This is an exemplary example of an article for a TV show, with enough detail but not too much (linking to other articles where necessary) and an appropriate amount of references. It of course complies with Wikipedia style, is neutral, is rather stable and contains a healthy amount of images. Overall, it is comprehensive and a good read...definitely featured article material. -- Cielomobiletalk / contribs 03:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't looked through the entire article yet. But I can already say that the lead is too short. The Filmaker 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; some large portions don't have citations ("Interviews", "Robert Wexler", and paragraphs throughout), and several quotes are missing them too. --Spangineeres(háblame) 04:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the article is comprehensive and detailed with good references and links. Jennielou 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is definitely a great article; it fits the criteria perfectly. Well written, comprehensive, and fits Wikipedia style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.118.77 (talk • contribs) .
Oppose - Too many unfree images (screenshots). Just one would be enough to show Colbert. We don't need "Colbert on The Colbert Gang", "Colbert on the set", "Colbert announces The WØRD of the night", "Colbert and his "competition""... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) .
Support The article is a popular topic, it is very well written, and is the epitome of what a Wikipedia article should be. JustOneJake 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well written Trashking 21:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great writing, great organization; no need for so many pictures, however. --Cliff smith 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though this article isn't bad at all, it is not ready for featured status. See rationale below.
1.(d) "Neutrality". This article does not discuss criticism of the show and its tone makes it seem as though it was written by fans at times. (Not that fans writing it is a problem -- hell, I'm a huge fan -- but that tone has to go)
2.(a). Weak lead paragraph.
1.(e). With 17 edits and counting ([1]) today, even if some are vandlism and reverts, I think it's safe to say that this is not yet a stable article.
In short, this article needs to lose the fan-written tone and deal with the
aforementioned problems before it can attain featured status. Please consider
submitting it for peer review once thse problems are
believed to have been corrected before bringing it up as a featured article
candidate. --Zantastiktalk 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Glancing through it, I have a couple questions. Once they are answered I'll come by and do a real read through. First off I would like to request the lead to be expanded by 1-2 paragraphs. How is "Relation to The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hungarian bridge campaign" motifs(recurring themes)? and "The WØRD" isn't? Some sections seem to miss any inline citations. No news report mentioned the Tom De Lay email and you had to use a picture? To my knowledge, comedy cental site has a lot of videos (per their commercials "our site doesn't suck") and you couldn't find the videos you needed so you used "youtube" where you never know if video editing could have happened? How come in the "program format" it doesn't mention the quick "preview" or what ever you would like to call it of the Colbert Report at the end of the Daily Show(lets check in with our good friend Stephen)? Thats all I can think off for now. Love the Colbert Report but would like this article to be the best it can be or featured status in other words. - Tutmosis 22:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - The Word isn't a "theme" per se; it's a segment. The "recurring themes" section is meant to display themes of the show, rather than different sections of the show. Besides, there are dozens of recurring segments and themes, which are listed in the main article. As for the reference about Tom DeLay, both a picture of the email and an article from a news website are provided. I would think that should be sufficient reference. Concerning the preview at the end of The Daily Show, that is technically part of The Daily Show and not the Report, so I don't believe it belongs in this article. It's in The Daily Show's article, where it belongs. Finally, to address the YouTube videos, I don't see why they aren't legitimate sources. Colbert himself condones the use of YouTube, and uses it exclusively for his green screen challenge. Would it not be fitting to use YouTube, as per his urgings? -- Cielomobiletalk / contribs 23:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, I love The Colbert Report, but this article gives a terribly incomplete and confusing idea of the show to people who are not familiar with it. I think part of this incomplete, rough feel comes from sections being shunted off to sub-pages without much care for what this leaves in the parent article. The authors need to take a step back and make it comprehensible to people who have never heard of Stephen Colbert or this show. Here are just a few problems:
The article gives no good, detailed summary of the nature of the Colbert character, which is probably the single most important element of the show. The section "Stephen Colbert character" contains not even the most basic information regarding the character's personality and mannerisms, instead simply linking to the subpage, which is a misapplication of Summary style.
I'd also argue that, as pretty much the central element of the show, the expanded section on the Colbert character should probably be the first or second section of the article, and at least a paragraph in the lead should introduce the character.
Despite attempts at conciseness, the article wastes space on trivialities like the desk being shaped like an Omega and Mort Zuckerman being removed from the "on notice" board (which incidentally is mentioned in that sentence for the first time).
The article says nothing about the sort of humor used on the show.
Some of the unexplained references to gags would puzzle non-fans. "Search for a new black friend," "Gravitas-Off", "Dead to Me board," etc.
The Hungarian bridge campaign section needs to go. It's already alluded to when you talk about Stephen trying to get stuff named after him, and it's not significant enough to warrant a higher level of coverage. Ditto the massive coverage given to the "reported as fact" incidents, which needs to be cut down to size.
The article also fails to mention the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner incident, which probably drew more mainstream attention to the show than anything else.
There's an uncited quote right after the table of contents.
This is just for starters. Like I said, this article seems geared primarily toward fans of the show, and secondaly toward people who are familiar with American news media culture. I watch it every night, so there are probably other things I'm missing; show it to some European or Australian FA editors who haven't heard of Colbert (or have only heard his name dropped here and there) and I won't be surprised if a lot of them offer up more suggestions for what to include. Andrew Levine 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The lead is too short for such a long article, and does not summarize it properly. CG 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Poor lead and a horrible structure that goes in a million directions. The article needs better focus and less categorization.UberCryxic 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some sections read like fan-site work. Organization is confusing. Several paragraphs have no references, although there are plenty of references overall (some references may just need to be made inline). There are still grammatical errors to be fixed as well. (Although this can be done quickly.) It's just not ready yet, though the page has great potential. I would rate the article as GA right now. --Targetter(Lock On) 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination - Thank you for your feedback, everyone. I am going to withdraw the nomination, as it seems this article needs some work. I think I'll nominate for GA status, though. -- Cielomobiletalk / contribs 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. This article has gone through some extensive work since its last nominations, and I believe it is ready to be featured. PlatformerMastah 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much better than last time, much better. My one quibble is, I think the article doesn't need the CD cover or the VHS cover, seems repetitive. Good job! Judgesurreal777 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support did some work on it earlier, but very good Jarandawat's sup 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with just a slight comment though - shouldn't the spoiler warning just be slotted between the plot sections rather at the lead? - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. It has been taken care of. PlatformerMastah 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've archived your peer review as well. (Historically, they cannot be listed simulatenously). - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets all criteria. This would make a great front page article. --Ineffable3000 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object without some improvements. "Cast" and "Songs" should be converted to prose, with a full cast listing as an appendix, maybe. Sentences like this are a problem: "It was also the second top domestically-grossing film of 1994 (below Forrest Gump)." Second top? In "Reaction", none of the major box office accomplishments are referenced. "See below" is not required in the first paragraph. In "Production", computer animation is said to play an important role, but the lead says it's traditionally animated. The contrast should at least be explained in "Production". Cheers, –Outriggr§ 09:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed some of the minor issues you have stated, as well as adding references to the box office section. I will also see about converting the songs and cast section into prose. Thank you for pointing these out. PlatformerMastah 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to my comments. It is very common for FACs with substantial non-prose sections to be criticized for them, and I still feel it is a problem. With the songs, it's practically a matter of inserting "is" in place of a dash. With the cast, you've got a chance to briefly outline the characters (wow, they even have their own WP articles to take the outlines from) and describe the cast. As an example, did a major cast member say "x" about his participation in the film? You might wait to see if any other opinions on this come up. –Outriggr§ 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I have converted the songs and characters section into prose. How do they look now? PlatformerMastah 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By prose, I meant with no bullets. Some may feel this is minor, but I really think those sections need paragraphs (and also no bolding of every proper noun). I agree with a comment below that more information on critical response is needed. Keep up the good work! –Outriggr§ 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I haven't done this in a while, and I admit I really messed up trying to get the archive history right. Hopefully this does not detract from the article's quality itself, however. PlatformerMastah 12:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article, minor problems have been or will be addressed, apparently. The cast and song sections are fine with me, converting them is no necessity. Especially "Songs" is great as it is, putting it into prose will certainly not benefit the overall clarity IMHO. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StrongObject. Vast amounts of this article are unsourced. Example: However, as the The Lion King was marketed, the studio noticed that the released teaser, which consisted of the film's entire opening sequence featuring the song "Circle of Life", received a strongly enthusiastic reaction from audiences which also whiffs a bit of POV unless it can be sourced. In addition, the article uses 12 fair use images. I don't normally moan about fair use, but 12 is far too many considering we're supposed to use as little as possible and ensure they significantly contribute to the article. Notice how "must" and "significantly" are bolded. -- Steel 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed down the unnecessary images, as well as adding references/rearranging sentences to sound less like POV. I will continue to add references to unsourced statements, as well as make sure the images add something to the article. I still believe this article has a chance of becoming featured, and I will continue to keep at it. PlatformerMastah 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added many more sources where they were necessary. PlatformerMastah 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still objecting. Although there has been a noticable increase in references, some bits still need a source. ("The DVD release was criticized for its hard-to-navigate system of the bonus disc, its shallow extras and not including the Making of the Lion King show. Still, it was praised for its restored picture and sound."). As for the images, we've gone from 12 to 10. We can stand to lose four or five more. -- Steel 11:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support better than ever. Good use of references and images, and explains everything about the film. igordebraga≠ 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, brilliant accessment. Also, the images are suitable enough for an article this large and in-depth. Wiki-newbie 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose excessive use of fair use media, most without fair use rationales. Please read WP:FUC and remove those tha are just used as decoration. --Peta 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary images have been removed, and fair use rationales have been added. PlatformerMastah 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Pretty good. Prose is decent, but gets informal at places (especially in the narrative). Information is repeated (Best Score, etc.). Eliminate spaces between punctuation and citations. I'm not a huge fan of using all that bold in the text itself. The "See also" section unnecessarily includes a number of links that appear in the article body. Perhaps most importantly, more critical response would be great—all I see is Roger Ebert and awards. Instead of using the RottenTomatoes rating, quote from key publications, and allow the reader to get a better sense of what the critics actually said. --Spangineeres(háblame) 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the See Also links that were in the article body. (Minor note. May do the rest later.) Crystallina 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This has become an excellent article. I contributed a lot to it, and I'm happy to see that it has improved so much. Chris1219 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Chris1219 09:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Spangineer. The reaction must be expanded, Rotten Tomates is not a gauge on how well the movie was recieved be critics (especially since The Lion King came out before the website existed) and does not explain why the movie is consdiered good. Also please merge that one sentecne pargraph in the intro into another paragraph. Medvedenko 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not enough reliable sources to support the material. There's only a few and there's liberal use of questionable websites. With a franchise like Lion King, I'm quite confident there are some more reliable sources available. I would imagine there are even academic papers for the topic or some aspects of it. It's not like imdb is considered unimpeachable, there's got to be better places to draw the sales figures, etc. - TaxmanTalk 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well I'm giving Charizard another shot, hopefully the chaos has blown over from those FACs, I was against them but nevermind. Please, as usual, don't bring up gripes with Pokémon notability or worthwhileness here, and judge the quality of the actual. All comments are welcomed. Cheers, HighwayDaytrippers 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there is some long lying vandalism I'm unearthing, just delete it if you see some of it. Cheers, HighwayDaytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Light support. Ignoring the bad-faith nominations, tbere's quite some noteworthy content in this article that I can note. However, I do have a few things against it, such as opinions without sources, for example "Charizard is often considered one of the most influential of all Pokémon in the card game" (to which an upfront reference or numerous notable ones would do it well). Actually, I could point out that it's the second paragraph of the TCG section that needs a few improvements and better referencing (to avoid NPOV and making what seems to be opinion). The notability of some lines and their references (we're talking game strategies) confounds me a bit, though - "In particular, some players like to use a setup known as "Bellyzard" which utilizes a move called Belly Drum to greatly increase their Attack power while lowering their HP.". Is it notable enough? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes, I'll work on them today. Since the article is by several editors, I can't note on all the points, but I will for one remove the POV in the card game. In relation to Bellyzard, it's quite notable. At one point every team had the combination on the internet sites (whatever it's called). Thanks again, HighwayDaytrippers 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the TCG section, and removed a bit of the random stuff not required in the video games section. Anything else, HighwayDaytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak opposeSupport; this article is virtually FA quality, having certainly improved since FACs 1-3. However, there are a couple of minor qualms I have before I can support:
I'd prefer if the article actually explained what Charizard's ability "Blaze up" does; a little note in the infobox means nothing.
Well, Blaze is just it's ability, but I'll expand on that. We used to have an article, but it got deleted, which is why it doesn't have the def. And it's Blaze, damn vandals. Second of all, new editors are encouraged to link them in that format, because the "and" isn't in the titles. It's up for discussion, but that's the way it is in Torchic and Bulbasaur. I'd ask Cel really. Will get the def though, HighwayDaytrippers 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see the point in describing Charizard's ability, it doesn't have anything to do with anything mentioned in detail in the article. The only reason it's there is some people think it's enclyopedic. I happen to agree with them, but I don't think we should describe their abilties' function. If you had to actually put it into the articles, where would you try to fit it? (video games, obviously, but where?) Sorry, HighwayDaytrippers 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I suppose the basic meaning of the ability is pretty clear. I'm still iffy on the linking issue, but since its a Wikiproject issue, I'm moving to support. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the ability is readily available if anyone desires to find out, it's just not particularly enclyopedic.Cheers, HighwayDaytrippers 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Low quality of sources. Almost every single one of them is Pokemon promotional material or gaming industry promotional material. What's left would not support an encyclopedia article. Before we have a repeat of the last round, I reallize that due to project demographics I am in the minority in believing that we should not lower our standards of referencing for fictional characters, etc, but nonetheless I feel I need to comment. It simply makes us look bad when we put something like this out there as being of comparable quality to an article with unimpeachable sources when it's not. So even though it doesn't weaken my objection, I expect it to be a token one, hence no need to argue. - TaxmanTalk 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, per Taxman. There's something wanting when all but two of the non-redundant references are to either fan websites or to the franchise's official literature. As a counterxample among fictional-character FAs, see Palpatine, which includes among its references (alongside official sources) a couple dozen mainstream news outlets, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books by notable publishing houses. Andrew Levine 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to both - I would honestly add these if they existed but there is no such links or literature of which you describe. Charizard is different to Palpantine, any criticsm is of Pokémon in general, not individual ones. We've had these arguments before, but the last point it has to end of is that this stuff doesn't exist. Sorry, HighwayDaytrippers 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a little time, then. The character of Palpatine has existed in fiction longer than Charizard, and so there has been more time for mainstream sources to react and assess its cultural impact. I'd say that if such literature does not exist now, you should probably wait until it does, rather than rush the article through the FA process before it's ready. Andrew Levine 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charizard has existed for a decade! It's not it isn't around yet, it's not coming ever. There's too many Pokémon for anything notable to analyse Charizard. HighwayDaytrippers 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not going to be cited because it's really only notable to pokéfans. There's got to be articles that are better suited for FAC:ing than this. Even among pokearticles. /PeterIsotalo 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the one that got nominated. Wouldn't it be nice if all "pokearticles" were good enough to be featured? That's not really rhetorical because I'm not sure you agree with me. I know I would get really frustrated if I toiled away on an article like this only to have deletionists sneer at the subject. Everyking 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many Pokémon articles could be put up for FAC, but we made a conscious decision as a WikiProject to only put the notable Pokémon up for FA, Starter Pokémon, Pikachu, Meowth, perhaps even Jigglypuff. The fact is, there are lots of articles already at GA level, Quilava, Golduck, Weedle, which we intend to leave at that point. We are aiming to have all character articles GA's, leaving a selected to go on to Featured. Charizard, Torchic and Bulbasaur are examples of this. HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the FA-list can do without another Pokémon character. You could ease the burden on all of us by putting some effort into FA:ing Pokémon instead. It's the only article in the series that actually enjoys notability among the general readership. / PeterIsotalo 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think you should aim at having them all featured, long-term, even the least notable, the same way I think the community as a whole should aim to have everything on Wikipedia FA quality someday. But I do think nominating the most notable Pokemon is good for starters, from a tactical perspective, considering the opposition I'm sure you'd get if you nominated some really obscure one. Everyking 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have several problems with this article.
The name Charizard is presumably a portmanteau of char, etc etc etc. Either it is or it isn't. Without knowing anything about the development of the character I too would assume this, but unless the speculation is in some way notable, lets not have speculation, kay? And citing the defenition of charred is pretty weak.
Nintendo never revealed the backgrounds of the names, so other websites have made theories of it. There is some argument over charred or charcoal, but there are three links there. One link is to cite the definition of charred, one is to cite the definition of lizard, and the third cites that portmanteau form of Charizard. HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack throughout of a out of universe perspective. Simply putting As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries at the begining of a paragraph that for the rest of the time is very in universe does not make the article out of universe. Especially with phrases like Wild Charizardare saidto focus on finding worthy challengers, as they have a strong innate sense of honor, noted to rely on clawsand strength to hunt or ward off lesser foes, using their flaming breath only against opponents they see as equals. Run on sentence, and bolded for the weasely bits.
How would you fix the Characteristics problem? I'm not sure myself. HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reason for objecting, but the whole business in the computer game sections about attacks and types and stuff made my eyes water. And I've played the game.
The types section is a WikiProject thing, it's above me. I removed some unsourced stuff too. HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following line, in the anime section, is uncited. Charizard's frequent returns can be attributed to the massive fanbase the dragon-esque pokemon has gathered, many fans stating he is the best thing about the series. In fact, his removal from the main team caused numerous fans to turn on the show, and rejoice at his returns. Given that this line is one of the wretchedly few nods towards real world importance (and this Pokemon is to my mind one of the few that might) the lack of any references to back this up is inexucsable.
I didn't add that, someone else did and I missed. I noted at the top there was vandalism of that type. It's now removed, HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous wild Charizard live in the Charicific Valley, along with Charla, a female Charizard owned by the valley’s warden, Lisa, including the fore-mentioned Charla, a Pokémon Ash’s Charizard is attracted to. That flat-out isn't English.
The anime and manga sections is basically filled with evrey single appearnce by the species/character. No sense of flow. In fact, the frequent jumps between Charizard, the character owned by Ash, and Charizard, the species, make the whole thing difficult to follow even if you know about Pokemon.
More of the same really, as above. Also removed. In relation to the coverage, *I agree the anime is too extensive, other users are fighting over trivial points. The manga is actually more keypoints, the Volume 3 was the only one that sold in the Western World. HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxman's comments of the references also striked a cord with me. May I direct your attention to failed FAC for Star Wars IV which floundered largely on its reliance on George Lucas approved documnetaries at the exclusion of just about everything else. Rather too much of the references come from the spource itself or other Pokemon fan sites. Aren't there any independent review sites that spill tons of ink over the subject?
