".
I fixed that issue. The source did mentioned that summer is one of the two most humid seasons in the region though it failed to mention the other season. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the sentence gives the precipitation as if it were a measure of humidity. If the source says anything about how high the humidity gets, I'd quote that, otherwise say something like "with precipitation ranging from". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source. It did not mention humidity so I am sticking with "with precipitation ranging from" to clarify this and indicate the mm values refer to precipitation and nothing else. [19]. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Similar to summer, most precipitation is caused by" -- needs to be rephrased; summer is not what fall precipitation is similar to; it's similar to the precipitation in summer.
OK, but now we have two almost identical sentences, one about summer and one about fall. Can they be combined? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation of which provinces are in each region is relegated to a note. I wouldn't oppose over this, but I don't really see a good reason for it -- the reader is going to want to know what parts of the country fall into each region, so why not include that in the article text?
This issue is now fixed. For each region, there are few sentences that mention which parts of the country fall into each region. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what you mean by positive water balance. I looked at the water balance article, and wasn't able to figure it out.
It is defined as the difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration. I changed it in these edits to make it clearer to the reader. [20][21]Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast, cold fronts are common during winter, leading to highly variable weather": doesn't this just repeat what was said earlier in this paragraph?
After a closer look, it is repetition. I have removed it since the previous sentence before "summers feature more stable weather ..." mentions cold fronts in general and how it is more frequent in winter. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Consequentially, the vegetation differs": you mean "consequently".
"As moist air reaches the eastern slopes of the mountains, it rises and cools adiabatically (Lapse rate, which is the rate at which the temperature cools as altitude increases), leading to the formation of clouds that generate copious amounts of rain": the parenthesis doesn't seem to relate to the sentence around it.
This one was a challenging one. The parenthesis is used to define the term adiabatic but I have difficulty in explaining it in a meteorological context. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is unchanged? The problem isn't with the definition; it's that the parenthesis doesn't explain why the lapse rate is relevant to defining "adiabatic". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection, I removed this since it doesn't seem to relate to the sentence around it. I think the link to the term is sufficient enough since that page explains the meaning in detail. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The eastern slopes of the mountains receives": verb number problem.
-- I'm going to stop here for now; the article has enough prose issues for me to oppose on those grounds. I haven't looked through the whole article yet, but if you copyedit, or get someone else to do it, please check the rest of the article too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the points you've dealt with. No need to ping me on each reply, by the way; I have this page watchlisted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the issues related to the definition of the regions and the issue regarding the map right now. I just added a section that deals with the definition of the regions. I need to do a bit of research in this. So far, I could not find anything related to the Sierra Pampeanas in terms of climatic conditions, both in Spanish and English. The idea of mentioning which regions belong to the map is useful since I feel that the 6 regions (Pampas, Northwest, Cuyo, Patagonia, Mesopotamia, and Chaco) is more applicable than the map shown (e.g INDEC, and other Argentina government websites use 6 regions). I will let you know when I am done. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll keep an eye on this and comment again when you're through. A question: would it make more sense to have a map showing only the meteorological regions, not the geographic ones? As the lead image, at least, it seems that might be more useful to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The geographic ones are sufficient enough since they were divided on the basis of geographical, climatic, and cultural factors (as mentioned in one source). The meteorological one is not that good since much of the existing literature (and sources) are based on explaining the climatology of these geographical regions and not based on meteorological regions. I think right now, if someone can make a map based on the subdivisions that INDEC uses or based on these sources [22] and [23] and [24], that would be great. Much of the article is based on these subdivisions. We should ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for help on this. Unfortuantely, I could not find any info related to meteorological regions from both Servicio Meteorológico Nacional and Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck another point above. The only remaining point above is the fact that the descriptions of the regions in each section don't refer to the map, so the reader can't tell what areas in the map are in each region. In addition, I think you need an independent copyeditor to go through the whole article. Am I right in thinking that English is not your native language? It's extraordinarily difficult to get prose to FA standard when you are not a native speaker. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English is my native language. The poor prose is due to a lack of copyediting from others and the need to prioritize expansion first (unlike other well established articles). Normally, I focus on obtaining the crucial details first and then copyediting it later. This ensures that I am not missing any information and makes the review process easier since it is easier to copyedit rather than find more sources. The last thing I want is having statements that lack sources or missing crucial information since they requires more time than copyediting. I will ask the guild of copyeditors to help in this part. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I respectfully suggest that you withdraw the nomination and get the copyediting done, and then resubmit? I think the content is in good shape, at least as far as I've read, and if you can get a copyedit done the article has a decent chance at being promoted to FA. We're talking about a third party copyedit, but the FAC is two months old -- I really think it would be best to withdraw, and renominate when you think it's ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The recording of the Breeders' Title TK album was filled with lots of affecting episodes, which are summed up succinctly in this new Featured Article Candidate. I invite you to read this engaging account of the highs and lows of the recording sessions, and get privy to details about their end results. The article was originally reviewed for GA in late 2014 by Sparklism, and more recently peer-reviewed and/or copy-edited by John, Famous Hobo, FrB.TG, SchroCat, and IndianBio. I look forward to all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I said everything I had t say at the PR. I can't find anything else preventing me from endorsing this article's promotion to FA. Good job! FrB.TG (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, FrB.TG, and thank you again for all of your suggestions in the PR.
