Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2013

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012[edit]

Nominator(s): Casprings (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has faced repeated controversies over WP:SYN, WP:Coatrack, and WP:OR. However, the article is at a clear consensus over those issues. Two important discussions on this can be found here and here. During the last WP:FA nomination, one actionable issue involving the other controversies section was brought up. Basically, it was stated that it was WP:Coatrack. This was also addressed with another RfC. In sum,I think there is consensus on these issues. Moreover, I think the article was improved by the last WP:FA nomination process. In my opinion, I think the article is now at a WP:FA level and wish to put it forward for another nomination.Casprings (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I applaud your efforts to create an encyclopedic topic about a very controversial topic, and that's great! Referencing seems all there, it has free use images, a nice length, well sectioned, well written. I had some questions, but kept reading and found the answers. Great job overall! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support. The previous FAC nomination was declined on 4/13/2013 stating that remaining issues should be resolved prior to another nomination. But it does not appear that anything has been addressed and basically Casprings simply renominated the article. My basic opposition also remains; that this article is little more than a collection of events presented solely to attack Republicans, and still includes the opinion that this had a significant impact presented as a factual statement. (Obama's share of the women vote went down in 2012 compared to 2008). Arzel (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned in my opening statements, I have addressed the issues brought up in the pervious FAC by gaining concensus. The links to those discussions are in that opening statement.Casprings (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have refused to allow the sourced aspect that Obama received more of the women vote in 2008, so I would say that you have continued to not address it. As I have said numerous times, if you wish to write a research paper, do it, just don't present your research on WP as fact. Also, considering it has only been a couple of weeks since the previous close of the FA nomination and that there has been no discussion on the talk page by you I fail to see how you could possibly have addressed those issues. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article follows what is established community concensus. If you want change, I would suggest you try to provide a conceiving argument that sways others. Wikipedia offers many tools to do this and get feedback for what others think. However, simply restating arguments that don't have concensus doesn't work. I would suggest a RfC, for example. Casprings (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arzel, how many forums have you now made this argument in? No one agrees with you that the article will only be neutral if your original synthesis is added. FAC is not designed to allow a single user to stonewall a process because of a personal grievance. Stop beating the dead horse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your desire to push this is well demonstrated. The fact that it is not original synthesis has been well presented. I will not stand idly by while you and Casprings attempt to put forth an article which promotes a view which I have already shown to be untrue with reliable sources. WP is not a place to promote your personal research and advocacy, I really wish you would stop. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arzel may somewhat overstate what can be divined from the actual statistics, but the general point that stating that "women" (in this case, using the word unmodified must apply to the general class) voted FOR Democrats as a result of these gotcha campaign battles flies in the face of the lower statistical level. Nasty politics generally supresses votes, particularly of moderates, and only rallies the base. While speculation on what may have explained election results might fly on election day, statements of causality now need factual statistical and nonpartisan analysis. This article fails on this point, regardless of whether Arzel's analysis is in or out of articlespace. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not my analysis. I have presented the RS's numerous times which clearly state that the effect of the women vote may not be attributed to these events. Casprings and Roscelese seen to be adamantly against including this information supported by reliable sources. Ironically, they already use some of those same sources to promote their own original research. If Casprings and Roscelese believe that the % of women vote for Obama in 2012 is an important statistic to support the general theory then it is extremely disingenuous to leave out the statistic showing (via RS's) that there was no statistical effect. This is not to say that there was no effect, but Obama's % of women vote simply does not support this theory and should not be used in a FA to promote this theory when it can so easily be shown to not be true. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Arzel, he is correct, my comment was out of date. In a prior debate, he was comparing the immediate spin post-election implying effect, and the contradiction of those narratives by later actual statistical data. While I agreed that his analysis was obvious, it was HIS analysis. I neglected to check that, subsequent to Arzel's posting of statistics, with elementary analysis but no secondary WP:RS, WP:RS have been found which also make the same conclusion. This now becomes a debate about whether data or speculative post-election narratices will be used. Sorry.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the source that connects the 2008 data to the subject of the page is? Casprings (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the many WP:RS already cited, the present source of the 2012 gender gap numbers you wish to include ALSO refers to the 2008 and other elections to state that the gender gap is longstanding (and thus unrelated to election-specific issues). Please actually read the references you cite.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • THis has been dealt with. The article has analysis made by WP:RS. If a WP:RS makes the case, it is in the article. Casprings (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How convenient that you would leave out additional information from RS's that do not support that implication you are trying to make. You do realize that your source of the %'s does not make the case that you are trying to make, yet you include them without any context leaving the implication that you are trying to prove. If anything this supports the argument that this article is little more than your personal research paper and I continue to suggest that you submit your research to an actual journal rather than try to use WP for this purpose. Arzel (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They use the exit poll number in context of post election analysis. Those analysis also mention Akin comments. I am doing little but providing the same context as the news articles. No RS I have seem has said, "well he actually got a a percentage less than 2008, so these issues had no effect. That said, if you can find that, less include it.12:32, User:Casprings 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • But they don't tie Akin's comments into the vote % that Obama received in 2012. I have never said that there was no effect, only that none of the RS's say that Obama's % of women vote in 2012 was a reflection of these events in 2012. The closest any of the sources get to any connection, that I have seen, is that the % of women voters went up in 2012, and because of this Romney's advantage with men was unable to close the gap against Obama. Arzel (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I went ahead and started an RfC, here. In either case, we are talking about one sentence. That, in my opinion, should not hold back the article from WP:FA.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not support. Should never have been made even a GA. Questionable WP:RS, plus virtually every paragraph has mis-attribution or fraudulent attribution of spin or opinion to vague sources. Has nothing but a one-sided spin and the documentation of such, NPOV issues abound, as do due weight issues. Unfortunately, there also seems to have been a lot of well-intentioned work to fix every minor technical issue, such as grammar and reference format, but none to address glaring problems with content. extreme fail.
  • Is there any specific issue you can actually cite, that is not already at consensus? This seems to be a string of statements without providing any mention of what is actually in the article. Casprings (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated, too numerous to mention in a FA review. Even machine-generated scan flags this article for weasel words, and excessive use of passive voice. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the problem is "weasel words, and excessive use of passive voice"? But in your pervious statement, you said that "there also seems to have been a lot of well-intentioned work to fix every minor technical issue" and that the problem was " virtually every paragraph has mis-attribution or fraudulent attribution of spin or opinion to vague sources." I am confused. Some examples of text that are problematic would be very helpful.Casprings (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As would evidence of questionable sourcing, as from a quick run-through I didn't see any glaringly obviously non-reliable sources. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would note that both Anonymous and Arzel are not uninvolved in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you "would"? why? comment on editor not edit? --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To point out to other reviews that you and Arzel have reasonable deep involvement in the article. That would be important for anyone reading this to know. I pointed that out in a simple statement.Casprings (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might also point out that you have an even deeper involvement in this article. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't that fall into the no s**t category? I have nominated the article for WP:FA status.Casprings (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nature of a FA review is that you have to address the substance of the comments to the best of your ability and not the person making them. The delegates will judge how reasonable the comments are. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for re-iterating the inappropriate nature of the purely personal comments that started this. I would add a minor correction, though; FA guidelines have behavioral requirements of the NOMINATOR, and failure to abide by the behavioral guidelines, such as personal attacks, being argumentative, filing of nuisance noticeboard actions, canvassing, failure to respond constructively, all disqualify the nominator, and thus the nomination.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. It's based almost entirely on news sources and other fleeting political comments and pamphlets. One might as well feature Israel-related animal conspiracy theories. For a sense of balance, in a country far, far away there were literally hundreds of press articles and dozens of hours of TV shows about a single incident in the 2009 presidential election, debating whether Băsescu did or didn't hit a boy (and there was international press coverage too). If one were to scribble in Wikipedia every single opinion published about that, a FA-length article would be trivially attained. The substantive article for the topic proposed in this review is actually pregnancy from rape, to which the latest US political spat is (justly) just a footnote. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real topic?[edit]

In order to keep discussion centralized, please place further comments at: Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Is_this_a_real_topic?

I'm cross-posting this from a couple different discussions. This article was brought to my attention at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision. I can't help but wonder if "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" is a real topic, or the product of WP:OR and WP:SYN from primary sources to cobbled together to create a topic that doesn't actually exist. IOW, I'm not sure that this article passes WP:GNG. Can someone more familiar to this Wikipedia article point me to a few articles from reliable sources about this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I do applaud the article creators for working hard to get this sort of article, which is in one of the most controversial topic areas, to FAC, regardless of passing. I do have some issues, which I feel should be actioned on:
    "Some American pro-life activists favor the medically inaccurate contention that pregnancy is less likely or does not result from rape." →→ My first point is from personal aesthetics: I don't particularly like citation marks in the middle of sentences. Secondly, I think it would be much easier, and less synthetic, to find papers that test that hypothesis directly. Note that I do personally believe that pregnancy from rape is just as, if not more likely than pregnancy from consensual unprotected intercourse, I have issues with the way the footnote is presented which makes it look like OR. synthesis.
    "According to Charles Babington of the Associated Press..." → either Huckabee did or didn't criticise establishment Republicans.
    Roscoe Bartlett section → I don't see any NPOV issues here, but the quote block needs fixing.
    There seems to be a "multiple sources foo bar.[1][2][3][4]" issue. If possible, I would refrain from doing this and limit to one or two top-tier sources , with expanded commentary on them.
  • In short... I wouldn't promote it as-is. It may be possible to fix these issues in the course of this FAC, but I'd wait a few months, get a disengaged copyeditor in, and come back later in the summer. Hope this helps, Sceptre (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I will work on fixing those issues. I will also ask for another peer review and copy edit.Casprings (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree with the aesthetic point. I moved it to the end. I don't agree with the other. To me, it just simply references several relevant studies, all found in the article pregnancy from rape. These are the studies that are cited to show that rape can cause pregnancy. They are the most relavant.Casprings (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed. Plus it isn't in a good spot. Moved it.Casprings (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Block quote is fixed.Casprings (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. I hesitate to take sources out, given the level of controversy. That said, I will start going through the article and combining or deletion where I can.Casprings (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Polled Dorset[edit]

Nominator(s): Isaiahgee (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the FA criteria and is important to highlight the aspects of the Polled Dorset sheep to the general wikipedia community as time, experiment, resources, collaboration and studies all contribute from a classroom prospective.--Isaiahgee (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you followed the FAC instructions which includes: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination"? Graham Colm (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While I've no doubt that this makes a solid GA, I do not feel that it is ready for FA status. I've cleaned up the references cited, but a quick Google Scholar search shows that there is a wealth of published academic material on this breed, and that's the kind of literature the article would ideally be based on. I suspect that these articles will also contain information that the article does not. I've cited a few as an example in a further reading section. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Slug (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk), Melicans (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed once again. The previous nomination from a couple years ago failed due to some needed copyediting. The article has since been thoroughly copyedited, and some new information has been added to expand on the subject, bringing it up to FA standards. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't think why this article has had to wait nearly four weeks for any FAC attention; it's been here before, and there is usually sufficient interest in popular music articles to create some discussion and interaction. This is not really my area of music, but I hope that my review will provoke others to chip in:

  • Article length: at around 1300 words this is quite short, compared to some featured song articles. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd like someone more familiar with these article to confirm that this one meets the "comprehensive" criterion.
  • In the lead: "Lyrically, it is a portrait of a "desolate soul" during a time of celebration". I am not sure what this means. Also, since the words "desolate soul" are apparently a direct quotation from a source, the term needs to be cited.
  • "U2 spent time in Shinjuku, Tokyo at the end of the Zoo TV Tour in 1993, and the vivid colours of the street signs and billboards made them feel as if they were on the set of the 1982 film Blade Runner." I'm not sure how relevant the Blade Runner reference is, or whether readers will understand it, bearing in mind that the film was set in a futuristic Los Angeles infested by robots.
  • "Written as a soundtrack for a variety for imagined films..." Something wrong with the phrasing there.
  • "that began" → "that had begun"
  • Dates would be useful for the recording of "Seibu" and for its later rediscovery by The Edge.
  • I'm sure Eno meant something by "appearing inexorably", but I've no idea what. The word "inexorable" means "relentless"; how can something "appear" relentlessly? What do you think he meant?
  • There seems to be some compression of time here. In early July the band renames the song; later, Bono decides to deconstruct it, initially with Eno's disapproval but, again later, Eno changes his mind. There then follows the final editing during which Eno is pissed off with the group for its lack of effort. All this, and the editing finishes on 10 July, which is still fairly early in July by my reckoning. I reckon you need to row back on the "laters", particularly as you also have "The Edge later stated...."
  • ""Slug" runs for 4:41 (4 minutes, 41 seconds)". Why not just: ""Slug" runs for 4 minutes, 41 seconds"?

That is all for the moment. I will post a brief sources review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. Most the issues have been addressed. I didn't touch the Blade Runner reference yet because I want to look into that again, nor did I touch the issue with the lead since I didn't write that line and are not familiar with the source. I agree that dates would be useful for the original recording and its rediscovery by The Edge, but sources with that information are unavailable. Only the Eno reference provided dates in relation to its recording. I also deleted Eno's quote ("appearing inexorably") since I couldn't really understand what he meant either (even when re-reading the original source). As far as the shortness or the article, I can say that I've exhausted all possible sources on the topic. Since it was not released as a single, played live, or even technically appeared on a U2 album, there aren't too many sources relating to it other than what is cited. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks as well for your review. The Blade Runner mention is intended to tie in with the mention of visual music later on in the paragraph. It could be that it is out of place in that sequence, or had a greater context in an earlier revision (some parts were removed as I recall, and so the Blade Runner part could be a leftover from that). Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an addendum; on reviewing the article per Eric's comments below, I realized that the source has not yet been added to the quotation in the lead. I'll double-check which source it belongs to tomorrow and add it in then. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference has been added to the lead. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image and sources review: The single image is appropriately licensed. Sources look fine, and citations are properly formatted. The one nitpick is that it is usual to give book publication years rather than exact dates. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many song articles are a bit thin, but this one seems to be pushing the envelope; I'm not even certain it would survive an AfD nomination. Is this song really notable? If it is, then the article certainly doesn't get across to me why. I'm also surprised to see so many prose problems in a second FA nomination. A few examples:

  • "... they derived other aspects of the track from seeing members of the Yakuza". What about the blind members of the Yakuza? What aspects?
  • "Bono decided to completely deconstruct the mix of the song, much to Eno's disapproval, however, Eno was satisfied with Bono's decision to change the mix." Just about the worst deployment of "however" I've ever seen.
  • "... they tried to create a visual suggestion from the music ...". That just doesn't make sense.
  • "Following its release, "Slug" was praised as one of the best songs on the album". How was it praised before its release?

Eric Corbett 23:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Eric. Prose was not significantly addressed in previous nominations, and as prose is admittedly my weakest strength (or strongest weakness, if you prefer) that may be the reason for the numerous problems at this stage. I've done my best to address the issues you have pointed out, with the exception of the third bullet. It may simply be the late hour, but I'm not entirely sure how it is nonsensical.
In regards to the notability, I admit it is something I considered numerous times when creating and editing the article in the past. WP:NSONG states "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I believe that the article is "reasonably detailed", and that it meets the first criterion (though "multiple" is clearly a vague term that infers different quantities to different editors). Notability is not part of the FAC criteria but, for what it may be worth, in the first FAC the GA reviewer, Steve, said "As the GA reviewer, I did consider the article's notability and determined that, given a similar treatment for the other songs on the album, it could be unreasonable for that article to host the independent coverage of this song. While my personal views differ in that I prefer longer parent articles to the content being spread all over the shop, its existence does seem justified as far as policy goes." Whether you agree or disagree, my fate is in your hands. =) Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Nominator(s): King Jakob C2 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It recently passed GA with flying colors and since then I have done some copyediting and added a bit more content, so I think it's now ready for FA.King Jakob C2 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination as the requested additional content can probably not be provided with all the sources I am aware of for this subject already in use. King Jakob C2 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Should there not be a link in the Susquehanna River article to this page? Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily, the Susquehanna has hundreds of tributaries, it makes sense that only the largest of them are discussed in its article. There is a link to this page in the river system template at the bottom. Kmusser (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The reference formatting needs some work. Numerous references are lacking publishers, refs 25 and 30 are currently bare links, ref 29 is nothing but a piped title, and refs 16 and 18 shouldn't be in all caps. And is Google Maps considered a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry[edit]

The following is the beginning of my comments on the article. There may be more to come and this should be considered an incomplete review (there always can be more to find). At this time, I oppose promotion to FA, pending the results that ensue from these comments and that of other reviewers.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • I don't consider this article's prose to be well-written, engaging, or professional, in accordance with the FA criteria. I read through this and find large swaths of text that I would write differently--and considerably so. I would have organised the article's sections differently as well.
Media
  • This article needs more images. Two pictures and a map currently included are nice, but more pictures are necessary given the length of the article and number of sections that are text-only
  •  Question: Would charts/graphs count as acceptable images?King Jakob C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends. Is it an image of a chart, maybe...I just don't see a need for image graphs and charts. If you're just talking about putting a table in the text of an article, no. The map is nice, all river articles should have one. But you only have two pictures pushed up at the top of the article and 80% is just big blocks of text that could benefit from being broken up with pictures.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Check: the three images are free and properly tagged, as of 25APR13.
Citations
  • A lot of the citations (28 out of 30) do not offer a complete set of bibliographic information. For instance:
  • footnotes 21-24 are from the book "History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania" (found here: [5]), but the cite doesn't reference the name of the book or its publishing information, the cites offer no page numbers, just chapters.
  • Gertler, Edward. Keystone Canoeing, Seneca Press, 2004. is an incomplete cite ...where was it published? There are 4 companies called "Seneca Press" that print books. I would refer the nominator to the Chicago/Turabian style guide for rendering these references into properly-formatted citations.
Lede
  • Does not sufficiently summarize content/aspects of the article. Larger themes of history, biology, etc. are neglected or inadequately covered.
  • Sentence: "Fishing Creek is well known for its trout population and it also contains many other species of fish" -- "well known" is peacocking. Almost every river has species of fish and many are trout streams, if the river gets a little puffery, the river ought to be unique. The sentence also is strange...What did the trout population do to become famous? Did they cure cancer or are they a counter-culture?
  • You're not supposed to use removed/done templates in FAC because it slows down how the WP:FAC page loads. Just use text and maybe embolden it when you reply to a comment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence: The watershed of the Fishing Creek is 85 percent forest and 13 percent farmland. In the upper part of the Fishing Creek watershed, the remaining 2 percent is residential, whereas in the lower part of the watershed, the remaining 2 percent is urban - information that is discussed no where in the body of the article. The lede is a summary body, it is not the body nor should it discussed topics or facts that aren't mentioned or expanded in the body.
Tributaries
  • I am not enthusiastic about the short, few-sentence one-paragraph sections in this section, and it would be my subjective judgment that it would be better organized as a larger "Course" prose section akin to those offered in other river FAs, Big Butte Creek, Bull Run River (Oregon), Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Paulins Kill.
  • I don't think google maps (footnote 1) meets WP:RS for discussions of the river's course, tributaries, etc. Perhaps USGS topographical maps, watershed/basin reports and maps, environmental reports, local histories would be a better source that meet WP:RS.
  • According to the GA review, Google maps data is OK for uncontroversial statements. That's in an archive of WP:RS/N (not sure which as there are 147 archives of that noticeboard). King Jakob C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, you're basing entire sections with google maps and for me that is a WP:RS problem. This isn't an innocuous question about alternate spellings of a road name, you are drawing the course of a river from what you see on google maps, that runs afoul of WP:SYN (i.e. original research). When the consensus says unquestionably that it's o.k. for things non-controversial, they're not endorsing a violation of OR or the basing of large swaths of content on google maps. That would not be non-controversial. Secondly, the RS/N board is a discussion board, and from what I've seen searching through it, each time the question of google maps comes up it's mentioned in the archive, it's a discussion, and none of them seem conclusive (one person argues for, another against, and little more is achieved in terms of consensus) and the discussions do not result in either an hard-and-fast consensus or an unequivocal change in the rules. So, unless I see an explicit dictum of "google maps is a reliable source" at WP:RS or another MOS policy/guideline page (i.e. a discussion that results in an unequivocal policy statement), whatever is said on a talk page is meaningless. Third, Google maps (any map) is a tertiary source and should not be used in detailed discussions. That's what secondary sources are for. This is a very salient reason for denying the FA, so I'd advise you to do it right and use a watershed report, or a local history that describes the course of the river and other documents before synthesizing a summary off what you see on google maps. If you have to use a map (a tertiary source), back it up with a secondary source...because if it is verifiable, someone would have put it in a secondary source. And as far as a reliable source, if you have to use a map as a tertiary source for anything, point to a USGS map because google maps has a myriad of accuracy problems. When in doubt, never settle for the easy way out. Google maps is the easy way out and as far as I see it, not reliable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soil
  • As someone with a background in agronomy, I know soils...but this section offers nothing to the unknowledgeable reader. It is a list of the region's various soil profiles and by a cursory glance at the content, it looks likely that this entire section too closely paraphrased from a USDA/NRCS soil survey.
  • The 1914 crop yields aren't atypical or extraordinary--in fact they match average yields today (although the corn is a bit low). Why are they relevant when there's no other discussion of local agriculture? If this river and watershed feeds an agricultural region, a larger discussion of agriculture is warranted.
Watershed
  • Why isn't this section incorporated into the "Course" section? I would think it would be more appropriate and cogent together.
  • This section mentions tributaries that aren't even included in the tributaries section.
History
  • Lacks a lot of parts of the local history (including French and Indian War and Revolution, missing a lot of Native American information that could/should be there, european settlement patterns (which ethnic groups? where did they come from? the Port of Philadelphia?). Also, 1770s is not "recent history", neither is 1915.
  • Just renaming subsections doesn't improve the lack of content on large swaths of history.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biology
  • How is any of these species unique to the area? Aren't they largely the same species you see in almost every other river in the Northeastern US?
Habitat quality
  • Needs context. The entire discussion about habitability scores, organism density, and diversity is useless without explanation what it means and why it's important.
Recreation
  • Not comprehensive/Inadequate coverage. The entire first paragraph is a list of public areas, the second is a one-sentence article with a series of activities but no discussion. If this is a well-known trout stream, here would be the place to extol its virtues.
See also
  • Is there a prevailing reason to link to Catawissa Creek, Nescopeck Creek? They do not seem to be related to the article topic except as other tributaries of the Susquehanna, and that function is better served on the list article cited or in the category of the Susquehanna tributaries.
 FixedKing Jakob C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly more to come. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fredlyfish4[edit]

As as starting point, I think the points I previously made on the article's talk page should be addressed:

  • Briefly mention what the Shannon diversity index is.
  • I think it is worthwhile mentioning that of the three trout species, only brook trout are native and rainbows are probably stocked for recreation (I'm not sure about brown, but I think they're also stocked).
  • The last two-sentence paragraph before biology seems a bit out of place. Perhaps you could expand more on land cover in the watershed and other terrestrial species.
  • The "highest density of organisms" paragraph could use some clarification. What organisms were studied and included in this? An organisms could be a fish or a bacterium and anything in between.
  • With regard to glaciation, mention when the area was last glaciated. I expect this area was near the terminus of the Laurentide ice sheet during the last glacial period, and thus would have been one of the first ice-free areas once glacial retreat began.
  • I also agree with the above that the overall quality of writing should be improved.

Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Ra.One[edit]

Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article's fourth Featured Article nomination. I've done my very best to trim this article down, improve its prose and rectify the previously mentioned problems. The word count is around 5,800, which is roughly half to one-third of what it was in prior nominations; I believe that this size is acceptable (I do realize that 10,000+ words were excessive, and I've accordingly made cuts). I hope that the article now meets the criteria, since its tiring to repeatedly get rejected. In case work is left, please do not hesitate to point out the problems to me. Hope you enjoy! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  • It can be shortened further. For example, the whole possible sequel section can be summarized into two or three sentences and added at the end of reception.
  • The reference 6 of costumes, soundtrack, 7 of statistics, screening, 7 and 9 of controversies, televion and home media, 5 of box office: all have technical errors in the title of reference; they have woe wikilinks embedded within title which are appearing weird.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing for sure, the article does not look intimidating anymore!--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, each instance of linking in a reference is to include the symbol for the Indian rupee, which only recently became a unicode character and so an image was provided in the mean time. I'm guessing that the change to Lua from the previous templating system for the refs do not take well to including an image. Chris857 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on the Sequel section; I've moved it out of the main article, and will summarize it soon.
  • I was hoping that somebody could help me with the ₹ problem. I don't want to revert back to the old Rs. format since its officially discontinued, and the symbol is used throughout the article. If anybody can tell me what to do, I'd be much obliged. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that's a good thing :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Dwaipayan
  • Starting with Production: "Sinha was apprehensive of retaining Khan's support after his previous film Cash (2007) became a commercial failure..." Whose previous film? Sinha or Khan?
Clarified.
  • "Sinha subsequently declared that he would not have approached anybody other than Khan with the film's script" Why do we need this information? This sounds unnecessary to me, unless any more significance is added.
Removed.
  • "Sinha described Ra.One as less of a film and more of an "audacious dream."". again, it can be removed. Or else, explain why was it audacious?
Removed, though I guess it was audacious due to the scale of the film.
  • "He stated that he wanted to "make a film that gives me the right to deserve the iconic status that I’ve got for 20 years" Somewhat promotional! Can be considered to be paraphrased or removed; but can be kept also for now.
Can you suggest a suitable alternative?
  • "He declined to make the film in English, feeling that "cracking Hollywood on their terms" was unnecessary" This seems somewhat enforced. Why would they even think of making a commercial Bollywood movie in English? Context missing.
Added some context, but you should check this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the release of My Name Is Khan (2010), the studio focused..." What is the relationship between the studio and My Name Is Khan?
Added. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... who was contracted after he met Khan at Yash Raj Studios. While the latter began work on the storyboards..." Here, the latter becomes Khan, instead of Chouthmal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified.
  • Ok, this is probably a personal preference issue. This whole detail about exact dates in the second paragraph of Principal photography in this version is not only boring, but confusing. Do we really need such amount of details for photography dates?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its necessary. However, if you feel, I can remove it or wait for another opinion. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait for now.
  • "the Kareena wala red": this needs an English meaning, non-Hindi reader won't understand wala.
Removed since its difficult to literally translate a colloquial word like wala.
  • "In early October 2011, a partnership deal was being finalized by the distributors to allow the film to be released in China across 1,000 prints.": any update on this? Was the deal done?
There has been no update on this so far.
  • "UFO digital theaters": what are UFO digital theaters? any wikilink or explanation?
I have added a web link to the website; is that alright? There is no Wikipedia article on this, but it is notable since articles frequently mention these theaters for big releases.
  • "The film was screened for test audiences to study and gauge the film's appeal across different age groups". You mean the the screening for the cast of Alwaya Kabhi Kabhi? Or, were there other test screenings as well?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing looks a little strange and I spot a lot of broken references. I'd rather see all of the references under one section without the broken links. See Mother India. Please don't sub head references, I think it would look a lot better if you used Col 2 rather than 3 and list all references in one section. Production, Development - the first box actually sticks out of the left side of my screen into the margin, why is this? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By broken references, do you mean dead links or references where the CS1 errors are present? The total number of references numbers over 200, so I categorized them for convenience; however, I could revert it to an ordinary format (but it can take time). Are you sure I should go ahead with that? As for the boxes, I don't know; there seems to be no problem with my computer, and no other editor has mentioned this. Perhaps there's a screen ratio problem in your browser? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certain you should overhaul the references, yes. But ask Dwai or others see what they think and agree. Check refs Costumes :6 Statistics :7 Controversies :7 and 9 , Economics:5 ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the ones where the formatting is broken and are marked "Wikilink embedded in URL title" (e.g. Costumes ref 6); there are several of them throughout the reference section. Also, the official site external link isn't working for me. I also suggest setting column widths for the reference section i.e. {{reflist|group=e|30em}} rather than {{reflist|group=e|3}}, and then that will let the reader's browser set the number of columns dependent on the size of their viewing screen. Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do mean that. I must say that there is something rather unsettling reading this and seeing how many sub articles you've broadened out into during the cutting process. For me this is a little overwhelming and I kinda feel like I've eaten a horse after viewing the staggering amount of bulk you've put into this one film.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have overhauled the references, so that its now back in the traditional format. I've also replaced the problematic errors with Rs. for the time being, even though I still want a solution regarding the symbol. If anybody can help me in this regard, then please do so. Dr. Blofeld, are you referring to the main article alone or to the entire Ra.One topic (which is admittedly very large and in-depth)? Betty, since I can't find any properly working website regarding the specific digital theater chain, I've simply wikilinked it to digital cinema for now; is that alright? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link I was referring to was this one (the first one in the external links section). It doesn't work for me. It may be a regional thing, but it needs to be checked. Betty Logan (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't working for me either, so I've removed it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression looking at the article that you might have rushed the cutting a little and get a strong feeling of bloat, yes, but so many sub headers I think in part might create the illusion of this. You can tell it was a gigantic article and was quickly split off to cut it down quickly which I think has affected it a bit. The article is already looking better with the reference sorting. I'll give this a thorough read later on in the week, my initial thoughts might be too harsh.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may have rushed it under pressure the last time, but I can assure you that post the third FAC, I've ensured that there are proper summaries for each sub-article which are placed in the main article. Please take your time; your input is always appreciated. Cheers, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to look in on this article on my talk. The major problems I see are prose-related (oh, there are other issues, such as overlinking, most notably of crore: I think it's a judgment call whether crore should be linked once, or once per section, but it doesn't need to be linked every time. That's a minor issue though). I will note that in dealing with other articles, I have had to read books from India, and the written form of English, even in scholarly books, can seem slightly informal to an American or Briton. That's not quite what I'm talking about here. Some of it is phrasings (at least from my point of view, and I like to consider myself well-read), which often make the article seem vague. I think a lot of it is what in the film world is called continuity.

The article is quite good. But all these glitches detract from a fine effort. My suggestion is that you find someone who is not familiar with the movie and a good writer to ask all these inconvenient and niggling questions which you will see below (and these are examples, I did not try to find them all) to alert you to these things and help you correct them. Let me give some examples:

  • " Khan faced difficulties with his superhero suit and prosthetic makeup,[14][15] and injured his left knee." (it's unclear if the two are related, though we are told, in another section, that the suits were extremely hot to wear. We are told that he postponed knee surgery to complete the film. With all that, and I'm mindful of the fact that you're trying to save space, it probably should be stated how he hurt his knee.
  • We are not told until the "Reception" section that the film is marketed for children. That surely explains the final sentence of the article, but it's the sort of thing that should probably be in the lede.
  • "essayed", used twice in rapid succession and then never again, is an unusual term. To give the first use in full-sentence form, "The major characters of Ra.One were essayed by protagonists Shahrukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor, and primary antagonist Arjun Rampal." The actors are not protagonists or antagonists, their characters are.
  • The phrase "faced … " (most often difficulties or a variant, but also a number of other issues) is used no fewer than 11 times in this article. That's way too many.
  • "Three actors had initially been considered for the lead female role; Kapoor was ultimately chosen because she insisted on playing the part." That seems an odd qualification (the other two were not insistent?)
  • "and Verma learnt capoeira." The relevance of this is unexplained.
  • "He also said that he wanted to make a film dedicated to father-son relationships" At least judging by the plot description, the only father I'm aware of is killed off quite early. I'm guessing that G.One becomes a father-like figure, based on his appearance and close association with Prateek and Sonia, but if so, you might want to include some hints to that effect in the plot description. Speaking of which ...

The plot description left me scratching my head a bit, but not having seen the film, I must rely on what's given:

  • You say that Ra.One is upset because Prateek (as Lucifer) has reached the second level. Given that it is impossible for either character to die until the third level, this seems odd. Wouldn't the game player have reached at least the second level during testing?
  • "In order to impress his skeptical son Prateek (Verma), and upon the request of his wife Sonia (Kapoor), Shekhar uses his son's idea that the antagonist should be more powerful than the protagonist." Isn't his overarching motivation to save his job?
  • "He uses a wireless technology (which Jenny had introduced in a conference)" "in a conference" means what?
  • How is it that Shekhar's lie that he is Lucifer exposed by scanning his identity card?
  • "He convinces Jenny of the same when they see the destroyed game laboratory," Presumably this is what was meant by the mainframe malfunctioning! The two do not follow. I made mainframes malfunction many times in my student days, not one destroyed the laboratory (of course, technology was primitive then).
  • " the latter creates ten copies of himself. ... The pair realize that only one of the ten Ra.Ones has a shadow" I count eleven, given the inclusion of the original Ra.One.
You get the idea. Phrasings, plot points which you know perfectly well, but because you do know it so well, you don't quite see how it comes at someone who is reading the article cold. As someone might do, who is planning to see the film or has heard something about it. Find someone who can point out all these things to you and help you correct them. That's my advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this gradually over last night and today and I agree with Wehwalt. It is a comprehensive decent article and a commendable effort, but it really does lack the polish needed for FA. The prose in parts is a little clumsy and has some poorly constructed phrases which are not even close to FA quality prose. It doesn't, in my opinion, display the highest level of quality of prose I'd expect for an FA and the article really feels heavy and convoluted at certain parts which is off-putting. I get the impression you've rushed the cutting of this to try to get it to an acceptable length which has affected the quality.

For instance in the lead "The script, written by Sinha and Kanika Dhillon, originated as an idea that Sinha got when he saw a television commercial, and which he subsequently expanded." That's acceptable but I'd write it as something like "Sinha and Kanika Dillion's inspiration for the screenplay derived from the concept of a television commercial."

I suggest you withdraw this as I can't see how it would pass right now, get a few able copyeditors on board and above all to involve some of the cinema writers at the Indian project to give it a going over and try to help prepare it with you for FA. Then nominate it once they're convinced it is ready. I think it needs a thorough copyedit, but I do see potential for this in becoming an FA and I think with some work and some fresh pairs of eyes looking at it it is achievable but honestly I don't think it's ready right now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I did not mean to be unduly discouraging by the way, and would be glad to help out with the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- After remaining open more than a month without any support for promotion, I can't see this gaining consensus in the near future. If Dr Blofeld and Wehwalt are prepared to work with you off-FAC, I think it would stand a good chance at a new nom after the mandatory two-week break following archiving has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

G. Wayne Clough[edit]

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria, and covers a rather notable subject in detail. I took a good deal of time in Feb 2012 to dramatically improve the article, nominated it for FAC in Jan 2013, and replied to or fixed all reviewer comments, but the nom was archived due to lack of feedback. The FAC delegate suggested that I take it to Peer Review, which I did, but that was also archived without any feedback. So, I'm back. Hi! Disavian (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just some quick comments for now.

  • There are many double citations, and even cases with 3 or 4 inline citations. Could you check, if all of those multiple citations are really necessary? A simple fact should be ideally cited by one reliable source. Occasionally complex, disputed or dubious statements may need more than 1 cite, but most of the cited statements seem rather common.
    • I've always erred on the side of providing more citations than are absolutely necessary in case the reliability of one of them is challenged. As far as problems go, that one is pretty minor. :) Disavian (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the awards are properly covered in the main text, they need no citations in the lead (WP:LEADCITE).
  • Talking of coverage, the "President Emeritus" part seems missing in the main text. Make sure all lead information is covered in the main text too. Also when and how did he get this title (maybe add some info from ref #2 to last paragraph in "honors and awards")?
  • "On March 15, 2008, Clough announced in an email to students and staff that he would be stepping down as President on July 1, 2008, after almost fourteen years as President." - as of 2013, all of this is in the past - should be rewritten (and integrated in a larger paragraph to avoid single-sentence paras).
  • Images are all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any specific guidance on the multiple citations question in the MOS, so i'll leave that for other reviewers to comment on. Thanks for adressing the other points. GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Honors and awards: "During the ground breaking ceremony for G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons building held in 2010." Needs another "the" before the building name.
  • Find a Grave (ref 13) isn't a reliable source. Something else will have to be found to support that sentence.
    • This came up in the last FAC, and my comment then was:
I typically avoid FindAGrave as well, but used it to cite his parents' death dates as 1) that information is not contained in any other source I could find 2) it is noncontroversial information 3) a picture of the grave is included. So yes, I would prefer another source, but that seems like reasonably important uncontroversial information to me. Definitely a grey area as far as RS goes, though. I wouldn't be opposed to commenting out that sentence, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Is it preferable to not include the info in that context? Disavian (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no truly reliable source that covers facts, it is preferable to exclude them. That's in general, not just when an article is at FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was just hoping that the picture of the grave conferred some extra reliability. I've gone ahead and hidden the statement in question. diff Disavian (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artinfo is italicized in ref 52 but not in ref 35. I'm not sure whether or not it's a printed publication, but the same publisher should be formatted the same way.
  • All caps in ref 55 need fixing.

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. :) Disavian (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
  • when he oversaw dramatic changes in the institute, including $1 billion in new construction, increased retention and graduation rates, a higher nationwide ranking and a much larger student body. - Not so sure about the use of construction without further description. May just be better to mention new construction without the money value.
    • What kind of further description would be useful here? I think that amount summarizes the scope of the changes to the campus rather well. Disavian (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to stay consistent with use of the serial comma throughout the article. I've switched everything I see to the structure X, Y, and Z rather than X, Y and Z.
    • Thank you for taking the time to fix that. :) Disavian (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bessie Johnson - Was Johnson her native name, or did she not take her husband's name? If she did take the name, she should be nee Johnson.
  • Since it mentions his children, it seems the section early life could just be changed to personal life.
  • However, the faculty encouraged him to pursue a graduate degree, so he continued his education and received his master's in 1965.[5] - Masters in what?
  • Structure of this paragraph is disorganized. It switches between undergrad and grad.
    • It looks like it was separated out. There's really not much out there about his graduate degree. diff. Disavian (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • against his wishes, a surveyor for a railroad company.[6][7] - Why is it against his wishes?
    • These are the quotes I have for that:

    • "Co-oping was a fabulous experience for me," Clough said. "A lot of people say you become a co-op student to find out what you want to do--the odd twist for me was that I found out what I didn't want to do. But; it was very valuable experience. "I was a surveyor for the railroad company. I surveyed when it snowed and when it was burning up. I decided that if I wanted to do something else, I had better start studying."

    • I worked for the railroad, doing surveying and drafting up and down the line between Atlanta and Cincinnati. These railroad surveys were the basis for the platt maps of towns all along the rail line. In addition to keeping them up to date, we surveyed for new industrial parks with rail sidings.
      We also measured the arcs of curves and the height of tunnels, overpasses and bridges with ironwork across the top, to see if the new triple-decker train cars that were designed to carry automobiles would fit. If a tunnel was too low, we would test the bed to see if the tracks could be lowered.
      That co-op job taught me one thing about my chosen major of civil engineering, and that was that I did not want to become a surveyor after I graduated. I enjoyed being outside, but I wasn’t too thrilled about searching for survey monuments in pigpens that had been built over them since the last survey was taken. So I became a geo-technical engineer instead, and never used the surveying skills I had learned on my co-op job.

    • Basically, it was a job he did not enjoy. I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing it, but nothing is coming to mind right this moment. Disavian (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clough's first academic position was as an assistant professor at Duke University.[5] He then became a full professor at Stanford University.[5] - Years?
    • According to the source: "Clough was an assistant and then associate professor at Duke University (1969-1974) and an associate and then full professor at Stanford University (1974-1982)." diff. Disavian (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1982, he went to Virginia Tech as a professor of civil engineering - Not went. Joined the faculty of
  • In 1993, he moved to provost and vice president for academic affairs at the University of Washington.[5] - He didn't move to provost; he became provost.
  • Clough founded the United States Universities Council of Geotechnical Engineering Research, and served as the organization's first president in 1993.[12] - Does he still serve? When did he stop serving, if not?
    • As far as I know, he only served in 1993. If I had to make a conjecture, becoming president of GT in 1994 probably distracted him from that. diff. Disavian (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On September 1, 1994, Clough became the first Georgia Tech alumnus to serve as the President of the Institute, succeeding John Patrick Crecine, and was in office during the 1996 Summer Olympics.[13][14] - In all honesty, while I understand the Olympics nod, I don't think it's pertinent to this article.
    • Well, the 1996 Summer Olympics really changed the campus - Georgia Tech was the site of the Olympians' Village and the Aquatic Center where all of the swimming events took place. The plans were presumably well in the works when he took office, but he was around when the event actually occurred. I don't mind removing the snippet, but that's why I included it in the first place. Disavian (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1998, he separated the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs into the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and returned the College of Management to "College" status. - this sentence is a mess. It should read separated... into the Ivan College of Liberal Arts and the College of Management, which he returned to independent status.
  • This separation was a major organizational change that built upon the large (and controversial) reorganization of the institute by Clough's predecessor.[15][16][17] - Why was it controversial?
    • I explain this in History of Georgia Tech#Restructuring controversy, I'll copy that bit here for you:
      President John Patrick Crecine proposed a controversial restructuring in 1988. The Institute at that point had three colleges: the College of Engineering, the College of Management, and the catch-all COSALS, the College of Sciences and Liberal arts.[188] Crecine reorganized the latter two into the College of Computing, the College of Sciences, and the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs.[187][189] Crecine announced the changes without asking for input, and consequently many faculty members disliked him for his top-down management style.[187] The administration sent out ballots in 1989, and the proposed changes passed with very slim margins.[187] The restructuring took effect in January 1990. While Crecine was seen in a poor light at the time, the changes he made are considered visionary. In January 1994, Crecine resigned.[187][190]
      Disavian (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech also received the Hesburgh Award,[11] - for?
  • The largest result of this case was a change to Georgia Tech's Student Code of Conduct and Community Guide removing penalties for harassing or discriminating against other students.[34][35] - This is a bit confusing. I think the explanation should be brief, but this explanation doesn't really do anything for me in terms of explaining it.
    • The case itself was a bit confusing... they basically sued for the right to harass people, and won. I'll think about it. Disavian (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Prose needs some work. If we work together quickly, we can get this to FA level. :) ceranthor 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After these comments are fixed adequately, I'll post more comments for the rest of the article. ceranthor 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the delay, real life has been busy this week. :) Disavian (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- While I applaud Ceranthor's offer to work with the nominator to get this to FAC in short order, after six wees I think we have to put it to bed for now. Pls continue to address any outstanding comments away from FAC and when a minimum of two weeks has passed the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Bedlington Terrier[edit]

Nominator(s): TKK bark ! 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a high-quality dog breed article that I feel is an excellent example of the quality these articles can have. TKK bark ! 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- As much as it grieves me to do this (WP is somewhat lacking in featured dog articles, and I would love to see more), I will have to oppose on the following points of prose, overlinking, disambiguated links, repetitive references etc. To be helpful, I will list as follows, but this list is by no-means exhaustive. In no particular order...