My biggest problem with this article is the complete lack of any information on critical reaction, the almost complete absence of information on fan reaction (certainly very citation) and the complete absence of any development information, out of universe stuff. Contrast this with the excellent work done on the recent FAC for Final Fantasy VII. I am not objecting yet, I will wait to see what answers I get from the editors who have obviosly worked hard on this instead. I'm not in the business of opposing just because it is pop culture, or a game, or anything like that. As I mentioned I have played the game, in fact I am the only person on earth to have used Mankey in an attack while working in a rainforest studying monkeys!. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already noted this everywhere else, so I don't need to go in any particular detail. The references are valid in my opnion, others will disagree, there are users who are against using sources as much. The point is, they don't exist, so I think it's best to make the article as great as it can be, rather than focusing on something that isn't going to appear. Would you hassle a chicken to lay a dinosaur? Thank you for your points! HighwayDaytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this looks good. As for the referencing, I see no reason whatsoever why the materials used would not be considered adequate. I'd be more inclined to think the double standard is the other way around: people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Everyking 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding right? Almost every one of the sources is promotional material. There doesn't even exist a single source which would be considered quality by the standards other subjects are judged by. By what standards could the sources be considered of adequate quality? - TaxmanTalk 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's entitled to his opnion, as are you. Don't question other people's opinions, people don't do it to you. HighwayDaytrippers 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he is, but discussion about whether an article meets the FA criteria is bound to have differences of opinion, and those can be discussed. That's what a discussion is. He has questioned my opinion (in the sense of stating disagreement with it) and because I don't feel there's much substantive basis behind his position I've responded. He clearly doesn't agree with my opinion. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the discussion is productive. - TaxmanTalk 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well "You're kidding, right?" isn't productive. He took your complaints seriously, you may as well take his merits seriously also. HighwayDaytrippers 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You use the best sources that are available to you regarding a specific subject. Sometimes there are academic journals and books, sometimes (usually) there aren't, and you settle for less. As long as the sources are reasonably reliable, there should be no problem, and the sources in this article look reliable to me (and I would trust the authors to know this stuff well enough to choose the best sources available, anyway). Official "promotional material" seems perfectly fine to use, and there's tremendous precedent. Everyking 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then there comes a point where the sources are of such low quality that passing it off as an encyclopedia article becomes unnacceptable. This is well past that and these sources aren't reasonably reliable, they're fan material. We wouldn't accept an article as a FA on oranges that included information only from the Florida orange growers association and likewise we shouldn't include one that has only promotional material no matter what the subject is. There's a reason there's no reliable sources on the subject. It's just not important enough to be treated in any. That's not the end of the world, we don't need to cover everything; we need to cover everything with reliable sources, and there's tons of that to go work on. I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. - TaxmanTalk 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already asked please do not argue Pokémon's worth at Wikipedia, you're just grasping for straws for an actionable objection. HighwayDaytrippers 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing about the worth of Pokemon. There are likely enough high quality sources discussing Pokemon in general that a wonderful FA could be written about the general topic. But there aren't anywhere close for this individual topic, and that's the problem here. While you'd like to think that pointing out the extreme low quality of sources in this article is grasping at straws, it's not. It is a serious problem if something without high quality sources would be promoted as if it does have them. - TaxmanTalk 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were saying that they didn't deserve to be at this site, that highly sounds like discussing the worth of Pokémon. If you aren't going be constructive there's no point discussing this. HighwayDaytrippers 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the topic is. If this subject had a lot of high quality sources I would be right there arguing along with you that the subject doesn't matter and it should be featured. All topics with no high quality sources should not be featured, it doesn't matter if it's Pokemon or whatever else. - TaxmanTalk 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Escuse me but I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. is hardly justifying with "subject doesn't matter". And if Pokémon have such awful references, then why didn't you argue this in Torchic's FAC? HighwayDaytrippers 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject not mattering is exactly what I was saying in what you quote there. I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy. The only thing that matters is whether or not there are reliable sources available for a subject. If there are not then it satisfies what Wikipedia is not, fails WP:V, etc making what I wrote above perfectly consistent. And if you check I argued exactly this same point there, that that article did not have (m)any reliable sources either. This one's even worse in this regard and I've probably stated my case better here. The problem is not the subject, the problem is the double standard of allowing articles with terrible quality sources to be promoted as if they have high quality ones. But you're right above, we disagree and further disagreement isn't likely to help. - TaxmanTalk 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Garbage. I have recently voted to promote FF VII, Padme Amidala and Palpatine. Applying the standards of those fine articles to Pokemon articles is neither double standards nor unfair. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They do get quite a bit of stick. HighwayDaytrippers 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Nobody here is objecting on the grounds that Charizard doesn't exist or isn't notable enough. Please stop setting up strawman arguments. Andrew Levine 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to notes, such as the argument that an article shouldn't exist because a merchandise figure hadn't been calculated by the manufacture. I wasn't referring to the character's notability at all. HighwayDaytrippers 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Taxman and Andrew Levine. It's not fair to lower our standards for pop culture articles. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and many of those used for this article are not. — BrianSmithson 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, why should it mather where the sources come from? As long as there reliable, It shouldn't matter. Although I still don't see why we need Bellyzard, I guess it's notable.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I say "Enough" to those who wish to lock out entire subjects from FA status simply because they don't like the references that are used. Though we would all love to have accurate and highly notable references, I think we should allow for references that are simply accurate when the subject warrants it, and this is that case. Judgesurreal777 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen how many FACs on all kinds of subjects get rejected for not having quality sources? Do you propose we lower standards for all articles or just for certain types? How does lowering referencing standards help in building a reliable reference work? How is it fair/right/better for the project to have double standards for some subjects that get to use lower quality references? - TaxmanTalk 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're reliable, doesn't it make them quality?--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He means things like Wall Street journals and TIME features. It's not the quality of the information, it's how prominent it is. However, since we're using prominent sources for our field I don't the issue. Unless you mean something else? HighwayDaytrippers 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean prominent. Many of these articles have very solid references, but we are constantly having this same discussion with some trying to bar the door to these articles. We are going to have to accept references that are reliable in the video game and yes, even Pokemon community, as there will never be Britannica type reference. Judgesurreal777 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect this level required for Pokémon, but not for creature articles. It just isn't feasible. HighwayDaytrippers 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, how do you know there will never be non-fan, non-official sources which analyze Charizard? There are dozens of peer-reviewed journals on popular culture worldwide, Pokémon has been popular for a decade and may remain so for a long time, and even if it burns out after a few more years, people who as kids grew up on Pokémon are the editors and writers of tomorrow, and given the influence of nostalgia, individual Pokémon, like Palpatine and other mass-culture phenomena, might very well get a thorough examination. Probably nobody in 1956 would have imagined that baseball cards would someday be the subject of countless books, news articles, essays, etc.
Second, I'm not talking about The Wall Street Journal or Time necessarily. As long as it examines Charizard from a perspective outside the Pokémon community, I'd settle for a medium-sized American newspaper, a book on pop-culture from a known publisher, or a peer-reviewed journal from a small university press.
Third, accusing longtime participants in the FA process of blocking a nomination simply because they don't like the subject, even after they've explained repeatedly why that's not true at all, is assuming bad faith. Andrew Levine 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first point, sympathize with the second but stil don't quite agree, but as to Wikipedians blocking FA's, I would direct you to the Bulbasaur nomination, and assure you that it is not at all bad faith to say this, it is a statement of fact and has occurred in recent memory on this page in vivid detail. As to whether you guys are doing this or not, I would doubt it, since I have seen both of you around and being very active, but I still dispute your point and tire of this fighting every nomination. I am more generally frustrated that this continues to occur than attempting to single you out. Judgesurreal777 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back at the Bulbasaur nomination, I see that there were eight people who objected all the way to the end, and none of them said they were contesting the nomination because of what its subject was. Not one. Please stop making the completely unfounded assertion that the Pokémon character articles face opposition because people don't like the franchise. Andrew Levine 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. WP:RS is quite clear on the reliability of self-published sources such as fanpages (they aren't reliable). And I think even a cursory glance at my user page will show you that I have nothing against pop culture articles becoming featured on Wikipedia. If, as Andrew suggests, we need to wait a few months or years for enough information to become available on Charizard, so be it. It's not right to lower our standards for some subjects and not others. BrianSmithson 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "lowering standards", it's a matter of applying different standards to different subjects so as to accurately reflect the quality and quantity of references. To apply the same standard everywhere would be absurd; we have subjects where we have vast quantities of scholarly work to draw on, subjects where there is adequate but not exceptional availability of such material, subjects where it is minimal and needs to be supplemented with lesser sources in order to attain comprehensiveness, and subjects for which there is no scholarly work to draw on at all, and lesser sources must be used for the whole thing. To apply just one of these standards everywhere would only permit good results in articles that match the category; all other articles would suffer from it. Everyking 05:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, that's an issue for WP:RS, not for FAC. If some guy who runs a Pokémon site from his basement is the only source for a particular fact, that's definitely a problem. — BrianSmithson 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's not a matter of lowering standards and then you go on to explain how it requires lowering standards. Lesser sources are lesser sources. Applying the standards of referencing is what it will take to bring this encyclopedia to Britannica or better standard. Maintaining referencing standards and our other content policies are what separates this as a reference work, not a fan magazine and all the other things that Wikipedia is not. Lowering standards [by extreme amounts] only for some subjects dilutes the soup and damages the project. There are other places for things that Wikipedia is not and that's fine. The problem is trying to shove things we're not into the project. - TaxmanTalk 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask people, on both sides, to try and keep conversation central to Charizard, since we're here to discuss the article's quality, and not the overall worth of Pokémon, or it's referencing, on Wikipedia. Cheers, HighwayDaytrippers 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying ignores reality (and a hefty portion of what I actually said) and leaves no place for a Charizard article on Wikipedia (or hundreds of thousands of other articles that would easily survive AfD, but cannot meet your stringent referencing standards). Therefore your objection is fundamentally not actionable, is it? The article would survive AfD, therefore the question is whether this reaches a standard of excellence within what is possible given the subject. The article can only be as good as an article on Charizard can be. Everyking 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I said it better elsewhere, but we're getting repetitive. I inserted a modifier above in brackets making it more accurate. There is a level below which you can't lower the standards and still have a quality reference work. This is so far below that point the point isn't in sight anymore. And no, it's perfectly actionable, strip the article down to what reliable sources support. If that's 8 paragraphs, 4 paragraphs, or 1, that's fine. Currently the article reads terribly mostly because it's so fluffed up with in universe material. - TaxmanTalk 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, I can't take what you're saying seriously because you didn't bring this up at Bulbasaur's or Torchic's FACs, where you don't comment at all about the "fluffy quality" of writing. You just seem to be thinking of scenarios in which you'll get your way. HighwayDaytrippers 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Taxman didn't think that Bulbasaur or Torchic suffered from "fluffy prose" and that's why he didn't bring it up there? You still seem to be under the impression that people are operating with an anti-Pokémon agenda and that their complaints against Pokémon articles must be uniform. Andrew Levine 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the writing is nearly exactly the same. It's certainly in the same style. Taxman has also made similar unactionable objections in all the FACs. HighwayDaytrippers 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're persisting in saying the objection is unactionable when I've already demonstrated it's perfectly actionable: you reduce the in universe material – an action, hence actionable. - TaxmanTalk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing, whether I brought this up before or not is irrelevant to this nomination. For another, I'm confused why you're making that assertion without checking. I just phrased it the other way around before saying that there was no out of universe information, hence too much in universe. And for Bulbasaur as I've already said, I thought that had more than enough objections that I didn't even need to bother writing one out. - TaxmanTalk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between actionable and propostorous, that is ridiculous. HighwayDaytrippers 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can agree it is actionable, but you just don't want to do it. Trouble is I have very strong basis in policy behind my position. - TaxmanTalk 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Taxman until the sourcing is better. I also must express some surprise to the claim that such sourcing does not exist. I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't written a book or two on Pokemon that are more academic. JoshuaZ 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In response to those who are calling out that objections based on source quality are unreasonable, I note that this still cites serebii.net, although not as heavily as it once did. I objected to the first nomination partly on the basis of that site's use as a reference; I have great difficulty believing that a site which, at the time of that FAC at least, had clearly not bothered to spellcheck or copyedit its articles has put too much effort into fact checking them either. Better references than that must be found. --RobthTalk 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for those of you who are opposing due to the references, hear me out. HighwayCello has pointed out to you that things such as TIME and NYT and WSJ aren't available for charizard. He and the other editors have obviously done there best to find the best sources for this article. If there were this kind of stuff out there, don't you think the editors would've added it? Should it matter if the source of info is from TIME magazine or some dude running a website from a basement in Dorset County, as long as it's reliable? Now, I'm not going to argue my point any further.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 11:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're overlooking the vital concern of whether the bloke running a website from his basement in Dorset is reliable. Reliability is the issue. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here with Serebii.net (it's certainly been active for a long time, and is notable among the fan community), but it's fair to bring up this concern and to request some reasoning for why the individual(s) running such a site should be taken as reliable sources. (Something of a continuation of this in my comment to be made immediately below.)
Comment — I'm behind the argument that we shouldn't restrict "reliable" to just sources like Time and The New York Times. Often, there are authoritative sources within the community of a subject that may, in fact, be better suited to serve as a source (such as IGN or Edge for video game articles in general).
However, I've noticed it being said in this FAC that other sources simply don't exist for some of the information in the article. I have no problem with the primary sources that are used (the issue of primary sources is really an overblown and misunderstood one: it's only an issue when the validity of the information being supported is open to question; if, for example, the subject of the article is a controversial matter where the primary source might be omitting or altering the details for some personal agenda, that's a problem; otherwise, there isn't an actual issue; on a non-controversial matter where the creators or publishers of a product or one of the fictional characters featured therein are simply seeking to promote or describe the product/character, there's not a whole lot of reason to doubt their ability to accurately report the characteristics of their own property; certainly, a secondary source would be more deserving of suspicion in such a case), nor how they are used, and the information being supported by Serebii.net is not what we'd really call "sensitive information", so I'm not too concerned about it either (in fact, the episodes themselves could have been used as the references for the anime-related plot details). That being said, though, in the interest of satisfying some editors' concerns, perhaps more research should be done. To be honest, I find it highly unlikely that there's no printed source whatsoever documenting something like Charizard's role in the anime. I find it especially unlikely that no Japanese work has been printed that would document such a role (Ash's Charizard was an important character in the early stage of the anime), as those anime and manga companies never fail to publish multiple books on their hot products. Perhaps someone should look specifically for any materials published in Japanese (even if they were a primary source, I don't think it would matter, considering the subject matter and the nature of the information being supported), maybe not for something like his role in the anime (again, the episodes themselves can be used as a reference), but for certain other things.
Again, I have no problems with the primary sources, nor really any with the Serebii.net references (they're pretty much expendable anyway), but I do find fault with things like the speculation surrounding the origin of the name "Charizard". Either it is a portmanteau or it isn't. Even though it obviously is, that's going to have to be sourced (reliably) if it's going to be stated. The Dictionary.com references don't really do anything toward that. Also, the "Lizardon" reference doesn't really confirm anything either.
Anyway, I'm not going to object or support, at least not yet. I would like to see the speculation on the names referenced, though. Ryu Kaze 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to remove speculation/unsourced info in the name etymology area, do you have any other points? HighwayDaytrippers 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather hoped for actually referencing those points instead of removing them, but, nonetheless, I think that does neutralize any concerns about original research, so I've got nothing else to add as far as that goes. Thanks for the rather speedy response. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the common problem, language barriers are often not breached in such a way, there isn't a Japanese name etymology in English, and there probably isn't an English one in Japanese. It's a common problem. Do you have any other points? Thanks again, HighwayDaytrippers 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lesser sources and fan sites tend to get all of there information from the same notable sources. For Pokémon, usually a combo of Coro Coro, Nintendo, and Pokémon itself. That is why many of the reliable ones are not allowed; 8 sources could be listed, but in truth it is only one or more notable sites over and over again. Asking to allow lesser sources as references is like asking to list Nintendo's website 9 times as a reference. TheHybrid 06:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Dixie (song) cites "Sacks and Sacks" 15 times and "Nathan" 15 times. It is very common to cite one source many times, the types of sources and their diversity is important. Andrew Levine 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I was talking about listing multiple references for the same fact, which is fairly common. allowing the lesser sites to be used with the reputable source is basically asking to list the same reference for the same fact multiple times. Also, fan sites are realy nothing but a middle-man for references that we already use, reliable or not. TheHybrid 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying at all. If all we're looking for is a fact cited in an official source, there's no need to cite multiple sources for that fact. Andrew Levine 04:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about when you have two refs together at the end a comma or sentence. Apparently, letting fan sites to be used alongside official sources in situations such as this, is just giving the same information twice? I think that's what he meant. HighwayDaytrippers 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If both of the refs get their info from the same source, there's no need to use both. If they both reach a separate conclusion independently, you can/should use both. This is standard citation procedure not just on Wikipedia but everywhere. Andrew Levine 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about giving the same information twice, seeing as that is the purpose of two refs. Listing a fan site and a reputable source, or two fansites, is (basically) listing the same REF twice, for the same fact. Also, if the fan sites reach a conclusion that was not officially stated, then it shouldn't be used for that fact. I hope that I was clearer this time, obviously I am having some trouble putting this into words. TheHybrid 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now given this current version of the article a more thorough look, and I have to object. Enough has been said about the sources already, so I won't go on about that here. What I will point out is:
There are serious issues with in-universe perspective in a number of places here.
The prose remains problematic; grammatical errors are scattered throughout, and comma usage is an issue in a number of places.
These problems occur throughout, but the worst offender on both counts is the "characteristics" section; several of the prose issues with that section that I raised in the first FAC have still not been addressed. --RobthTalk 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides facts and figures about the Canal, it's history and sections, supported by photographs and appropriate references.— Rodtalk 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "History" section has no citations. "Today" section is stubby. Expand or merge with "History".--Yannismarou 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I have added references for the history section and combined this with the canal today. — Rodtalk 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while the information on the various installations is very detailed, the article as a whole is not comprehensive: wildlife conservation, tourism, and the restoration are all under-developed topics. (From a very quick google, it appears that Hungerford is an important wildlife site, but it is not even mentioned). Several topics that should be covered are absent: why was there a requirement for the canal? How was it funded? How was it used? Why did it close? A lottery grant from 1995 is mentioned: has this money been used? Yomanganitalk 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseI have expanded the history section to cover why it was built, decline & restoration, and reintroduced the canal today section to cover leisure uses etc. I've also asked an expert to look at the wildlife aspects. I hope this goes some way to meeting your objections.— Rodtalk 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has improved, but I'll hold off giving my support until the wildlife aspects are addressed. It needs a copyedit now - I found several typos while reviewing it, and phrasing such as "The canal opened in 1810, with the opening of the Caen Hill Locks with some impressive engineering feats having been completed in the 16 years of construction..." is not an example of compelling prose. A couple of minor points (neither of which I'll base an objection on): the pillbox section seems out of place in the history now - it should either be in the chronology in the 1940s or at the end, and it would be interesting to have a map of the course of the canal. Yomanganitalk 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've done some copyediting as you suggest and have now added more information about the wildlife and SSSIs. I've also reordered to put pillboxes in chronological order. Another user is currently working on a map. — Rodtalk 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm re-submitting this article to be a "Featured Article". Again, even though it's my favorite band, it was also one of the most important bands in Christian rock from their beginnings (1972) up to their retirement (2005), which IMO, makes it a relevant article. The band:
has been nominated (and won) several Grammys (10 nominations and 4 wins).
has been a constant seller until their retirement reaching Gold with two of their albums.
had a long, prolific career of 33 years, which is much more than lots of bands nowadays (secular or Christian).
I went over everything people objected in the past nomination of the article:
put the discography in a separate page
added sections about critical reception, musical style, influence, etc.
Lots of people objected before saying there were few references, but if you check them you can see that the ones posted cover basically everything that's being said in the article.
Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Thief12 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- congrats for submitting an FAC, however I suggest you still have work to do. Generally speaking my complaints are 1) the tone and 2) the depth of the article. Re: tone, I mean to say that the article reads too much written like a fan -- for instance, find two "amazing"s in the first one or two paragraphs of the article. Or Unfortunately, it turned out to be their final album or also Petra released what is considered their heaviest album to date. Adjectives tend not to be a good idea in an encyclopedia article, unless they're obvious. (NG: also, you repeat the latter adjective in the sentence ...the band's last studio album, Jekyll & Hyde, which is considered by many their heaviest)
The second point is that your article doesn't have very much depth. What you've done is you've reconstructed this band's history from several sources (good) but the rest is lacking. Take your "critical reception" part: you have no critical sentiment to speak of, and your only citation is not for an opinion. How were these guys received? Find some articles in the press or reviews or something that lets one know how their career progressed, but from the prespective outside the group.
Does my feedback help out at all or would you like me to expand some more? Pablosecca 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object article needs work
Alot of the refs come from fansites, which are not reliable sources, while some sections like Critical Reception is completely unsourced
Not good prose, Lots of one and two sentences paragraphs, needs a strong copyedit, lots of fanish and weasel words and a few grammar errors around,
Remove or merge the trivia section somewhere
Images need fair use rationales
Should have an small 20-30 second music sample like most music FAs
Thanks for the feedback, though I have to disagree with your blanket statement about fan sites being unreliable sources. Some fan sites (including mine) have done in-depth, on-the-record interviews with key band members. I don't know how you can have a better source than the band's founder himself or the lead singer, for example. Kirkman 18:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on tightening up the writing. Once we address the issues outlined here, maybe we can give it another shot. Wordbuilder 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the article has reached a stage where it is fully detailed, covering every aspect of their history (as well as obscure information such as their instrumentation), and it is also well referenced. I guess this is a self-nomination, as I have contributed a lot to the article and improved it immensely. CloudNine 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - from the original nominator. CloudNine 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The article looks good overall. With an FAC-eye I offer the following suggestions:
Provide more detail on how the band has been so influential in alternative rock. A couple of references to Cobain are all I see in that regard. The Guardian article ref provides more material for this, I think (e.g. Thom Yorke).
Thanks for your comments. In progress. CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment addressed: see below. CloudNine 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce the band members in the Background or Formation section. The third sentence of the lead is kind of awkward at doing this, with its sentence structure and so many blue links together. While introducing the band members, incorporate the instrumentation information that is currently a very short section.
Moved their instruments (i.e. vocals etc.) from lead to infobox. Members are introduced in Formation to a good degree I feel. I'm not sure how I can merge instrumentation when introducing the members without derailing the story of the formation though. Comments appreciated. CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is anybody clear on whether one has to say "Pixies are" or "Pixies is"--e.g. in first sentence.
I'm not sure either, but I've tried to be consistent throughout the article CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add references for the chart performance of their records.
The worrying thing is I can't find any references for their chart performances (I didn't write those sections). Must search harder! CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add fair use rationale for any (non-album cover?) fair use images. Cheers, –Outʀiggʀ 06:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CloudNine. You asked for further thoughts on my talk page. I feel this is very good, but a few more things bug me. In the lead, I would say the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be switched; the second describes their legacy and the third describes their music. I am uncomfortable with this seemingly random sentence "Francis was the group's primary songwriter and singer and had a distinctly desperate, yowling delivery — he once befriended a Thai rock singer who told him to "scream it like you hate that bitch", in the style of The Beatles' "Oh! Darling".[6][7]" This is a long sentence with references that are first too vague (a Thai rock singer) and then too specific (a relatively obscure Beatles song). I just don't quite get it - did this anonymous Thai rock singer inspire him to change his vocals? Is it a random anecdote? etc. This being in the lead is the main problem. Minor point, I don't think block quotes need quote marks around them. Finally, can't Popular Culture be a section inside Legacy? –Outriggr§ 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment addressed: Deleted the Thai rock singer fact as it was already mentioned in Black Francis. CloudNine 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: there is no criticism of the band mentioned right now and it reads a bit "glowingly". Can you find anything to counterbalance that? –Outriggr§ 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthe background section is a weird mix of details that cover the music scene before they existed and then their influence on other musicians. Wouldn't a legacy section, as in the KLF be a more logical way to present this kind of information?--Peta 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - I thought the Background section was rather confusing as well. Created legacy section. CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment addressed - I've created a legacy section and populated it with information. Could you review it? CloudNine 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object — article is not comprehensive. The "History" section is absolutely great... but it's pretty much the entire article. The "Legacy" section is especially weak, given that Pixies have had a huge amount of influence on alternative music; and the "Instrumentation" section is quite bare. Also, the article has little discussion of songwriting and musical/lyrical content (the sections on the individual albums mention these things, but there's nothing that ties it together in terms of the band's sonic qualities as whole). Additionally, the fair-use images lack rationale (per WP:FAIR), and they really ought to be "mixed up" a little: each section of the article devoted to a specific album is illustrated with the cover art from that album; why not replace a few with photos of the band in live performance in the appropriate time period, or some kind of promotional item relating to the album, instead? --keepsleepingslackoff! 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, I'm assuming the fair-use images of the albums are the ones lacking the rationale. The rationale for the picture in the Infobox seems to be ok to me. I'm currently working on the Legacy section.CloudNine 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object — While the details are fine, the format needs some work. Many of the history and Legacy headers are unnecessary, and I'm not sure dividing their history soley by albums is the best approach. Also, the legacy section should try to convert the compartmentalized subsections into one unified section of prose. After all, they're all dealing with the band's legacy.WesleyDodds 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've converted the legacy section to have less headers - although I think the In popular culture header should stay. CloudNine 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my naivety in this, first time thing for me. I encountered this article by chance a few days ago and have read it with great interest. In my opinion, this article appears to be well written and meets the criteria of a Featured Article. Nominate and support. Yanksox 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a very good article, but imho a few points remain before I can support it.
The "Alternative theories" is kinda messed up and should be expanded on what those theories are and so on. Basically, some (sourced and NPOV) content should be moved from child article to expand a bit this section.
DO NOT OPEN THAT HORNETS NEST. Leave whats there on alternative theories, it has its own article. Trust me. I've seen this unfold a billion times over at AIDS, it ain't pretty. It made featured article with pretty much the same blurb as this one anyhow. JoeSmackTalk 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well, giving more space to fringe theories provides them undue weight and violates NPOV. Christopher Parham(talk) 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Leave the pseudoscience to its own article, the info presented here is more than sufficient and is well cited. --Bob 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are ugly. As such, the "The declaration of AIDS" section is messy and should be converted to prose.
The prose looks a bit choppy, as there are some short paragraphs and sections that could benefit from mergers.
Otherwise, it is very nice and well-sourced! :) -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF) 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; not enough citations. See the sections titled "HIV test", "Symptoms of early infection", "Clinical latency", "Primary infection", "Genetic variability", and perhaps most crucially, "Structure and genome". All of these sections have significant amounts of unsourced text. --Spangineeres(háblame) 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many citations do we want? One for every sentence? If that is what we want I would be happy to furnish the article with over 400 references. Would that be enough? --Bob 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spangineer - there are some important cites that are needed in some key places. Bob, let's assume good faith; this is afterall a critique of an article for FA. AIDS, an FA with a lot of common ground, has over 110 references and this has a little under 70. In many ways, explaining the article HIV in this kind of detail should warrant even more scientific referencing. We don't need 400 cites, but more is better i feel at this point. JoeSmackTalk 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Now has almost 100 references and growing. --Bob 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the "Declaration of AIDS" section seems oddly named. What is meant by "declaration"? It's not a term I've ever heard before. The phrase generally used is "progression to AIDS", which can happen with or without a "declaration". If you are wanting to tie the progression to AIDS to a set of indicating features or to an official diagnosis, perhaps a more correct header would be "Clinical progression to AIDS", but I would be reluctant to use that, as the word "clinical" has been used in two previous headers. It needs a stronger paragraph to explain the significance of the points that follow. I think that instead of starting with "AIDS is the most severe manifestation...." it would follow on from the previous section more smoothly if it started with something like "When the CD4+ T cell count drops to below 200 cells per µL.... a patient is considered to have progressed to AIDS". Followed by the symptoms, which should be and can be converted into prose. On a lighter note, the word "classical" is totally wrong unless you're talking about music. I haven't read the whole article, but this just kind of jumped out at me as being extremely jarring. Rossrs 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The term declaration of AIDS is a WHO and UNAIDS thing. Take it up with them. --Bob 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Take it up with them"? Well, that's helpful. Perhaps you could show me an example where it's used in this context and I'll stand corrected. A google search should show it up pretty easily if that's the case but it doesn't. Every example I can find is about some "declaration" of policy in dealing with the issue, but that's not the context in which it's used in the article. Rossrs 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look up the First Half-yearly Report 1999, report number 61. Its use is prevalent in this document issued by WHO, UNAIDS and the EU Collaborating Centre on AIDS. --Bob 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have mislaid my copy of First Half-yearly Report 1999, report number 61. It's good that you were able to find a supporting document, even though you had to go back seven years to find one. Rossrs 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Accurate and well-sourced. --Bob 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object This article needs a lot of work. An article on a medical condition should be extensively cited; there are too many statements with no cite. The prose is also weak, example: "However, the time between initial infection and the development of detectable antibodies against HIV can vary. This is called the window period. This is why it can take 6-12 months to seroconvert and test positive." Stubby sentencs, not compelling or brilliant, and that section isn't referenced. Sandy 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with the assertion that there's a higher bar for number of citations when it comes to scientific or medical articles. In general, such articles will be drawing from a more narrowly focused pool of currently authoritative consensus, rather than the somewhat stickier problem of citing a popular culture or historical article, for example. I would expect that fewer unique citations would actually be the norm in such articles. As for "compelling or brilliant", I'm not sure that that should be the goal of prose in an encyclopedia. I would suggest that the goal should be, "informative and unambiguous." That said, the bit that you quoted did sound a bit stilted, and could probably be bent into a more pleasing shape without losing anything important. -Harmil 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - on the basis of a significant amount of information being inadequately cited, inconsistency in writing style that suggests different sections were written by different authors, badly structured sections and awkward style. It seems to be accurate but needs a lot of work. Examples:
Symptoms of early infection seems to suggest that symptoms spontaneously manifest themselves and this is followed/accompanied by a drop in T Cells. It should be noted that the drop in T Cells is more of the "trigger" than the other way around, and that drop in T Cells can often be asymptomatic. Therefore the drop in T Cells should be mentioned first, then followed by a description of some of the symptoms that may follow or coincide. The paragraph as written suggests a sequence, or "cause/effect" that is not quite accurate. Also if 500 CD4 is to be used as a measure it needs to be cited.
Declaration of AIDS - I think the header is unclear in its meaning, and I don't think that it's the right term. (I think "progression to AIDS" is more commonly used). I have not been able to find anything in websites for UNAIDS or WHO, other sites such as www.thebody.com or even our articles such as AIDS that use the word "declaration" in this sense. I could be wrong on this and if I am would appreciate some politely enlightening me. *Agree to disagree on the heading* Even so, the section consists of bullet points which should be converted into prose. And while doing so the word "classical" needs to be replaced with something a little more gramatically correct such as "typical".
Unsourced text. There is a lot needing to be sourced, although I think what is written is accurate. The entire structure and genome section is unsourced. *a lot of sourcing has since been done* There are examples throughout the article. One that particularly bothers me is "AIDS is the most severe manifestation of infection with HIV and occurs when the CD4+ T cell count drops to below 200 cells per µL." which is essentially a "definition of AIDS". OK, whose definition? Who says that 200 cells is the dividing line? This is crucial, especially given that the definition of AIDS based on CD4+ T Cell count has changed a couple of times in the last 20 years.
Treatment has a link "as measured by a blood test called the viral load". Now, the blood test is not called "the viral load". The term "viral load" is used in passing in both HIV and HIV test without being explained. It only needs a few words or a sentence to explain it, but it shouldn't be assumed that people who may not know much about the subject won't be confused by the term. Subsequent edits have changed the comment of post-exposure prophylaxis from "thought to reduce the risk" to a "known method of prevention", which is far less accurate. I have rewritten this sentence to return it to its original meaning. Rossrs 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non medical prose can be simplified in some places for ease of reading. Example from lead paragraph "Methods of transmission can come in the form of" is really an awkward way of saying "HIV can be transmitted by". Another awkward one: "UNAIDS believes that it is premature to recommend male circumcision services as part of HIV prevention programs" - is "services" supposed to be "serves"? or is "services" a noun such as "clinic"? Why not just simplify it and say "UNAIDS does not endorse the view that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission".
loquial phrasing such as "scientific fallout" should be avoided, as should the overuse of (brackets) for text that can easily be written into the sentence, and abbreviations such as "etc".
Some sentences and sections are written in a very different style to the bulk of the article and are therefore jarring. While correct in the message they convey, the style is out of step to the overall tone of the article. Examples "Even if patients go to their doctors or a hospital, they will often be misdiagnosed as having one of the more common infectious diseases with the same symptoms." And "Many people are unaware that they are infected with HIV" places the emphasis on the wrong point and "many" is a very loose term. It would be more correct to say "Because people infected with HIV can remain asymptomatic for a period of time, some remain unaware that they are infected until their blood is tested for antibodies or they develop symptoms". The whole HIV test section is stubby in style, as noted by Sandy - it badly needs to be rewritten and could afford to be expanded just slightly.
"AIDS which is identified on the basis of certain infections, an HIV test and a CD4+ T cell count". The clinical course of the infection section starts off about the progression of the virus and then ends with this phrase which is entirely centred around diagnosis. The section is discussing the progression of infection and this occurs with or without diagnosis so to throw a HIV test/diagnosis into the mix at this point is wrong. This section is talking just about the virus and should stick to the characteristics of AIDS and leave the diagnosis elsewhere. Under HIV test would be most appropriate. If not, the paragraph needs to be rewritten so that the clinical course of the HIV and the medical diagnosis are two different points. Rossrs 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Implement your proposed changes instead of sitting on your hands. --Bob 15:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid being rude. That's twice now. I'm under no obligation to make these edits. It is the responsibility of the nominator to do so. I've spent a considerable amount of my time reviewing this article, and stating my opinions. During this time I was not sitting on my hands. Rossrs 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than do anything about my objections, you've added 21 points that need citing to Kylie Minogue, an article that I nominated for featured article status, and which I mention on my user page. I can't help but feel that this is a bad faith action on your part. Looking at your edit history you don't seem to have edited pop culture articles in the recent past, and this comes minutes after I'd objected here. The coincidental timing is stunning. I'm not interested in playing games with you. Don't make edits such as this just to MAKE A POINT!Rossrs 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I contributed to Kylie Minogue 1 August 2006. I waited a month for changes to be implemented and nothing was done. If you think this is a reflection on yourself, then you hold yourself in too high a regard. --Bob 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you did. Well, I didn't go back far enough and that is my error. I'll save my comments for Talk:Kylie Minogue. I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to my comments here. I suggest that it is you that holds himself in too high a regard. The reason I spent so much time reviewing and commenting was because I thought the article was very good and I wanted the nomination to succeed. I know from experience that when you get too close to an article it's hard to see inconsistencies in grammar or ambiguous wording that other people might see, and all I was trying to do was identify those areas so that they could be fixed. I also get annoyed by objections that are vague or half-hearted or unclear because they are very hard to respond to, so in good faith, I attempted to be clear and thorough. Remember this is supposed to be a collaborative process, but it's one that I'll now bow out of. Good luck with the nomination. Rossrs 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I came across this article a few weeks ago after listening to an hour-long radio program on HIV/AIDS, (w/ Anthony Fauci). I then went to the article, thinking maybe I could add something, but the article covered all key points very well. The referencing was also pretty good, though with a medical topic such as this, it's important to cite all key points, facts and figures. I'm close to supporting, but would like to see above objections addressed. (I notice that some have already been addressed) Also, the tone of rhetoric here on the FAC page is troublesome. Users such as Sandy tend to hang out on the FAC page, making suggestions. But, with the volume of FAC nominations, it's unreasonable to expect people to address their own objections. I will watch over the article and this FAC page for the next few days. If objections are addressed (with civility), I will return with a vote of support. --Aude (talkcontribs) 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since many of the objections relating to references were raised last Thursday, the referencing has improved significantly. As well, the selection of references hits key scientific papers that have been published in well-respected peer reviewed scientific journals such as Science, N. Engl. J. Med, as well as more specialized journals. Furthermore, I have come across "GR Campbell" many times in the scientific literature, who I assume is the same person here, and his expertise shows nicely in this article. In some of the comments above, I think maybe he's showing some frustration with Wikipedia. I think maybe that touches on some broader issues for Wikipedia[4], and I think it's best to separate them from the task of evaluating the article. Now, I'm not sure I agree with comparing HIV with Cystic fibrosis, as the former is about a virus and the latter a disease or condition. AIDS would be the comparable disease or condition. To me, discussing the virus that causes AIDS, requires a step-up with including some more technical details in order to cover the topic comprehensively, without neglecting major facts and details. Medicine is not my area of expertise, yet I had no trouble at all with the level of technical details; Rather, I find the explanations quite good and understandable. All in all, I only took notice of this article (as a reader) when I found it and saw how good it was. --Aude (talkcontribsas tagcloud) 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is very thorough and detailed. It covers a very popular issue in today's society. It has plenty of length but isn't banal. It has good sources and useful charts. Definitely worthy of being featured. oco
Object—1a. Here are examples just from the lead, which you'd expect to be the showcase of the article.
"Known as" occurs three times in the opening sentence.
"As CD4+ T cells are required for proper functioning of the immune system, when enough of them have been destroyed by HIV it compromises the immune system, leading to AIDS." "Because" would avoid the momentary ambiguity of "as". Insert "the" before "functioning". "It compromises" ends up being clumsy here—what does "it" refer to, anyway? The proper function of the immune system, HIV? As a rule, the referent should be crystal clear. Reword this sentence.
"HIV also directly attacks organs such as the kidneys, heart and brain, leading to acute renal failure, cardiomyopathy, dementia and encephalopathy." Get rid of the redundant "also". "Leading to" indicates that all of the listed complications are inevitable. What you mean is "which can lead to".
"Many of the problems faced by people infected with HIV result from failure of the immune system to protect from opportunistic infections and cancers." Too many scientists use this kind of telegram language. "The" failure. "To protect" whom? Better to reword, perhaps as "to offer protection from". "The" is missing from quite a few nominal groups throughout the article.
"Infection with HIV" better as "HIV infection".
"In the developed world transmission through the therapeutic use of infected blood or blood products has largely been eliminated where blood products are screened routinely for the presence of HIV." The "where" clause needs to be located properly: "In the developed world, where blodd products are screened ...".
The em dash in the last paragraph should be an en dash: looks very odd.
"Of which more than 570,000 were children". Aren't they people? ("Of whom").
"Current estimates state that". No, "are", not "state".
Remove "routine".
You haven't made the disctinction between HIV infection and AIDS clear, although both of these terms appear in the lead. Most people don't understand this important distinction.