Image check: No image copyright issues. Support. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
Thanks a lot for your support and you image check, Stifle—I really appreciate it!
Support Article is looking really good and this seems to be the next logical step, well done! Robvanvee 14:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Robvanvee. I'm glad you like the article, and I appreciate your support. :-)
Hello! Hopefully I'll review this article tomorrow, could you ping me on Friday if I haven't begun work on this? Thank you. pedrohome | talk 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi pedro. Thank you very much. I will definitely ping you on Friday if you haven't started work on it by then. I'm looking forward to you feedback, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello pedro. Thank you again for your interest in this article. As you requested, I'm pinging you. :-) Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had my say at PR, and think this is up to FA standards. Good work - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks really a lot for all your help and your support, SchroCat!
Support: I really like the way the images are aligned now, facing the article rather than away from them. So I can support this article for being promoted as featured article. —IB[ Poke ] 08:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IB! I really appreciate your contributions to the article and your support. Moisejp (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed this for GA and it's been on my watchlist ever since. Looking at it again now, I can see that it's come a long way since that review, and I think it meets the FA criteria. Great stuff! — sparklism hey! 14:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support, Sparklism. Also, thank you during the GA review for pushing me to expand the article beyond what it originally was. I seriously believe it wouldn't have this far if I hadn't scoured my sources and expanded it, thanks to your prompting! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm late to the party. Anyway, I read through this article twice now, and honestly, it's a great read. In case this hasn't gotten enough supports, here's an additional Support. I guess I can try to make myself useful and do a source review, if you need one. oh and by the way Moisejp, I'm going to eventually get back to that "Help Is on the Way" peer review, and address the comments, just taking a small break from song articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo, thank you so much for your support and for your feedback during PR. Sure, if you would like to do a source review, that would be awesome and very much appreciated! Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prism
I don't think you can use the genres listed on the AllMusic sidebar, so alternative pop-rock should be changed to "alternative rock" which is actually written on the review.
OK, I've changed it as I don't have a strong opinion. But I am a little curious about why you feel we can't use the genres listed on the AllMusic sidebar. In theory, the genres in the AllMusic sidebar seem to be specific to the album itself, while Phares' review suggests the band is part of the alternative rock genre, which doesn't eliminate the possible that a band could dabble in other genres (for certain albums) different from their main one? In this particular case, the difference between "alternative rock" (which I had been linking to anyway) and "alternative pop-rock" seems negligible. But in other cases, when one is trying to find a good source for the genre of a particular album, the AllMusic sidebars are, I find, really handy.
That is only because I remember stumbling upon a WP page where editors were advised to ignore those AllMusic boxes, and only to use them in case other reviews were nonexistent or did not mention an album's genre.
and the output from these sessions was supplemented with two tracks recorded in Los Angeles
I think this comment is meant to suggest cutting "with engineers Andrew Alekel and Mark Arnold"? If you feel strongly about this, I can do it. I was just a little concerned then it might sound like they recorded the two songs with Albini in Los Angeles. What do you think?
Oops, I meant to say that this is lacking another reference to the album. You're saying that the combination of those sessions resulted in Title TK itself but I feel like you need to mention the album again.
OK, I've added "for Title TK" to this sentence. Thank you for the suggestion.
Perhaps this is a question of personal preference but may I suggest switching funny for humorous? Feel free to disregard this one.
Done.
the way the arrangements → "how the arrangements"
Done, thanks.
"by the band's 1993 album Last Splash" This is relatively vague. Did they leave during the recording, the release or...?
Kelley Deal replaced Tanya Donnelly before the recording of the 1992 EP Safari; most sources say Britt Walford (using a pseudonym) was on Safari and that Macpherson replaced him for the recording of Last Splash (although I believe Erlewine says it was Macpherson who used the pseudonym for Safari). I wanted to simplify all of this for my breezy background account. The vagueness of "by the band's 1993 album Last Splash" is from this point of view possibly a good thing. Just now I considered changing "by the band's 1993 album Last Splash" to "before the recording of the 1993 album Last Splash". But I'm worried that by being more specific here, it sounds like Kelley Deal and Jim Macpherson both joined right before Last Splash was recorded. But if you have a good solution for this point, or disagree with me, I'm very flexible about reworking this sentence, thanks.
Leave it be then, no problem.