  • The lede is all over the place. I suggest you look at Beagle to gain an idea to correctly set out sentences and paragraphs in order of importance.
  • "The Bedlington Terrier is a breed of dog..." --Large, medium, small?
  • I do not think its resemblance to a lamb is notable enough to be included within the first few lines of the lede. Maybe towards the end of the lede, or even the first paragraph.
  • "Closely related to the Dandie Dinmont Terrier and numerous other terrier breeds, as well as to the Whippet and Otterhound, the Bedlington Terrier shares traits with all of them, including its curly fur, curved back, and coloration. Originally bred to hunt vermin in mines, the Bedlington Terrier has since been used in dog racing and dog fights, as well as in conformation shows, numerous dog sports, and as a companion dog." -- Prose is poor. Repetition of "Bedlington Terrier" within close proximity of each other, long, drawn out sentences, incorrect link to "dog fights" (I would question this link anyway, together with dog racing),
  • Why do you italicise "Bedlington Terrier"?
  • "Some breeders, notably George Newcombe, have argued that the working ability and courage of the Bedlington terrier has declined since it began being bred for show.[14] Poodle may have been introduced into the breed to make the coat easier to groom and maintain.[14] George Newcombe of the Working Bedlington Terrier Club said that "the pure [Bedlington Terrier] could no longer be considered a serious working beed" and proceeded to cross his dogs with Lakeland Terriers in an attempt to bring back the Bedlington's working qualities.[14]" -- Why are we repeating the same reference?
  • "They were originally known as Rodbury Terriers,[1] Rothbury Terriers,[1][3] or "Rothbury's Lambs",[3] because the Lord of Rothbury had taken a particular liking to the dogs.[3] Before this, they were known as "gypsy dogs", as gypsies and poachers used them to hunt.[3]" -- And here.
  • "The Bedlington Terrier name was first given to a dog named Young Piper, which was owned by a man named Joseph Ainsley.[2][8] Ainsley's Piper has been called "the best of his race"[2] and "had a reputation for great pluck and courage".[2] Piper began working with badgers at eight months old, and carried on hunting other animals generally regarded as vermin until he was blind.[2] Piper is also known for saving a child from a pig, keeping the animal at bay until help arrived.[2] Piper died at fifteen.[2]" -- And here.
  • ...and everywhere else. Please check for this. A reference only needs to given once unless there is an interruption from another reference within the text.
  • Why link "Jealous"?
  • We link "fighting dogs" and "dog fighting" next to each other. Why?
  • "Created in the village of Bedlington in Northumberland, the Bedlington Terrier has been described as "the favorite companion of the northern miners". -- Created!? Suggest bred surely? You create a peice of art, or create a model aeroplane, not a living creature. Dr Jeckyll "created" Mr Hyde, unless the terrier was "created" using the same methods of course.

My best advice would be to get the whole article copy edited , pay close attention to linking of commonly used words, and sort the lede section out. The repetitive referencing also needs some attention. See WP:CITE. I think it would be easier to close and initiate a peer review. As a dog lover, I would be happy to undertake this, but not while it is at FAC. Hope this helps. -- CassiantoTalk 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Sonny Bill Williams[edit]

Nominator(s): Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i think it meets all of the FA criteria and is quite detailed in its content.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time pending significant cleanup of references. Formatting is inconsistent and some citations are missing information (particularly publisher/work). Others, such as this one, are of questionable reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have been meaning to read this article and offer my opinion for a while. Sorry it's taken so long. At the moment I have some serious concerns. My advice is to withdraw the nomination and make a few changes before submitting as a Good article nominee. If you eventually decide you want a peer review then I'd be happy to offer suggestions at that time. I've got some comments that need to be addressed before I give the article a more thorough review:

  • I don't believe the lead adequately summarises the topic; nothing on background, doesn't even say when he started playing in the NRL. Also not sure about the phrase "He is particularly known in rugby league and rugby union for his ability to offload the ball in the tackle and, in rugby league, for his shoulder charges." - it's not adequately referenced and I'm not sure the tone is encyclopaedic. To add to that, haven't shoulder charges in the NRL been banned?
  • ' As a child, he has been described as being "painfully shy" as well as "a freakish sporting talent, a competitive sprinter, a champion high jumper and cross country runner and the kid who played footy in teams a couple of age divisions above, to make things fairer." ' - by who? And that second quote is probably too long.
  • "Williams was a Marist Saints junior[16] when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with the Bulldogs)[17] to play in the Bulldogs junior grades.[18]" - grammar, prose, and normally have citations after punctuation
  • wiki-links: you link things multiple times
  • go from National Rugby League to NRL and back against, and don't introduce the acronym
  • statements such as "He also experienced Premiership success in his rookie year and became the youngest person to play for the Bulldogs in a Grand Final[17] when playing off the bench in the Bulldogs' 16–13 victory over the Sydney Roosters in the 2004 NRL grand final." - apart from the prose, you use "Grand Final" then "grand final" within the same sentence
  • "Williams' contract was due to expire in 2005 and he reportedly received several lucrative offers to attempt to lure him away from the Bulldogs, with the largest rumoured to be about $3 million from Super League club St Helens in the UK.[20] Williams decided to stay with the Bulldogs and signed on for a further two years. St Helens chairman Eamonn McManus later said the club had not made an offer to him.[21]" - this is un-encyclopaedic: you've mentioned a rumour (which are everywhere when NRL players are off contract), but then a very reliable source has denied it!
  • Having the 2013 Roosters section before the 2008 Toulon section is a bad idea. It's incredibly confusing, and I don't see any sense in segregating the article into rugby league and then rugby union sections; better just to make it chronological.
  • Why are there statistics for rugby league and boxing, but not rugby union?
  • I'm not sure about the merits of the honours section
  • Controversies section should be removed and the information incorporated into the relevant sections of his career and personal life
  • I think his international rugby union career information should be expanded—it was only brief, but international rugby is more notable than domestic rugby.

I've stopped for now. Like I said above; I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination, and fix those things before taking it to GAN. - Shudde talk 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

George Juskalian[edit]

Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article contains photographs are directly from the family archives. He was an interesting man who received a lot of page views since the article was created. The information in the article is very well sourced and highly detailed. I believe it is a great fit for FAC. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest collapsing long lists in infobox
  • All Institute of Heraldry links appear to be broken - not sure if this is a temporary problem or not, should recheck later
  • File:Us_legion_of_merit_rib.png and File:Us_silverstar_rib.png should use {{PD-USGov-Military award}} (on Commons)
  • File:US_Army_Airborne_basic_parachutist_badge.gif: source link is dead, and as badge is 3D, should clarify whether the given license applies to badge, photo, or both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll collapse the infobox a bit. Which link exactly is broken? I couldn't find an All Institute of Heraldry references. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm sorry, but the article appears to have had very little preparation for FAC prior to this nomination. It seems to have undergone no formal review process or any discussion with the large and highly knowledgeable WP MilHist contingent. Here are some basic issues that should be addressed:

  • The article's presentation looks completely shambolic. Main points: the profusion of single-sentence paragraphs preventing any prose flow; the repeated insertion of quotation templates into the prose; too many sections and subsections with very little content; the use of level-six section headings (which I've never encountered before), producing the absurd "Escape tunnel" heading, etc.
  • There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article.
  • There is no justification for listing and illustrating the many awards and decorations both in the infobox and in the main body. This is pointless repetition.
  • What is the purpose of including geographic coordinates? How does this information advance the reader's knowledge of the subject.

My own recommendation would be to withdraw this nomination pending discussion with the MilHist people and perhaps a Class-A review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Omak, Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): TBrandley (T • C • B) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following some of my successful nominations, I present Omak, Washington. As the commercial center of Okanogan County, Washington, Omak is considered to be a minor tourist destination with a favorable climate. A small city with 4,880 residents as of 2011, the Omak Stampede is a well-known factor in the municipality. The article was recently classified as good and has obtained a through copy-edit. After extensive work, I believe that this entry satisfies the relevant criteria, unlike some of my previous nominations. Thank you very much, TBrandley (T • C • B) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose
  • Lead
  • I see that "city" is wikilinked in the very first sentence of the lead. It should not have been, so I clicked the link and was taken to City government in Washington (state). There I found Omak was a second-class city of the state. I was wondering whether the term "city" should be wikilinked at all in the lead.
  • Also, has it been mentioned somewhere in the body of the article that Omak is a second-class city in Washington state?
  • "The community of 3.50 square miles (9.1 km2)" So, does the MoS suggest use of 0 (zero) after decimal? I am not sure. In terms of mathemetics, it should be 3.5 square miles, no need of zero (as in 9.1).
  • "...and an urbanized population of 8,229.." Is "urbanized population" an usual expression in US English? I mean it is difficult to understand unless one clicks the piped link.
    • Yes, urbanized is a typical term in American English, according to most dictionaries. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant by this question was: whether the term "urbanized population" usually means the population of metropolitan or micropolitan area? And an additional question, the article United States urban area states that an urban area has a population of 50,000, but Omak does not. So, is it an urban area?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Omak is an urban cluster, which is a small urban area with under 50,000 people, as described at List of United States urban areas. The term, "urbanized population", should refer to an urban area, while "metropolitan population" would refer to a metropolitan region. That seems to be the convention in American English. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the largest member municipality of Okanogan County ". Do we need the word "member" here? "largest municipality in..." sounds sufficient to me.
  • "is the largest member municipality of Okanogan County and has grown significantly since the 1910 census, which recorded 520 residents". So do you mean biggest in size, or, most populous by the term "largest"?
  • "Omak, along with its twin city of Okanogan, forms the commercial center of Greater Omak.". So Omak plus Okanogan equals the commercial center of another entity called Greater Omak. I think a wikilink to Greater Omak won't be bad here, as it seems from reading that Omak, Okanogan and some other places constitute Greater Omak.
    • I'm planning on creating an article for Greater Omak, but for now, there is no link available. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Situated on Okanogan River, the site was first inhabited by Native Americans before the arrival of the first permanent white settlers in 1907." Do we need the first "first" in this sentence? I am not sure.
  • History
  • In origin subsection, the whole first paragraph has one citation superscript at the end. Does that source provide supporting reference for all the data presented in the first paragraph?
    • Yes, it is a relatively large source. It was rather interesting to read. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Omak declined during portions of the 1900s, when fruit prices raised, land was lost and major employers were shut down. " Is 1900 a typo? Because it came into being in 1907.
  • "However, employees bought the mill for $45,000,000 and renamed it Omak Wood Products, in an attempt to save their jobs" Which year?
  • Why does the history (Growth subsection) has such a detailed description of the history of the saw mill? I understand saw mills were the largest manufacturing job employer in the city. Even then, such detailed financial history of the mill seems unnecessary in the city article (especially the later year multiple ownership changes, price etc). I think this description should be ruthlessly cut down. Other reviewers' opinion can be sought.
    • I'm not sure about this one yet. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's ok, you can await other reviewers' comment. Just curious, what is your rationale behind detailing the factory's history in two good-sized paragraphs in an article that deals with the city?
  • While the history section gives apparently unneeded details about the factory, it lacks any other significant events after 1950s (well, I don't know if there was any significant event; if there are, those should be mentioned).
    • There were not any significant events which occurred after, expect the reopening of the mills in 2013. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all points are addressed; except the factory history one (which can await for now). I will try to read rest of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • "The Okanogan River, coming out of the town of Riverside, defines the northeastern border of the city", In the map provided, the river is not visible in the northeastern boundary of the city, rather goes through the center almost, and also south-ish.
    • Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt a "central border" can be formed (borders are around something, not central) Guess it needs more tweak. Also, the river can be on the northeast of the town (I don't know), just that it is not shown in the map. So, I think you should verify from the source.
  • "However, the average elevation is 843 miles (1,357 km) above sea level" Typo :)
  • I think, Köppen climate classification values are usually italicised.
  • "Average monthly participation ranges from about 40 inches (1,000 mm) in August to 1.66 °F (−16.86 °C) in December" again, typo.
  • " the city of Wenatchee is 5 °F (−15 °C) cooler on average than Omak" There is something wrong in this conversion.
  • The text says "Average monthly participation ranges from about 40 inches (1,000 mm) in August" but the table of climate says precipitation in August is 0.49 inches.
  • Also, in the climate table, in winter months, snowfall is more than precipitation. Now, I have no background knowledge of measurement of precipitation, so please pardon me if I say something wrong. AFAIK, precipitation includes rain, snow, sleet etc. So, if precipitation includes snow, how can snow be more than total precipitation? Or, is it so that snowfall amount is converted to water equivalent and then precipitation calculated (snow fall, if converted to water equivalent, the value would be less)
    • I'm not exactly sure, but that's what I would presume. The source maintains equalization, it probably would be a conversion. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, what are the seasons (and which months)? Does the city have fall or spring?
    • There is no reliable information on that, sorry. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Churches are common in this area.". Sort of vague statement. Common in the city? In the whole region? Or, in the downtown? And how many is really common?

  • "... Nancy Lemons stated the cityscape is generally sizable" Not understanding what she means by "generally sizeable"? Does that mean, the cityscape of significant size?
    • Clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still somewhat vague. Can a "cityscape" be of significant size? A city can be of some size. And what is exactly meant by that? (the size of the city already mentioned in topography; does the author compare the city to other cities?)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have missed. Have you mentioned the extent of Omak "urban area"? What are the constituents of the urban area besides the city proper? And what is the size? The population density falls from 545 in the city proper to 1.7 per sq mile in the urbanized area, so the whole urban area must be pretty big.
    • "Its 4.73-square-mile (12.3 km2) urban cluster includes the city of Okanogan" in geography and "The city had an urbanized population of 8,229, with 1.737 inhabitants per square mile (0.7 /km2) and 19.94 percent of the county's residents" makes note. I'll leave the rest for a separate article to provide (such as Demographics of Omak, Washington) and I am working an article for the urbanized Greater Omak. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

  • "...counted 2,500 residents, making it the largest member municipality in Okanogan County". Again, it's the population, not size/area. So, "most populous", not "largest".
  • "...Subsequent census counts documented a significant increase to 4,000 residents before a population boom at the 1980 census. However, after the boom, the population persistently increased..." But the table shows that in 1980 census, population actually decreased. So, how can it be a population boom?
  • " Between 1990 and 2000, the city's population grew by 2.7 percent, while between 2000 and 2010, the population increased by 14.7 percent" Any reason for such a major growth during 2000-2010?
  • "The city is made up of 2,540 women and 2,305 men, giving it a gender balance close to national averages" Please state the national average.
  • "The last complete census in 2000 found..." What is a "complete census"? The 2010 census is not completed yet?
  • "A 2011 population estimate released by the United States Census Bureau recorded 4,881 residents of the city" Perhaps not needed. You have an official figure from 2010 census, and it does not differ significantly.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

  • "The city's economy is experiencing significant growth, according to the County of Okanogan" As of when?
  • "Its economy is relied on the primary industries of agriculture and forestry" Soon, " Infrastructure services and retail trades were also major industries in the community" All are major? If really so, would be nice to have some stats.
    • I've attempted to clarify, see below. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 425 private firms employed a total of 3,332 workers in local industries at this time" What is meant by local industries? Manufacture, retail, infrastructure -- all included?
  • "As of 2010, there are 1,859 people employed in Omak." but just in the earlier paragraph, "About 425 private firms employed a total of 3,332 workers in local industries at this time". So, firms employed more than total people employed? Or, is the 1,859 number reflects those that actually reside within the municipal (or, urban) limits of Omak?
    • The previous paragraph was from "the late 1990s and early 2000s", so the time is slightly different. Thus, addressed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now we have " The largest occupation were office and sale services, comprising approximately 30 percent of the city's total employees, followed by business occupations, with 26.5 percent of the employees in the city" But in the preceding paragraph, Infrastructure services and retail trades, and agriculture and forestry were emphasized. This whole area needs to be straightened out. It may be that the number of employees in a certain industry is more, but the economical output of another industry is more.
    • The 2010 census classifies businesses and industries under different categories, and the content is based on that data. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the very next sentence, "Public services and retail trade defined the highest employed industries" Very soon, "Omak's economy is heavily reliant on tourism".
    • They both are significant aspects of its economy, but I've attempted to clarify somewhat. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read many sections of the article, and found many flaws (for example, in the climate section). I listed those, and majority of those were adequately addressed. However, such high incidence of minor flaws makes me think whether this article is at all ready for FAC. Now, in economy section also I find some discrepancies, and complexity. So, after reading thus far, I am opposing this FA candidacy, mainly due to the lack of criterion 1a, that is, the artricle is not well-written. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there any specific sections that require work? TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly speaking, I did not read beyond Economy. As I pointed out above, I found a lot of minor mistakes in the article so far. Yes, majority of those were corrected, but going by the trend, it seems that following sections might also have such many minor mistakes, or, complexities. I have seen before that often FACs are opposed even for a few mistakes in one section. But that is done by reviewers who have mastery over the language. I do not have professional level expertise on English, so I did not oppose in the beginning, but went on reading and pointing out faults. Although they are not major faults, such a large number of minor faults make the article in need of copy edit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've attempted to clarify and cleanup the economic section, with further explanation. How does it seem now, in your opinion? TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to be back to the article in a few days. Due to some work in real life, I will be busy, and perhaps will be back in about four days. Will have a look at that time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the economy section is better than before, but still not up to the mark. I think the article needs more data (rather than just language) in economy section.
" there were only 26 inhabitants employed in the agriculture and forestry industries. However, the surrounding area has more jobs in the work force" You mean the work force in agriculture?
Yes, clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Public services, meanwhile, defines the highest employed industry" What does it exactly mean? Higest number of people wotk in public services? If so, this is in contrast with what is stated a few lines earlier, " Office and sale services were the largest occupation in Omak" It is still not clear what exactly are the main occupations here (well, we know the names, but their percentage, or, at least, rankings are not given)
Well, I believe the rankings and percentages are enough; would you like me to add the exact number at the 2010 United States Census, however, in this case? TBrandley (T • C • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is confusion, you can simply give the statistics (the numbers/percentages etc). Rather than you stating what is the most prevalent job, the number would convey that message.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The population in 2010 is 4,845. Of these, according to Economy section, 6% are unemployed. So, about 290 are unemplyed, so about 4,555 people should be employed. But the article states 3,769 are emplyed. Well, there may be people not elligible for employment (underage) to answer this falacy. In any case, I think proper terminology or statistics may be lacking here.
Attempted to clarify, how does it seem now? I am going by what the American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau states. TBrandley (T • C • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the location became Okanogan County's largest retailer for a rural period" for a rural period? period was rural?
Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" has been hosted at a local rodeo facility known as Stampede Arena—built in 2009—since 1933" This needs re-structuring. If the facility is built in 2009, how can this host from 1933?
It was rebuilt around 2009, and I've clarified.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Econnomy section is much clearer now. I have not read onwards though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pronunciation of "Omak" as /θmæk/ either requires either an explanation or a fix. "θ" is a "theta"—the "th" sound in English. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attempted to fix; I'm really not that good with IPA language, though, sorry. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless the pronunciation is unusual or unexpected, I'd just drop it entirely. If you don't have a source for it, then isn't that OR? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2010 census estimated that 1,057 people in Omak have attended college, while 504 residents received an academic degree from their respective institution, more than five percent of the state average and 91.5 percent graduated from high school or a more advanced institution, two percent higher than the state average" What do you mean by "more than five percent of the state average"? Surely, this figure is not 5 per cent of what state average is.
  • "mainstream high schools, one mainstream middle school" Are you using the word mainstream to put it in contrast with virtual? That is a pretty unusual usage.
  • "In contrast to the municipal average, Omak Alternative High School had 28 men and 20 women attending the institution." Is the municipal average 28:20 (women:men)? How would we know?
    • The 'demographics' section explains this in detail, but I'll add the statistic again there for clarification. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Omak Middle School, with an enrolment of 339 children, had 171 men and 169 women" Children, and then men and women? Boys/girls, or male/female is more appropriate.
  • "...although an historical military band, the Omak Military Band, was also boosted around 1910" What does this sentence mean? The band was enlarged at that time?
    • No, it operated around 1910, but clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1910, John E. Andrist, the former news director for KHQ-TV in Spokane" Really, they had TV in Spokane in 1910?
    • That was not the meaning of the sentence, but clarified.