The writing is sub-professional, such that nearly every sentence requires editing. The whole article needs thorough copy-editing to reach FA standards. In addition, I note that there have been aggressive responses above, and assumptions that reviewers should directly edit the article, which is certainly not the case. This review process relies on positive responses by contributors. Tony 10:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You have taken the time to post proposed changes here on this page and I am sure all are grateful, however, would it not have saved time to implement them directly in the article instead of typing them here and waiting for someone else to do it? Isn't Wikipedia about being bold and editing articles that need it? I know that when I see an article which needs changes (especially when it is on review) I implement the required changes, it saves time and makes Wikipedia better, faster. --Bob 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Reviewers here are under no obligation to directly edit FACs. My points were not a hit list of what needs to be edited to satisfy Criterion 1a; it was an example of the density of problems in the whole text, and supports my assertion that thorough copy-editing is required throughout. Tony 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a weakness in the system that needs to be addressed --Bob 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The system has evolved that way on purpose. This is not a working bee to edit your article up to FA standard, but a review process to help you do that, and to judge whether it should be promoted at the end. You've already been rude to one reviewer above on this very issue; please realise that reviewers are under no obligation to edit the articles they review. That is your job. I'd be networking right now to find someone else to run through the text with fresh eyes.Tony 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't put this article up for FA review, so it is NOT MY JOB'. However, as it is here, one might as well make the most of it. Reviewers may not be under any obligation to do anything, but this is Wikipedia, and I was under the impression that if you think an article needs editing, you should BE BOLD and do it. I can change font colours as well... --Bob 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object: I have to agree with Tony here; the prose needs work. Repetition, like he said, needs to be addressed (three "highly"s in the first three lines of the Treatment section, in one instance, although two of them may have to be kept inevitably). As well, a lot of the copyediting work we need is grammatical; there is an inconsistency with respect to the existence of serial commas throughout the article that emphasizes the fact that it hasn't been sifted through enough, even in the lead. The content looks promising, but some thorough copyediting is definitely necessary. --DanielNuyu 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been carried out by TimVickers --Bob 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Overall, excellent and of FA quality. The prose is occasionally over-technical, but this is probably inescapable with this subject. I tried to generalise the lead and simplify this a little without losing content.
I don't think the images of the pills add anything. I would suggest either putting in the structures of the drugs, or (if you prefer) I could generate an image of one of these drugs bound to a target, such as the HIV protease.
I added those pictures to both AIDS and HIV. I sorta hashed it out on the Talk:AIDS, but basically the reason i put them in was to show that they were pills....
when i first heard that HAART was a drug cocktail, i thought it would look like a martini:
when i first hear 'non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor', i thought of some fancy injection:
i don't really consider myself naive or anything, but i think that showing that these fancy drugs with fancy names and classes are simply pills is important. colors and shapes change, and i think we all sorta get that, so i don't think thats a place for worry there. i was trying to make this complicated issue a little more transparent, thats all. the text doesn't really convey this, and anyways i think even if it took the time/space to do so, it'd be less taxing (on the article and the reader) to just simply go with these small images. JoeSmackTalk 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about doing both and covering all your audience? A first image of a pill and a second image of the structure of the drug inside that pill. Having two essentially identical images adds little to the article. TimVickers 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One pill, one structure now. --Bob 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of how HIV-2 differs from HIV-1 in the Structure and Genome section. Perhaps one sentence on this at the beginning of the section?
I've added a little on this (but not at the beginning) --Bob 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence. "HIV-1 and HIV-2 appear to package their RNA differently; HIV-1 will bind to any appropriate RNA whereas HIV-2 will preferentially bind to the mRNA which was used to create the Gag protein itself."
I changed this sentence - changes in brackets. "This recombination happens when a cell is simultaneously infected by two different strains of HIV and [two] one RNA transcript[s] from two different viral strains are packaged into the same virion particle." If this is wrong I apologise. TimVickers 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it to make it (possibly) clearer. --Bob 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes: Support.TimVickers 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment on 1a. At this stage, I don't want to be able to pick out little problems at random, such as:
"three main transmission routes of HIV have been identified"—"For" would be more comfortable than "of" here, although not mandatory.
"Widely-accepted"—No hyphen after -ly words.
"Sexual transmission occurs when there is contact between sexual secretions of one partner with the rectal, genital or oral mucous membranes of another." No, "the sexual secretions". "Partner ... another" isn't right; why not just "contact with the sexual secretions of another person's rectal, genital or oral mucous membranes."? But there's a scientific problem here: we know that there can be contact with these membranes without transmission, or at least without a contraction of the disease—didn't one study show that only one in 25 penis/vagina interactions results in transmission? (I draw on my general knowledge, so I may have the figure wrong, but not the principle. If contact/transmission ratios are not mentioned in the article, they probably should be.) The upshot is that you need "can occur" rather than "occurs".
"This transmission route can account for infections in intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs and recipients of blood transfusions (though most transfusions are checked for HIV in the developed world)"—Although is slightly preferred in formal registers, but the word shouldn't appear here, because the parenthetical clause doesn't contradict the previous statement: it merely adds to it. Better to avoid parentheses where possible, because they make for a less smooth reading experience.
Again, these are examples, not the end of the story. Please find a good copy-editor to run through the whole text. If you really can't find one, ask me and I'll suggest someone (not here, though). Tony 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fair bit of work has been done cleaning up this article and implementing previous suggestions, its a great page and im hoping it may finally become FA - Nbound 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very good. I would like to see all the references use one format so they are cleaned up some. Perhaps look at the reference templates and go through the article and use the appropriate template for clean-up. I might also suggest a little rewording of the intro as it seems a little choppy.--MONGO 12:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Ive fixed the intro as per criticisms below, seems to flow much better now -- Nbound)
Comment: Only some quick thoughts.
The "Life" section seems pretty short, considering it's a very popular topic in the media.(a added an extra sentence or so - its hard to add much more without copying integral parts of the main article -- Nbound)
"Past missions" is merely two sentences. Are they really that uninteresting?(bulked up section - Nbound)
(rather an observation than actual criticism) overall the article falls short vs. the German FA. -- EnemyOfTheState(I will try and transcribe some of the information presented there, [i only know basic german] -- Nbound)
Object. Lacks one citation (Future plans section). Also I'd rather add Category:Surface features of Mars to the See also section, not to the list of the main articles under the Areography. A picture of the dust storm would be nice. --Brandспойт 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Removed unsourced statement, to be added again when/if source is found, I'm unable to add that category to the see also (it wont show up in preview :S), image conataining a duststorm is already in the article. -- Nbound 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - The intro is not well written. Compare the intro to Mars with other Featured planet articles such as Venus. Here are a few specific criticisms:
In Indian languages like Hindi and Telugu, Tuesday is called Mangalvaar, named after Mangala, Mars, and Bahram in Persian, related to Persian mythology.
This sentence has so many commas and clauses it is virtually unintelligible. For example, is "Bahram" Persian for Mars or Tuesday? No matter how you parse the sentence, it still doesn't make sense. Personally, I think trivia such as this has no place in the introductory paragraph anyway. How many people are really interested in the fact that Tuesday is named after Mars in Telugu?
These may be captured asteroids similar to 5261 Eureka.
What is 5261 Eureka? No context is given. Either "similar to 5261 Eureka" should be dropped, or some explanation should be given as to what 5261 Eureka is.
Mars can be seen from Earth by the naked eye with an apparent magnitude of up to -2.9, a maximum surpassed only by Venus, the Moon and the Sun.
This should be split into two sentences to avoid the dueling prepositional phrases: "Mars can be seen from Earth by the naked eye. It's apparent magnitude reaches -2.9, a brightness surpassed only by Venus, the Moon, and the Sun."
(Ive fixed the lead as per your comments. -- Nbound)
Oppose: I think this article still has a ways to go before it is a FA. The Geology of Mars is very poorly discussed in this article. Geology of Mars is a daughter article, but that doesn't have much more than what is in the main article. The diversity of surface features is only lightly touched on in the Areography (Geography of Mars) section. Some consolidation of sections can be useful (such as combining the Historical Observations and Exploration sections). However, I am afraid that this article, and its daughter articles, do not sufficiently cover the topic. Perhaps look at the Enceladus article for guidance on how to structure this article. --Volcanopele 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also look at the Portugese version of the Mars article. I don't read Portugese, but there are enough cognates there to see that they apparently do a very good job covering this subject. --Volcanopele 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a difficult topic to get right and I'd very much like to see it an FA, so kudos on your effort Nb. Thoughts:
Many issues with the structure of "Physical characteristics":
The life section does not belong in "Physical characteristics" and should also be expanded somewhat. Consider a short para on how habitability parameters apply to the planet (see planetary habitability).
The "Moons" section does not belong here either.
"Polar ice caps" should be merged somewhere.
"Orbital characteristics" should take the title "Orbit and rotation" (at least that's what I notice elsewhere) and be given its own section.
A patch of stub-sections from "Viewing Mars" on.
Past missions is definitely underweight. Re Viking: "Both landers successfully touched down in 1976 and remained operational for many years." This is a throwaway sentence.(fixed -- Nbound)
Sources: 4 of 48 are research papers. The % ought to rise. (cant really fix this one, ive been more maintaining this page, or doing interwiki info transfers -- Nbound)
No refs in "Historical observations" (this was an interwiki transfer... it wasnt cited (like the rest of the article) -- Nbound)
So, getting there but not quite. These are structural level considerations. I'll try to look at the prose if this remains up for a while. Marskell 09:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for quick reply. I edited the addition on habitability and that concern seems addressed. Also, the sectioning is more rational now, which is good.
Disagree with removal of "Orbital characteristics". This is a fundamental level two for a planet and belongs in the article (see how they do at Mercury and Venus) even if there is repetition with the info box.
On the sourcing concern, can you maybe try to enlist someone else? Marskell 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for the edit, i like your version better =P , yeah ill have a look at Mercury and Venus and see what stuff i should put in for Mars, as for the sourcing ill see what i can do... -- Nbound)(Readded and expanded on orbital and rotation, added reference thing to article todo list, hopefully someone is feeling like a bit of work =P)
Comment — Overall it's a pretty decent page and is getting close to FA quality. Some notes:
I agree with the comment above about the German article serving as a model for the FA-quality of the English-language version.
Although it's a daughter article, I'm a little surprised that the Geology of Mars page is in need of considerable development. It's difficult to judge what may be needed on the Mars page geology section before that happens.(-- added to todo list - hopefully someone will have a go -- Nbound)
I'd like to see the last two paragraphs of the "Fictional Works" section removed: both are obscure comments at best, and can be covered by the daughter article. I'd rather see more development of the geology section than the fictional references.(para's removed -- Nbound)
Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now some proses issues:
"It has the highest mountain in the solar system, Olympus Mons, the largest canyon in the solar system, Valles Marineris, and polar ice caps." Polar ice caps is tacked onto the sentence awkwardly. Consider two sentences.
"It might be interesting to note..." I just went and removed this myself. Never tell the reader what may or may not be interesting.
"They started off by establishing once and for all that most of Mars' surface features were permanent..." First, it's wordy: "They established that..." knocks out seven words. I'm unsure of "permanent". No surface feature can be called permanent, given impacts and possible geological activity. The ice caps wax and wane, for instance.
A question while on this: is Mars geologically dead? I've heard "yes" and "not quite" and am curious. The geology section needs to address this.
In life section "...and had some positive results, later disputed by many scientists, resulting in a continuing fight." Weasely adjectives (some, many)—what, briefly, were the positive results? "Fight" is poor word choice to characterize a scientific dispute.
"...that some researchers half-jokingly speak of an Earth-Mars "Bermuda Triangle", or a Mars Curse, or even a reference made to a "Great Galactic Ghoul" that feeds on Martian spacecraft." Eek, the phrases are mangled.
"To a naked-eye observer, Mars usually shows a distinct yellow, orange or reddish color, and varies in brightness more than any other planet, as seen from Earth, over the course of its orbit. When farthest away from the Earth, it is more than seven times as far from the latter as when it is closest (when least favourably positioned, it can be lost in the Sun's glare for months at a time)." Maybe two sentences for the first, and move the descriptive phrase ("over the course of..."). Why is "latter" introduced in the second sentence?
That's a half-dozen, so I'll stop there. This needs a thorough copy-edit to meet the standards.
I'm not sure that this should be closed successfully on this FAC attempt. But if the work keeps up the page will be stronger and better positioned for another try soon. Marskell 13:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question? Interesting work, but why is this page not listed at WP:FAC ??? I came across it while looking for Marskell to comment on the Transit of Venus FAR :-) Sandy 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a very nice work, it has got technical details, it has got good and a lot of photos, and it's very complete. Miguel303xm 15:47 18 sep 2006 (UTC)
Hola Miguel. If I haven't said it clearly enough before now, thank you for writing the Spanish Wikipedia featured article! As the translator here, I would be the first to stump for this, but unfortunately the nomination is doomed and I suggest withdrawing it. Featured article standards on the English Wikipedia require inline citations. I was planning on nominating it for WP:GA status once I translated the last few paragraphs (I know, why did I stop so close to the end). It might fail there too for the same reason I noted here, but it would at least have a chance.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object No inline citations. — Abraham Lure 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Recommend to peer review. This article has a very good start, which could be polished at WP:PR. It is listy, has no inline citations, and could use some prose polishing. In this one sentence, we find 1) one-paragraph sentence, 2) redundancies, 3) weasle words, and 4) overly long sentence: The flora and fauna of the Sierra de Guadarrama is made up of a great diversity of species that represent something of a synthesis between those that are common to the mediterranean landscape and climate of Spain's Centeal Plateau, and more specialized plants and animals native to in the high altitude climate and mountainous terrain of the Pyrenees and Alps. Sandy 17:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 months later, the nomination of New York City as a featured article returns! I looked over some of the problems with the last namination and decided to do some research:
These are other cities that are currently featured articles. In comparison, I think New York City should have made the cut since that was the main issue. Blackjack48 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So how much "readable prose" is there in the NYC article?--DaveOinSF 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, there are 5300 words and 33K of "readable prose" in the NYC article.--DaveOinSF 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just what do you two mean by "readable prose"? The text of the article excluding footnotes, captions & infoboxes? Please, let's try not to use jargon that not all Wikipedians either are not familiar with -- or are unable to easily find a published definition for. -- llywrch 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct the links so that the article talk page links to the failed FAC as well as the new FAC. I can't find the old FAC, but I seem to recall that I objected to a POV issue, which still seems to be present. The failed FAC shouldn't be removed from the talk page: has the new FAC overwritten the older one?
I don't recall what the older objection on prose size was, but I come up with Overall 57KB, 35 KB prose, which is a "normal" and acceptable article size, but seems a bit short for an important city, in relation to the others. This should not be an objection if this article makes good use of Summary Style (and perhaps the others didn't). Without seeing the older FAC, it's hard to understand why this issue is raised. (For those who asked, here is how readable prose was explained to me.)
The article needs to conform to WP:GTL: please reorganize sections. (See all of the articles you referenced above: they are done correctly.)
I still have a POV objection, which I believe I raised in the last FAC.
It emerged from the war as the unquestioned leading city of the world, with Wall Street leading America's emergence as the world's dominant economic power, the United Nations headquarters (built in 1952) emphasizing its political influence, and the rise of Abstract Expressionism displacing Paris as the center of the art world.[6]
PBS very well may believe that New York City is the Center of the Universe, and they may have even found others who agree. But, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet aside, asserting that opinion as fact, even based on a reliable (albeit biased) source, is POV. "Unquestioned leading city of the world" is an extraordinary claim: it requires extraordinary sources. It would be easier to accept if London and Paris sources said the same thing.
Reference 8 is missing.
Please expand all refs (example ref 35, Safest cities according to SanJose gov.)
I cleaned up some typos in a couple of refs just to give you a sample of work needed. Since this is your second nom, the refs should exemplify our best work :-)
Lacking citations - examples from one section only - there are numerous others throughout the article:
(Where is this article?) Writer Tom Wolfe said of New York that "Culture just seems to be in the air, like part of the weather."
(Where did you get this number of seats?) The city's 39 largest theatres (with more than 500 seats) are collectively known as "Broadway," after the major thoroughfare through the Times Square theatre district.
(Likely true, so why not provide a source?) The Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, which includes Jazz at Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Opera, the New York Philharmonic and the New York City Ballet, is the largest performing arts center in the United States.
New Jersey Nets are a New York Team? New York has two NBA teams: the New York Knicks and the New Jersey Nets.
Weasle words, no cite. New York is often called "the media capital of the world".
These examples are only a start: the article needs more work. Sandy 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were the New York Nets originally, and might be moving back there. In the sports world, they generally are considered a New York team. The article could explain this a bit better though. --W.marsh 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sandy Georgia KnightLago 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Some problems with the footnotes:
2 needs access date
4 needs access date
5 needs expanding; what is referred to?
8 is missing
9 needs page reference if possible
10 needs page reference if possible
12 needs page reference if possible
18 needs page reference if possible & WPA Guide needs publisher & year
24 needs page reference if available
35 needs expanding: who? when?
37 publication data?
42 publication date?
48 Bureau of Transportatin Statistics .. US? NYC? NY State?
I would love to see NYC get FA status, as it and London are the top two Global World Cities and they deserve FA-quality articles. I hope some editors take the suggestions mentioned here and make some progress. --Paul 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per referencing problems and above. Never Mystic (tc) 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought it might be appropriate to consider this as the Featured Article next Sep 19. If there's anything holding it back from becoming a FA, let's hear about it. Thanks,Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but it needs more citations, especially the leading paragraph. The intro's picture needs better fair use rationale, too. Needs some work, but if you try hard, you can probably get it by next september 19. Sonic3KMaster(talk) 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; needs more information to be comprehensive. I agree with Sonic3KMaster about better sourcing, but disagree about the lead part (per WP:LEAD, the lead should give no information that is not in the body of the article; this should eliminate any need to add footnotes to the lead). Consider converting the listy sections into flowing prose and eliminating the "in popular culture" section (the whole concept of Talk Like a Pirate Day is popular culture). — BrianSmithson 07:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Brian and not comprehensive enough. Rlevse 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and a belated YAHARR to ye. Now get me some two-days-out-of-date rum! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not comprehensive or referenced enough. Being timely isn't all an FA is about. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great article that is featured article worthy.Blind14 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support great article Blind14 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FAC isn't a vote, it is a process of consensus formation. Therefore, the nominator adding "strong support" (or any support at all) is entirely superfluous. Mikker(...) 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this come from? I never said FAC was a vote.I just gave my opinion like everyone else.It seems like you're jumping to conclusions. Blind14 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators don't support or object. If I jumped to conclusion, I apologise. Mikker(...) 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the lead is very bad (see WP:LEAD) & it, together with a good deal of the rest of the article, is overlinked (see WP:CONTEXT). (Why link success for example?). There are no spoiler warnings, "Story" seems to be entirely OR, the references, while okay, aren't comprehensive enough and perhaps relies too much on one source (IGN.com). Additionally, the second half of the article is extremely list heavy (please convert at least some of this to prose) and several of the pictures used seem to lack adequate licensing. Mikker(...) 01:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images lack fair use rationale. Pagrashtak 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment footnotes go at end of sentences not in the middle. Rlevse 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are all those game covers really needed? I can't say I'm a huge fan of the contents table being indented like that either, it squashes the text between the image together. Sunrise06 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not yet. Short lead and apparently invalid ISBNs, the illustrations are focused mainly on the video game covers. --Brandспойт 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Short lead, some stubby subsections, and way too many lists for an article hoping to become featured.UberCryxic 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Not featured material yet I believe.I really dislike the number and length of the lists on this page. SOADLuver 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No references. WP 11:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No references, also no history. There are also a lot of lists. Check other previous featured articles such as Duke University to see how they are setup. KnightLago 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be submitted for WP:PR. Peer Review is almost a prerequisite to FA status. KnightLago 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. -- Szvest 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. In fact, I'm tempted to remove this nom per WP:SNOW. (Though, on the positive side, it is pretty well written). Mikker(...) 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per all of the above. Did anyone mention the external jumps? Sandy 02:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, try PR first and compare to other university articles that are recent FAs. Agree with above reviewers. Rlevse 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Rename it Santa Claus University and then we'll talk. I've always thought of a career in the lucrative Mall Santa business. But seriously, all negative points have been addressed above. --Sean WI 06:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated. Got a near-miss. Worked over and improved by numerous editors since then. Worth a second look. A good subject for a featured article, and I think it's worthy of its subject.--Nemonoman 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article in pretty much the same shape failed to achieve the coveted Selected Article status on the India Portal. My objection to it still stands. I have reproduced it below.