I'm confused by how the infobox and the prose alternate between "The Breeders" and "the Breeders"
It's unfortunate, in the infobox the same parameter populates "Studio album by XXX" and "XXX chronology". So either one is stuck with "Studio album by The Breeders" (if "The Breeders" is used for that parameter) or "the Breeders chronology" (if "the Breeders" is used). I realize "Studio album by The Breeders" is inconsistent with my usage of "the" mid-sentence throughout the article. If you have a solution, I'd be happy to hear it. But I am strongly against using "The" mid-sentence in the main text of the article.
Yes, it seems like that's tricky. No problem.
[went] AWOL in New York: I feel like this could be paraphrased.
I'm happy to rephrase it. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to do so? I'll also have a think.
I just remembered that I did have it paraphrased in an earlier version of the article: "Deal took 1998 off from musical activity." But I wasn't even sure that was accurate, because (from piecing together info in various sources) it seems she was practicing the drums during at least part of this period. Another possibility is something like "took 1998 off from recording". But I can't even been sure that's true—all I know is any recording in 1998 is not documented. But throughout her career, Deal has often done one-off sessions that aren't necessarily well documented. The truth is we don't know what she was doing that year, although I need to include something in the article for that gap. That's why I ended up just keeping "AWOL in New York", which as you say is vague, but it's really all I have. But, again, I'm very open to paraphrasing it if you have a good suggestion. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence in the Music section could be broken in two sentences, with a new one starting with 'Another commentator'.
Again, I'm flexible about this if you have a strong opinion. But I feel that currently, both reviewers comments respond to the statement "Throughout the album, one-off and unexpected musical ideas are common:" That's why I felt a semi-colon would convey that semantic link more clearly. What do you think?
That's okay.
Beer drinking seems more like an interpretation of the sources than what the reviewer actually states: for example, the Orlando Sentinel article merely reproduces partial lyrics to "Sinister Foxx", which do mention beer; Christgau's remark seems more like a quip.
OK, I have removed all mention of beer drinking as a theme.
It's interesting that there's not a description of each song, but if the information provided on sources is superficial and would result in similar content, that's okay.
I did consider at one point adding a description of each song, but, as you say, I felt it would have been repetitive with the content already in the Music and Lyrics section.
also designed Breeders' releases including Pod, Safari, Last Splash, "Cannonball", and "Divine Hammer". Superfluous information; saying that he designed several Breeders' releases with one or two examples would be satisfactory.
OK, I have cut these down to two.
Not sure if the review part should be written in present tense, but it flows well.
I mentioned to someone in the peer review that while it's true that possibly most articles use the past tense in the Review section, here are some FAs that use the present tense: Night (book), The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (in the Legacy section), School Rumble. These are ones I found kind of randomly and I'm sure there are others. Even if these are the minority, I believe there is enough precedence to allow the present tense as a legitimate alternative to the past. Personally, I am more comfortable with using the present for reviews, possibly due to my academic background. Let me know if you disagree, thanks.
Try paraphrasing the NME quote in the critical reception
I'm going to have a look at this. Please let me know if you have a good suggestion.
Hi pedro, I had another look and confess I don't have any ideas for a good paraphrase in this case. If you have a good suggestion, I'd be very happy to consider it. One complication is, in the lead, the line "as well as for how the arrangements highlight the individual musical components, such as vocals, guitar, and drums" is meant to encompass both The Guardian's and NME's comments. So any paraphrase would also have to make sure that the tie-in with the lead is still valid, and not repetitive. Also, the NME quote touches on the starkness/minimalism of the sound of the album, which is mentioned elsewhere including in the lead, the Music and Lyrics section, and the sound-clip caption. The NME quote uses "skeletal", which is used before, but also "empty sounding", which is not. But I feel right now there is a good balance between the different sections regarding these various points. So I'm a little hesitant to rewrite this particular sentence and possibly disrupt the balance. If it's not a deal-breaker, I'd be happy to keep the quote intact. But again, if you have a really good paraphrase idea that doesn't disrupt the balance, I'd be glad to consider it. Thank you.
The Metacritic is awkwardly placed (it's normally included at the beginning of the section)
I moved it to the start of the section. Thanks for the suggestion.
The Clarke and Christgau refs don't redirect to the Footnotes section when clicked on, haven't checked on the remaining.
Hmm, could it be your browser? I am using Chrome version 50.0.2661.94, and all the links to the Footnotes section seem to work fine for me, including those two.
This is a bit bizarre. It's now working perfectly fine, so my Chrome must have gotten a bit confused.