I won't read the article any more; it's not ready for FAC. Too many mistakes, sorry. I'd suggest a peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Martha Logan[edit]

Nominator(s): Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It has been a GA for a number of years and I feel that article has depth and breadth of coverage, but I would appreciate feedback or comments on things that need to be fixed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that this article is ready for FA status.

  • I find the heavy use of blockquotes, especially for such small passages of text, slightly problematic. They make the article seem choppy and incomplete, which is not helped by the short paragraphs (in one instance, less than a line.)
  • The non-free images, other than the lead image, are adding little, and really should be removed. Yes, the scenes are important and should be discussed in the article, but that does not mean images are required. Non-free images should be used only if their inclusion adds significantly to the article. You mention this "opening scene" plenty, but never actually say what's in it until right at the end- a non-free image can't be used as a substitute for actually saying something that's important.
  • The "Characterization" section feels very limited. I'm not really sure I have an idea of who the character is after reading it.
  • The characterization section comes from material released by FOX themselves, and I couldn't find much apart from the NYT article that describes the customers background and demeanour. Do you have any ideas? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In places, the writing isn't quite up to scratch; "on the Suvarov's motorcade" (I assume you mean "on the Suvarov family's motorcade", in which case it would be "on the Suvarovs' motorcade"), "After Jack Bauer fails to obtain a confession from Logan,[3] she screams in public that Logan is a murderer during Palmer's funeral." (Which Logan's which?), "Her marriage to President Logan has been described as "one of the highlights of this year."[6]" (Television highlights? 24 highlights? Highlights from a reviewer's life?), "Smart was also nominated for an Emmy for her performance, Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Category, which she lost to Blythe Danner." (This doesn't make sense.)
  • Sourcing problems:
    • Newspaper names should be italicised. Linking to our articles on the newspapers also wouldn't hurt, but isn't mandatory.
    • You've got inconsistent date formatting.
    • Can we have a page number for the West Australian source? I assume that's a newspaper.
    • Ideally, citations should refer to organisations/publications, rather than just websites.
    • The article's based mostly on primary sources, with a few (mostly minor) newspaper articles thrown in. Is this really all there is? There seem to be a good few popular and scholarly books on 24; do these have anything to say about the character? A clumsy Google Search suggests that they may, and there will be more books not archived by Google Books.
      • Television Dramatic Dialogue : A Sociolinguistic Study, for instance, uses discussion of Martha on page 54 before she has been seen as an example of a particular kind of dialogue, but also identifies the role of this dialogue in establishing the role and personality of Martha. This may be worth including- if nothing else, a cite to a scholarly book published by OUP helps legitimate the character as a subject worthy of discussion.
      • Jack Bauer for President: Terrorism and Politics in 24 contains an article by Paul Lytle (who seems to have a few publications in this area) which contains a couple of paragraphs of analysis of Logan's espionage-like activities.
    • This is hardly stuff that's going to demand an article rewrite, but I suggest it may be indicative that there's a lot more out there, in terms of high-quality sources.
    • The first book I had a look for online, and Google Books does not provide page 54 for preview - the only option would be to buy it as an e-book (it does not appear to be stocked in local libraries here or book retailers). The second book has some coverage, but I am not sure if it is worth mentioning in detail in the article. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this article's falling a good way short of the FA benchmark, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on the use of italics for the quotes; as far as I know, that's not consistent with anything in the MoS, and may in fact go against it. My issue with the article as a whole is this- it's pinned together from half-mentions in not-so-great sources, and ends up very short. I have absolutely no doubt that there is more to be said- there seem to be a few writings on the ethics of 24, and so there's probably some analysis out there somewhere about the permissibility of her actions. 24 also seems to have attracted some attention from films studies departments, and there's some literature coming from that direction, which will probably analyse her role in the series a little more. Have you checked these books for a mention? Does the character feature in any of these? How about these? (The linguistics book, for reference, has this mention. It refers to the sixth of nine functions of dialogue in feature films as proposed by Kozloff. The author believes the functions can apply to other media than feature films. This is explained on pp. 52-3.) I'm sorry, but I just don't think that this article is comprehensive. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Half the references are to episodes of 24. This means that you are mainly using primary sources, and that you are doing a significant amount of original research as the entire Characterization section is based on your individual interpretation of the show.122.172.22.133 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that using primary sources constitutes original research. The entire characterisation section came from FOX. Other similar fictional articles which are featured (I.E. Michael Tritter) use the respective TV show as a source of information for what happened to the character. I agree more third party sources are ideal, but disagree with your comments here. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Steven but it's not even close to FA quality. The article should have undergone a peer review before this in which you'd have been told how much work is needed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, peer reviews as I've seen tend to sit there and rot. I thought that this would be a good way to get feedback on the article, and make improvements based off that. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the criterion outlined at WP:FACR:

  1. It is well-written. The content is very interesting; in fact, the first time that I, personally, read the article, I read the entire thing without realizing it - the style and language used is simply engrossing. It is unique, professional, clear, and provides many parallels with other religions and articles that keep the reader entertained.
  2. It is comprehensive. Without overwhelming the reader with un-encyclopedic content, the article manages to entirely cover all major aspects and movements associated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  3. It is well-researched. With 96 sources from a variety of media forms and areas, all information is adequately documented and verifiable. Citations are kept up-to-date and reflect a range of research that is paralleled in the article with substantial, informative information.
  4. It is certainly neutral. Looking at the talk page FAQs, it is clear that there has been criticism from both sides of arguments surrounding this topic, which I view as an accurate representation that both sides are being equally represented and their views presented without showing favor or bias. The article is absent of any WP:NPOV violations.
  5. It is stable. The article is semi-protected, and the talk page reveals little to no recent vandalism with multiple instances of polite, non-reviewer users kindly requesting changes that are acceptable and quickly implemented.
  6. They style guidelines are met to all feature article expectations, including the lead, which is sizable, provides excellent background and lead-up information, and is interesting.
  7. The structure of the article is excellent, divided into nine main sections that follow a logical sequence and structure. These are further divided when appropriate. Links to other articles and external resources are provided when beneficial, and templates are well-used.
  8. The references follow typical structure and do not vary in style. After all, the article is already considered a Good Article and, though I realize Featured Articles are held to an even higher standard, this criterion is clearly met. References are more than sufficient and stylized appropriately.
  9. Media effectively supports the article without being overwhelming or irrelevant. All media is under creative commons license with the exception of two adequately-documented and supported fair use images and one public domain image.
  10. The length is ideal for this subject. It is not overly wordy and, as stated, includes necessary content and media without including un-encyclopedic content or being overwhelming.

In summary, I feel that this would make an excellent contribution to the Featured Article collection, as it is interesting to the general public, unique, entertaining, and reflects some of Wikipedia's editors' excellent work to the standards that we strive to achieve. Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate/procedural comment -- Hi Jackson, I gather you're not a contributor to this article. I've seen that you left a message on the article talk page but have you directly contacted the main editors to discuss this nomination? FAC nominees are expected to be among the article's major contributors, or at least to have consulted with them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ian! I appreciate the feedback. In accordance with your suggestions, the discussion picked up a bit at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster#Featured Article Status. I feel it should also be noted that the article did splendidly at peer review, with Guy Macon stating that he felt it was ready for FA status! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to me being the Nominator? My style of contributing to articles which already have several active editors is to work with others on the article talk page and then let them edit the article. If you look at my first ten or fifteen talk page comments or this archived discussion you will see the sort of contribution I have been making.. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per talk page. Guy has my full support and I relinquish any perceived claim that I had on this nomination. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's an entertaining article that certainly satisfies criteria 1a, but unfortunately I have to oppose based on a failure to satisfy 2c.

  • All of the citations need to be properly formatted in a consistent manner. Examples: "Billy Townsend", "Kent Hovind", "John Chambliss", "RD Magazine", "El Pais", "Carole M. Cusack", "DIY Flying Spaghetti Monster bumper sticker", the bare link for reference 72, &c.
  • What makes The Big Announcement a reliable source? Or Ramendan? Even under WP:SELFPUB, do they speak for the "movement" as a whole?
  • There is no direct link between the paragraph about the "Kansas State Board of Education" and the remainder of the article. Yes it is related to the bigger issue of teaching ID, but there is no clear link to FSM. If this can not be established, then I think the paragraph should be removed.

Otherwise I enjoyed reading this article. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article cites web forums as sources. That is all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - sourcing just isn't up to par at this time, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Paul S. Walsh[edit]

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe I have taken it as far as I can. It has achieved Good Article status and I believe it to be ready for the next step in its history. It is problematic that a public domain photo of the subject does not yet exist, but I believe that if the article is promoted to FA status, this will improve the article's visibility, and improve its chances of getting that photo. Farrtj (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delegate note -- Farrtj, per FAC instructions, you're only allowed one solo FAC nomination at a time, so either this one will have to be removed or the other one archived. I'm prepared to have you choose but note that the other one, open a month with no support for promotion, will likely be archived shortly anyway. In either case, pls take note of the FAC instructions -- this isn't the first time you've nominated out of process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this exchange, this nom will remain open; the other will be archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Farrtj: (1) Have you been able to find an image that would comport with Fair use or WP:NFC and WP:NFCC? (2) Have you contacted Diageo's public relations office, the company's HQ number in London is: +44 (0)20 8978 6000, if you're in the US, you can reach their Intellectual Property/Copyright officer, Evan Gourvitz (Counsel Litigation/Intellectual Property) at 1.201.229.4264 or copyright@diageo.com, or by mail Diageo North America, Inc., 801 Main Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06851. Perhaps they will provide you permission to use an image from their press pack, or other public relations materials. It would be hard to support this nomination without an image per the WP:FACR.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I emailed their press office, asking for permission to use the Paul Walsh image they have up on their website, but I got no answer.Farrtj (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rang the UK PR office and left a message on their answer machine. If they don't get back to me I'll ring them tomorrow. Would I need permission in writing (ie an email)? Farrtj (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you get permission by mail or email you have to forward a copy of it, but I've never had to do that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to forward it to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" or "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" (depending where you upload the image), see WP:OTRS and Commons:OTRS for more info - it's not exactly a straightforward process especially for first users of the system, so i suggest to read through the info before using it. Also make sure, the permission is completely free for all purposes and is sent from a recognizable mail adress (no anon google mail account or similar). There are standard mails available as example, if you have questions to the exact permission text. GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sorry. The first thing one looks for in an article of this kind is overly praise-worthy claims that aren't supported by the sources. The first one I went to was such a case. For "Since 2007 Walsh has frequently been named as one of Britain's most admired businessmen.", this source is invoked. Other little parts of the article, like the social and competitive child or the populist approach to business bit, don't sit well either and don't use particularly good sources. Sorry, it's just not at FA standard in my view, which is not much of a criticism as these articles are quite hard to get to this level --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Management Today is a respectable magazine source in the UK. But I've taken on board your criticisms and removed the offending sections.Farrtj (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just two nitpicks, otherwise a well-researched and well-written article.

  • "He restructured Pillsbury, which he identified as poorly integrated, with the various divisions of the company, that he dubbed "fiefdoms", granted too much freedom." - confusing sentence: Probably replace commas with n-dashes or m-dashes, eg "He restructured Pillsbury – which he identified as poorly integrated – with the various divisions of the company – that he dubbed "fiefdoms" – granted too much freedom."
doneFarrtj (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange to see % written as "per cent"--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ODNB prefers "per cent".Farrtj (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor's Comments
  • He streamlined Diageo and his most notable decision was the acquisition of the Seagram drinks company. - Don't see how these two are connected. Could be explained better.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Walsh claims to have inherited his work ethic from his father, his organisational skills from his mother, and his confidence from both parents - No need to link work ethic
Done.Farrtj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not enjoy accounting, but reasoned that the skill would provide a good gateway into business, which was where he wanted to be.[14] - No need for "which was where he wanted to be."
Done.Farrtj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • In 1987, Walsh moved to New York - no need to link NY, I think it's famous enough :)
Done.Farrtj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saison sold the chain in 1998 for $2.8 billion, having added a further 87 hotels.[22] - "Added" is awfully vague. Were any acquired? Were they all built?
I don't know but I don't think the details are really relevant to Paul Walsh.Farrtj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He restructured Pillsbury – which he identified as poorly integrated – with the various divisions of the company – that he dubbed "fiefdoms" – granted too much freedom.[2 - I think only one set of emdashes should be used in a sentence. Currently this is incredibly hard to follow without reading it three times.
Restructured.Farrtj (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "A$11 billion"?
Hotlinked to Australian dollar now.Farrtj (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walsh said "fools and money can be easily parted", identifying the wine market as a bubble, a perception vindicated by 2011.[37] - what does this last part mean?
I've edited this now.Farrtj (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was a non-executive director of Control Data Corporation, followed by its successor company, Ceridian until 2007. - no need for the commas
Done.Farrtj (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • He spends around half of his time in various foreign countries where Diageo is present.[11] - "where Diageo is present" is awkward. Better as "in various foreign countries on business" or "... for business"
Done.Farrtj (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walsh met Manchester-born Nicolette (Nikki) - Surely her maiden name is available?
It isn't. I've looked.Farrtj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which ranks among the largest payouts in British history.[8] - Surely this refers to alimony? It's unclear from the too-concise description.
No it doesn't.Farrtj (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


In general, I don't think this is quite ready yet. Too much reliance on quotes and a lack of attention to detail in certain sections makes me wonder if this article is fully comprehensive. It seems well-written so far. ceranthor 19:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article with reference to your comments. Feel free to tell me what you think.Farrtj (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you consulted all the available resources? A lot of yours happen to be online, though I do agree that details on his personal life seem sketchy. Just want to confirm that you have exhausted everything out there. ceranthor 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. There are no books about him. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I will post some more prose comments sometime during the week. ceranthor 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor Second Round
  • The image of ice cream is decorative, and does not contribute anything meaningful to the article.
removed.Farrtj (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of "core" businesses needs to be fully explained; it's very hazy in the article.
dealt with.Farrtj (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under reception: "outmanoeuvred" - Is this a typo?
Doesn't seem to be. [15] Farrtj (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section is incredibly choppy. It's quote after quote after quote. Some statements between facts would lower the barrage of information without making it fluffy or lose any info.
  • In addition to his responsibilities at Diageo, Walsh has been a non-executive director at FedEx Corporation since 1996, at Unilever since 2009, and at Avanti Communications since 2012.[50][51][52] - This idea needs to be explained more. How did he start working at these companies? Why? This section is far too brief.
I have no idea and have been unable to find that information out.Farrtj (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walsh comments, "I live a relatively modest life...my life tends to be the company: I love the company."[3] He spends around half of his time in various foreign countries where Diageo operates.[11] - This is all info that can be written as prose rather than a quote.
done.Farrtj (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In October 2012 Walsh publicly announced his engagement.[7] - The source does not make it seem like he announced it, rather that it was listed in the info table.
done.Farrtj (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for now. ceranthor 18:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments
  • Following Paul's work, in 1987 they moved to the United States, first New York, followed by Orono, Minnesota from 1990.[8] - Following Paul's work, while obvious to most readers, is phrased awkwardly. I think "Because of Paul's work" is better.
done.Farrtj (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other responsibilities could use a copyedit to make it more flowing. It's a bit choppy.
  • He admitted that he ought to have sold Burger King earlier: "With Pillsbury going, I was concerned we didn't have the capacity to handle both transactions at the same time. But I should have done them simultaneously."[12] - This doesn't read as an encyclopedia article should. It takes a non-neutral tone. He suggested that he ought to have sold might be better. Your move.
done.Farrtj (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walsh was educated at his local comprehensive, the Royton and Crompton School, followed by Oldham College.[3][4] He initially aspired to become a fighter pilot after becoming influenced by his "hero", a mathematics teacher who had been in the Royal Air Force during World War II.[12] - I don't think the quotations on hero are necessary, but do as you will.
I mean that is the phrase that Walsh himself uses to describe him: otherwise it looks a bit hyperbolic.Farrtj (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walsh has received admiration for his ability to build brands, whilst he has been criticised for what some see as an excessively high salary.[10] - Specify who "some" is. Fellow businessmen, social critics, etc.? See WP:WEASEL.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On prose. Oddly it still seems to lack comprehensiveness, but I trust that Farrtj is right in saying it is comprehensive.
  • Comment - uppercase titles of newspaper articles should be converted in sentence case (or title case), see MOS:ALLCAPS (f.e. refs 10, 17). GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - taking a look through now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot questions below..Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has also been notably disciplined regarding prices paid for the acquisition of assets. - what do you mean by "disciplined" here - maybe "prudent" - "shrewd" or something - "disciplined" sounds odd.
I prefer disciplined.Farrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
avoid having all three paras in lead starting with "Walsh...." or his full name.
Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whilst he has been criticised for what some see as an excessively high salary - "receiving" an excessively high salary?" (actually could just say excessive salary - no meaning is lost.
No. I prefer it as it is.Farrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, this is not a biggie anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh joined Grand Metropolitan (Grand Met) in 1982 .... - link or explain what Grand Met is...
DoneFarrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard any forms of coloour blindness referred to as "minor" - the most common is red/green. I'd remove the "minor" qualifier here.
DoneFarrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1997, Grand Met merged with Guinness; - again needs a qualifier, as we're presuming it means the company and not a pint of guiness....
Well the company was just known as Guinness, and I don't think people will assume that a company merged with a pint of beer. I've hotlinked it to Guinness Brewery anyway.Farrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not say then "Irish brewing company Guiness?" Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
from a strong US brand - too jargony - I'd put in "well-known" for "strong"
Done.Farrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He identified Pillsbury as poorly integrated - what does this mean?
I think I've made this clearer now.Farrtj (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree it is clearer. It might even benefit from a sentence or two expanding on this - given that this is what this person is known for (and hence why he is notable) - just replacing people, more group bonding sessions, education etc. how he went about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more to come.

Delegate comment -- Casliber, do you still have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did try cursorily googling, with precious little coming up. I guess we have everything already in it that we can cite. I will read one more time to examine how neutral the prose is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's my dilemma - I am happy in that I can't see any deal-breakers in NPOV prose per se (a good thing). I am now thinking about sourcing and comprehensiveness. For instance, His great grandfather emigrated from Ireland, hence he bears the common Irish surname of Walsh. referenced to FN7, which is a piece on Guinness and Walsh making a link between himself and Ireland. The same article has him not in favour of raising the drinking age to 21 and seemingly linking cracking down on binge drinking to an infringement of civil liberties (!) as well as minimising the incidence and impact of binge drinking. It's tempting to include these views, but also to dismiss them as views held clearly to promote the sales of guinness, so part of me is happy to ignore them as well. I think we need more eyes on this one, and I might look at some of the references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's just promoting the view held by his company there. I don't think it has any relevance to this article.Farrtj (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people claim Irish ancestry. There's no reason to doubt that he has Irish ancestry. Walsh is a common Irish surname, and there are lots of people of Irish ancestry in the North West of England. Besides, the fallout if he was lying would be pretty big. Farrtj (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When one looks at the sources, the problems are really quite obvious, as I've said above. Take this one for example. The article says: "In 1996 he was made chairman and president of Pillsbury, which tripled in size and doubled its operating margins between 1992 and 2000." This is the source cited. In that source, Walsh himself, not the article's author, is quoted as saying: "Over 10 years, we tripled Pillsbury's size, and we certainly more than doubled its operating margins." There's no suggestion that this claim has been verified independently of Walsh. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, it's a fair one, and I have now removed the claim until an external source can be found. But I'd be very surprised if Walsh is lying here, for two reasons: 1) Why would be promoted to chairman if he was a poor manager? and 2) Why lie about something that can be easily verified? Farrtj (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found evidence that more or less backs up Walsh's claim, and added it to the article.Farrtj (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment This nomination is over two months old but there is no clear consensus to promote and I will be archiving it in few moments.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Immaculate Conception Church, Farm Street[edit]