Strongly Object. The history section is too short, while legends and kooky theories are given more importance. The tedious details of the design can be shorted or parcelled off into a separate article. The organization also needs to be worked on. Also, there is absolutely nothing on the incredible influence that it has wielded on the art and culture of India, its use as a symbol of love, etc. — Ravikiran 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object An article this size needs many more in-line citations. Also too many stubby sections and lists, on top of a poor and underdeveloped lead.UberCryxic 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I was overjoyed to see this article's entry and its size. However I must agree that there are many issues such as citations, copyediting, organization - and shortening. Rama's arrow 03:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object A very nice article, but a lot needs to be taken care of before it meets the FA standards. See WP:WIAFA-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 12:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well written, full of citations and pictures, and about a prolific movie star. Ilampsurvivor5 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To start with, articles shouldn't have external jumps in the body of the article. All of these need to be converted to in-line citations. I'll convert the first one for you to give you an example of what needs to be done.--Paul 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment: Articles that make it through FA ususally do not have "Trivia" sections. Some of the items in your Trivia section are real info (like Ninotchka being #52 in the list of AFI's 100 Years... 100 Laughs & can be incorporated into the main text. Other items, like "A British sherman tank in Call of Duty 2 was named Greta Garbo" are best deleted.--Paul 21:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
The lead needs work, it should be a summary of the content of the article, see WP:LEAD
Posthumous recognition and trivia ahould be merged together into a legacy section or something similar.
Refer to Peer-review. Not ready! Not ready! Not ready! The article has so many problems that I can write pages! Ask for a perr-review and withdraw the nomination.--Yannismarou 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article (part of a series on the life of Jan Smuts) has really come about solely through the work of User:Bastin8 and myself. It has recently been through Peer Review (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jan_Smuts's_youth), suggestions made there have been acted upon. I think that it's pretty comprehensively sourced, NPOV, and some pictures have been added (given the subject matter it was pretty hard to find more - South African farming families of that era didn't have many photographs taken).
I think that the article is now as comprehensive as it can be; your opinion is welcome on whether it is good enough for FA status.
Object - The prose isn't quite up to standard, in my estimation. While saying "this article" isn't precicely against No Self References, it is pushing it, and I believe it to be against style. I tend to expect high-school reports to begin with "this paper is about...", but I expect encyclopedia articles to be a little more eloquent, stating this without using the awkward self reference. Furthermore, there are a number of paragraphs in the article which are too short... these should be developed a little further. The prose itself should be more flowing... the text currently feels a little stilted, simply listing events one after the other with no interconnectedness.
As a second objection, I feel that the article could stand to have a few more references than it currently does. Think of the poor college student, trying to do a research paper, but unable to reference wikipedia itself. He's going to want to know what he CAN reference... and providing those in a FA is critical.
On a third, more picky note, the lead section should probably be at least three paragraphs long for an article this size. Fieari 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I've had some qualms about the 'This article encompasses ...', the problem is that I want to precisely define the content of the article (it is one of a series after all). I'll give it some thought...
Ok, I think that your self-referencing concern has been addressed. Xdamrtalk
As far as references go, if you can suggest more incidents etc which you think need referencing then I'd be grateful. It is no problem to add them. I thought 22/23 references for someone's childhood was reasonably adequate, but if not then I'll try to sort that out as well.
Many thanks for your comments, Xdamrtalk 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFieari has been invited to review his vote in light of recent article changes but has not yet responded. Xdamrtalk 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. (see Tony Blair for an example]]
And second, consider renaming the article Early life of Jan Smuts. It's this format that is the most widely used in Wikipedia. Thank you. CG 08:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honorific concern addressed, many thanks - Xdamrtalk 11:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but you didn't answer to my move request. You just created a redirect. CG 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, if that's the general style (even if it isn't any sort of official/semi-official recommendation) then I'm happy to go along with it. Page moved.
Oppose this time. The lead is inappropriate for the article. First, no mention of the title in the lead. Second, half of the lead describes his political career which is off topic. I suggest you take for an example Early life of Hugo Chávez. There's a sentence about who is Hugo Chavez, but most of the title describes his early life. Therefore the lead picture should be a one taken during his early life. CG 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right Honourable isn't a title in the sense of 'Sir' or 'Lord'. It is typically bestowed upon those sworn of the Privy Council. It is used in circumstances of extreme formality only, not in the same way as a title from a knighthood, for example; ordinarily you do not see it used.
As for including biographical details beyond the immediate scope of the article, I've always thought it important to set some kind of context. I don't believe there to be any wikipedia policy which mandates against being 'off-topic', nor do I understand this to be a criterion for FA status. If articles are to be 'stand alone' then it's important to give an outline of exactly who the man was, before considering the particluar aspect of his life that the page covers.
But, nevertheless, many thanks for your suggestions, Xdamrtalk 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCG has been invited to review his vote in light of recent article changes but has not yet responded. Xdamrtalk 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suppose I cannot really think of a much better resource about the early life of Jan Smuts... Batmanand | Talk 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only criticism is that of lacking pictures. I've added two (a map and one of Christ's College) to illustrate context. However, when judging the article, one must remember that a rural family of Smuts' sort, in the nineteenth century would not produce a good deal of photographs, nor would a man of Smuts' character necessarily wish to be photographed particularly often. Of course, if one can find any more, they should be added, and they would be doubly valuable. Bastin 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Another comment. The section "Spreading his wings" is too editorial. Could you change the name? And isn't there really any picture of Jan Smuts as a youth? CG 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the earliest that I am aware of date from his time as State Attorney of the Transvaal, outwith the scope of this article.
I also disagree with your objections to the 'Spreading his wings' title. It captures very well the thrust of the section, ie. the expanded opportunites open to Smuts as he moved to Stellenbosch and then onto Cambridge. Personal taste, but I'm inclined to leave it. I think that this kind of issue is more a question that needs consensus on the article talk page than a question of fulfilling FAC criteria, but if you can get consensus for change then that's fine.
Object—1a. Needs a copy-edit by fresh eyes to come up to the required "professional" standard. It's not bad, though. Pity that the lead exposes little problems.
The early life of Jan Smuts spans the first 25 years (1870-1895) of the South African and Commonwealth statesman, military leader, and philosopher. He served many positions from Boer General during the Boer War to Field Marshal during World War II to Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. He played a leading part in the post-war settlements at the end of both world wars, making significant contributions towards the creation of the Royal Air Force, the League of Nations, the United Nations and the British Commonwealth.
"Spanned"?
The years in parentheses interrupt the flow in the very place you want to make an impact. Why not relocate to the end of the sentence: "... philosopher, from 1870 to 1895.
"Served IN many positions", and a comma after "positions" would make for much easier reading. (The use of commas needs an audit throughout: often more are needed, and sometimes fewer, e.g., after "Malmesbury" in the Childhood section, where there are already two other commas in a not-very-long sentence.
"Post-war" seems redundant—it's in the subsequent wording.
"Towards" could be just "to"?
Do you know where to locate good copy-editors? Tony 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the introduction was written by CG, following his comments above. He felt that the intro, as it then stood, incorporated too much 'off topic' material - that mentioning his political and military life in any depth wasn't appropriate for an article about Smuts's youth. Does the previous version seem better to you?
Jan Smuts was born in 1870, the second son of a traditional Boer farming family. By rural tradition, the eldest son would be the only child to receive a full formal education ... etc, etc, etc
I'll admit that the present version doesn't scan too well for me either.
Yes, I'm sorry but I didn't tell you that I suck in English ;( However you could notice that I didn't actually write the lead. I took chunks of the old version and combined them with punctuations, "and"s and "from...to"s, in addition, I took as an example the Early life of Hugo Chávez's lead. But I'm still convinced that the lead should incorporate just a small summary about his whole life and achievements because the lead should summarise the article and should not include materials not found in the article (check the guideline. So I'm encouraging you to copy-edit, even rewrite this part, but no to expand it. Thank you. CG 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak support: the prose has certainly improved. Childhood contains a very short, very long, then very short paragraph. Perhaps the first shorty is hard to escape, but the last one might be integrated into the next section. That would avoid the overtly narrative, story-telling device of building readers' expectations for the subsequent section. Throughout, you might see if the paragraphing can be smoothed out a little. One thing I noticed was "This dictated that it was on the first son that the family expectations fell; it was he that the family would put through ...". Two thematic equatives in a row ("It was X"); it's a "marked" expression that carries a specific meaning (= this was the only thing). Two in a row might be laboured. Tony 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Xdamr. You've just reverted my suggestions in the lead without even discussing it and you didn't respond to my earlier post. I won't revert it back, but could you take in consideration my suggestions? CG 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are of course welcome and are taken seriously. The fact is that, unlike your other suggestions, I don't agree with your rationale for cutting down the lead. As I have commented above, I consider it to be essential to give some idea of who Jan Smuts was before launching into a detailed examination of his life. You have pointed to the Early life of Hugo Chávez, but this is neither a Featured Article, nor has it been recently nominated as one. It was last considered back in February, and, as I'm sure you are aware, the standards for FA status are getting tighter all the time - if I were considering the article today, I'm bound to say that I would consider the lead to be too short.
Other voters have not flagged up the lead as a problem. Reverting back to the previous version has satisfied the objection of another voter. I am of course sorry if the lead issue makes it impossible for you to support the article. I would hope that you might be able to overlook it, given that it is not an issue which has aroused too much comment.
Nomination : Well written, many pictures, explains very well how Sonic lives his life, etc... KYMYK 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just browsing through, I just notice that the article is referencing fan web sites, which are not highly reliable because sometimes they spread misinformation. In my opinion, for video game articles it is just to best stick to mainstream video game news websites for references i.e., Gamespot, IGN, 1up, etc., --4.253.35.4 16:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with Mr. 35.4, except I think that mainstream news sources and books on the subject should also be allowed alongside major game websites. Andrew Levine 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We did this because to a reader they are more verifiable than {{cite video game}}. (While {{cite video game}} does provide verifiability, it isn't very useful online.) The fan sites we referenced are peer reviewed, and while I know that GHZ and concept-mobius aren't exactly IGN, IGN isn't going to go into enough detail for wikipedia articles. A lot of these references are for in-universe or in-game information that a news source would skip because they would not want to spoil the game. The criterion we used was to only accept sites with their own domain name, and to be very judicious at that; strictly speaking, it isn't much worse than a university lecturer referencing a textbook made by colleagues in his/her field. --DavidHOzAu 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Constantly switches back and forth from in-universe to out-of-universe POV, badly needs a copyedit- I corrected a major grammar mistake on the very first sentence of the article! The appearences section should be at the beginning- he's not real, we should find out what games/comics and such he's been in long before we find out the friends he's had in them and where they are set. Someone who doesn't know much about Sonic please give this a look over, it badly needs it. --PresN 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just copy-edited the article to address that issue; his appearances has been raised to the second heading, followed by voice acting and gameplay/abilities information. Other in-universe information is now at the bottom of the article. Are there any other concerns about placement of text? --DavidHOzAu 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For me to support, there needs to be a more judicious use of fair use images. So many of them are the same, the number needs to be cut down and better justified. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm one of the biggest contributors in this page, and is a nice job, but not "100%" (some text, the pictures). And nowadays is stable... but can get messy and filled with edit wars some day. igordebraga≠ 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Avoid in-line citations in the middle of the sentences. It is not good for the flow of the prose. Do it only, if it is absolutely necessary.--Yannismarou 09:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
The Cameos/popularity has an external link in the middle. Articles should only have wikilinks in the body.
Fan comments aren't really necessary (in example, called "Sonic Boom" by fans). The Enemies and rivals section is awful because it is based on speculation about fan tastes (in example, Some fans debate over whether Metal Sonic is truly replaced by Shadow the Hedgehog in his role, followed by ...Metal Sonic's popularity is still one an equal if not slightly higher level among fans and then with Some say Metal Sonic is still Sonic's true rival).
There are several examples of original research, including Metal Sonic's current location is unknown to everyone, except possibly Omega and Shadow, He tries desperately to protect that information, possibly out of embarrassment, This is a possible reason why the animals talk and However, since Dark Super Sonic does not appear in any games, he probably does not officially exist in the Sonic Universe
There needs to be some obvious text polishing. In example, in Sonic frequently made cruel jokes at the expense of his friend Tails, behavior contrary to that seen in most of the continuities. See that article for more information, where the See that article for more information is not encyclopedic.
One of the worst mistakes: the article uses second person. It should be tagged with {{inappropriate person}}. Examples are It is going to be a game where you race against other characters to the end of a level, We can see in parts of Sonic Adventure 2
Prose needs polishing. An example, in the Super Sonic spends more time toying with his opponent and making comments about their fighting skill sentence, it begins talking about a single enemy (his opponent) but immediately expand to multiple enemies (their fighting skill).
There are some typos around, in example speed of light(If he charges his energy (there is a lack of space after "light") and Gamecube version of the game(Sonic Adventure DX:Director's Cut) (same problem), while in other parts there is a space. Problems with quotes too: in some parts the dot is inside double quotes, while in others it is outside (in example, Sonic's arch-rival is Shadow the Hedgehog, the "Ultimate Life Form".—dot outside—, They became close friends, with Sonic helping Emerl "grow up".—dot outside—, they are described as a "Lovely Couple."—dot inside—, they are described as an "Unbreakable Bond."—dot inside—).
There is a {{fact}} tag (citation needed). Remove the sentence or find the reference.
Use it is instead of it's, and do not instead of don't.
Don't use - to add an explanation, use – (ndash) or — (mdash) per dash guidelines. Some examples of where the article is using them: However, this would be played down and finally dropped entirely as time went on - largely as a result of the "Girl Power" phenomenon sweeping the United Kingdom - and Sonic and Tails are rarely without each other - they often go emerald searching,
I think that is all for now, if you need more help, I can give a better review later. -- ReyBrujo 04:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to shrink the first image, Image:sonicnextgen.png, and now IE users are going to see black. ;-) I'll get right on the others. (I can't fix the blackness because the bKGD chunk gets tossed and set to black as soon as I upload it.)
You can fail this article now, the other points will take a while to clean up. Thanks for the review, I didn't know that the prose was that flawed.
Support - Oh no you don't. You are not about to tear down Sonic the Hedgehog. What do you mean, "You can fail this article now,"? You can't just give up on Sonic like that! Have hope! Stand strong! Fastnaturedude 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm good at rearranging sentences and forming a flowing paragraph structure, but spotting redundant words in a sentence is not my forté. I'm nearing the end of what I can fix — the last 5% takes 50% of the time. Furthermore, FAC determines if an article is high quality and is not a vote; the article won't pass until all concerns have been addressed. --DavidHOzAu 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been expanded and copyedited several times by myself. It went through a fairly unsuccessfull peer review. I think that it is worthy of being a FA. (if commenting (or opposing) on/because of inline citations please specify where you see the problem) Thanks -- Froggydarbcroak 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, good article but I'd like to see more extensive citations throughout. Everyking 09:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Everyking I'd like to see more in-line citations in some under-referenced sections (like Reproduction).UberCryxic 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the whole reproduction section from that one citation. -- Froggydarbcroak 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Tyler didn't. Some of the work in Tyler's book is original research, but most comes from research papers. Have a look through the references, and see if you can find the papers on the net. Basically look for any claim which looks like it required research. --liquidGhoul 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per UberCryxic. Some sections are under-citated.--Yannismarou 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article explains the primary reasons behind creative works remaining unfinished, giving (prominent) examples for each in different media. May not be the longest article, but it doesn't really need to be as it covers the topic to a good enough degree. Any further detail and lists of works can be placed in subarticles
Continued Support - A good article has become an even better article. Congratulations to violetriga for having dealt with concerns during the first nomination so rapidly. I'm sure some editors will be concerned with a renomination so quickly, but prior concerns HAVE been actively addressed, and compromises reached where appropriate. --JohnDBuell 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All comments from the previous nomination have been dealt with." Comment: I find this claim somewhat disingenuous. "Dealt with" from whose point of view? Reverting edits that address real issues with style, redundancy, and verboseness does not make those issues go away. I also think that re-listing a FAC candidate on the same day that an old nomination has been commented on feels like an attempt to bypass objections rather that deal with them. How about waiting a month or so and letting the wiki process take place? Anyways, those are just my two cents -- if most editors think that this work is FA-quality, I won't put up a fuss. --Alex S 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and yes, that inherently leads to duplication. If you would like to have another go at the lead then please be my guest, but you need to make sure that it is long enough. Indeed, your version of the lead was one of the complaints from someone else in the previous FAC. As for relisting so quickly, I personally don't think it was right for the last one to be taken off, and my attempts to reinstate it were reverted. Today's comment on that FAC was to agree that the criticisms had been met, and thus all of them had been attended to. violet/riga(t) 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to merge our versions of the lead and hope that you won't revert it outright. Here and here are some of the Manual of Style guidelines that I think should be better exemplified by any FA. In the previous nomination, the lead used the word "some" or a variant thereof five times. There should be lot fewer weasel words before this article is considered an FA. As for the lead needing to be long enough: the length of the lead should reflect the amount of content it contains, not a boatload of functionless modifiers or empty phrases like "There are many examples of artists from a variety of fields not completing pieces of work." Length should be a function of content, not just an amount of space on a screen. --Alex S 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Refers to", the way I used, was an acceptable way of starting an article, and I think you'll find that the use of the word "some" is not weasely. When writing a summary of this sort it is not a problem using "some" and the like. It's not like we can say "476 artists have left a total of 1654 paintings unfinished" - we have to use such modifiers. Sorry, but it would appear that your approach to writing is a little different to mine, but that does not mean that mine is not acceptable for a featured article and I hope you can realise that. violet/riga(t) 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this discussion to become combative. On the whole you are an excellent writer and researcher, as testified by unfinished work. I hope that my edits were able to help a bit. Good luck on the nomination! --Alex S 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You've made many positive changes to the text, and I appreciate your contributions and comments. violet/riga(t) 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Architecture section not comprehensive, I'm very concerned this area is not correctly researched if you think that Albert Speers plans for Germania aren't notable. I wonder whether a section on 'Unfinished work completed by others' might be a useful vehicle to discuss examples of the extent of incompleteness people have been left to deal with - I'm thinking of unfinshed symphonies - I think there was a fragment of Elgar's recently that was worked into a symphony. It would provide a nice resolution to the article. Oh while I remember - I'm pretty sure that constructivism was supposed to look like it was permanently being constructed so that it would express the communist notions of permanent revolution - Unfinished work as a political mirror.--Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to want me to include every example you come up with. Sorry but that's just not viable. Seperate spin-off articles (such as unfinished building) can include them, but I am strongly opposed to including too many examples. Elgar's Symphony No. 3 was recently performed at the Proms, yes, but there is already an example of a symphony being completed by someone (Bach's The Art of Fugue, which is arguably more notable). violet/riga(t) 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would be entirely possible to fork off a new article, such as Unfinished musical compositions include a {{main}} in this article, and go from there. Mozart's Requiem (which has been finished on multiple occasions by other composers) would make a stellar example to include in such a forked listing. --JohnDBuell 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm still ambivalent about this article's approach, and find it difficult to assess. None of the references are to scholars discussing the concept of an "unfinished work" as a whole, and very few of them appear to be specifically devoted to the unfinished nature of the works we've chosen to discuss. I think some of the commentary here and at the last nomination illustrates that; if we're just presenting our own examples of what we think particularly interesting unfinished works are, or choosing which works best illustrate the concepts we have chosen to discuss, we're without any kind of guidance as to whether we are making idiosyncratic choices or not; are we neglecting sculpture or over-emphasising computer software? This isn't just a stability concern, or a Wikipedia:No original research concern, it is also a comprehensiveness concern. If we're not looking at what other people have said about the concept of "unfinished works", aren't we missing something rather important? Jkelly 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that a fair number of the references don't seem to be "scholars" at all—there's at least one citation that goes to a geocities page, for example—which is an issue I believe I brought up during the previous nomination. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; excellent article, and nearly there. However, Image:ErnestHemingway.jpg does not have a clear copyright status; no grounds are provided for the statement that it is public domain, and the tag used is generic. Finally, the last section of the article dealing with unfinished works and the law is just one paragraph long. Would it be possible to expand on it? A paragraph-long section looks rather messy. Some issues that might be discussed could be, for instance, the copyright status of a centuries-old work that is completed today. Who owns the copyright?Support. Johnleemk | Talk 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that suggestion. I am rather ignorant about copyright laws, and so I would like to defer the expansion of that section to somebody that knows what they are talking about. Anybody know of any experts in the field? Regarding the image, it's not an integral part of the article and it can easily be changed. violet/riga(t) 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to help from Finlay McWalter the law section has been expanded - I hope it is what you were after. violet/riga(t) 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the approach taken in this article is rather idiosyncratic (it seems to be a set of examples being used to illustrate the concept, rather than saying anything substantive about what people have said about unfinished works), but I rather like it. Some good examples, and some good pictures as well. The lead section could benefit from a few examples in the first few sentences, as otherwise the lead section is a bit dry and theoretical. I nearly moved on to another article, but once I started reading the examples in the main article, I was hooked and kept reading. I know you are trying to limit the examples, but the sentences on Tolkien's unfinished works should at least mention Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth, as well as The Silmarillion. Adding two more wikilinks to those sentences should be doable. Carcharoth 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Kitch supported this article at its last nomination but has not yet returned for this one. violet/riga(t) 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning towards Oppose. I'm not a fan of the approach and the structure of the article. It's practically a list of unfinished works with their reasons. I prefer, if it's possible, that we make such sections describing the "History and evolution of this phenomenon", "how they are perceived by the public and crtitics", "the different reasons", "the law", and finally a set of "examples in each type of media". CG 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article could work that way. "History and evolution of this phenomenon" wouldn't be logical as it's not something that has conciously evolved, just something that has happened on many unrelated occasions. "How they are perceived by the public and critics" would be somewhat strange given that they are all perceived in many different ways, just like any work. I disagree that the article is a list. violet/riga(t) 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object- 1a, 1b, 2a. For example:
The second sentence needs another "have", and contains an idle "of".