Otherwise an extremely informative, complete article. It actually got me to listen to the album, which I'm enjoying (it sounds like a less heavy Loveless of sorts). pedrohome | talk 14:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pedro, thank you so much for your suggestions. I've responded to all of your comments. There are the two paraphrasing ones ("AWOL in New York" and the NME review) that I'm going to have a think about the best wording for right now, but, again, if you have any suggestions for these, I'd be happy to hear them. I'm glad you really liked the article, and that it prompted you to listen to the album. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi pedro, I've now responded to your remaining comments. Thank you again for all of your suggestions, and do let me know if you require further action, or have further suggestions. Moisejp (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick replies, I believe that the article should be promoted to FA. Supportpedrohome | talk 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pedro, thank you again so much for your suggestions to improve the article, and also thank you for your support! Moisejp (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment: After seven supports, I would expect this article to be in a better state. There is nothing majorly wrong from a first glance, but I don't think the prose is quite tight enough. There are numerous examples, and I have copy-edited one paragraph to demonstrate some of the little tweaks that I think are needed. But just a few illustrative examples. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Harmonies between the Deal sisters are prominent throughout the album, with Kim Deal's vocals described as rough but endearing": Try to avoid "with [noun] [verb]-ing" structures. Something like "Throughout the album, there are prominent harmonies between the Deal sisters, and Kim Deal's vocals are described as..." And I think we need an actual quotation here.
I'm very open to rewording this, but I'd just like to confirm, User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing says what you said, that we should avoid "with [noun] [verb]-ing". However, the structure I've used is "with [noun] [verb]-ed". Again, I'm happy to consider other wording regardless. About your point of including an actual quotation, maybe we can move "rough and endearing" to be one of the paraphrases you'd like to see in the Music and Lyrics section (see my comment about that below, at the bottom). To be honest, I kind of prefer to avoid using direct quotes in the lead, and another option would be to just remove "with Kim Deal's vocals described as rough but endearing" from the lead altogether, if it would need to be replaced by a direct quote. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if we find a different verb such as "considered"—maybe that's not the perfect match, but I'll have a look in the thesaurus—instead of "described", we wouldn't need a direct quote? Moisejp (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1997 sessions took place at four different New York studios, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for studio time, hotels, and moving musical equipment between locations.": A little jumbled. Maybe something more like "The 1997 sessions costs hundreds of thousands of dollars through the fees for using four New York studio locations and the associated expense of moving equipment between them."
OK, I have changed it to a variation of your suggestion. The source also mentions hotel fees, so I included that. Feel free to further copy-edit the sentence as desired. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Deal followed his advice, and went back to her hometown of Dayton, Ohio, to practice the instrument": Comma overload. Maybe "Deal followed his advice. In order to practice the instrument, she returned to her hometown of Dayton, Ohio."
I'm afraid in this case, I really prefer the original version. In the sentence preceding this, it's already established that the purpose is to practice the drums. In the existing version, "practice the instrument" comes at the end of the sentence as a mini-clarification that that was her goal; in the version you propose, it's brought to the forefront even though this purpose has already been established—plus "in order to practice" is heavier than simply "to practice", which also adds to the undue weight. I feel the three commas in the sentence is somewhat unavoidable when two of them are inherently linked to the city-comma-state-comma format that's common in English. But I really respect your opinion, and if would like to discuss this sentence more, I'd be happy to. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few other issues:
I think we overdo the direct quotations here. I think the flow of the article would be improved by a few more paraphrases.
A particularly bad example of this is the last paragraph of "Music and Lyrics", where the use of single word quotations leads to fairly meaningless statements such as "create a "bittersweet"[12] and "haunting" effect.[20] Kim Deal's singing on the album has been called "rasp[y]",[21] "weary",[21][22][25] and "more sandpaper than sugar"." This doesn't really tell the reader anything useful. Also, it is hard for an encyclopaedia to use phrases such as " a "hopeful",[22][25] "sweet",[22] and "melting"[24] quality to her voice" without more explanation. "Hopeful" is hardly a factual description, even if it is a quotation.
There is a lot about the recording of the songs, but very little about their composition. Could we add a little more?
Similarly, there is a lot about the overall album, but not much about individual songs. Other album FAs tend to focus on songs as well as the overall picture.
Finally, I wonder are we being too positive about the reception. I only glanced at the AllMusic review, and while it gave four stars as reported here, I noticed "a new Breeders album is just a nice addition to what's going on in indie rock instead of its salvation. From its very name, Title TK (journalistic shorthand for "title to come") reflects this: it's a surprisingly low-key, self-effacing return that doesn't feel like an attempt at reclaiming Last Splash's glory." This is not negative, but it's hardly flattering. We also have "Very much a take-it-or-leave-it work, Title TK doesn't even try to live up to fans' inflated expectations of what a Breeders album should be -- though the band may not have spent the entire nine years they were gone crafting this album, it feels like the only album they could make after such a long wait. Title TK isn't always a flattering portrait of the Breeders, but it is an admirably honest one." Again, while not contradicting this article, it maybe gives a more rounded assessment of the album than we give.