Nominator(s): Pjposullivan (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is a very detailed history of the the foremost Jesuit church in Britain. It is very significant in the history of Gothic Revival architecture and was described by Simon Jenkins as "Gothic Revival at its most sumptuous". Pjposullivan (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - Thank you for engaging in our Featured Article process, but the article does not satisfy the FA criteria. The Lead does not provide an adequate summary. The article is not comprehensive and the sources given do not comply with WP:RS. Two of them are dead links ("The page cannot be found"). There are other issues, which include a promotional tone. I suggest the nomination be withdrawn and, after more work, nominated for Good Article status first. This FAC is premature. Graham Colm (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Hurricane Andrew[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article has failed twice and was not Today's Feature Article on August 24, 2012 (20th anniversary of landfall in Florida). However, that does not mean that this article hasn't improved since last time. During the last seven months, I worked to fix the issues brought up last time and got this article to GA back in February. Let me introduce to you, Hurricane Andrew. Back in 1992, Andrew struck South Florida and wracking up $26.5 billion in damage, it was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, until Katrina, Ike, and Sandy. The article lacks little, if any significant details about impact and aftermath from this devastating storm. There is also much info regarding Meteorological history, though luckily it should be simple enough for the "average Joe" to read. Feel free to comment below if you disagree with my opinion that this article should be considered among Wikipedia's best work. Last but not least, this is a WikiCup nomination. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: 12george1. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage You have some reference format inconsistencies to start with. None of these should be difficult fixes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See #8 (semicolons between authors) vs. #11 (commas between authors).
  • Also, many of your authors are first last but a few are last, first (#21 and #22, at least).
  • References #21 and #22 are the only two that are last, first. However, they cannot be fixed because they are in a template.--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to make you start a template war. I'm sad that not everything will match, but for obvious reasons, I won't oppose for this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You identify the GIF file format for reference #18, but not for #25 and #26 (and there may be others).
  • My bad, I didn't know that cite news included a format parameter. Oh, and the format for advisories and discussion by NHC is TXT.--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #41 has a "p.", but no page number.
  • That's because that reference is in cite book and the url is the page it is on. Don't ask me, it wasn't my idea to have the WPC references like that.--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've boldly converted it to cite web. Regardless of any other issues, it's certainly not a book source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I think you're also short on comprehensiveness. There's a lot of scholarly material out there on this major historic storm that's not touched on at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a great deal of attention paid to PTSD caused by this storm's damage, especially in children and adolescents. There are probably a dozen journal articles on the subject, which isn't even mentioned here.
  • The article doesn't touch on meta-analysis of the cleanup efforts. Perhaps incorporate material from: Peacock WG, Gladwin H, Morrow BH, eds. (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415168113.
  • Andrew's damage pattern differed from most other hurricanes, with substantial damage caused by the east side of the eyewall. The eyewall/damage pattern relationship was the subject of some evaluation. See Wakimoto RM, Black PG (1994). "Damage survey of Hurricane Andrew and its relationship to the eyewall". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 75 (2): 189–202. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1994)075<0189:DSOHAA>2.0.CO;2.
  • Possibly mention the ecological damage Andrew inflicted, and its subsequent recovery, as well? For example, (but there are others here, too): Baldwin A, Egnotovich M, Ford M, Platt W (2001). "Regeneration in fringe mangrove forests damaged by Hurricane Andrew". Plant Ecology. 157 (2): 151–164. doi:10.1023/A:1013941304875.
  • Comment - According to User:Citation bot, the field "|publisher=" is repeated in some references. FallingGravity (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Minor quibble - nine (9) instances in References sect of error messages, for example, "More than one of |work= and |newspaper= specified". These should probably be easy fixes that will make things easier in the future for WP:V confirmation. — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

  1. Thirteen (13) uses of word "also", three (3) uses of "however", seven (7) uses of "though" - might be worth doing a check to see if these can be removed or at least minimized.
  2. Aftermath - one-sentence-long-paragraph ends the entirety of the article, at end of this sect. Could this be either merged up somewheres, or perhaps expanded upon?
  3. See also - the Wikimedia Commons sisterlink should be moved to an External links sect, perhaps with a few useful external links like government info or science websites.
  4. See also - might be helpful to have a few more useful links here to other related articles here, or certainly at the very least, a couple more portals. :)
  5. Sorry not sure what the MOS is for this, but the term "United States" in full is used twice in subsection headers, might this be better as just "U.S."?
  6. Aftermath - the "see also" link at the top of this sect only really refers to that last bottom sentence, and it's already included in the See also sect, suggest just trimming it from here and leaving in See also sect, instead.
  7. Impact sect = the table, it should be noted according to what year of dollars this is in. (due to inflation of currency).
  8. Aftermath sect - phrase "began pouring in", 2nd paragraph, would be less POV to say, "began to arrive", or something like that.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia of this important and educational quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything should be fixed. As for the first issues, the word "also" is actually used only three times, because you accidentally counted the "Also a good article header", "See also" (both on the table of contents and section header), and it a reference title. "However" has been cut to only 2 uses, and there is only 4 uses of "though"--12george1 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks a bit better, thanks for the responsiveness to my comments, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my view the lead wasn't written in a way that would make clear to the casual reader the aspects that made this storm particularly notable. I have added an introductory paragraph at the top in hopes of addressing that need. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid that after six weeks this nom hasn't generated the level of commentary or support one might've expected, so I'll be archiving it shortly. It may benefit from a peer review during the minimum two-week break that FAC requires between archiving and renominating another article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Xtort[edit]

Nominator(s): —Torchiest talkedits 04:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xtort was my first good article, and it's been exactly three years now since it was promoted. Since then, I've increased its size by 50% and polished it up significantly. The article subject is band KMFDM's top-selling and best-charting album ever, and I think it deserves the deluxe treatment. —Torchiest talkedits 04:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I'm sorry that this candidate has not received any comments and I will be archiving it presently. The prose needs to be improved. In the the Lead, which is not engaging, try to avoid "it was" "it was". The second sentence is too long. Try to remove redundancy such as "as well" and "also" and pompous words like "stated" when simple words like "said" would suffice. There are odd expressions like "coming off" and phrases that are hard to understand like "creating a press release that both insulted and hyped the coming set". Graham Colm (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

F.C. Porto in international club football[edit]

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a very productive peer review that raised considerably the quality of this article, I believe it is ready to face the ultimate level of assessment. This started quite a while ago as a detailed list of competition results and stats, in the same way as similar pages for other clubs. One of these even reached FL status but was later delisted because the reviewers considered that it had potential and was better suited to become an FA, if more prose content was added; another page of the same kind was indeed succesfull in its FA candidacy. Based on these examples, I decided to invest in the addition of a strong textual content, which now constitutes my attempt to summarise nearly 60 years of participations of Portuguese giants F.C. Porto in international club football competitions. It provides a good understanding of how this club evolved from an anonymous team in Europe, with rare success within borders, to one of the most successful and title-winning teams in recent European and international club football history. Thanks in advance for all your comments! Parutakupiu (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment I have not yet gone through the whole article in detail, but first impressions are good. For a regular European participant like Porto the level of detail is about right, with a little more detail on the significant parts, and a little less on less significant seasons. Two points from my first quick readthrough:
    • The first time each competition is mentioned, it would be useful to give a brief explanation of what it is. Things like the European Cup being contested by the champions of each country, that the UEFA Cup replaced the Fairs Cup etc.
    • In the table of finals, the two legs of the 1987 Super Cup ought to be grouped togetherOldelpaso (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, thank you for your comments and earlier edits. I'm pleased that you acknowledged the adequate level of detail with which I described seasons more important that others not as productive. As for the items you raised, I will try to provide a short description of the competitions. As for the Super Cup legs being separated, it was a consequence of the chronological order I applied to the table, as the IC match was played between the first and second legs. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • One question: should I briefly describe the competitions right in the lead or only in the History section? Parutakupiu (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only in history would be my preference. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more:
    • A couple of the images are modern pictures of stadiums that looked very different in the 1980s when the events described took place. As a result some might regard them as misleading.
      • I believe only Basel's stadium is completely different from what it looked in 1984. The Ernst-Happel is basically the same (with modern seating) and the Tokyo stadium looks the same in 2004 (year of the picture) as it did 17 years before. Of course, I cannot reference that with free-licensed photos from those years, but if I were to remove images, I'd only take that of St. Jakob-Park. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three late second-leg goals from Schalke 04 overturned a 4–2 lead which sealed Porto's elimination in the first round of the following season's UEFA Cup. I appreciate that this is an attempt to avoid having a number of sentences with a very similar structure, but it seems odd to hear about goals before we know what the competition is or who the opposition were.
      • Changed the sentence's structure to mention the competition and opponent first. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The home leg was played in a different venue because the Estádio das Antas pitch was being lowered - where?
    • eliminated in the first round after suffering their heaviest away defeat - just the heaviest away from home, or the heaviest anywhere?
      • I have to say I did not understand your doubt here, but even so I detailed as "heaviest defeat away from home for European competitions". Parutakupiu (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Presumably Porto's heaviest away defeat is more severe than their heaviest home defeat. If that is the case, it could simply be eliminated in the first round after suffering their heaviest defeat, as it is a record for any match home or away. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I understand now, thanks. Indeed, it was their heaviest defeat in any condition. Removed "away". Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The final was held at the former St. Jakob Stadium in Basel, where the Italian supporters were the majority. The reference here says "In the stadium, we only had ten percent of supporters". Unless this is part of a longer paragraph, the number of Italian supporters is not mentioned, so strictly speaking the reference does not support that assertion.
      • Changed to "the Portuguese supporters were a minority". Parutakupiu (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bayern took the lead in the 25th minute through a badly diverted throw-in ball that Ludwig Kögl headed past Porto's defense - awkward phrasing, and unreferenced. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simplified to "Bayern took the lead in the 26th minute through Ludwig Kögl". Parutakupiu (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support, provided prose and images reviewers are happy. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Since 1956, Porto won the UEFA Champions League twice". Since this is a running tally of sorts and not set in stone, shouldn't this be "Porto has won"?
  • Early years (1956–77): "In the first case, Porto were eliminated by the flip of a coin." Why was a coin flip needed? Was it some form of tie-breaker?
  • "failing European competition in 1974–75." Should it be "failing to reach European competition" or similar?
  • First final – Pedroto years: "Porto was eliminated on the second round...". "on" → "in"?
  • "In the 76th minute, Vermelhinho fixed the final score in 1–0". I don't understand what this means. Did he score the only goal?
  • First titles – Artur Jorge and Ivic years: Ref 7 should be moved to outside the parenthesis mark.
  • "After securing an 1–1 draw in Munich". "an" → "a".
  • Champions League regular: "ending a 18-year drought of league titles...". "a" → "an".
  • The last couple sentences of this section need a reference, which shouldn't be too hard to find for this material.
  • Return to glory – Mourinho years: "win-draw-loss" needs en dashes, just like the scores themselves do.
  • "which provided one the most lopsided results in European Cup and Champions League finals". Needs "of" after "one".Giants2008 (Talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All comments have been addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Post-Mourinho transition and Ferreira years: "Domestically, Porto failed a fifth consecutive league title...". Should have "to win" after "failed", I'd imagine. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- as it's been open for six weeks without finding consensus to promote, and there have been no comments for over two weeks, I'm going to archive this nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Jim Thome[edit]

Nominator(s): Go Phightins! 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article after having worked on it since October of last fall bringing it up to GA status and through a peer review incorporating suggestions from reviewer User:Daniel Case I now believe it meets or at least is very close to the Featured Article criteria. Granted, this is my first FAC, so I anticipate some feedback, but hopefully I can incorporate it and get it to be the first featured article to which I have significantly contributed. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful feedback. Regards, Go Phightins! 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have only looked at the lead but I have a few comments.

:"His additional accolades include..." Seems like fat. Why not just "He also received the the Roberto Clemente Award in 2002, the..."

I don't know what "Thome was part of a Cleveland Indians core which..." means. Maybe "...core group of players who..."
"His distinctions include" seems off. Even though it's longer, I think it would work better with "He is know for his characteristic..." and I think you need semi-colons for each characteristic in the list.
In "his batting stance, during which he..." I think "during" should be replaced with "in". All done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Batting subsection, it says "Throughout his career, Thome has been considered one of the best hitters in the game." I modified a similar statement at the beginning of that section to specify that he is highly regarded as a power hitter. Feel free to modify my edit, but if you want to call him one of the best hitters (unqualified), make sure the source is saying that (a career .276 average is not particularly exceptional). Spangineerws (háblame) 17:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • An oversight on my part for the power hitter part. That's my fault. Thanks for the fix. Go Phightins! 19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Go Phightins!. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments: I haven't read the full article yet, but a few issues early in the article, which is something of a concern. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is horribly short. All it covers is: his teams, his awards and some stats. There is more about his clothing than about his play. There should be much more about his career: where did he begin, how well did he do, what is his style (sporting rather than sartorial). It is certainly not a summary of the whole article.
  • "Currently" is not good in the lead, as per WP:DATED.
  • "pants" (and I question the value of this information in the lead at all) does not seem encyclopaedic. At least, not in the UK.
  • Paragraphs begin with "he" in the lead and main body (not necessarily the first word, but the first mention of the subject in the paragraph). A paragraph should always begin "Thome" rather than "he".
  • "into an athletic family": Ambiguous. Did they all do the sport of athletics? Were they all athletic in the sense of they were physically active? Or they were fast runners?
  • Short choppy sentences in "Early life", and many of them begin "his" or "he". There seem to be short sentences throughout.
  • Skipping ahead, there seem to be a large number of short paragraphs. Could some be combined?
    • Regarding this, how long do you think a paragraph should be, ideally. The GA reviewer wanted them to be shorter than they previously were, but now I agree that they are a little too short. In the MLB career section, there is roughly one paragraph per season. Should I make it two? Go Phightins! 22:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there is an iron-clad rule. One season is probably not enough unless there is a lot to say. If seasons could be strung together by a theme (like injury, success, failure, etc) that is one way. Otherwise, maybe two or three. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A brief glance also suggests that this article may fall into the tempting trap for sports articles of being heavily stats based. It is always better if the stats can be explained through commentary of coaches, journalists, critics. Rather than just list his figures, can they be given context. It is better to say that "X began the season well but faded later on. Y suggested that he improved Z aspect of his game" rather than just "X batted 2.85 in (year)". But I appreciate that this is not always possible, and have not looked closely enough to see how big an issue this is. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Just in scanning through this article, I can see some issues with recentism. The prime of Thome's career was mostly when he was with Cleveland, and there are 6–8 paragraphs on his time there. For the rest of his career, I count 17 paragraphs, many of which are longer than most of the Cleveland paras. I just don't think the balance is right for an article on this player; there should be more on Thome's Indians career. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken. Thome was in the Indians organization for 11 years (91-02) and was on their big league club from 94-02. That is a total of 11 seasons. Since then, he has played 10 additional seasons. So I would surmise that a roughly equal number of paragraphs featuring the Indians and the rest of the teams would be ideal? Right now we are at 8 in the Indians section and at 13 in the other sections. In your mind, which team section should be the "model" for the others? The one on his first stint with the Phillies? I will say, however, that in the last two sections, they are a little more reliant on reflective quotes rather than information on his playing. Go Phightins! 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If by "model" you mean length of paragraphs, I think the Philadelphia ones are a little better in terms of size. There's also some non-statistical information mixed in there, which the Cleveland section really needs. He was one of the key players for a successful Indians team, and I can't believe that there isn't at least some non-statistical stuff on his career there. We say he's the most popular Cleveland athlete ever, after all. There has to be a good reason for that. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all reviewers concerned - Is the info. regarding Manuel and Thome that I added to the beginning of the Indians section the kind of thing we're looking for when it comes to non-statistical stuff? Go Phightins! 21:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that looks more like it, and certainly more readable. Sorry for not replying sooner to this. Feel free to ping me if you want me to look more closely at the article again. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Thanks a lot. I will see what if anything else I can find, and then ping you again. Go Phightins! 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Revisiting now, and I've read to the end of Early life so far. This review may have to come in pieces, I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a huge point, but do we really need the long list of teams in the lead? And in the first sentence at that? It is rather off-putting and is readily available in the infobox.
  • "A five-time All-Star, Thome is a free agent.": Not sure these points link enough to be in the same sentence without elaboration.
  • "He is seventh all-time for most career home runs": A little pedantic, but the seventh what? Perhaps "He has the seventh highest number of career home runs" or "He is seventh in the list of most career home runs".
  • "Thome signed a free agent contract": Do we need this in the lead, or could it be simplified to "joined"? If not, a link is needed here, or an explanation of the distinction between this and an ordinary contract.
  • "during which he hit his 400th home run" and later "joined the 500 home run club". Why note these milestones and not the 100th, 200th and 300th? We state in the first paragraph that he scored 600 HRs, so I don't think we need to mark his progress in the lead like this.
  • "He was traded to the Baltimore Orioles in 2012 where he finished the season before filing for free agency": Again, for the purposes of the lead, I'd be inclined to cut "where he finished the season". And I would probably have a paragraph break after this sentence.
  • There is some comma inconsistency: are we using it after "In [year]…" or not?
  • "limited his ability to play the field": A little jargony/journalese.
  • As mentioned before, I'm not sure about the socks thing, or the use of "pants".
  • "before the pitcher comes set": jargon
  • The last paragraph of the lead is all one sentence and would stand splitting.
  • Rather than comment on "Early life", I copy-edited directly. Please check that I've not messed anything up and that you are happy with the changes. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I was at the Phillies game tonight and just got back after a heavy rainstorm ended the game early...a little tired now, so I think I will put these off until tomorrow afternoon where I should be available from about 18:00-21:00 UTC to do some editing (hopefully). We shall see. Thanks! Go Phightins! 03:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Generally, this seems OK up to the end of the Cleveland section. However, I'm finding a few jargon issues and places where the encyclopaedic tone slips. Also, I still get little sense of how good he was. The stats are fine, and I think there is plenty of context, but apart from at the beginning, not a lot to tell me how good he actually was. Was he getting people excited? What was the reaction like to him? Was he a star, or just mediocre? There's just something missing. No major problems, but not quite there either. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After his weak season in rookie ball": A bit jargony and slightly POV?
  • "particularly on opening up his hips": Specify why this is important? RIght now it is vague.
  • "During this work, Manuel suggested to Thome that he point his bat out to center field before the pitch to relax himself like Roy Hobbs did in The Natural.": For those less well-versed in sports, it may be worth pointing out that this was when he was batting.
  • "Their work paid off; in 1990, he combined...": As this is the start of a new paragraph, it is always better to start "Their work paid off; in 1990, Thorne combined" rather than begin a paragraph with "he".
  • "where he combined to hit .319 with 7 home runs and 73 RBIs": He didn't really combine anything. What about "where, in combination, he hit..." Similar problem later in the paragraph with "combined".
  • "In the game he went 2-for-4 and recorded his first hit": Can we link something, or provide a brief parenthetical explanation of "2-for-4"?
  • "This performance earned him a late season call up...": Again, I think it may be better to spell out this was a call up for the Indians, rather than any other team.
  • "Though the strike shortened the season, Thome still had success at the plate including his first career multi-home run game in which Thome hit two solo shots on June 22, 1994 against the Detroit Tigers off of John Doherty.": Long sentence which perhaps could be split. Also, "off of" sounds terribly informal. And "at the plate" makes this sounds a bit journalistic and not quite the right "voice" for an encyclopaedia.
  • "His first full big-league season saw him hit 20 home runs": I'm afraid "saw" used like this is something of red rag to me! I really dislike its use in this way.
  • "Originally a third baseman, the Indians moved him to first base when they acquired third baseman Matt Williams in 1997": Dangling participle here: the subject of the first part of the sentence does not match that of the second. And we are again beginning a paragraph with "he".
  • "In 1997, Thome helped the Indians connect for a club record 220 home runs...": Not sure about "connect" here. What on earth does it mean?
  • "Cleveland would, however, subsequently lose the series to the Yankees.": Why not just "Cleveland subsequently lost the series to the Yankees."?
  • "writers expected Thome to bat in the cleanup spot": In the what??
  • "Thome hit a grand slam against the Yankees off of Orlando Hernandez": "Off of" again.
  • "The 2000 season would see Thome's statistics decline once again": "See" again, and there is really no need for the "would" construction in this sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed two instances of "off of", though I will say that is typical baseball jargon...granted it is not universal and should probably not be used in an encyclopedia. I linked cleanup hitter. All of the other "prosey" concerns addressed. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've read to the end now, and cannot find any major issues. Although I am not going to oppose, I cannot support at this time. With the fixes, the prose is OK but to me, lacks a little something. There are too many similar, repetitive sentences which make the article slightly dull to read. But even if these are fixed, I think we are too stats-heavy here. The man just doesn't come alive. Even the Player Profile section, which is pretty good, seems to have a bit of trivia in it rather than really get to the heart of it. I don't get a sense, as I already mentioned, of how good he is, or where he would be placed in the all-time list. I'm not sure that I'm making myself clear here, and I think perhaps another copy-edit might help. And perhaps the non-stats detail does not exist. But there are no deal-breakers for me, so I'll remain on the fence. It may help to get Giants to take another look, as this is more his field than mine. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "receiving a less than enthusiastic reception": Why not just "poor reception" or "hostile reception"? I don't think it needs dressing up.
  • "Thome was one of three White Sox players who wore jersey number 42 in recognition of the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's Major League debut in the White Sox vs. Indians game in Cleveland on April 15, 2007.": Do we need this? It seems over detailed given the lack of similar detail earlier in the article, and it does not seem too important to him personally.
  • "as well as the first ever to do it with a walk-off shot": With a what?
  • "which happened to occur on Thome bobblehead giveaway day": Really not sure what this is all about.
  • The White Sox section really suffers from choppy prose. Too many sentences beginning with "he" or "Thome" or a date ("on XXXX, Thome/he did YYYY...") This needs looking at as it does not really flow.
  • Why do we go backwards at the start of the Minnesota section to talk about what happened before? It may be better to mention these events as they occurred. But I wonder if it is really that significant.
  • "Down the stretch of the season...": Jargony.
  • "during which he started a 3–6–3 double play": What is that? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of your concrete comments are taken care of. I get what you are saying, but to me it doesn't read that way (though that is probably because I am a baseball nerd and stat junkie). I have tried to add as much non-statistical information as I can find, but surprisingly there isn't a ton of it out there, at least that I have found in my significant research. Thank you for the thorough review. Go Phightins! 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to know that baseball is now my field. :-) I've done some basic Google searches and found a source that may be useful for fleshing out the all-around profile of Thome. That's this Sports Illustrated article from 1998, which includes some content about how he was used by the Indians and how he didn't gain much national recognition despite his statistics. It also mentions who influenced him during his Indians career, which is the kind of detail that I know Sarastro likes. On a brief look, I also saw some informal language like "He hit a solo shot in the AL Central Tiebreaker game", and a couple of shaky sources (JockBio and IMDB in refs 6 and 7). Maybe the SI source can help with the latter issue, since that goes into Thome's early life. I'd like to offer to go through this, but with the non-Wikipedia work that I have I'm afraid to make a commitment that I may not be able to keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh. I thought I had read all of the SI articles about him...I guess not. I will check it out. Thanks. Go Phightins! 10:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Incorporated a fair amount from that feature to the article. Go Phightins! 00:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • All right. I'll provide some more nit-picky comments now. Honestly, I'm surprised to see some of the following still in a potential FA this deep into a review.
              • Cleveland Indians: The Natural needs italics like it had in the lead.
  • Done.
              • "in which Thome hit two solo shots on June 22, 1994 against Detroit Tigers' pitcher John Doherty." Again, we have the informal "shots", which should be made more formal.
  • Done.
              • Sports Illustrated needs italics as well.
  • Done.
              • En dash needed in 8-4 towards the end of this subsection.
  • Done.
              • Chicago White Sox: Last sentence of the first paragraph here needs a reference.
  • Two refs to substantiate each part of the sentence added.
              • Los Angeles Dodgers: "On August 31, 2009, Thome the White Sox traded him to the Los Angeles Dodgers...". Should be "the White Sox traded Thome", I'd think.
  • Fixed. Embarrassing that I wrote that. Thanks for the catch.
              • Second stint at Philadelphia: End of the first paragraph needs a cite.
  • Moved the citation that was from 2011 mentioned below; I reworked the paragraphs awhile ago and think it must've just gotten misplaced.
              • "He started his first game at first base on April 8, 2012, during which he started a 3–6–3 double play." First, I don't see why starting a double play is notable; it happens in baseball all the time. Second, the source is from 2011, so I don't see how it can support something that happened in 2012.
  • Notable because it happened in his first start in the field in five years...thought it would be more interesting stating something that doesn't happen every day that he did in his first game back rather than simply commenting that he made a start at first. And since most of the complaints thus far are that it is too stats heavy, I thought (and still think) it is worth including.
              • Player profile: No need to capitalize "Steriod". I don't even know why this is in the article; if he's never been accused, why add anything on it?
  • Included because he hit 500 home runs during the steroid era, so most players at least aroused suspicion, but Thome never did.
              • All caps in ref 36 need removal.
  • BASEBALL ROUNDUP is now Baseball Roundup; it appeared in all caps in the source itself, so I wasn't sure how to properly capitalize it.