"There are many reasons for work not being completed." The old noun + gerund construction, which is stricly speaking ungrammatical, and could easily be reworded to avoid the awkwardness.
Works are usually stopped when their creator dies,...". Hmmm, that's profound, and since it's in the lead, it will make WP look foolish on the front page. In the same vein, although not such a clanger, is "Novels can remain unfinished because the author continually rewrites the story."
"In the days of classical music" - when were they?
Look, it might have been a nice idea, but it has ended up with an air of contrivance. It can't help but be superficial in its whirlwind tour of ... everything ("Johann Sebastian Bach's The Art of Fugue, which breaks off abruptly during Contrapunctus XIV, was first published in the mid 18th century." - So what?) It doesn't really draw clear, useful conclusions about its subject. Tony 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with all your objections here. You want it to fail on three small grammatical points that you yourself could've corrected faster than writing about them here? You quote a sentence about The Art of Fugue but don't then mention that its inclusion there is then expanded by a further sentence all about how it was completed more faithfully than normal. violet/riga(t) 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder. If you strongly disagree with all of my objections, you'd better come up with compelling and specific reasons for both the micro and macro issues that I've raised. It's odd that you acknowledge that some of my points are indeed "grammatical points", while at the same time strongly disagreeing with them. Whether they're small or large, problems in the writing need to be fixed if this is going to be a FA. Your attitude suggests that you don't care about these blemishes.
But more broadly, you appear to misunderstand that my objection was backed up by "examples", as I stated. I'm objecting to the substandard prose throughout the article, not just the "three small grammatical points". To go through the whole text pointing out every problem would take many pages here, and more time than I have. And reviewers are under no obligation to edit articles themselves: that is your job.
Since you raise the musical aspect, I went to that section. The first part I read was: "Some compositions are finished "in the style of" the original composer, with someone that is highly familiar with their work adopting their writing style and continuing the musical tone. A mathematical approach can be used in some instances, calculating the intended appearance of the symphony." Here's another awkward noun + gerund ("with someone ... objecting"). Who is someone? Is it a person, or an object, as you indicate with "that". How do "writing style" and "tone" differ, since you made the distinction? What on earth do you mean by "A mathematical approach", and by "calculating the intended appearance of the symphony"? Appearance? Why now just "symphony"? This is most unsatisfactory, and repeated in many parts of the article.
As for your attempt to rebut my point about The Art of Fugue, the "further sentence all about how it was completed more faithfully than normal" is just a bald assertion that some mathematical formula was concocted that allows for a faithful completion of the movement, which IMV is a fanciful assertion, worse for the absence of supporting details.
The article can't possibly pass as is. It's superficial, begs important questions, lacks comprehensiveness, and is not written to professional standards. Tony 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that you go into depth about is an example of you being very picky and, put simply, plain wrong. That sentence (except, perhaps for "who/that") is fine to me. "Writing style" and "tone" do not have to be different and simply allow the sentence to flow better. "A mathematical approach" is clearly one that uses mathematics to figure out the remainder of the piece rather than one that doesn't. "Appearance" is fine in this context as it refers how the work appears to us (and that doesn't necessarily mean visually). "Symphony" is used to avoid the repetition of the word "composition".
As for The Art of Fugue: It is not a bold assumption. I take it you've read the reference? Given the way that text is written I think it is a fair statement. It doesn't need further details because that's what The Art of Fugue is for.
Returning to your original sentence complaints: "Works are usually stopped when their creator dies" is a valid sentence because the work can be continued by a co-creator. "Novels can remain unfinished because the author continually rewrites the story" is fine and I can't even see what your objection is there. "In the days of classical music" does not need to assert a date or year because that is mostly irrelevant. "There are many reasons for work not being completed" I have no problem with. The second sentence has had a "have" added, but the "of" should stay.
But more broadly, you appear to misunderstand that this article is backed up by "examples", as I stated. It is not superficial nor does it lack comprehensiveness. violet/riga(t) 07:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, my point is "plain wrong", but ... oh, the who/that thing is right. I'm afraid that "writing style" and "tone" do very much have to be different if they're both to be retained in that sentence; otherwise the writing is fluff, and no, including both items does not make the sentence flow better. You're misrepresenting whatever notion it is that a movement from The Art of Fugue could be better completed using a mathematical approach. Can you enlighten us as to how, exactly? The readers should not have to go to the reference to clear up such a wild assertion. "It doesn't need further details because that's what The Art of Fugue is for." What are you talking about? "Works are usually stopped ..." is a ridiculous assertion, as is the "rewrites" statement.
I can't be bothered to go on. Your responses seem to take the form "You're wrong" in each case. There's about as much substance to them as there is to the article. It can't possibly be promoted to FA status, which requires "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Tony 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not need to go into detail about specific works, just use them as a illustrative examples. The Art of Fugue is used as an example of how mathematics can be used and it explains that in as much detail as is needed in this article. violet/riga(t) 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you, or any reviewer here, to explain what on earth it means, and how mathematics could be used to complete the fugue in a superior way, as you're claiming. As a musician, I can't see how this could be correct, so I'd like an explanation. Tony 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because a permutation matrix was used to determine the remainder of the music. Most unfinished works don't have such an obvious way to complete them. violet/riga(t) 16:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe that a mathematical process can determine "the remainder of the music". It appears to be way off the mark, which is why I think it's inappropriate to make a bald statement such as this in the article. I'm pretty certain that on reading the source, we'd have to back down from this simple assertion. Tony 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that the mathematical process determines "the remainder of the music". It explicitly says that the discovery of a permutation matrix allows us to "predict how the piece would appear" and thus complete the remainder of the music more faithfully than if one were not available. Sorry, but I really thought that was obvious. violet/riga(t) 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Because a permutation matrix was used to determine the remainder of the music." Determine ... Tony 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not in the article. And by that I clearly mean the structure of the piece, no more. violet/riga(t) 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the kind of thing I'm objecting to in the article. And in any case, what do you mean by "structure"? The sequence of entries, in terms of voice and other attributes? If so, say so in the article. I'd still be suspicious, though. Tony 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If people want the full details then they look at the related article, not the summary that merely uses it as an example of how mathematical processes can sometimes be used. violet/riga(t) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point, which is that the article is superficial in many ways. Tony 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a summary and should not go into detail. There's a massive difference. violet/riga(t) 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rule is "unnecessary detail". When the text makes a radical claim, some supporting detail is required. Otherwise, remove the claim. If, in an article on the Moon, there's a claim that you can travel there already via a wormhole, some scientific support is required. Tony 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment—Just to reiterate, the lead needs about 30 edits, and even then would have problems. The title of the article is hopelessly ambiguous (Untitled works would have been better.) The rest of the article needs serious surgery. Let me know if you want yet more random examples. Tony 08:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Untitled works"? What? That's a different concept and it breaks the MoS plural title rule. violet/riga(t) 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So ... which untitled work are you referring to? If you're referring to untitled work out there, in general, it's just vague. Tony 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a bet each way in the second para of the lead:
"There are many reasons for work not being completed. Works are usually stopped when their creator dies, although some, aware of their failing health, make sure that they set up the project for completion. If the work involves other people, such as a cast of actors or the subject of a portrait, it may be halted because of their unavailability. Projects that are too grandiose might never have been finished,..."
Work or works, which is it to be? The first sentence here is awkward and ungrammatical. To make the meaning clear, you need to end the second sentence with "completion by other people", and to insert "artists" after "some"; I still think that the first, bald clause is unwise, but you haven't taken any notice of that. "Make sure that they" is redundant. Actors aren't going to halt the creation of a script or play—what does it mean? "Too grandiose"? I'd say that if a work is just "grandiose", it probably should be gagged. Too grandiose for what?
The problem is that the whole text requires recasting to fix these types of problems: in a nutshell, (1) vagueness, (2) the begging of questions, and (3) poor writing, from a technical perspective. Tony 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come you're talking about untitled work again? That is an entirely different concept to unfinished work. You are also going on about the use of plurals (work/works) that really is irrelevant. Your comments about prose are entirely based on your own idea of how things should be written. Sorry, but on a project such as this you are going to continually find people that write in a different style to yourself. You call some of it "redundant" and I can only assume that you are too used to writing technical essays and not something intended for a general audience that prefers something that flows well. violet/riga(t) 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the "untitled"—don't know what's making me slip into that word. The singular/plural is relevant, because they bring different sets of meanings, whether in the title or in the second para. I'm still uncomfortable with the ambiguity in the title ("work"), but you were right to raise the issue of the MoS constraints on the use of plurals in titles, of which I was unaware. To respond to your major point, I write and edit in a range of registers, not just "technical essays", as you put it, and while a minority of my edits arise from personal preferences, most are technically necessary. I've been careful here to talk about just technically necessary fixes to the prose. You need to remove the redundancies I pointed out above and to insert my suggested items, or those sentences will be vague and difficult to read. It's the "general audience" I have in mind in showing how the prose can be turned into something that "flows well". Tony 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I reviewed the old nom, and I'm not fully convinced that objections raised there have been addressed (in particular, concerns raised by JKelly, Alex S and Krill). I typically focus on references, and my main concern is with the sources used. The inline citations are sparse, and include sources such as personal websites, blogs, an AOL member website, and a Geocities website, with a strong reliance on websources, and a lack of scholarly sources. The article even uses another Wiki article as a source, which is not in agreement with WP:V and WP:RS (circular reasoning, using a Wiki to cite a Wiki). It is hard for me to accept that this article can overcome its elusive subject matter unless it relies on the highest quality scholarly sources. Per concerns raised by several other reviewers, comprehensiveness seems to be an issue. Sandy 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57 references is sparse? Almost every statement is referenced, especially those that would require a citation. There are 5 sources that aren't web-based, but there is no necessity for an article to have any printed references. I can't find what you are referring to with another wiki article being used as a citation. As for the comprehensiveness, I can't understand how people can say that - it is not supposed to be a complete list of unfinished work, or even to list all the most popular unfinished pieces - it is merely about what is unfinished work in various mediums and reasons for them not being completed. violet/riga(t) 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I misread this reference "Urban Legends Reference Pages. 7 December 1997. "Brandon Lee". Accessed 9 August 2006," struck that objection above. Sandy 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I've been uncomfortable with this ever since it was nominated, but couldn't put a finger on why. Jkelly has pretty much done it above. You've chosen an ill defined subject and seem to be getting frustrated when people don't agree with your approach. Most of the sources are simply supporting the examples of works used. There are far too few directly addressing the concept. If there don't exist many, then perhaps that should be a clue that it's not an appropriate topic. If there are more high quality sources that directly speak to the topic and various aspects of it then they should be hunted down and consulted and the article should be restructured to fully focus on the concept of unfinished works, using a few examples only where needed. There isn't a need to focus on so many classes of examples. - TaxmanTalk 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources about unfinished works are the ones about particular examples, not general ones. That doesn't mean that this is "not an appropriate topic" - far from it. violet/riga(t) 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Taxman has put his finger on what I wanted to say in addition to the microproblems in the prose. Tony 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it does. It means your compilation is original research. I don't mean to be difficult or discourage your contributions, but I think that if no sources directly addressing the topic exist then you've missed the mark about what an encyclopedia is for in this case. If those sources do exist, the article needs to be refocused around them instead of being a list of examples. There are so many core topics we do need to cover better we don't need to push the boundaries of what can be covered. That's just not what we are for. - TaxmanTalk 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got to disagree there. It is not original research, it is an original compilation. Just because the topic hasn't been directly covered by another source doesn't mean that we can't compile various sources together. One thing about this place is that we can be a resource where others don't exist. You think that means it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia? I disagree - it is a big thing of what we are about. violet/riga(t) 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If none of your sources support your topic you have original research. QED. All the stuff in the middle that's not direct conclusions from sources on the examples is OR. Of course you can compile conclusion from various sources, but you can't come to conclusions that aren't in them. Your statement that that is a big thing we are about represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the original research and verifiability policy. As a consequence of efforts to avoid complete garbage (certainly not saying this is, just what we're trying to avoid) we are here only to synthesize already published material. And we don't need to argue here about that. That is a long held rock solid conclusion from extensive discussions around the verifiability and original research policies. - TaxmanTalk 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be hard-pushed to find anything in that article that is OR or is not verifiable from the multitude of sources given. It's like giving a list of World Cup results using different different sources for each match - is it then OR to place these matches together? Certainly not. Then you can say that one match had the highest score - you don't need a source for such a thing. As I said above, the compilation of material is totally acceptable, and to draw obvious conclusions (ie. people sometimes die before completing work in different mediums) is fine. violet/riga(t) 07:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I've looked through the article (along with the comments here). In my opinion it's harmless enough, as it stands. The style, while not significantly worse than the standard we normally see around Wikipedia, is by no means scintillating. As for the content... look, I think it's a bit of fun, but I just don't consider it suitable for featured-article status, no matter how proficient the treatment of such a topic could be made with the editorial makeover that it currently needs. – Noetica 12:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I like about the Bigfoot article is that it is the result of the contributions of both "believers" and "debunkers". The result is an article which is balanced and well sourced. I learned a lot from it. (I made only a couple of edits, one of which was quickly reverted.) Steve Dufour 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object, Has an original research tag, short stubby sentences, and 3 dozen plus external jumps. I didn't get any further. Rlevse 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they are still working on the article. Steve Dufour 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object per the above. Featured articles should not have tags (especially ones regarding original research), and should have references conforming with WP:CITE. --physicq210 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles have numerous references, which is a good thing. However, convert your external links to the footnote format or embedded link style prescribed by WP:CITE. This is my main objection. Correct this and I may reconsider. --physicq210 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope someone will do that. It is beyond me since I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and don't understand all the technical stuff. Steve Dufour 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 As stated, the prose is very choppy. Combining sections and a rewrite are in order. In addition peer review is a very useful tool in bringing articles up to true FA status. --physicq210 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. —Jared HuntSeptember 9, 2006, 03:53 (UTC)
Weak Oppose as per above. There are some minor NPOV problems, too. --queso man 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support What can I say? Description, Bigfoot phenomenon, Eyewitness reports, Physical evidence, etc... most of these are very well written. Hoping that people will continue to work at this article, I support it! KYMYK 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it is a very informative article. I can also see the objectors' point that there is still a lot of original research in it. That should be removed and then the tag taken off. Steve Dufour 15:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did that as well as I could. I'd like to ask the objectors to take another look at the article. Steve Dufour 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have converted all of the embedded external links to inline citations with copyright attribution and some minor text tweaks. It's a start, but a number of the citations are to less than reliable sources and a number of the links were broken (I left all those in, but hid them from view and left notes flagging them). There are red-links, uneven passages, one line paragraphs, {{fact}} templates (some of which I added), a disambiguation header that doesn't make sense (is Yeti and Sasquatch what is meant?) and so on. The article contains significant, good material but has a ways to go.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. It looks like it's not going to make Featured Article right now, but it has been much improved by the process. Steve Dufour 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the article needs some work, but the disambiguation header does make sense if you click on the links. Bigfoot and Sasquatch are two names for the same alleged creature. However, the "Bigfoot" dab page refers to other things which are only known as "Bigfoot" (the truck, the town, etc) while the "Sasquatch" page refers to other things which are only known as "Sasquatch" (the Marvel Comics character, the Capcom fighter, etc). It makes sense to have both dab messages on the page because Sasquatch redirects to Bigfoot. Yeti has its own article and is generally assumed to refer to Bigfoot's Himalayan counterpart (not sure if the article makes this clear, but it should), so we don't need to mention Yeti in the dab header. Zagalejo 14:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The one image the article has has no fair use rationale. There are also still many gaps in the information; citation needed tags, very strange article sectioning, and red links. Keep working on it! Judgesurreal777 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I take the nominator's point about debunkers and believers, but as with most contested tug-of-war pages, Bigfoot has suffered from having many editors hurriedly input their factoid or POV anywhere. Each addition may be both well-meant and, in itself, useful, but the structure is totally incoherent. The sections are random in order, and have no focus, separately or together. Any connection between sections and their headings seems to be pure luck. One-sentence paragraphs are the norm. The TOC is a monster. I started trying to copy-edit this article a month ago, and progressed to the nervous breakdown you see in this edit summary, as I realized the depths of the structural problem. It hasn't gotten any better since, I see. Bishonen | talk 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I have hopes to get this article to featured level at some point, but now is not that point. I have to agree with Bishonen that the article is in need of help. Frankly, it really needs a complete rewrite.--MONGO 10:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-Page seems much too large, and writing style uneven throughout article. It's good, but not FA status. Trnj2000 19:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -This article needs a LOT of work. Withdraw the nomination, nominate it at a later timepoint.Martial Law 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I agree. How do I withdraw the nomination? Steve Dufour 03:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the article peer reviewed, and I'm not sure how it could be improved without some seriously obscure material coming to light. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Lead is too short and doesn't summarize article. See WP:Lead. See also goes above refs, no need for copyright section and it's in the wrong spot anyway, refs much preferred in cite php format. Rlevse 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all the suggestions for alteration except Cite php--the references below the cite php are the general sources being summarized, such as the comics. I figured the copyright thing would be a problem, but it was there before I got to it, and I wasn't sure, so I let it stay. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; directly cite your information. Everyking 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I should put the page number of everything I mention occurs in the comic book? That seems to me to be overkill. Please let me know where [citation needed]. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Numerous link problems. I see names where the first and last names are separate links, numerous links to disambiguation pages, and several words that shouldn't be linked. Images lack fair use rationale, references belong after punctuation, references lack necessary information such as author and access date(see {{cite web}} for formatting). Pagrashtak 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and last names are linked separately becuase characters that appeared in 1-4 issues of a comic book aren't notable enough to have their own pages. Please be more specific about "numerous links to disambiguation pages, and several words that shouldn't be linked". The only disambiguation pages I know of that are still among the linkst are linked to are those that link to a bunch of red links or something that otherwise can't be linked more directly. Even the names are made sure to link, for example, to Jack (name).