Incidentally, the same review talks about individual songs in more detail. I'm sure other reviews do likewise, and could be used to give more information.
A useful point of comparison is Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album); while a very different album, and while far, far, far more has been written about that work than will have been written about this, it may give an indication of what content could be added if it were available.
My oppose is not set in stone, but I think the article needs just a little more work to reach FA standard. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro1, thank you very much for your feedback. Also, thank you for your nice copy-edit in the lead. I really appreciate it. About your idea for a section about the songs themselves, I actually have notes for such a section that I was at one point considering including. At the time, I was worried that it would be repetitive with what is already in the Music and Lyrics section, and I didn't include it. But I would like to look again at my notes and see whether I can craft something satisfying from them in the coming days. It won't be on the same scale as Sgt. Pepper, but I hope to get two or three sentences per song.
About copy-editing and paraphrasing issues, could I humbly ask you to help me with that, especially if ideas jump out at you for paraphrases or copy-edits that you think would be suitable? I would really like to see any ideas you have for this, especially for the paraphrasing. You could go ahead and make the edits, and then if it happens there are any I strongly disagree with, I would be happy to work out a compromise from there. For the examples you gave (""rasp[y]",[21] "weary",[21][22][25] and "more sandpaper than sugar" ... " a "hopeful",[22][25] "sweet",[22] and "melting") I summed this up as "rough but endearing" in the lead. Personally, I feel "rasp[y]", "weary", "sandpaper", "sweet", and "melting" are vivid descriptions that evoke relatively clear images in the reader's mind, which may be part of the reason I chose not to paraphrase them originally. But, again, if you have ideas about reworking this content effectively, I would be very happy to see them.
Regarding whether the Reception section is overly positive, I feel that we can't help it if AllMusic gave 4 stars that may or may not accurately reflect the review (the Spin review is also more negative than its three stars implies)—that was an editorial decision/judgment made by the publication. But I think overall the Reception section reflects well the degree of positive vs. negative appraisal. It mentions that Metacritic gives it 71%, which is by no means reflective of extreme praise. And I did include two negative reviews in the text itself to counterbalance the positive ones. The Seattle Times review does actually say a few positive things in it as well, but I focused on the negative for it in an attempt to have a good overall balance of positive vs. negative.
I'm almost finished drafting my attempt at a Songs section. I hope to finish tomorrow or soon after. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off looking again until you are finished everything. I'll take another look then and if I've got the time, I'll do a quick copy-edit if there's anything I think I can do. Let me know (i've watch listed this page), but there's no rush. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. I've actually stumbled on a few more sources that I'd somehow missed before, and will take a few extra days to incorporate that content. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reviewers and contributors to this article (FrB.TG, Stifle, Robvanvee, Prism, SchroCat, IndianBio, Sparklism, Famous Hobo, Sarastro1, John): Sarastro1 asked for more about each individual song (Prism had also mentioned the idea), and I have now added a Songs section. I'm totally flexible with the content in this section, and as I mentioned in my edit summary, I'd be very happy for you to be bold in copy-editing, removing any points that don't work well, reorganizing paragraph breaks, etc. Some of the songs have more written about them in sources than others, and the amount I have included about each is proportionate. Also, if it happens the section doesn't work at all, I'm also totally willing to write it off as a failed experiment and revert to what the article was before.
Also, while I have everybody's attention, I was wondering whether there would be consensus for cutting down the paragraph "The singing on Title TK includes prominent harmonies between the Deal sisters.[3][12][20] These harmonies interweave their similar voices,[2] and create a "bittersweet"[12] and "haunting" effect.[20] Kim Deal's singing on the album has been called "rasp[y]",[21] "weary",[21][22][25] and "more sandpaper than sugar".[2] Reviewers have also heard a "hopeful",[22][25] "sweet",[22] and "melting"[24] quality to her voice. Her vocal delivery on "Off You" has been described as "heartbreaking"[20][22] and "fragile".[18]" Sarastro1 has brought up a number of issues about this paragraph. I could move "rough but endearing" from the lead and reduce this paragraph to something like "The singing on Title TK includes prominent harmonies between the Deal sisters,[3][12][20] which interweave their similar voices.[2] Deal's vocals have been described as rough but endearing." Since this is now so short I could attach it to the previous paragraph. Personally, I feel this would reduce the vivid descriptors of Deal's singing, but I'm very willing to do it if consensus is there. Or if anybody else has other brilliant ideas how to improve this paragraph (through paraphrasing or other means) I'd be very happy to consider those ideas too. Thank you for your ongoing help with this article! Moisejp (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, enough messing around. So I finally did that source check, and everything came out fine. Every ref was well formatted, though on the ref "The Breeders are the real Deals", you need to link author Greg Kot. That's the only author with a page that I could think of, though it might be a good idea to check to see if any of the other authors have pages that can be linked to. But for now, since the sources all checked out, I give this a Source Review Support. As for the songs section, I must say, I'm once again impressed. There seems to be a bit of an over reliance of quotes, but every quote seems justified in my opinion. And the paragraph about the vocal styles between the Deal sisters, I'd support sizing it down. Most of the descriptors are very similar, and can be easily summed up to rough but endearing. However, I wouldn't cut it until more editors voice their opinion. I could be the only one for it. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro1, could you please take another look at the article, and see whether it has come along far enough that you would consider removing your opposition? Some notes:
As I noted above, I have added a Songs section.