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe all are resolved. Go Phightins! 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing I saw in the references while I'm here: I doubt that BabeRuthCentral.com (ref 35) is a reliable enough source for FA. Also, I'm not sure Premiere Athlete & Celebrity (ref 112) is that great a source for the Playing characteristics section. There should be something out there stronger than that site to back up the sentence it supports. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Babe Ruth Central is not a great source, but honestly it was the most reliable thing I could find...so I removed the whole tidbit on the award. The info. supported by ref 112 was also in the 1998 SI Article, so I removed and cited instead. Go Phightins! 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- as it's been open six weeks with no consensus for promotion developing, I'm going to archive this nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Hartebeest[edit]

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>Talk all words 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked long to make it much comprehensive and a perfect article. It has undergone a copyedit, has all the necessary information about the animal and has great images. Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

As my usual, focusing mostly on referencing and reference format consistency:

  • Publisher locations, in general. They're optional, but need to be consistent. Right off the mark, I see no location on reference 2, and then a location on reference 3. This needs to be standardized one way or the other throughout.
Done.
  • Not a serious issue, but ref 2 is the only place you give both ISBN and OCLC. I don't normally give OCLCs when ISBNs exist.
Done.
  • It took me a sec to figure out what's going on with ref 4. The title cited there is actually a chapter title. The full work is called The Influence of Low Dutch on the English Vocabulary. Also, this reference isn't templated, and so the format doesn't quite match the rest of them (see how location is displayed, for example, and how the online source is linked).
Thanks for letting me know the title, done.
  • For ref 6, I'm pretty sure this journal should be cited as Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B.
Done.
  • Ref 8 is a reference to an older edition of the IUCN redlist. It's also not formatted the way the rest of the redlist entries are formatted, and has a 2006 (!!) access date. Any reason this can't just be replaced with another link to ref 1 (which, yes, is going to mess up the rest of the reference numbers in my comments. Sorry...)?
Well, a mistake. Corrected.
  • Ref 20 formatting doesn't match anything else. Templating this should fix it. Also, needs a real page number reference, rather than what I think is just a count of the total pages.
This was, by mistake, a copy of ref 2. Removed.
  • Ref 23 is I think the only entry that gives a publication date instead of year. Any reason for this? Oh, nope, 63 does it also. Still curious if there was a reason for the difference.
Made consistent by just mentioning the year. No, no reason.
  • There is something wrong with the title in ref 28. Are there other editions that warrant the tag here?
I could noy access the book, and, anyway, the ISBN does not yield anything. So I replaced it with an existing ref.
  • You've got double periods after authors on some of these. 30, 31, 35, 61. I may have missed some.
Corrected.
  • I am not convinced reference 31 is a reliable source. Same applies to 35 from the same website.
Alright, I removed it.
  • Most of your references with edition numbers use ordinal numbers, except for 32 (should be 4th).
Done
  • Check the capitalization of the journal in ref 39.
Done
  • Trichostrongyle in ref 41 isn't actually part of a binomial name. It shouldn't be italicized and can be lowercase here.
Done
  • Theileriosis can be lowercase in ref 42. You should probably either adjust the publication year, or let me borrow your time machine.
Ha ha, what a thing. Anyway, I haven't got the time machine really!
Suuuuure you don't. I bet that's what everyone with a time machine says. I'm on to you... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the edition necessary on ref 48?
Removed.
  • Why is ref 60 a reliable source? iUniverse is a self-publishing house.
Deleted
  • There's an online pdf of ref 61. Also, I think that's a conference paper, and so probably needs to be cited a little differently than it currently is.
I deleted it as per our talk in a later point (see below)
Thanks, used it.
  • Page numbers are missing for a couple of print sources. Ref 4 (Llewellyn) should be p. 163. Ref 5 (Skinner) should be p. 649. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise:

  • Maybe consider a note with a translation of Jan van Riebeeck's quote?
That issue many users have mentioned. Well, I tried with Google Translate, but it was in vain.
Okay, I was able to get access to this source and did some digging. Most critically, the quote isn't transcribed accurately from the reference, which hasn't helped with translation. It should read: "Meester Pieter ein hart-beest geschooten hadde". Or, in translation, "Master Pieter [van Meerhoff] had shot one hartebeest". I'm not sure whether van Meerhoff is worth a redlink or not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of thanks, finally somebody got that translation done! I don't think it is worth to add that redlink really. Well, added the translation. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he married Krotoa, but that's a pretty dodgy article at the moment, too, so I'm uncertain as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the subspecies in the list presented in any sort of order? I think I'd prefer alphabetical, but year of description or some sort of geographical order would all probably work. I can't perceive any pattern in the current list, though.
Some good Wikipedian has listed it alphabetically now.
  • The redlink in Description can be piped to sassaby (which redirects to topi, but the first term is fine, too). You should probably link to Damaliscus in that same sentence (a specific species was linked earlier, but not, I think, that page).
It is fixed.
  • The bit about preorbital gland secretions doesn't appear to have a reference.
Sorry, I had forgotten to add it. Done.
  • I might move the parasites subsection under ecology, rather than description. I think it makes more sense there.
As you wish. Done.
  • The bit in Uses about day and night meat harvesting could use some context for a reader unfamiliar with the general idea. I couldn't find a Wikipedia article to link to on the topic (what would it be called, even?), but a sentence or two of background here might go a long way.
I don't understand it much, nor do I believe it relevant. I deleted it.
  • I'm not really fond of the "proven to be good for health" wording. I think it is stronger than the source suggests, if nothing else.
Sorry, I overlooked this issue. Perhaps "is considered good for health", if "considered" doesn't sound vague. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reticent to make blanket health-related claims based on single studies. Perhaps "A 2010 study considered hartebeest meat healthy, ..."? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds much better. Used it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and boldly changed "good for health" -> "healthy" on naturalness grounds, but I'm not wedded to that change. Proven is gone, which was my biggest concern there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megalotragus (which needs italics) is linked as a See Also topic. Is there enough available background on hartebeest evolution to give that a little section in this article?
I think not. I have removed it.
Hmm. I really wish we could piece something together to add more evolution to the Taxonomy and Evolution section. I don't really have access to the full range of potential resources right now, but here are a couple possible starting points (note that my reference formatting here probably doesn't match yours; copy-paste in with caution!):
  • Specifically identifies Megalotragus as related to the modern hartebeest: Klein RG. (2000). "Human Evolution and Large Mammal Extinctions". In Vrba ES, Schaller GB (ed.). Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives: Fossil Record, Behavioral Ecology, Systematics, and Conservation. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. pp. 134–135. ISBN 978-0300081428.
  • Brief comparison of modern hartebeests, Megalotragus and the smaller, also extinct, Parmularius: Turner A, Anton M. (2004). Evolving Eden: An Illustrated Guide to the Evolution of the African Large Mammal Fauna. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0231119443.
That's not enough to write the section, but might be a start. I don't have the ability to check for journal articles on the topic at the moment. Anyway, I don't think I'd oppose for the lack of the information, but it would be nice to have, especially since the article already touches on evolution. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea of yours, let me see if there are any journals for it. I don't have a good access to those books - I can only have online access presently, and that is hard - so if you could get journals it would be easier for me. Nevertheless, if you can sort out the relevant info from those pages, then maybe you could give me a line or two from there. I could use it in the article, you see, indirectly. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will see what I can do. Offline stuff has really limited by research and access time at the moment, but I'll try to manage the time to help. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Surely there is no real urgent need of this. You can take your time and contact me for this after the FAC. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that I'd oppose solely on its absence, but I would like to try to get that in here before the FAC closes; we do have some time, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why we need external links to both the 1880 and 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or, frankly, either of them.
Ya, removed.
  • Worth mentioning Sigmoceros as a junior synonym in the taxonomy? Maybe cite the phylogeny study that confirmed the validity of Alcelaphus, relegating it to the dustbin of junior synonym history? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Matthee CA, Robinson TJ. (1992). "Cytochrome b phylogeny of the family bovidae: resolution within the alcelaphini, antilopini, neotragini, and tragelaphini". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 12 (1): 31–46. doi:10.1006/mpev.1998.0573.
I have added this and some more of what I could find. You can have a look. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking pretty nice. Add the Sigmoceros synonym to the synonyms list in the taxobox? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a twist! I looked up at the online version of Ungulate Taxonomy (2011) here. That's the particular page I refer to at GoogleBooks. In short, it says of Vrba having reversed her decision on Sigmoceros-in fact she herself decided to dissolve it back into Alcelaphus. Now, it agrees with the study above, you see. What do you say? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good here. Sigmoceros is in the synonym list for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, but probably is correctly omitted from the taxobox here, since it was never applied to the wider category of hartebeest. I might have "is still disputed" to "has been disputed", though, in light of the fact that the issue seems pretty well put to rest by both Matthee and Vrba herself. Regardless, striking the objection. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really examine overall prose quality. I don't think any of this should be particularly difficult to correct. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, replied to all. No, none of the above was difficult. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck corrected issues, commented on a couple, and added a few more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like you Wikipedians, who give truly great journal articles as help for articles. You have made my work easier! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is only one real issue left now - the Sigmoceros one. There is an update there, needs further discussion. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making my support official. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Alcelaphus_recent.png: what was the underlying map used to create this image?
Sorry, could not find it. Could you help?
I am currently talking with the uploader. I believe he would remember the base map.
Got it, Nikkimaria. The uploader has informed about the base map - that is, File:BlankMap-World.png - in the file's description page. Thanks for your patience. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hartebeests.jpg should name the original as well as immediate source and should state the date of death for the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, could you clarify your point a bit more? I could not understand what you meant by immediate source. As for the date of death, it was in 1912 (from here). How should I write it? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The immediate source is where the scan comes from. Ward's date of death should be noted on the file page, and the template can be changed to PD-100. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. But I'm not good concerning images. Unless Ward's date of death has to be mentioned in this article, if that is what you mean, then why add this issue here? We had better talk to the uploader(s) about the problem with the file and not the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA evaluations sort of look at the entire package, which means images have to be all tidy and in order along with the references and text. I went ahead and added the 1912 date and updated the licensing template, though. Trying to lend a hand. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. An FA nominator has to be held responsible for everything in the article, including the images. Images with unclear copyright statuses should not be used in Wikipedia's "best work". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate source is shown in the URL under source, and the date of death of Ward has been added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The immediate source mentions where the image was scanned from - I'm suggesting that should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the name of the book? That is already in the file description. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me understand, I hope the first issue of the base map is resolved now. Thanks to FunkMonk who is helping with this. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John[edit]

At fist pass, this is a very nice article. The coverage is good, and the prose is decent. One question (there may be more!): what is the plural of "hartebeest"? Online sources differ, but I'd be inclined to go for "hartebeest" rather than "hartebeests" (cf. Wildebeest). In any case, it should be consistent. --John (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I used "hartebeests" as the plural everywhere as I decided to follow the Wikitionary entry. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary isn't always that good a source as it's user-generated like our project. In any case the entry you linked to says: "(plural hartebeest or hartebeests)". --John (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And at the moment we have instances of both plurals, which looks weak. We should standardise on one, and I prefer "hartebeest". --John (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of standardising on the "-eest" plural; although that is my preference I wouldn't mind unduly the "-eests" form. It's just that we mustn't have both. I also gave it a medium-heavy copyedit, and found quite a few infelicities, mis-spellings (this article is British English, right?) and so on. I still think it is a nice article but because I know I am not perfect, and I was easily able to find these problems, I've got to assume there were others I did not spot. So for now I have to tentatively
Oppose on prose. The cure will be to get another copyeditor or two to look at it. --John (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have had concentrated more while editing. Nevertheless, I made more edits, I could spot only an error or two; you can have another look. I guess now you should not find any errors. Meanwhile other editors may come in. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now struck my oppose based on the improvements in the article's prose. --John (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per improvements. --John (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'll take a look and copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The status of the red hartebeest in the Taxonomy and evolution section is confusing. You mention it as a separate species in the beginning and then list it as a subspecies. It is better if the article veers towards one position (is there a consensus or is it really a 50/50 split?) and stick to it, still outlining the reasons for each position.
I have done some digging, but sadly no exactly good sources are available online. This article should mention it as subspecies. The same dispute is with Lichtenstein's hartebeest, which I resolved earlier with Squeamish Ossifrage's help. Nevertheless, this may have something - look here. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might see what I can find - I have university access to journals etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we link Elandsfontein, Cornelia, Florisbad or Kambwe to anywhere?
Though other articles mention them in some of their lines, only Florisbad has a real link of its own. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
red and western hartebeests should not be capitalised.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the description section, sentence one is short. I'd append sentence 3 to it. I'd do this myself but am not sure what inline ref covers the first sentence.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tail is 300 to 700 mm (12 to 28 in) long, ending with a black tinge -why in mm and not cm? Looks odd....best to align all into cm. Also, swap this sentence order with "The other physical features of the hartebeest are its long legs, short neck, and pointed ears." so that you get a bunch of sentences with numbers and measurements followed by all the stuff detailing what it looks like.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
link pelage
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other differences which define the subspecies other than coat colour and degree of sexual dimorphism?
Could not find more. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support
  • "The name was first used in South African literature in Daghregisier, written by Dutch colonial ...". What was Daghregisier? A book or magazine or journal or something else?
Sorry, no clear idea about this. Most probably it is his book (wherever I searched it appears as his Daghregisier, seems to imply it) but nothing clear about it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a typo in at least one source. It should be Daghregister. I believe it literally means something like "day note"; it's the title given to van Riebeeck's journal on its publication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, corrected. Surely it looks right now? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Mostly a prose review, as I have no expertise in this field.