Exactly — they're not notable, so don't link them. Just because a dab page contain many red links doesn't mean it's all right to link there. You need to make the link specific, even if it's a red link. Pagrashtak 03:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Too list-heavy (not enough prose); too many fair-use images; short, stubby paragraphs (e.g., in "Expedition and Adventure"); only 9 inline references, some of which don't line up. — TKD::Talk 05:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—1a. The lead provides examples of why the whole text needs to be thoroughly copy-edited, preferably by someone who's relatively unfamiliar with it.
In terms of personnel, it is the world's fifth largest navy[1] with a total strength of 55,000 men and women including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and 2,000 marines (MARCOS). Indian navy currently operates over 180 vessels, including one aircraft carrier. An expansion and modernisation programme is going on with the introduction of new warships, submarines, weapon systems and technology. The Indian navies primary role is the protection of sea lanes, preventing piracy, terrorism and protecting the exclusive economic zones of India. In future Indian navy may participate in U.N peace keeping operations at sea. A secondary responsiblity of the Indian navy is to provide assistance during natural calamities and disasters. During the Asian tsunami crisis and the Lebanon crisis the Indian navy played an important role in providing assistance not only to Indian citizens but also to friendly neighbouring countries. The navy is used by India to build better relationship with the nations around the world through exercise and port visits. The Indian navy is increasing this capabilities to be a truly blue water navy as explained in its doctrine for the collective good of nations.
Can you decide on N or n for "navy"? The title and subtitles use upper case; the body of the text uses lower case.
You might consider removing "In terms of personnel", since it's obvious from the rest of the sentence.
Commas needed throughout the article, for ease of reading and clarity of meaning. "... men and women including 5,000 naval aviation personnel and ..."—Are the 5,000 all women? Probably not, so make it easy for us and insert a comma after "women".
"MARCOS" could be spelt out on first occurrence.
"THE Indian navy", throughout.
Most style manuals prefer "more than" to "over" in this context. (Why?)
"is going on" is rather informal; try "is underway". Can you pin this program down chronologically? "has been underway since 2004 ...", or something like that?
Category problem: weapons systems are technology. Can you be more specific, or say "and other technologies"?
"Navy's", not "navies".
UN please: lose the dots. Does this statement need a reference? It's a substantial assertion about the future. And it comes between primary and secondary responsibilities, floating there, as it were. I'd remove it and treat this lower down.
How do "calamities" differ from "disasters"? Choose one.
"A secondary responsiblity of the Indian navy is to ...". Remove "of the Indian navy", which is obvious from the context.
"During the Asian tsunami crisis and the Lebanon crisis the Indian navy played an important role in providing assistance not only to Indian citizens but also to friendly neighbouring countries." Lots of changes required: "During the Asian tsunami and Lebanon crises, the Indian navy played important roles, providing assistance to the citizens of not only India, but of friendly neighbouring countries." I guess the Pakistanis were left without—is that what "friendly" is alluding to?
"The navy is used by India to build better relationship with the nations around the world through exercise and port visits." Avoid passive where possible: "India uses its navy to build ...". "The nations around the world" is a bit of a cliche; try "to enhance its international relations through joint exerciseS and port visits.".
Now, a major collaborative effort is required to get this up to the required "professional" standard. Please network to garner your colleagues for this purpose: it's nowhere near good enough. Someone can start on the superficial issues of upper/lower case and singular vs plural. But there are problems everywhere. Tony 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Peer-review. Don't hurry! The article is good with potential, but not ready for FA. I suggest a new peer-review. As it is now, it is under-referenced and with listy sections.--Yannismarou 09:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per all above plus all the external jumps need converted to standard references. Rlevse 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Rather a peer review is needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object refer to Peer Review per above. It could develop into a FA but is not one now. Hello32020 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article F17 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object no inline citations. Please see the featured article criteria. Mak(talk) 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—references as per previous reviewer, plus 1a. I shouldn't be able to find bloopers such as "Still earlier is the Roman elegiac poets". Tony 06:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-nice start has the makings of a FA. List of songs degenerates into trivia. Pick one and devote a sentence or two.--Paul 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The expression is nowadays usually used in a negative sense, but even today there are many people who knowingly or unknowingly accidentally live in or even purposely strive for a frame of mind perhaps best described by that of minnesang and troubadours in general. Wow! Only 10 people collaborating on a sentence could come up with such a rediculous beauty as that! Kaldari 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quality article. Can't see any reason why it can't be a Featured Article.Narrasawa 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Huge Lack of referencing. Especially in the history...And None in the records section. Also 3 sections consist of just 1 paragraph, and a lot of paragraphs consist of just 2 sentances. Finally, summarise the lists into paragraphs. Great Article, interesting read, but not Featured Standard. Todd661 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Todd661, Rlevse 15:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Todd661. Also, images lack fair use rationale, sections with only one paragraph, and prose problems such as "The best four teams, finishing in the top four places..." (redundant) and "The semi-finals are contested to decide the two finalists, which is played" (the finalists is played?) Pagrashtak 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I rushed into this nomination. It should be withdrawn, as there is a lot of work to do.Narrasawa 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check thie article out. There's been much review. Please say what needs adding. Thanks Black Stripe 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I suggest adding more details to the lead, using inline citations and using better grammar and formatting—basically a thorough copyedit. Slof 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Slof. Rlevse 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to peer review --Peta 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to peer review There is an impressive amount of effort that has gone into this by Black Stripe (I'm assuming here that the IP address that also did a lot of edits is the Black Stripe logged out). With a thorough copyedit and some work on the intro and citations and suchlike this is should do a lot better once resubmitted after peer review. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was me logged out. I'm new to this so I'm learning the protocols. Thanks for all your comments. I've tried to clean it up a bit based on what you've said. How should the lead be expanded? Please can someone help on the copyedit & peer review? Once cleaned up, I think it could be a great resourse for this topic on the net. Thanks so much guys! Black Stripe 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Great article for a Great City. Worthy of FA status. Mercenary2k 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It clearly needs more citations - 3 just in the opening text. -86.132.122.240 16:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Needs many more in-line citations (and just removing the [citation needed] tags is not sufficient). Also, many of the existing citations have insufficient information (e.g. publisher, date accessed, date information published, author, etc.) --Paul 02:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #38 "Football (from London), Encyclopædia Britannica" should be replaced if possible. References from tertiary sources are not desirable.--Paul 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures could use a bit of work:
Buckingham Palace is unrecognizable in the nighttime image covered with the projected flag,
Picture of London skyline from the South Bank is a poor picture & surely something better can be found to illustrate "Districts"?
The Millenium Dome and an artists rendering of a future skyline are the best pictures to illustrate the "built environment?" How about St. Paul's and the Lloyd's building?
Perhaps the Millenium Dome picture can move down and replace the London Eye one?
What is St. Paul's Cathedral (not a very good pix) doing in Demographics?
Article is also in need of copyediting to get closer to "brilliant prose." Example:
Today, "London" usually refers to the London region of England, which is co-terminous with Greater London. At the heart of the conurbation is the small, ancient City of London which was historically the entirety of the city.
Usually? "co-terminous"? "conurbation"? "historically the entirety of the city."? This is stilted and padded and needs editing, & as pointed out elsewhere, this entire "whither London?" section needs to be incorporated into Geography or Demographics. --Paul 18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stuffed with great images, and informative, concise prose. Get's my vote every time. Kingfisherswift 09:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Supporting This is a much more in depth article than other "nominees". It doesn't matter about the citations as much as other people are making out it does. Especially on an article about a city. I will support this all the way.
Object. I agree that citations are wholly inadequate. There are also some other issues I have with its format.
"Defining London" is unencyclopedic. Merge this with Geography or Government somehow.
History goes awfully fast from 1097 to 1600s, and could use older drawings or pictures rather than modern photos.
Poor grammar in places. I counted a few sentence fragments, and the last para in the lead is a run on sentence.
Personally I think the "twinnings" and "film and literature" section are essentially trivia and could be removed. I understand others will likely disagree, but at the least they should be reduced somehow.
No information about cost of living, crime rates, or relative population of minority groups. " more than 300 languages spoken and 50 non-indigenous communities with a population of more than 10,000 living in London" is essentially taken verbatim from the source. I would like more information on where immigrants come from.
Why is there a photo of Buckingham Palace in the "Geography and Climate" section?
Nothing on the punk scene? LIke it or not, it's an important cultural contribution that London made to the world.--DaveOinSF 18:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Much of this reads like a superficial tourist guide, with rather little about London's economy, standard of living, problems of overcrowding, pollution, shortage of affordable housing &c&c. Some of the sections that have been hived off into subarticles feel to have left weak points. I agree with others about inadequate citations. Some specific points:
The history section feels very superficial, and I agree with DaveOinSF that it could do with some period illustrations. There's a dilemma here because it already takes up a substantial fraction of the whole article, and to be honest, it might be better just to delete the section and refer to the specific article.
An obvious omission is one or more maps.
The photos concentrate on a few famous buildings/streets rather than give a sense of what it's like to live or work in the city. There are also a plethora of photos of the Houses of Parliament; it appears significantly in at least four. The picture of Bond Street is rather poor and certainly does little to illustrate how busy London can be as a shopping centre.
I disagree with DaveOinSF about the film and literature section, which I think needs expansion, not contraction. The section on literature/film might also be broadened to include well-known representations of London in art and music.
There's very little on architecture; some more of the prominent modern buildings should be mentioned.
The Proms should be mentioned somewhere.
Could do with a copy edit & proofread. The first sentence of Built environment section is cut off. There are several instances of missing full stops, eg end of National government section. The figure legends randomly have full stops at the end/not. Espresso Addict 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with DaveOinSF regarding film and literature. These kinds of sections can readily degenerate into trivia and seldom add any true understanding of the subject. Does it help us to understand Half Dome to know that Ansel Adams took a famous photograph of it? Is our understanding of San Francisco advanced by knowing that the Presidio is mentioned in one of the Star Trek films as the location of the Star Fleet Academy? Is the London article well served by having "London's theatre district is here" be the sum total of the discussion of the extremely influential West End theater and drama district, while we take up space to learn that "The 1933 novel Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell describes life in poverty in both cities." (not the strongest sentence or observation)? And to suggest that the History section be removed from the article while the depiction in Film and Literature section is expanded, is beyond misguided.
I think the London article is quite good, and along with NYC it should be a FA. However, though people are willing to nominate it, no one seems willing to do the work to bring it up to standard.--Paul 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Just because a section can deteriorate into trivia doesn't mean it is trivial. A poorly written section can be rewritten as well as deleted. I feel strongly that one thing that differentiates London from many other more recently established cities is the weight of centuries of authors writing in it and about it &c.
Agree that the West End theatre district should be expanded.
As to the history section, I think there's a tension with the History of London article. The current section in this article is very superficial but expanding it to a non-Noddy level would take up a large fraction of the article, which presumably is why the History of London article was hived off in the first place. I don't have an easy answer. Espresso Addict 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both Pro and Con editors have sited bias sources. The neutrality of various aspects of this article could readily be debated. I understand that Dr. Duke is a hot and very controversial topic, thus I would like some seasoned editors review this articles format, citations, and overall grammatical presentation. Perhaps I am part of the problem, yet I only want to see this article resolved and free from skewed opinions as any valid encyclopedia entry would present to it's readers.
Furthermore, I submit not to interfere with this process by rebutting additions or subtractions made by editors 'without political agendas. David Duke seems to be a true summit for ideological spin for both supporters and critics.
My hope is that a general consensus will yeild a factual article that could be used as a formal reference for a school child's report in social studies class. Forgive my analogy should it not fit this situation like a glove. I hope you all understand my genuine concern for generating an article that depicts David Duke's life objectively, and not through the eye's of a small group of editors. I look forward to your responses.
If you want some ditors to review it, can I suggest that you take this to peer review before FAC? Thanks. Batmanand | Talk 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a candidate for peer review. Refs do not use correct punctuation, there are two different referencing styles, there are cite needed and stub tags, and there are numerous short stubby sections and paragraphs. Sandy 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Needs beter citations. It has several {{citation needed}} tags. --Ineffable3000 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Needs a more neutral perspective. 69.167.100.155 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has made GA and has been considerably worked over several months to produce a comprehensive, flowing article. I think it is worthy of FA. Dev920 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ConditionalSupport.
I agree that it is pretty good, but there are a couple things that are necessary for me to support it:
Most importantly, the formatting of the references is insufficient. For example, it seems the very first referenc just sends you to entertainment.tv.yahoo.com and not a particular article. None of the references contain information about article title name, date of publication, or date it was accessed on the web. ALL of them need to be corrected.
I will see what I can do. Bearing in mind there are 66 references, this may take some time, however.
11 to go! Dev920 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've upgraded from Comment to Conditional Support, on the condition that you finish the job with the references.--DaveOinSF 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll finish that off today. It's only been delayed because, as mentioned before, my computer keeps crashing, so I'm doing it on my school computers. (Thankyou, Lacatosias as well). Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References are all done now.Dev920 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just make sure the references are standardized? In most cases, the name of the journal precedes the link to the article, in some cases it follows it.--DaveOinSF 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the References guideline says to do if you cannot find an author. The references where that happens are ones that we couldn't find a source for. Dev920 08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh...there's some references (#12, for example) where there is an author, and the name of the periodical follows the link to the article. Then there are a whole bunch (#70, for example) where there is an author, but the name of the periodical precedes the link to the article. And in perusing the references, some are missing access dates, some are improperly titled. For example, #21 is titled "About Movies". THat is incorrect. THe title of the article is "Jake Gyllenhaal and Brad Silberling Talk About 'Moonlight Mile'". The name of the publication is About.com. I'm reinserting my "Conditional" support until these things are corrected.--DaveOinSF 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....it might kill you to try to make those tiny little adjustments yourself, eh?? Did somone call this a collaborative project. I did 99% of the references. I was actually trying to help the kid. Instead of sitting around and whining about miniscule formalities, I tried to do something about them. I object to your nonsense. This is not my article. DO IT YOURSELF!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this: both I and Lacatosias have been through every reference and edited them to make them compky with guidelines, yet you took the time to examine the references in detail but not to correct them: I have gone half-blind correcting every single reference, why don't you fix them for a change? Dev920 18:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. This is not the talk page of the article where different editors are discussing how to improve the article. This is the page where you have asked people to review the article and discuss whether or not this article should be promoted to FA status. If you are unwilling to do the work that different reviewers are, in good faith, telling you is necessary for the article to achieve FA status, then withdraw the nomination.--DaveOinSF 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the fact is you are sounding imperious. I can understand giving criticism and not doing it yourself because we all have other things to do, hence our changing the references, improving the article, but you took the time to examine the references you had previously given your support for and insisted we give access dates for article in newspapers where access dates are not required, and actually checked article titles, claiming we got them wrong without changing them yourself. Which is, quite frankly, wrong. Dev920 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the tone. I realized after looking at the article again that I was a bit hasty in signing off on it. I based it on your statement that the references had been fixed and a quick glance rather than my own careful investigation. That was my mistake. I'll correct a few later today when I have the chance, to further demonstrate my good faith.--DaveOinSF 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. With the critical commentary I've added, the references objection seems to be the only outstanding problem. If we're all editing it, this should be perfect within a day. Dev920 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out, however, that I never provided access dates where the article was from a newspaper or magazine and dated; reference policy says only to provide access dates for internet based sources, which a newspaper is not. Dev920 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed every single reference I could find that needed changing (and added access dates to newspaper articles I probably shouldn't have). Should you find anymore, I hope you will change them yourself. Dev920 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Filmography" and "Awards" contain essentially redundant information.
I've deleted filmography, since we've added everything to his article anyway, but the awards I think still need to be in a block.
Improvement.
I don't see this as an improvement at all. A filmography is pretty much a must. Not everybody wants to read the entire article just to find out what films an actor was in. Sloan21 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reinsert the filmography. It is essential to an actor's biography. Never Mystic (tc) 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly minor stuff. I have deleted the Awards section and I hope noone now isnsist that it is "essential....". the alternative was to remove the column on awards in the filmography. Since I don't know how to this, I deleted the Awards. If Awards is required or something, please fix it yourselves.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you center the photo of Jake in the top right corner? It looks terrible as it is now.--DaveOinSF 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, centre it? That's what the photo looks like - the fan was a bit hasty in her shot. I can't do anthing about that without editing it and uploading it and I think that copyright infringement somewhere... Dev920 21:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was uploaded under the WP:GFDL license in which: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document..." as long as you refer back to the original photo and use the identical license.--DaveOinSF 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do it then; my attempts at photo editing have all gone horribly wrong to date. :( Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it. I saved it under a different name (my first attempt at overwriting went horribly wrong, to borrow your phrase). If you decide to use it, could you please go to the image description page and enter all the details from the other page about being allowed to use it etc. It's a good photo - it would be great if you could upload both the original and the cropped images to Commons. Rossrs 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the information to the cropped image as well. Dev920 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
The prose in "Personal life" is not very convincing, it is only a list of several very short paragraphs.
"Convincing"? What do you mean? The paragraphs are five to ten sentences linked by a common theme; there's nothing else to add and adding all the pragraphs together will not make compelling prose. Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The artilce appears pretty short overall. While I'm not an expert on the subject, I would suspect there is more information available about him.
The text seems a bit unbalanced at times, e.g. "2005 has been described as "unquestionably Jake Gyllenhaal's year"" which is a rather bold statement and the only source for it is an online biography. Sloan21 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until the writing is improved. Oppose for the following reasons:
It looks okay now, but doesn't mention much of his earlier work. Never Mystic (tc) 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because, as with many actors, Jake Gyllenhaal's early work is fairly rubbish. Dev920 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense; an actor's earlier work is what helps make them break into Hollywood. Never Mystic (tc) 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be considered POV to introduce him as "Academy Award-nominated", which emphasizes his recognition before career.