You also asked whether there might be more to add about the actual composition (I interpreted that to mean the writing/development process) of the songs. Unfortunately, I don't have anything in my sources about this.
I have gone through and removed/paraphrased lots of the quotations including most of the one-word ones.
I have some comments above about some of your concerns about specific points.
More comments: I've taken another look and I'm afraid I still don't think the prose is up to standard. It is a little wordy in places, and there are some convoluted sentences and several parts just have very little meaning to be brutally honest. It is an impressive piece of work, but I don't think it approaches the professional standard required. Just a few examples (and they are only examples), but I don't think that, at the moment, it is worth doing a line-by-line review. Sorry, but the oppose stands. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro1, thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them except for "*We also have a very repetitive sentence structure, where most sentences follow a "[subject] [verb] and [something else]" pattern." I agree that there could be room for improvement on this point, maybe especially in the Songs section, which I had to write quite quickly for this FAC. For adding variety to sentence structure, I would like to go through and make a sincere, concerted effort at the end of this whole process, not now. My reason is because you wrote that your last batch of suggestions were just "examples", which implies you will likely have more to say before this is all done. For instances that are just about adding variety to sentence structure, I can handle that—I'll be able to see when too many sentences in a row follow a "[subject] [verb] and [something else]" pattern, and can edit them accordingly. But I'd like to know before then whether there are other sentences you feel are "meaningless" or superfluous or for whatever reason don't work on a fundamental level. Let's get those instances out of the way first, and then I can I really focus on adding variety to the sentence structure. (If I spent a whole bunch of time now reworking sentence structures, only to find you had bigger issues with these sentences, and then I had to edit them again, that would be a big waste of time.) Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have started to work on adding more variety to the sentence structures, and will continue to actively work on this in the coming days. But I would still like to ask you, if there are remaining issues that you feel don't at the content level rather than the stylistic level, I'd really appreciate if you could let me know sooner rather than later. I'd very much like to get these out of the way ASAP rather than being surprised by them later when there is no time left to address them. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"which feature austere instrumentation and unpredictable musical flourishes, often possess a somber, intimate feel": For me, this is meaningless. I'm sure you can justify this, and give examples of similar articles, but if this appeared on the main page as a FA, what would the general reader understand by it? What is austere instrumentation? What are musical flourishes? How can songs have a "sombre, intimate" feel? We are also expressing an editorial opinion on the songs in Wikipedia's voice.
Reworded to clarify it was reviewers who said all of this. Also, changed to "stark arrangements and unpredictable musical embellishments" (which is used later in the soundclip box). But I really don't understand what is unclear about "somber, intimate feel". Songs can have a feel to them. And it is perfectly normal to describe the feeling of a song to be "somber" and "intimate". But I have removed them from the lead and from the main text. I feel it's unfortunate that the vivid descriptive words used throughout the article—which give the reader a tangible grasp of the character of the album—are so meaningless to you. But anyway, I have removed those terms.
"unconventional, enigmatic, dark, and humorous character of the lyrics": What, all at the same time?
Another editor cut it down to be this. I have restored it to what it was before: "Reviewers have commented on the unconventional and enigmatic, as well as dark but sometimes humorous, character of the lyrics"
"Title TK generated three singles": No it didn't. Someone chose three songs from the album to release as singles.
I have rewritten it to be "Three singles were released from the album: "Off You", "Huffer", and "Son of Three". "
"Reviews have included praise for Albini's contributions to the sound of the album": As written, this sounds like each review has included a section praising Albini's contributions.
I have changed this to "Appraisal has included commendation for Albini's contributions to the sound of the album..." Appraisal is uncountable and thus does not imply that any specific number of reviewers said this.
"as well as for how the arrangements highlight the individual musical components": How can arrangements highlight musical components? Again, this is fairly meaningless. It might be solved by using a better word than "highlight". But even so, I'm not clear how an arrangement can do this.
I have changed "highlight" to "isolate". This refers to two quotes from the Reception section: "Betty Clarke singles out the "separation of sounds" on tracks such as "T and T" and "Off You" as the best aspect of the album" and "John Robinson hears the album as "tuneful ... and impressively empty sounding, the arrangements of the tunes showcasing skeletal guitar and drum patterns and Deal's remarkable voice"." Those both make sense, right? If in the lead changing from "highlight" to "isolate" is not enough for you, can you suggest another wording that satisfyingly encompasses those two review excerpts?