  • The infobox gives the conservation status as "Least Concern", but the article gives information about the status of each of the subspecies. Does the IUCN give conservation statuses at the species level independent of the subspecies? I assume so, and I assume that's what this is referring to. I'm not familiar with the usual approach to this data in articles on individual species, but do you think it would be useful to have the infobox indicate that the conservation status varies across the subspecies?
    I think it right to mention the species-status by IUCN. You can see the website, it mentions it so - an overall ranking, it seems. It was allowed in an FA of mine, Giant eland, too. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but the overall species designation as of least concern should be mentioned in the "Status and conservation" section too; at the moment you only give the status of the subspecies in that section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be divided into three major divisions" is a little ugly; how about "can be assigned to" or "consists of" to avoid the repetition?
can be assigned to is better, added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern lineage split into the eastern and western lineages, perhaps due to the expansion of the central African rainforest belt and the loss of savanna habitats due to global warming": I don't think the link to global warming works well here, because that article explicitly states it's about the warming of the climate in the last 200 years. I'm not sure what to suggest instead -- perhaps a link to paleoclimatology? It might also be worth rephrasing to avoid the use of "global warming" in this context.
    Best is not to link the word at all. Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That fixes the link problem, but not the problem with the word itself, which is primarily associated with recent changes in climate. The text needs to make it clear that the climate change being discussed was contemporary with the split in the lineages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would have a rephrase. i myself am confused. I think it better to delete the cause - it itself is a suggested theory. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to see material cut that is in the source, just because it's hard to phrase. I think in this case you could use the phrase "period of global warming"; I know that's directly from the source but I think it's short enough that it's not a close paraphrase problem, and saying that makes it clear we're not talking about contemporary global warming. It's relevant, and the article goes so far as to say this is probable, so I think it would be good to include. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    Well, I would wish you to have a freehand at it, sorry for I don't know how to fix this. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an observation, red hartebeest and Swayne's hartebeest populations from Senkele Wildlife Sanctuary and Nechisar National Park were studied ...": what does "in an observation" add here? Could it just be cut? Or perhaps recast that sentence and the next: "Both the red hartebeest and Swayne's hartebeest populations in Senkele Wildlife Sanctuary and Nechisar National Park have been found to have a high degree of genetic variation."
Nice rewording, added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The populations were suggested to be conserved to maintain the genetic diversity in the animals, and a breeding programme was proposed" is a little awkward. How about "As a result, conservation and breeding programmes have been suggested to maintain the genetic diversity of these populations"?
You are great at rewords, done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More populations gather in places with plenty of grass": perhaps "Larger numbers gather ..."?
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their numbers have fallen from 18,300 in 1984 to 5,200 in 1998 due to habitat destruction, hunting, human settlement, and competition for food with domestic cattle": this seems at odds with the "Least concern" designation; surely 5,200 is too small a population to be classified as least concern? This is also in conflict with the numbers given in the next section. A separate point: I'd suggest changing this to "fell from", since the "have fallen" phrasing implies that the end of the time range is close to the present, which is not the case. The time period given is 14 years; in the succeeding 14 years the population might have changed dramatically again.
    That's a confusing figure. It is best to mention the figures of the subspecies separately, so I have simply deleted it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The way you have it now is fine. However, the original text you had in the article was incorrect; the source specified that it was talking only about the populations in Comoé National Park, but your text omitted that qualification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the other hartebeest are decreasing in numbers, the three endangered subspecies are the Tora, Lelwel and Swayne's hartebeest": how about "All the hartebeest subspecies are decreasing in numbers, with three subspecies regarded as endangered: the Tora, Lelwel and Swayne's hartebeest"?
OK, done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A study found that the size of hartebeest subspecies was correlated to habitat productivity and with rainfall": single sentence paragraphs are ugly; could this be tacked on to the end of the first paragraph in that section?
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German explorer Heinrich Barth says in his works of 1857 that some reasons for the decrease in the Bubal hartebeest's populations were firearms and European intrusion": I don't really like "some reasons ... were"; how about "German explorer Heinrich Barth, in his works of 1857, cites firearms and European intrusion as among the reasons for the decrease in the Bubal hartebeest's population."
Good one, added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having undergone great habitat destruction, about 42,000 of this subspecies occur today ...": the subspecies didn't undergo the habitat destruction; they suffered from it. How about: "This subspecies has been greatly affected by habitat destruction, and about 42,000 Coke's hartebeest occur today ..."?
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm reading the numbers incorrectly, there are 70,000 Lelwel's hartebeest, and it's listed as "Endangered"; there are 42,000 Coke's hartebeest, and it's listed as "Least Concern". This seems odd. Am I misreading?
    I am afraid you have misread. I rechecked the data - that's what IUCN mentions. It says for Coke's that 42000 exist in the mentioned N.P.s, and 70% thrive in protected areas. The 42000 figure is within 70% of the populations protected, and so 30% still exist in wild - now that is able to be listed as of Least concern, or at least near somewhere. As of Lelwel hartebeest, there are >70000, not about 70000. I believe that figure is OK to be listed as Endangered. Anyway, my estimates can be wrong, but that is what IUCN informs. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, looks like I misunderstood. However, there is still something odd going on: the article reads "There are fewer than 70,000 individuals left ... most populations are now restricted to Southern National Park (1,070 individuals) and Boma National Park (115 individuals)" which makes no sense. If that's most of the population, then the population is not accurately described as "fewer than 70,000"; it would be more like "fewer than 3,000". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see what I can do. I don't want to mess with figures, I have only put forward the IUCN data. Or perhaps delete the disturbing "70,000"? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't like to see the number deleted without understanding it. I don't have access to that source; what's the context for the 70,000 number? That's a 2013 source, so it's presumably more recent than the IUCN data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So which do we balance? Seems the 70000, being old, should be removed? 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    Now I'm confused about the sources; you have the IUCN source referencing the smaller numbers, but when I look it up it has the 70,000. What's the actual source for the smaller numbers? Is it the travel guide, "Ethiopia"? I'm not sure that would be a reliable source for something like this. I've also asked a conservation scientist I know what sources they would rely on for this data and will pass that along if I get anything from them. In the meantime, can you correct the citations in the article so we can see what the right sources are for this data? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ethiopia book only tells that the hartebeest occurs in the Omo part, not about its numbers. I found it out - the smaller figures are based on a 2007 study by the IUCN, and the source is the basic IUCN page for A. buselaphus and not the subspecies A. b. lelwel. I have added it now. Shuld we keep the smaller figures? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's correct; the numbers listed in the park are for Lelwel's, not the overall species. I think that Fay 2007 is cited because it indicates a decline in the Lelwel's population at that location, and so is indicative of an overall decline. So your current phrasing of "most populations are now restricted to" is incorrect. I would cut the smaller numbers, and just leave the note about southern Omo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look in my 1984 copy of MacDonald's Encyclopedia of Mammals; I don't know if this is too much of a popular work (or too old) to be usable as a reliable source. If it's an acceptable source, there are a couple of things in it that might be useful. He mentions "Cape hartebeest" as an alternative name for the Red hartebeest, and provides some information on territory size that might be useful. If you're interested, I can send you copies of the relevant paragraphs.
The alt name is not relevant, it has already been mentioned. But the territory info can be added. You may send me those. Thanks for the offer! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, you are a great help. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the text in MacDonald that might be useful, with [brackets] used to mark my text explaining an earlier reference. "Though less selective feeders [that is, less selective than topi or gnu] of medium and long savanna grassland, hartebeest are particularly fond of the edges of woods, scrub and grassland. Although basically sedentary, the female hartebeest in Nairobi Natinoal Park, Kenya, are locally quite active, moving in small groups within individual home ranges of 3.7–5.5sq km (1.4–2.1sq mi), which are not particularly associated with any one female group. In fact, the average female home range includes over 20–30 male territories." (pp. 564–565). Then a couple of pages later: "Hartebeest: Alcephalus buselaphus. Hartebeest or kongoni. Coarse grassland and open woodland. Senegal to Somalia, E. Africa to S. Africa. HBL 195–200 cm; TL 30 cm; SH 112–130cm; HL 45–70cm; wt male 142–183kg, female 126–167kg. Coat: uniform sandy fawn to bright reddish, lighter on hindquarters, sometimes with black markings on legs. Frontal region of head drawn up into a bony pedicel. Horn shape diagnostic of races. Subspecies: 12, including bubal or Northern hartebeest (A.b. buselaphus) ranged N of Sahara, extinct: Western hartebeest (A.b. major), Senegal and Guinea: Lelwel hartebeest (A.b. lelwel), S. Sudan, Ethiopia, N. Uganda and Kenya: Tora hartebeest (A.b. tora) (endangered), Sudan, Ethiopia: Swayne's hartebeest (A.b. swaynei) endangered, Ethiopia, Somalia: Jackson's hartebeest (A.b. jacksoni), E. Africa, Rwanda: Coke's hartebeest (A.b. cokii), Kenya, Tanzania: Cape or Red hartebeest (A.b. Caama), S. Africa, Namibia, Botswana, W. Zimbabwe." and "Lichtenstein's hartebeest: Alcelaphus lichtensteini. Tanzania, SE Zaire, Angola, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe. Open woodland. HBL 190cm; TL 46cm; SH 124cm; HL 45–62cm; wt male 160–205kg, female 165kg. Coat: bright reddish with fawn flanks and white hindquarters: dark stripe down front legs. Frontal region of skull does not form pedicel". The Hartebeest description above is pp. 570–571; the Lichtenstein's hartebeest description is p. 571. The citation for Macdonald is Macdonald, David (1987) [1984]. The Encyclopedia of Mammals. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 0-87196-871-1.. Not sure if any of this is useful, but here it is if you can use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; meant to add this: HBL = head-body length; TL = tail length; SH = shoulder height; HL = horn length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Used the info of yours, though only once because most of the facts are already present and may create contradictions. Just one more thing, is the fact of the average home range about the females at the Nairobi N P or applies in general to all hartebeest? If the former, I wouldn't like to mention the fact. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your guess is as good as mine, but my interpretation is that it refers only to the females in the Nairobi NP. I think you can still use the information though; you just have to qualify it as applying to a particular population. That's often the way with behavioural studies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More comments I've switched to oppose; I see several supports above, but I do think there are few more necessary fixes, or at least replies, so I thought it was better to register the oppose.

I have struck my oppose, but I don't feel able to support. The many changes and corrections don't make me confident that this article is comprehensive and accurate, but my knowledge of the subject matter is too limited to be able to evaluate the article on those criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've labelled the picture as "Western hartebeest"; the picture itself doesn't give a subspecies. Is it the location, in Benin, that allows you to deduce the subspecies?
  • You've compressed the coat descriptions a little more than I think is right. The Lelwel's, for example, is described by your source as "reddish tawny on the upper body, with hips and legs lighter"; you simply have "reddish-tan". I don't think that's accurate enough; the distinction between upper body colour and the legs is repeated in several sources and seems to be a standard way to describe the coat. Another example: the source for the Lichtenstein's says "The upper body is reddish brown, the flanks a lighter tan, and the rump whitish. There is a dark stripe on the front of the legs." You say "The Lichtenstein's hartebeest is red to light tan." I think the additional detail is necessary. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite; needs a couple more tweaks. "Dorsal" is an adjective, not a noun, so you need a noun there; and "lateral side" is redundant; a side is lateral. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to be such a pain on this, but you've added it to the wrong species; the "stripe" description applies to the Lichtenstein's, not Lelwel's. Also, you don't seem to have cited Macdonald for the additional descriptive text you added -- can you add those cites? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to add the SCI reference to one sentence since Macdonald didn't quite cover it. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you have not used the measurement information from Macdonald that I quoted above? Seems to me that it would make a worthwhile table. Well, strike that; I see it's really only for the overall species and then for the Lichtenstein's, so a table won't really work. Useful information to include though.
    The Description already mentions it, perhaps citing this would result in contradictions. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look does reveal some differences. I will take a look later and see if I can come up with suggestions for how to merge the data from the two sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck this point; the ultimate source for the information you give appears to be Kingdon 1989, East African Mammals, which is at least as scholarly as the Macdonald and a little later, so I think can be left as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add "Northern hartebeest" as an alternative name for "bubal hartebeest", per Macdonald?
    Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Macdonald lists the Jackson's hartebeest as a separate subspecies, but this is not given in your later sources. Is there any information available on how this status changed? You give history for some of the changes in taxonomy and I think it's good information; it should be possible to find out. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The status is disputed. Here is a PDF on the hartebeest. It says it is a hybrid between Lelwel and Coke's. Many refer to it as an alt name for Lelwel. Supporting the Macdonald claim is a journal discussing reproductive features of the subspecies, here is online access. What do you think right to do? Expecting improvements I have removed the mention of Jackson's hartebeest as an alt name in the Subspecies part for now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the fact that the sources contradict each other should be covered in the article -- there's no reason not to say so. I see quite a bit of information in the antelopetag source; is all that included in the article? I'll read it through later to see if there's more that could be used. And it mentions the studbook; I'd completely forgotten about studbooks as a source. I have a couple of studbooks (mandrills and tigers, not hartebeest, unfortunately) and they often contain good information about conservation and status in the wild as well as information about zoo populations, genetic diversity, and so on. I think you might consider consulting the studbooks as a source. If you have trouble tracking them down I have contacts that can probably find out what the most recent editions are for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the best thing is to state that source A says X and source B says Y. Have to be very careful not to generalise here either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I see this, which should be somehow investigated and included. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. As far as I can tell from the IUCN site, that's the only studbook for any hartebeest subspecies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also just noticed that the "Status and conservation" section doesn't give the status of the Lichtenstein's; it should be listed as Least Concern.
  • "All the hartebeest subspecies are decreasing in numbers": this isn't accurate: the red hartebeest is increasing, as discussed in the text just prior to this sentence, and the Lichtenstein's population is stable according to the IUCN.
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The antelopetag.com PDF you list above has some information in it that doesn't appear to be in the article, and which I think you should be using. For example, I didn't see the comments about male/female sparring in the section on behaviour, or the fact that defecation is used for boundary marking. I also think it would be worth listing the Species Coordinator, which at that time was Stephen Shurter, but might not be by now. And have you been able to consult the article by Spratt listed in the references there? It appears to be a behavioural article and might contain relevant information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be returning to this PDF work in a day or two. I have never come across, and thus don't know how to interpret, studbooks. anyway, I have planned to add a paragraph about the Jackson's hartebeest in the "Subspecies" - not as a bullet in the list, surely. I have found some book sources describing it, too. What is your idea? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no consensus at WP:ANIMALS that studbook information should be included, so I wouldn't oppose on that basis, but I agree with Casliber that you should find the Jackson's studbook he mentions above and look at it to see what information it includes, as well as going through the antelopetag source. There may be nothing you need to add from the studbook, but you won't know till you look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added info. But how am I to find that studbook? I have no idea how to. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose on the basis of you not having consulted it. The only remaining issue I think you need to fix is the wording on the Lelwel's; see my comments above about Fay 2007 and southern Omo. Once that's done I will strike my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks found some problems:

  • "A total of about 600, only 300 of which are mature" - source says less than 600 and doesn't appear to mention number of mature individuals at all
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The body hair of the hartebeest is about 25 mm" - this number does not appear on the page cited
Fixed, citation problem. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern lineage split into the eastern and western lineages, perhaps due to the expansion of the central African rainforest belt and the loss of savanna habitats due to a period of global warming" is quite similar to "The northern lineage has further diverged into eastern and western lineages, most probably as a result of the expanding central African rainforest belt and subsequent contraction of savannah habitats during a period of global warming"
Added the reword. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The red hartebeest is very widespread after reintroduction to protected areas and ranches" - source does not mention reintroduction
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the mitochondrial haplotypes and microsatellite alleles present at high frequencies in the Senkele hartebeest were absent in those from the other population" is quite similar to "Many mitochondrial haplotypes and microsatellite alleles present at high frequencies among the Senkele individuals were missing in Nechisar"
Added the reword. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another theory put forward for this defect..." - the source seems to suggest that these elements support the initial theory rather than being an independent potential cause
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending more complete checks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from another reviewer: The "period of global warming" phrase (just those four words) was added by me as I felt it was necessary to reflect the source and couldn't think of an accurate way to rephrase those four words. I didn't notice the similarity of the rest of the phrase and agree that as a whole it's too close. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good phrase. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- This has been open nearly six weeks, so I'm trying to get a sense of how close we are to consensus. It appears to me that Mike's comments are steadily being resolved and struck; Nikki, were you planning on making the more complete spotchecks you mention? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf has been diligent about fixing the issues I've identified, and I will strike my oppose when everything is dealt with. The high number of errors I've seen don't give me confidence that it is comprehensive and accurate, so I don't feel I will be able to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd had an initial look and felt there was more needed comprehensivenesswise (always a risk with big articles!) - I am not familiar with the subject matter so wasn't clear on what was missing. I would have checked more sources myself but my free time has been patchy. I am waiting for the source checking process to conclude before having a look at content again (didn't really want to add more stuff and muddy up the checking). I think this still might take some time. It would be good to see it get through - question is whether it sits here "on the boil" or goes off for two weeks..not sure.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now struck my oppose, but am not supporting, per my comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small comment, perhaps the lead should say "The hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) is an African species of grassland antelope"? To the layperson, it might not be clear what "rank" this article covers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lit search. I found the following articles that aren't used as sources, and was wondering if they had been consulted in the preparation of this FAC candidate: Sasata (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Population status and human impact on the endangered Swayne's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei) in Nechisar Plains, Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia
Author(s): Datiko, Demeke; Bekele, Afework
Source: AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 49 Issue: 3 Pages: 311-319 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01266.x Published: SEP 2011
Title: Daily activity pattern of the endangered Swayne's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei Sclater, 1892) in the Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia
Author(s): Vymyslicka, Pavla; Hejcmanova, Pavla; Antoninova, Marketa; et al.
Source: AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 49 Issue: 2 Pages: 246-249 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2010.01243.x Published: JUN 2011
Title: A comparison between the effects of day versus night cropping on the quality parameters of red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) meat
Author(s): Hoffman, Louw C.; Laubscher, Liesel L.
Source: SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH Volume: 41 Issue: 1 Pages: 50-60 Published: APR 2011
Title: ROBUSTOSTRONGYLUS AFERENSIS GEN. NOV ET SP NOV (NEMATODA: TRICHOSTRONGYLOIDEA) IN KOB (KOBUS KOB) AND HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS BUSELAPHUS JACKSONI) (ARTIODACTYLA) FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, WITH FURTHER RUMINATIONS ON THE OSTERTAGIINAE
Author(s): Hoberg, Eric P.; Abrams, Arthur; Pilitt, Patricia A.
Source: JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY Volume: 95 Issue: 3 Pages: 702-717 DOI: 10.1645/GE-1859.1 Published: JUN 2009
Title: Distribution and Extinction of Ungulates during the Holocene of the Southern Levant
Author(s): Tsahar, Ella; Izhaki, Ido; Lev-Yadun, Simcha; et al.
Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 4 Issue: 4 Article Number: e5316 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005316 Published: APR 29 2009
Title: Animal breeding systems and big game hunting: Models and application
Author(s): Caro, T. M.; Young, C. R.; Cauldwell, A. E.; et al.
Source: BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 142 Issue: 4 Pages: 909-929 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.018 Published: APR 2009
Title: Gastro-intestinal parasites of antelopes and buffalos (Syncerus caffer brachyceros) from the Nazinga game ranch in Burkina Faso.
Author(s): Belem, Adrien Marie Gaston; Bakone, Emilien Ulrich
Source: BIOTECHNOLOGIE AGRONOMIE SOCIETE ET ENVIRONNEMENT Volume: 13 Issue: 4 Pages: 493-498 Published: 2009
Title: Gastro-intestinal parasites of antelopes and buffalos (Syncerus caffer brachyceros) from the Nazinga game ranch in Burkina Faso.
Author(s): Belem, Adrien Marie Gaston; Bakone, Emilien Ulrich
Source: BIOTECHNOLOGIE AGRONOMIE SOCIETE ET ENVIRONNEMENT Volume: 13 Issue: 4 Pages: 493-498 Published: 2009
Title: Seasonal reproductive characteristics of female and male Jackson's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni)
Author(s): Metrione, L. C.; Norton, T. M.; Beetem, D.; et al.
Source: THERIOGENOLOGY Volume: 70 Issue: 6 Pages: 871-879 DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.02.005 Published: OCT 1 2008
Title: Morphology, constraints, and scaling of frontal sinuses in the hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus (Mammalia : Artiodactyla, Bovidae)
Author(s): Farke, Andrew A.
Source: JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY Volume: 268 Issue: 3 Pages: 243-253 DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10511 Published: MAR 2007
Title: Mammalian exocrine secretions. XVIII: Chemical characterization of interdigital secretion of red hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus caama
Author(s): Reiter, B; Burger, BV; Dry, J
Source: JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY Volume: 29 Issue: 10 Pages: 2235-2252 DOI: 10.1023/A:1026218213151 Published: OCT 2003
Title: The use of heterologous primers for analysing microsatellite variation in hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus
Author(s): Flagstad, O; Olsaker, I; Roed, KH
Source: HEREDITAS Volume: 130 Issue: 3 Pages: 337-340 DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1999.00337.x Published: 1999
Title: MYIASIS FLIES OF HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS-BUSELAPHUS)
Author(s): WETZEL, H
Source: ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGEWANDTE ENTOMOLOGIE-JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY Volume: 98 Issue: 1 Pages: 47-49 Published: 1984
Title:The ecology of Swayne's hartebeest
Author(s): J.G. Lewis, R.T. Wilson
Source: Biological Conservation Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-12 Published: 1979
Title: NUTRITIONAL ECOLOGY OF COKES HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS-BUSELAPHUS-COKEI) IN KENYA
Author(s): PRICE, MRS
Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Pages: 33-49 DOI: 10.2307/2402919 Published: 1978
Title: ATTENUATION OF A HERPES-VIRUS (MALIGNANT CATARRHAL FEVER VIRUS) ISOLATED FROM HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS-BUSELAPHUS-COKEI GUNTHER)
Author(s): REID, HW; ROWE, L
Source: RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Pages: 144-146 Published: 1973

Delegate's closing comment - This has been a difficult one to call, but I have decided that a consensus has not been reached on this occasion and will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Oba Chandler[edit]

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk), BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article concerns the rather disturbing case of an individual who murdered three women in Florida in 1989. It has been at GA status since 2011, and undergone extensive work of late. Both myself and BabbaQ are nominating it as we believe it meets the criteria required of an FA. It is in-depth, covers the topic broadly and in a neutral tone, and has been fairly stable. Also, as the subject is now deceased it is unlikely the article's content would change significantly. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time pending a thorough copy-editing and MOS cleanup. The prose contains many grammatical errors (ex. "Floridas death row"), formatting problems (ex. long Troxell quote should be blockquoted), and citation inconsistencies (ex. FN 18 vs 47). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing nomination because there are dead links that cannot be fixed or replaced, and I agree with the copy edit suggestion. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Daft Punk[edit]

Nominator(s): Mechonis (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Daft Punk is a highly influential musical duo with widespread popularity. Although they've released but three albums, and are on their fourth, their music is noted by many as the best electronica ever released. Although I don't frequently edit the Daft Punk page and am not some sort of 'Daft Punk historian,' one can tell by their latest single's reception just how important Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo are to the global atmosphere of music. And since their forthcoming album is approaching quickly, what better time to nominate Daft Punk? Furthermore, the article has already been made a good article: its layout is precise, and it seems to mirror or be on par with the quality of other featured articles. Mechonis (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quickfail
  • Setting up this FAC is the editor's first and only edits here.
  • Several uncited sentences in the article.
  • Missing a "Musical style" section. One gets little idea of what the duo sound like from this article.
  • Live performances: just several dull paragraphs listing one show after the other. Should be recast as a table-based list article.
  • Appearances in media and tributes: delete complete or reduce significantly per WP:TRIVIA. Most popular bands (and their music) make several media appearances; there's no need to list them all in a section.122.172.168.44 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Yeah, I too believe that this nomination should be closed. Kinda dissapointed seeing editors nominate articles they never edited on. GamerPro64 15:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Procedural concerns aside, there are very substantial issues with the references that I don't believe another editor could address quickly. Entire sections of text are uncited and a large percent of the current references are either bare urls, dead links, of dubious reliability or are not properly formatted. An experienced editor needs to take a thorough look at the article and put some work into it before it gets renominated. —Ed!(talk) 23:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Lewisville, Texas[edit]

Nominator(s): Runfellow (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets WP:FACR. Specifically, the prose has been copyedited carefully, it is as comprehensive as any article could get about the subject, the research is extensive and verifiable, there are no edit conflicts, and it meets the style guidlines presented in WP:MOS. As a side note regarding media, the video included in the article was originally released on Youtube with an appropriate Creative Commons license. The other images are all fairly straightforward. I appreciate your consideration and comments. Runfellow (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick look-see, this seems to be well-written. Nice work! Some comments:

  • Are the flags in the infobox anything more than decorative?
  • Bit odd to say that a city occupies a lake; but I guess that's OK, is it? Ah, then I see that the lake is artificial ... yes?
  • "the early part of the 20th century"—could that be just "the early 20th century"?
  • "a nonpartisan city council"—first I've ever heard of nonpartisan politics, whether local or international. But ... OK, if you're sure.
  • "Progress", then "Growth" ... short titles are good, but this sounds a little commercial. Could they both be a tiny longer in a way that anchors them more, chronologically?
  • Pic of the medical center—is it from outer space? Blurry, weird. I'd go for 240px so the sign doesn't look as though it's in Hindi (same for the library pic, which is fine; and the sunset, which is too dark and non-descript to be acceptable here, I believe), or get rid of the brown horror. I've tried it: see what you think and revert if you hate it. Skate-boarders vid—does this add encyclopedic value? Is it any different from what I'd video down at my local park? City hall pic at top: would make an impressive large pic if you took it out and above that infobox. Just a suggestion. That pic of the high school: can you possibly lighten it? I think it's not worth having at the moment. Tony (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thanks for the constructive criticism, Tony, all good points. Here are a few responses:
  • I don't think I'm seeing the flags in the infobox; maybe this is something set with my default theme? I don't have any city or state flags set to display in the box, I don't think. Perhaps I'm misreading your comment.
  • I changed the sentence to read that it "occupies" the land and "includes" part of the lake.
  • I could go either way on "early part of" or just "early".
  • By "nonpartisan", I mean they are not elected by party (no "R" or "D" next to the name, no official party affiliations or primaries for candidates). A source in the government section points out that municipal elections in Texas are nonpartisan.
  • I'll see if I can't come up with a way to add something to the headings. The "progress" label was sort of meant to tie into the "progressive" era, so I could maybe change that to something more directly tied to that label.
  • The photo of the theater is admittedly not great, but I think it's better than my own photo, which occupied that space for a time. I went ahead and removed the sunset pic; I have added and removed that a couple of times and I think have finally reached the conclusion that it simply doesn't merit inclusion. I think the skate park vid would be different from what you'd see at your local park simply because it includes a skate park. Although public skate parks are more common than they used to be, I don't think they're common enough to not be at least somewhat unique. I also removed the photo of the high school. I took that and included it a few weeks ago and was pretty much in denial, but yeah, you're right. It's not very good, and doesn't really add anything.
  • The city hall pic may be the only good photograph I've ever taken (I believe I'm a decent writer/editor, but I am definitely the worst photographer I know). I'm not sure what you mean by taking it "out and and above the infobox". Can you clarify?
Runfellow (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any data on religions in this city?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, what are the seasons one can experience in the city? --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy: What kind of occupation the citizens have (of course, if data is available)? At least, which sector (secondary, tertiary etc). Any manufacturing industries? Or, is this a largely typical suburban town from where people commute to the larger cities?
  • "...ranked as one of the top "Powerhouses of the New Economy" by Black Enterprise magazine in 2000" An auto dealership ranked as a powerhouse of new economy? What does it mean anyway? "New economy"? Is this dealership a huge one, employing thousands of people?
  • Education: Are there anything above high school, such as community college, college, university ?
  • Based on my above observations/question, I feel currently the article may not be comprehensive. So, my vote is neutral (of course, subject to change, since the issues raised may be addressed soon :))--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Data on crime, employment/unemployment?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For 1b (comprehensive), as illustrated in the issues raised by me above. After the great initial response from the nominator, not much has been done in the article, or, no more updates here. Sorry, --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
  • Regarding religion, unless there's some kind of estimates from the American Community Survey, I highly doubt there's any verifiable source to use for religious data. There's no one religion, church, or denomination that dominates the area or anything like that, so it would be hard to get good info on that.
  • As the old saying goes, "If you don't like the weather in Texas, wait a few minutes." Some of what people refer to as different seasons will be subjective, but I tried to be as scientific and verifiable as possible in my description of the climate.
  • Regarding occupation, again, I can look in the ACS data to see what kinds of breakdowns are available. I can pretty much promise that there are no predominant industries, however, as the city is very much a suburban community with a diverse economic base.
  • Regarding any higher education institutions, nope, none in the city, though there is a community college up I-35 a few miles and there is the University of North Texas in Denton a few miles north of that. Even though those aren't in the city, should they still be included since it factors into the city's education?
Runfellow (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor's Comments
Lead
  • Originally called Holford's Prairie, the origins of Lewisville date back to the early 1840s.[5] - origins used twice, a little redundant
History
  • Lewisville celebrated the paving of the U.S. Route 77 between Denton and Dallas in 1931 with a "Coming Out of the Mud" ceremony. - Probably should give a brief description of this ceremony itself, rather than explaining its title. Unless of course there was no formal ceremony.
Parks and Recreation
  • The nine-hole, 1,724-yard (1,576 m) Lake Park Executive course opened in 1994.[80] - A non-breaking space would prevent the clutter of this sentence, which has figures running from one line to the next. That's a pain for any reader.
Demographics
  • The average household size was 2.53 persons and the average family size was 3.21 persons. T - Again, an nbsp would be nice here.
Transportation
  • In 1998, the Texas Department of Transportation carried out a Major Investment Study to examine the possibility of expanding the section of Interstate 35E between Interstate 635 and U.S. Route 380,[97] the primary focus being an 8-mile (13 km) stretch - nbsp
Education
  • The survey estimated that 24,879 Lewisville residents over the age of three were enrolled in schools.[113] - nbsp again.
References
  • Bates, Edward (1918). History and Reminiscences of Denton County. Denton, Texas: McNitzky Printing Company. LCCN 19004337. OCLC 2133818. - Other book sources use an accessdate, so this one should, too.
  • Bates, Edward (1918). History and Reminiscences of Denton County. Denton, Texas: McNitzky Printing Company. LCCN 19004337. OCLC 2133818. - Same thing.
  • Odom, E. Dale (1996). An Illustrated History of Denton County, Texas: From Peters Colony to Metroplex (First ed.). Denton, Texas. ISBN 0-9651324-0-4. OCLC 35182680. - Again, needs an accessdate for consistency.
  • United States Department of Agriculture (2012). USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map (Interactive Map). Cartography by Oregon State University. East Texas inset. - Other map sources use an accessdate, so this one should have one, too.
  • Mendez, Carlos (2004-12-29). "Ex-Guard Pursuing a Different Course After Football". The Fort Worth Star Telegram. p. 6D. 11275041. "The former Cowboys guard is owner of Timbercreek Golf Center in Lewisville" - Accessdate?
  • Pry, Lyn (2006-12-17). "Transit Authority Gives Free Rides". The Dallas Morning News. 1161713654B03420. "DCTA launched the service on Nov. 15. It runs both directions in a figure-eight path through the city." - Accessdate?
  • Rodriguez, Bobby (2011-12-12). "MCL Grand Theater Named Best Events Venue in Denton County". News Connection (Flower Mound, Texas: Shane Allen). - Accessdate?
  • Hughes, Lenny; Wood, Adam; Witte, Mark (2011). The 2011 Lewisville Trails Master Plan (Report). Richardson, Texas: Halff. - Accessdate?
  • No dabs, so those are all fine. Sources check out it seems.

Seems like a lot of work, but consistency of refs is not difficult to fix. Good work. ceranthor 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose - Until my comments are resolved. ceranthor 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The prose looks pretty good to me. I will come back with some suggestions before the end of the weekend. ceranthor 19:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC) (see above comment)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

SheiKra[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after re-writing and expanding the article quite a bit, I believe that it is at the FA standards. After expanding the article, it was reviewed by Hahc21 for Good article status. After the article passed, a peer reviewer was done by FallingGravity. A copy-edit was also completed by FallingGravity and ‎Baffle gab1978. Finally (just a quick note about its notability), it was the world's first roller coaster of its kind to feature a vertical drop and train type which has since influenced all Dive Coaster's manufactured after it. --Dom497 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I generally like the image selection, but what is your opinion on File:SheikraBuschGardens.jpg. It seems (to me) to be the best overall view of the coaster, so is there some aesthetic way to include it in the article? Or a specific reason it isn't included? Chris857 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I left it out is because I don't really think there is anywhere to put it. The main part of SheiKra is its 90-degree drop which is highlighted in the infobox picture so I didn't want to remove it and replace it with the image you mentioned. Also, if I put it anywhere else in the article, the images would stack and create big gaps between the sections of the article (if this isn't really an issue, then I would be more than happy to include the photo). To prevent the gaps, the only place it could go would be under the 'Reception' section though the picture doesn't really have anything to do with the section (Again, if it doesn't matter where the picture goes, I can put it under this section).--Dom497 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "but lost these when Girffon and Dive Coaster opened at Chime-Long Paradise." Assuming that Girffon is the same ride as "Griffon", there's a typo somewhere in there.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusement Today should be italicized as a print publication.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original attraction: "Rose amended his proposal, making the roller coaster 200 feet tall and adding more features to the ride, a proposal which the executives approved." The use of "proposal" twice is an obvious redundancy in the prose. Try rewording something so this doesn't occur.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The modified part needs an apostrophe at the end of "executives". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was it one executive or multiple ones as implied earlier in the paragraph. If the latter, the apostrophe needs to be moved. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The semi-colon before "both a first for its kind" begs to be a regular old comma instead.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three days later, the roller coaster opened to the public on May 21, 2005." This can't be right, since the previous date given was March 19. Again, one fact or the other is wrong, or the "Three days later" is untrue.
The March 19 date was the date that only the media could come to the park and advertise/publicise the roller coaster. The 21st was when the ride opened to the general public for daily operation.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But May 21 isn't three days later than March 19. And how could the media day be held after testing was completed on March 19 when testing didn't start until April? I think you've got a bad date in there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed that error. I have fixed "March" to "May".--Dom497 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but isn't May 21 two days after May 19, not three? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I'm not going to try to explain why I thought it was three :P ) --Dom497 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout: reference 1 should be moved to be after the period in its second use here.
Done (I think). Can you check where the ref is now? I'm not sure if I fully understand what you are trying to say.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once cycle of the ride lasts about 2 minutes and 20 seconds." "Once" → "One".
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records: "In 2005, only two other Dive Coasters in the world had either a 87- or 87.5-degree drop." "a" → "an"?
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: We don't need another Immelmann loop link here since there was one earlier in the body of the article.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusement Today should be italicized in refs 62–69. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing I saw just now: the all caps in ref 8 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • In the lead, the first says in which theme park the coaster is located. However, that is not perhaps complete location information. Should not it state which city/state and country?
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • location information of Chime-Long Paradise would help, too.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the first paragraph of history, it says that SeaWorld filed a trademark for the name. So, what happened after that? How did Busch Garden claim the name back?
What do you mean how Busch Gardens got the name back and what happened after, all they did was file a trademark for the name SheiKra.--Dom497 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment filed for the trademark. But the ride is in Busch Gardens Tampa Bay. So, how are SeaWorld and Busch Garden related? No relationship of these has been mentioned earlier in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's makes more sense. I have added the appropriate info.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In modified attraction section, why do we need the time of press conference (1030 am)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought it would add more info about when the modification was announced. Is it redundant?--Dom497 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not redundant, but seemed too much detail. Was it such an exciting event (the press meet) that even the precise minutes and hours will be needed? --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the time.--Dom497 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — No visible problems, on terms of prose and fixes of above issues. — DivaKnockouts 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Titan (supercomputer)[edit]

Nominator(s): James086Talk 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a rather unsuccessful peer review, I've decided to be bold and nominate it for FA. The computer isn't completely in normal operation yet, but the only changes I anticipate being necessary is the addition of the date that the remainder of the machine is accessible to the users (see the 2nd to last paragraph of History). I don't think this is enough to prevent crit. 1e being met. James086Talk 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: James086. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Licensing is fine (though I don't have OTRS access). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe this work is worthy of Featured Article status, so I am lending my support. Nice job and good luck with the remainder of the FAC process. Praemonitus (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments → Hello. The following article elements items caught my eye when I read through the article for the first time:
  • "however, selection for time on the computer depends on the importance of the project and potential to fully utilise the hybrid architecture but the code must run on other supercomputers to avoid dependence solely on Titan" → The "must run" here seems ambiguous since it could also mean that the binary code must spent part of it's time in other systems; perhaps change it to "must be executable".
  •  Done Many of the below changes are also in this diff: diff 2
  •  Done "Six "vanguard" codes were selected to be the first to run on Titan dealing mostly with molecular scale physics or climate models but other projects are also queued for use of the machine." → The "but" here doesn't appear to be an exception. The other projects are queued up by necessity because they weren't selected to be the first six. Perhaps replace it with "while" and reword it accordingly.
  •  Done The first use of "parallelism" in the lead should be linked to Parallel computing.
  •  Done The term "ESnet" needs to be linked to Energy Sciences Network.
  •  Done "...in early 2013 and but only completed...": is the 'and' here superfluous?
  •  Done The technical terms "nuclear reactions", "radiation transport", "nuclear burning", "reactor core", "reactor fuel cycle" should be linked.
  • The article could mention the planned succession upgrade currently scheduled for 2016.[27]
  • diff 3 I added info on the 2016 replacement and mentioned their long term goal. I hope that's sufficient as I haven't seen much more than that out there.

Some of the prose may perhaps require refinement, but I'll leave the review of that to other individuals. Otherwise the article content appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the prose will be the major issue, I tend to be rather mediocre at copyediting. Thanks very much for your comments. James086Talk 09:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these issues. I'll change to support once a review of criteria 1a is completed. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took another pass through the article and found a couple of minor points:

  •  Done "...maintain energy efficiency while...": energy efficiency or energy usage? The energy cost per FLOPS decreased significantly, so efficiency has improved.
  •  Done "6600 tons": most of the article lists metric units as the primary unit type. Should this be in tonnes?

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes diff. Also, thanks for the copyedits. James086Talk 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review by Imzadi1979: I stumbled here from my current nomination, and I'd like to offer some review comments.
    • Sentences with full American-format dates like "... on November 16, 2010 and was publicly announced on October 11, 2011 as the ..." should have commas after the years.
    • For a supercomputer based in, and funded by, the US, I'd expect to see the unit spelled "meter" not "metre". There is and option in {{convert}} to force the US spelling.
    • I'm not sure it's necessary to specify that the prices are in "US$" given that this is a US-related topic. Now if we had some costs quoted in other dollar currencies, then yes, but here is isn't necessary. If the first mention of "US$" is retained for some reason, the link should point to United States dollar, not US.
    • Only the first time a publisher or agency is mentioned in the references does it need to be linked. Repeating the link in each subsequent footnote is overlinking and should be discouraged. I'd double check your authors accordingly as well for repeated links in footnotes.
    • The BBC is normally only a publisher, not a "work"; the individual TV programs they produce would be the "work", so the BBC itself should not be in italics. I'd audit the use of work vs. publisher in the footnotes to correct any other similar issues.
    • A link to Portal:Information technology in the "See also" section, while not required, might be nice.
  • That's all I see for now, I'll come back when I have a little more time to read the article and offer any needed comments on the prose. Imzadi 1979 → 12:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt
  1. 2nd sentence in lede/intro sect makes use of three (3) commas, it reads a bit long, could this sentence be broken into two smaller sentences?
  2. 2nd sentence in 2nd paragraph of intro/lede sect - word "however" could be trimmed, keeping the semicolon, and the sentence would be more concise and read a bit better without a detriment from removal of the word.
  3. Same can be said for 1st sentence of 3rd paragraph in lede/intro sect, removal of word "however" would improve it without detriment to readability of the sentence.
  4. 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph in intro/lede sect - perhaps it's just me but it seems unclear why word "vanguard" is in quotes here?
  5. 4th sentence in 3rd paragraph of lede/intro sect - maybe "have had" could be changed to just "had..." ?
  6. Last paragraph in History sect, two-sentence-long-paragraph, seems kinda to be hanging there at the end, maybe there could be a little more info about this, or perhaps this could be all merged into another sect?
  7. Might be nice to add at least one or maybe two relevant portals into the See also sect, up to you.

Thanks for this valuable and educational quality improvement project effort, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact[edit]

Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk 01:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has fulfilled all requirements for becoming a featured article in my opinion, but disputes over the title and in some cases a lack of reviewers have stopped the article from attaining FA status. I am nominating this article in the hopes that it will receive wider and closer scrutiny than in previous FACs. Wer900 • talk 01:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there is a lack of consistency with regards to attributing authorities. For example, Ben Finney is first referenced as "Finney", while Robert Freitas and Steven Dick are both introduced with their full names (as they should be). Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Dick reference is inconsistent as well. First you have him listed as "Steven J. Dick", then "astronomer Steven Dick", and then Dick, so you need to fix that too. "Astronomer" should appear in the first instance before the full name, followed by subsequent references to "Dick". Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I resolved the problems that you mentioned. Is there anything else? Wer900 • talk 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is somewhat rambling, confusing and doesn't communicate the subject very well. I wonder if you might try rewriting it. I attempted to do this sometime ago and I believe I was either reverted or overruled. My point is that this isn't a featured article quality lead, IMO. For example, take the first sentence. It isn't accurate, as it implies that potential cultural impact will automatically arise from communication, but that isn't needed at all. In fact, there might be cultural impact from receiving information from a Bracewell probe, explaining how we can meet with detailed instructions for building a transportation device. This, as you know, was Bracewell's idea and became part of the plot for Sagan's Contact. I think you get the idea. The first paragraph lacks a narrative framework and consists mostly of different lists linked together instead of directed prose taking the reader through a simple summary of the topic. In some strange way, it looks like you have the order of paragraphs reversed. The third paragraph should be first and the first paragraph should be third. This would clear up a lot of confusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the lede is indeed clunky in its present state. I do have a revised one in my sandbox; please recommend any changes to it that might be necessary to bring the lede to FA quality. Wer900 • talk 00:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still don't understand why you are waiting until the end of the lead to explain the difference with SETI. Shouldn't this be the second sentence in your revised lead? Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I moved the mention of SETI to the second sentence, albeit quite inelegantly. Modifications are in my sandbox. Wer900 • talk 03:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Better, but your lead is still a mess. Try to focus on writing it for a reader who knows nothing about the subject and lose the vague prose. Take a more narrow, conservative approach. In the lead, you say the effects of contact could include "sweeping changes", that they could "vary greatly in magnitude and type", etc. This might be fine for the body, but try to give the reader more to chew and less nebulosity. Start by deleting all of the adjectives and adverbs. Stick with the facts. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I made some changes and removed redundancy, but I'm not sure I made the necessary sweeping changes to the lede. Could you please review it again? Also, I'd like to get more reviewers for the page, preferably from WP:ASTRONOMY. Wer900 • talk 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not convinced the article meets criterion 1a. If WP:ASTRONOMY can help you with that, then great. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I honestly believe that the prose does meet criterion 1a. I've seen other featured-article candidates and the prose is at a similar level there to what I have seen in my writing. Nevertheless, if there are any errors then WikiProject Astronomy should be able to help. Wer900 • talk 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with Viriditas I'm afraid. --John (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly can be done to improve the article? Many FACs have specific recommendations which can be ticked off as done or not done, but I have no clue what exactly I am supposed to accomplish. Wer900 • talk 17:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Piotrus:
    • please disambiguate Albert Harrison (notable, should be linked)
      • Done.
    • the article introduces some people and their position; this is broken with the mention of Seth D. Baum, whose position is not given (he may not be notable, so not linking him may be fine)
      • Done.
    • Paolo Musso may be notable, please consider linking

Overall, I find this article may be forgetting about WP:RED, and WP:BTW. Particlularly in the social science context, I see terms that should be linked. For example: history of science, morality, religious belief, altruism, all items mentioned in the sentence "rinciples such as justice, respect for diversity, honesty, and respect for property and territory". Few other examples of terms I'd expect to be linked to something: radiation leakage, frequency bands. Likely notable people mentioned but not linked: Martin Dominik.

      • Both done.
  • This is just from reading the first few sections. Please don't stop at fixing the above, but carefully reread the entire article with the focus on what should be linked. For now I have to object due to the failure in BTW/RED. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Piotrus, this is what I found:
      • Seth D. Baum is the Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (which seems most related to the topic of the article).
      • Paolo Musso does not have an article, and while it may be good to create redlinks to encourage creation of new articles, they are incongruous with the rest of an FA-class article.
      • Again, Martik Dominik does not have an article, and I don't wish to add a redlink for the same reasons as above.
    • In conclusion, thanks for giving a clear and itemized review so I can improve the article. Wer900 • talk 03:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure what you mean when you say "they are incongruous with the rest of an FA-class article". WP:RED is a policy. Featured Articles are expected to follow it. It's pretty simple. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was wrong, then. I just wouldn't like excessive redlinks in FA-class articles. But I added them to this one anyway. Wer900 • talk 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment There has been no activity on this page for over month and I cannot see a consensus being reached to promote this article. There are still problems with the prose. In particular, excessively long sentences and a poor lead. Graham Colm (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Stay (Faraway, So Close!)[edit]

Nominator(s):  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed. Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on 1b and as a primary contributor to the article. This article was recently listed on the U2 WikiProject as a topic that may be close to FA status but needs some further improvement before it is ready. That work has not yet happened. I note also that the nominator has another FAC opened only a few hours prior to this one. I recommend a withdrawal by the nominator, or a speedy close of the nomination. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Exit (song)[edit]

Nominator(s):  Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on 1b and as a primary contributor to the article. This article was recently listed on the U2 WikiProject as a topic that may be close to FA status but needs some further improvement before it is ready. That work has not yet happened. I note also that there is a currently open request at Peer Review for this article. I recommend a withdrawal by the nominator, or a speedy close of the nomination. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2013&oldid=557825671"