"Between the formation of the alternative rock group the Breeders in 1989 and the release of their album Title TK in 2002, the group underwent several personnel changes; throughout this period, vocalist and songwriter Kim Deal remained the only constant member": Very, very wordy. Can we not cut this right down to "From their formation in 1989, the line-up of the Breeders changed several times; by 2002, the vocalist and songwriter Kim Deal was the only original member."
I have used your suggestion. In the peer review, SchroCat asked that I add "the alternative band" here, but I hope he doesn't mind if I take it out for the conciseness you ask for.
We also have a very repetitive sentence structure, where most sentences follow a "[subject] [verb] and [something else]" pattern.
"1998 was "a lost year" for Deal, in which she "[went] AWOL in New York"": Starting with a year is not a good idea. Where are these quotations coming from? I think we need WP:INTEXT attribution.
It was SchroCat who proposed this structure. But regarding, WP:INTEXT attribution, I can't do it, so I have taken the sentence out for you. There is no satisfying way to paraphrase this sentence (see my explanation to Prism (pedro) above). And if I attribute the direct quotes to author Martin Aston in-text, it really bogs down the text, because the next sentence is not sourced to him, and I'd have to then clarify that someone else said that. There is now a gap for 1998 in the narrative, but maybe it's OK. Nothing really happened that year that affected the recording of the album.
"Music critics have described the sound of Title TK as "skeletal",[17][19] "minimalist",[18][20] and "stripped down",[2][6] and have noted the expressive effect created by the band's restrained instrumentation.": Still not a fan of these short quotations, and why does each quote need two references? Again, could all this not be replaced with something far simpler such as "Critics have observed that there is little instrumentation", or something similar. I'm struggling to find a way to rephrase as, again, words like "skeletal" and "minimalist" are so vague and meaningless in this context. It is no good just lifting quotations from reviews if the words chosen do not convey what the critics were getting at, and the resulting sentences are so vague to the general reader.
I really disagree with you that these terms are meaningless and vague. On the contrary, they vividly convey to the reader that the sound of the album is not overly polished but has minimal instrumentation. And the reason I gave two references for each was so that the reader could clearly see that multiple reviewers were saying this. In any case, I have paraphrased this as "Music critics have commented on the minimal instrumentation used on Title TK.[19][20]" with two references total.
"The phrase "Title TK" means "title to come" in journalistic shorthand.": Should this not come far, far earlier in the article? Our general reader is probably wondering what TK stands for, and should not have to search/wait for the end of the article to find out.
I have now added this to the lead so the reader becomes aware of it sooner. But in the main text itself, I really believe the Release section is the most logical place for it. The album title, as well as the artwork, are aspects that are finalized (in theory) with the release of the album. But if you have a specific other place you'd like to propose, just let me know, thanks.
As I observed before, I think the review section is too positive. There is little cohesion in the paragraphs either, where we just have a string of random quotations from the reviews, but no overarching direction to the text. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About your concerns about the review section, I just want to make sure you read my reply to you about this above. But I'll restate these points and add some more.
Above you said that the AllMusic review seems to be less praising than the four stars given. The four stars awarded was an editorial choice made by the editors of AllMusic. I can't question this, and can't put "Four stars (but actually the review is, arguably, less praising than this rating!)". I also can't not include AllMusic in the infobox, as this is one of the big names in music criticism. I also can't not include Billboard, Christgau, NME, Pitchfork, PopMatters, Rolling Stone, or Spin, also all big names. The Seattle Times is not a big name in music criticism, but I have included it because the review is not overly positive, and I wanted to add some balance. (As I mentioned above, the review does include some positive comments among the negative ones, but I did not mention these in the body of the article to try to balance the overall positive and negative.)
In the GA review, Sparklism suggested there be no more than ten reviews in the infobox, which I think is a good idea. As I stated in the last bullet, I need to include all the big names, and I have included The Seattle Times. So if you want more negative reviews in the infobox, I propose I replace review of The Guardian (which is a major newspaper but not necessarily a music big name in the same way as the other sources) with this negative review from The Riverfront Times: [[26]]. Would that be helpful for resolving this point?
I mentioned above that the main text includes the Metacritic review of 71%, which is by no means overwhelmingly strong praise. As you know, Metacritic summarizes the general opinions of many reviews. So already the reader knows just from this that what the general consensus is. Then, I talk about five positive reviews and two negative ones, which I think is right on par with the 71% overall. So I definitely don't feel the main text is unfairly slanted towards the positive.
You say that "little cohesion in the paragraphs either, where we just have a string of random quotations from the reviews, but no overarching direction to the text." My intention for this section was simply to show some different comments from various reviews, to give the reader a range of elements that different reviewers liked or didn't about the album; from this the reader can get a feel for different aspects that the community of reviewers found good or not—a general breadth of aspects. I don't know how I could add more "cohesion" to the section. There is no overarching big trend of aspects that many reviewers said they liked or didn't. If you have a concrete suggestion about how you would like to see more cohesion added, please tell me. I did previously have "More negatively,..." as a transition for the second paragraph, but another editor removed this. I will tentatively add it back as a minor measure for cohesion. Moisejp (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The point about giving only examples is that I don't think that it is currently worth doing a line-by-line review. I've twice looked at samples which have had problems and for me, that is enough to oppose unless there are big improvements to the whole article, not just to the few examples I've given. An article that needs so much work at this stage in the FA process is a bit of a worry for me. Now, these are only my views and other reviewers may disagree. The best I can offer right now is that if the FAC is archived at any point, I would be more prepared to spend time on it away from the heat of a FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose and Laser brain, could I please ask for your advice on the best way to proceed?
Sarastro1 has kindly offered to work with me to improve the article if the FAC gets archived, and I appreciate this offer. I realize he's the most seasoned FA editor of the nine who reviewed it, and his Oppose undoubtedly has more weight than each of the eight Supports. Still, I'd like to weigh my options (if I have any) about how to proceed.
I'd like to very respectfully say that I really liked the version of the article from May 8 [[27]] before Sarastro1 contributed his Oppose; apparently eight other editors really liked it too, enough to Support. While most of the comments accompanying their Supports were short, four of the editors did participate in the article's peer review, and had hashed out all of their concerns at that time.
Again, I say this with full respect to Sarastro1, but I have not agreed with several of his suggestions in the FAC. However, I have gone along with these in the spirit of compromise, and in the spirit of trying to get unanimous support. But I feel the article is getting further and further from the version that was supported by eight others. I thought the article flowed well and expressed in vivid terms the character of the Title TK album. But I feel changes I've made based on Sarastro1's comments have chipped away many of the details that let the reader get a good sense of the feel and character of this album.
One development that has been positive was his suggestion to add a Songs section, and some interesting details have been added that otherwise wouldn't have. I wrote this section quickly for the FAC; the flow may not be as strong as (I feel) my original article was, but I could easily polish this more—for example, by adding more variety to the sentence structure, which was one of Sarastro1's recent suggestions. But Sarastro1 has indicated that even if I do a little polishing, in his eyes the article will still be a long way from FA, and that it won't be worthwhile within this FAC to give me any more feedback on other specific points keeping him from supporting. I can understand his point of view, and that's fine.
The way I see it, I have up to three possible options:
Archive the FAC now and take Sarastro1 up on his offer for help outside of the FAC (or try one of the other options below, and they don't work out, graciously fall back on this option). His vision for the article may be different from mine, but in this spirit of compromise, I could live with this as part of the longer-term process to eventually get the article to FA. But part of does wonder whether, when an earlier version of the article did already have eight Supports, I would not be giving up on my own vision of the article too easily.
Revert the article to the May 8 version and hope the eight Supports for that version would carry some weight. This option would mean giving up the Songs section, but I'd be willing to do that. But as I said above, I believe Sarastro1 has a fair amount of clout, so I suspect without his Support I might not get far. Can you tell me realistically whether this option would have any viability? (Of course, even if you did say that this option had the some viability, I wouldn't take this as any kind of promise that the article would pass. I know you would have to make the decision about failure or passing in due course.)
Revert the article to the May 8 version but add the Songs section and polish it some more. Again, I wouldn't have Sarastro1's Support, but in theory I would still have the other eight Supports. Would this option have any viability?
Thank you in advance for your advice on this matter. Moisejp (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: I appreciate you asking your feedback, but your question seems to boil down to "Can I safely disregard some or all of this user's feedback and still have my article promoted?" I'm sure you can understand that there are numerous reasons why we wouldn't want to get into the business of answering questions like that. We can provide guidance on whether reviewer comments are actionable or map back to WP:WIAFA if there is serious disagreement on such matters, but ultimately, nominators are expected to work with reviewers to resolve differences in opinion and make a good faith effort to resolve opposition. That said, many comments are subjective and coordinators are regularly placed in the position of considering whether an article should be promoted over someone's opposition, even though it is not an ideal situation. Try not to get too wrapped up in who the reviewer is, because the substance of the support or oppose is really the only thing that matters. Supports and opposes where the reviewer has evidently exercised care in examining the article against the FA criteria (either here or in some previous review) carry more weight. Hope this helps! --Laser brain(talk) 14:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification, Laser brain. Please archive this FAC. I'll work on it some more outside of the FAC process. Moisejp (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. —Laser brain(talk) 16:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.
.
. Many thanks, kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
) and, as a result, I found several opportunities to re-word it in a way that I thought might improve the reader's experience. If there is anything you dislike in these changes, then please don't be bashful (