It's POV to introduce them as "Academy Award-nominated" because it stresses their achievements. Please remove these from the lead section and replace them somewhere more appropriate. Never Mystic (tc) 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. The lead should include the highlights of the article, and should most certainly include a mention of the highlight of Gyllenhaal's career. I would certainly expect the lead of Marie Curie to tell me that she was a Nobel prize winner.--DaveOinSF 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would like the first sentence to be even shorter? Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks images now; you should upload new ones and add proper fair use rationale. Never Mystic (tc) 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would help, but, as you know, images are not required for FA candiates. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but the fair use rationale could be supplied and the images could be used in the article. It's really quite simple and I see it's been done. Good job! Never Mystic (tc) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Although not initially a box office success, Donnie Darko has become a cult favourite": because Gyllenhaal is American, favourite should be spelled favorite. Moreover, there is a lot of clunky and unusual writing such as "The film, set in 1988, is about the bright but troubled teenager Donnie Darko played by Gyllenhaal, who, after narrowly escaping death, has repeated visions of a 6-foot tall rabbit named Frank who tells him that the world will end in 28 days".
There are many redundant sentences throughout the career section, such as "However, Maguire recovered and the sequel was shot". If Gyllenhaal was not cast as Spiderman because Maguire suffered injuries, readers will assume that Maguire made a full recovery.
There are many sentences that are short and choppy; either expand, merge or remove them altogether. Never Mystic (tc) 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The awards section is unnecessary; merge its content into the article.
Why is there no filmography? All featured articles on actors have one, including non-FAs. A list of nominations is far less notable than the actor's film appearances.
WP:EL says a major fansite should be linked to or a site which provides greater information that cannot be added to the article. Nothing in Jake's external links contradicts this.
You're right. It looks good, after all. Never Mystic (tc) 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the writing is awkward and needs to be rewritten.
The information box currently has POV. It's not up to us to decide which of Gyllenhaal's roles were "notable".
Oppose per above. Filmography is definetely needed. It's a quick reference for a person who wants to know essential information quickly without having to read the article. Infoboxes are used for the same reason. - Tutmosis 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now since I think most issues have been resolved. I still have an issue with the prose per 1a of FA criteria. But it's not really a major issue for me so I will give my support. What I mean is its "Comprehensive" but not "compelling". It's not one or two sentences but how the whole article is written. In other words its written like class notes; simple sentences of facts. Maybe try to get a someone who majored in english to reword the article a bit to make it more intresting to read. Everything else seems good. - Tutmosis 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what I think is happening then is that I do not understand the concept of compelling prose. From my perpective, I am writing an encyclopedia, and therefore my sentences are immediately to the point and contain nothing but the facts. Compelling prose is...what? I cannot add adjectives, as that is subtle POV, I cannot add minor asides as this is besides the point and unencyclopedic. What is needed here? Dev920 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't major in english so I wouldnt have an idea how to improve it. Like I said its not an issue for me but the prose didn't seem too intresting. It wasnt anything specific but overall feeling of reading the article. I think its about word selection and arrangement, not about adjectives. I wouldn't worry about it unless you know someone who majored in english and/or writes novels for living. - Tutmosis 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will return add the filmography. Seeing as I removed the filmography under request and was immediately criticised for it, I will not remove the awards list. The first lead paragraph is concise and comprehensive, what more exactly do you want? The references, as mentioned above, are numerous and I am working on it (However, my computer crashed as I had finished half of them and I am reluctant to do it all over again).
And it seems to me that everyone who has commented on this FAC so far believes that there is more information out there on Jake Gyllenhaal. Please, go and look him up. There isn't. Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was never requested that you remove filmography. I just pointed out that the Awards section and Filmography section are essentially redundant, especially since all the information in Awards is listed on the Filmography chart. Since you have returned filmography, get rid of the list of Awards, or remove the awards column from the filmography graph. As for the Brokeback Mountain and Donnie Darko images, I don't think you needed to remove them, just write a fair use rationale on the respective image pages. I think a strong case can be made to include them.--DaveOinSF 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair use rationale IS needed. But you could have explianed to her how to do that!! I will go and find the link.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link on how to include fair use rationales and the various sorts of fair use that are allowed. Hope that helps. I don't know anthing about the pics, so you'll have to write your own rationale. Take your time and don't panic. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In which case, I won't make any changes whatsoever to the article unless at least two people agree on them here. (So I will change the references). Dev920 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this article is not even close to FA quality at the moment, in fact it might need some re-writing as pointed out above. Also, it contains no critical commentary at all; opinions from noted film critics are almost mantatory in a FA for a modern day actor. -- EnemyOfTheState 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? Eric Bana, Uma Thurman, and Julia Styles have no critical commentary whatsoever. Does not seem mandatory to me. Additionally, I suspect if I were to remove bits of "poor writing" that others were complaining about, I would be immediately told it is not comprehensive enough or "has holes". Please compare the articles, all FA, above with Jake Gyllenhaal, and make your decision from that, because you all seem to have the bar set far beyond the Wikipedia policy on FA. The article is referenced, it flows, and it covers everything that may be discovered about Jake Gyllenhaal's life. All criticism received cannot agree on what is wrong with it; could you please agree on stuff I need to change? Dev920 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you have an objection to a single sentence, could you please rewrite it? Not only does it take pressure off me trying to know what you want, failing, being corrected etc., it provides a useful example to follow for more complex rewrites. Thankyou. Dev920 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all three of the articles mentioned above do have critical commentary. They all cite magazines/newspapers and film critics at least four or five times; I'm not sure why you think there is no critical opinion "whatsoever". -- EnemyOfTheState 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely need to address substantially whatever professional criticism exists of his acting career, both good and bad. This is absolutely essential to an article on an actor -- if a man is notable for producing art of any kind then the critical reaction to that work is necessary for a comprehensive article. Christopher Parham(talk) 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But how am I to do that without incurring accusation of POV? See above "It could be considered POV to introduce him as "Academy Award-nominated"" and "The text seems a bit unbalanced at times, e.g. "2005 has been described as "unquestionably Jake Gyllenhaal's year"", both critical analyses rejected as POV. What to do? Dev920 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please incorporate critical commentary. I think it should be done too. Never Mystic (tc) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I don't want to get pounced on because I'm using useless or biased critics. I'm guessing Ebert, anyone else quite good, or shall I just hop around and find what I can? Dev920 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hah!! Now I get it it. It's her IDOL, for heaven's sake!! Take it easy on the poor kid (;. Seriously, Dev920, I would create a sub-section called "criticism" an include both pro and con views on the various films, on the actor's takent, etc.. Whatever you can find, as long as (I have to say it!!) there is some negative, unfavorable stuff in their. This is part of the policy of Neutral Point of View. We have to make it seem like we're neither for nor againts the subject of the article. All critics are biased, I think. Don't woory about that. That's what they do. Major critics are obviously better than unknown people, but all that's really necessary is sources and balance.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a subsection wouldn't disrupt the article's flow? It occurs to me that we do actually have references to reviews n the article already, would quoting from them be OK? Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might. But, sometimes, introducing criticism directly into the body of a text (espcially quotes) can be even more tricky. BTW, if you do it that way, don't just use all quotes. Paraphrase some of the points in your own words as well. Otherwise, it might end up looking like a list of blockquotes just added at random. Use your best judgment and I'll try to help you out with the flow if I can. Copyediting, except for basic issues of grammar, punct and so on, is not really my forte though.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism has now been added for October Sky, Donnie Darko, This is Our Youth, Bubbly Boy and Moonlight Mile. Bubble Boy is negative and Moonlight Mile is mixed. All ok now? Dev920 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do I care who his sister is dating? Jkelly 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because her partner was Jake's co-star in Jarhead and he is very close to both of them. Dev920 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only reason, I'd get rid of it. At the very least move it to the sister's article or the boyfriend's article; it isn't about the subject of this one. Jkelly 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Jake is almost certain to be the child's godfather. Dev920 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not completely certain, it should be removed or at least strongly sourced. Never Mystic (tc) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually on there. It's just that, with the fact that he knows both and there are regularly pictures of the three together, it seems best to leave it up until the child is born (a few months). Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment As the user who passed it as a GA I think it is very good, however there is one thing i'd like to know before I give it my support, is that a total or selected filmography.
Selected. The really small, obscure films he did are in the article, but the ones anyone has heard of are in the filmography. Dev920 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet As you have mySupportas long as all the image mumbo jumbo is cleared up
I believe it has been. :D Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead image is fairly low-quality and not at all flattering. I understand why we're using it (it's free), but has anyone considered contacting Gyllenhaal's agent or fanclub or whatever and asking them to release a higher-quality promotional photo under the GFDL or a compatible Creative Commons license so we can replace the current image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the fanclub to ask for a photo - that was what we got back. Do publicity agencies have a history of giving out free high quality photos? Dev920 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it benefits them to do so. There's some boilerplate floating around to make a request, and the worst that can happen is that they say no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article is extremely well-referenced, accurate, and very nicely, concisely written. (It's not Tolstoy, but I don't think we should be holding up quite that high a standard). I've gone through and done some copyediting and I have seen no serious grammar or other such errors. Moreover, I will ask a few people who have done good work on many featured articles and who I respect to see if they can look it over and adress some of the prose issues that people are objecting to. I would STILL like to see a bit more critical commentary. But it's definitely going in the right direction.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticising what? Virtually every film has commentary now. Dev920 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example: the thing that probablt caught my interst the most is the so-called "gay cowboy" film. Surely, this must have caused come controversy and provoked some very hostile reactions from Christian conservatives in the US, if not elsewhere. Could you tell me a little more about that. You have several comments from Gyllenhaal, but....what was the reaction from the right, counterreaction from the left and all that kind of thing. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely though, that belongs on the Brokeback Mountain article. The critical response to Jake's performance within the film is evident by the number of awards he got for it. Surely how people reacted to the film is irrelevant, and there is already stuff on Jake's part within it. Dev920 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How people react to the film is irrevelant, eh? You're probably right. I've never edited an article on an actor. But that makes sense. Howevere, I notice that some of the criticims that you HAVE recently added to the article are precsily about the film and not about his performances. Are you trying to have it both ways? In any case, you ought to add more criticism of his performaces, I think. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did that for two films, Moonlight Mile and Bubble Boy. And that was because I couldn't find a critic to say that Jake's acting in them was rubbish! Everyone loves him! Please, give me an paragraph that I could put another critic in without disrupting the flow of the article: all of Jake's major films have been covered. Do you want criticism for naff films like Lovely and Amazing? Dev920 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I'm afraid I've gotten involved in a discussion about content on a subject I dont know anything about. I'm just trying to help you get past the objections that some others have lodged about "lack of criticism" and so on. I don't know, for example, wether criticism about Lovely and Amazing is appropriate or not. But you shouldn't be making your case with me. I have defer to the "experts" (that is, anyone who knows more about films and articles about films than I do) on this one. If they are satified that it's thorough, comperhensive, etc., then so am I. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll throw this one out to every editor who looks here: Can any more commentary be added without damaging the flow and conciseness of the article? All Jake's significant films have criticism; is it necessary to add it for the obscurer films? Dev920 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well-written, well-researched, well-sourced (boasting 52 different sources), and very objective. MarshallBagramyan deserves most of the credit for bringing this article to where it is now. Presently, it is a GA and I believe that it's time it was elevated to FA status. -- Clevelander 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate and support. For reasons above. -- Clevelander 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the condition that it's shortened. It's too long.--Eupator 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious answer here but provided some of the sections are shortened to individual articles --MarshallBagramyan 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, massively undercited; many large portions of text—and even direct quotes!—have no citations. More generally, I'm concerned that almost all the references seem to be newspaper articles, even though a number of books dealing with the topic (including those listed as "Further reading", for example) are not used as sources. Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This is yet another in a continuing trend of 'lots of inline citations (good) but almost all of them to newspapers (bad)'. Please use more academic sources (journals and books), this is not Wikinews.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too would like to see more in-line citations and more reputable sources. For example, all numbers should really have citations. The article also has some prose problems; it needs a thorough copyedit before it reaches FA status. That aside, however, this was a very interesting read. I had never heard of this conflict before.UberCryxic 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article covers thoroughly its subject and should be FA; that is why I cannot object. Nevertheless, I agree with Kirill that it is under-citated. Especially, when assessments are made inline citations are necessary (we speak about a very delicate case, susceptible to POV). Two examples:
"The ramifications of the war were said to have played a part in the February 2004 murder of Armenian Lieutenant Gurgen Markaryan who was hacked to death with an axe by his Azeri counterpart, Ramil Safarov at a NATO training seminar in Budapest, Hungary." Said by whom? Citation needed!
"The shipment of the arms were said to have been originally authorized by defense minister Pavel Grachev and purportedly sent during the height of the war in 1992-1994" Same question!
"Looting and mutilation (body parts such as ears, brought back from the front as treasured war souvenirs) of dead soldiers were commonly reported and even boasted about among soldiers." According to whom? Citation needed.
"After the war ended, both sides alleged that they were continuing to hold captives; Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia was continuing to hold near 5,000 Azeri prisoners while Armenians claimed Azerbaijan was holding 600 people." Who gives these numbers?
I must also point out that the article is huuuuge, 101 Kb, almost all prose. Because of that and because of the many parameters of the war itself, I think the creation of some sub-pages is necessary. This will result in the better covering of the whole subject--Yannismarou 07:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment on above statements I would just to know how exactly do sources such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the London Times, and the Toronto Star not measure to credibility? The books I listed on this page are primarily partisan and the usage of some of those sources are opposed by Armenian and Azeri editors alike. I searched through numerous newspaper databases and most of us agreed that they provide the most accurate assessments of the war and since they quote government and military officials. If they were excluded, we would have an incomplete article with many gaps. Furthermore, most, if not all of the books provide incomplete details and offer mere summaries of specific battles, (the taking of a town on such a date, for example). The war has not been approached by too many non-partisan writers.
Moreover, from what I have learned in writing English compositions and essays is that every sentence does not require a citation. One citation can be used for an entire paragraph of information. Many pieces of information are widely accepted, we're not going to add a source for common sense statement; that is akin to saying that the sky is blue.[1]
In regards to the italicized statements:
"The shipment of the arms were said to have been originally authorized by defense minister Pavel Grachev and purportedly sent during the height of the war in 1992-1994" Same question!" The article cited (the Washington Times) states this. Again, I'm summarizing what the article had stated into a paragraph and showing the source at the end.
"After the war ended, both sides alleged that they were continuing to hold captives; Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia was continuing to hold near 5,000 Azeri prisoners while Armenians claimed Azerbaijan was holding 600 people." Who gives these numbers? Again, read to the next line which is related to the prisoners and see the cited source states this.
If need be, I'll include citations for the other two highlighted sentences. I feel the article is sufficently cited. The Polish-Soviet war is nearly the same length has almost the same number of citations. I'm trying to trim the sections and shortening the article. I've reduced it by 8 kilobytes so far. --MarshallBagramyan 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious to see what other users who do not have extended involvement with Armenian-Azeri articles have to say here. Marshall offers a pretty good argument, let's put the voting on pause for a bit and see what others have to say. -- Clevelander 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment Can someone clarify what is exactly wrong with the styling of the sentences that make it so...mundane? I formatted the language especially to cater to the needs of people who do not need to scramble for their dictionaries and feel that they are reading an encylopedia article not an essay.--MarshallBagramyan 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object Overall 101KB, of which 76KB is prose, confirms the previously mentioned massive lack of adequate inline citations. The Table of Contents is overwhelming, and the article does not conform to WP:MOS or WP:GTL, needs to emply Summary Sytle, and needs better inline citations from higher quality scholarly sources. Weasle words pointed above are also a concern. Sandy 03:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article reflects too much the Armenian POV, and the newspaper quotes are selective. I described some of the article flaws on the talk of the article. The article is not well sourced. Just an example, quote: Such claims were illustrated when Armenian troops broke through the Azeri defenses in Agdam in late April 1994, at the cost of 56 men during the offensive, Armenian forces had killed at least 700 Azeri troops. The estimate on casualties is taken from the Armenian source (Markar Melkonian. My Brother's Road), which has its own agenda, and not from a neutral source. The presented figure looks nowhere near reliable, still it is presented as a fact and not an allegation of the Armenian side. Grandmaster 11:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article is just way to POV, I mean just look at the logistics alone, no Azeris had the chance to contribute to this article and all the sources are pretty much unreliable, pretty much all pictures are Armenian. Way to POV and besides its also to long for a article. Baku87 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny seeing as how some Azeri editors (including you, Baku) have contributed to this article at least once. -- Clevelander 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about POV. The article has certain flaws that me and other users pointed out, but it is not POV. I felt I had to comment, because, reading the article, I understood the editor had no intention to go with one or the other size. He tries to be objective and exposes the arguments of both sides. As far as statistics are concerned, he tries to use the most accurate sources.--Yannismarou 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is partially within the NPOV: 1) the lead mentions the religious affiliation of both sides which contradicts the later article's statement: "contrary to media reports which nearly always mentioned the religions of the Armenians and Azeris, the war's religious aspects never gained enough significance as an additional casus belli" (fixed); 2) the Renewed fighting section contains the Armenian quote "There will be peace only through our victory" and the Kelbajar section contains another quote within the NPOV right below the headline; 3) the majority of images are of Armenians; 4) the sentence "...before the truce was to take place, Azeri forces backed away from the peace accordance which led Armenian government leaders to announce that they too would in turn refuse to accept it" has a bad link to quote (the headline doesn't exist in the given link). So I currently object. --Brandспойт 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment in regards to the headline doesn't exist in the given link. The links to the Washington Post's archives are extremely long and putting them in it is a waste of space. Just enter the headline in its archives to find the article you are looking for. --MarshallBagramyan 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent article one of many on wikipedia that just need improving slightly to become a featured article. Minimal improvement is needed for feature status I thinkErnst Stavro Blofeld 09:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it seems to be a good article to me there is a clear lack of foot notes. I think the ofcus for inmprovement should eb to add inline cites. Jeltztalk 10:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whilst inline cites are not strictly necessary, having "citation needed" tags is unacceptable for a FA. Batmanand | Talk 10:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article needs citation. Looking through, some sections are incomplete--the Franco-Prussian War for example. The fact that there's no mention of Count Waldersee either is troubling. This article isn't ready for primetime yet. Mackensen(talk) 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The lead is too long (see WP:LEAD) & has way too many wikilinks (see WP:CONTEXT. Several of the linked dates, for example, could easily be deleted). The prose certainly isn't compelling ("The latter was enlarged in 1871 to the German Empire, as the first Chancellor of which Bismarck served until 1890", for example, is very awkward. Several other cases can be found). There are serious problems with citations: (1) inline cites are lacking (especially glaring wrt direct quotes), (2) there are several fact tags & (3) the citation style is inconsistent (there are two in-text external links, one footnote, several Harvard cites & books in the bibliography). Several pov problems: Bismarck "refuted" claims that he was a reactionary with "generous social reform and welfare"? According to whom? "Bismarck played a crucial role in uniting most of the Confederation's members"? I'm sure he did but this fails both WP:NPOV and WP:V unless it is attributed to some reputable source. von Molke was an 'organizational genius'? Says who? etc. etc. (Generally speaking, superlatives like "crushing defeat", "tremendous victory," "greatest statesman" should be avoided unless attributed). Also... why only one external link? Surely there is more good info on the web like, for example, his memoirs? (Compare, say, Richard Dawkins#External links). Lastly, shouldn't the box be moved down? Mikker(...) 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above arguments. Needs a lot of work before it gets anywhere near FA.UberCryxic 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. A lot of work has gone into this article in the past while. Various people, particularly those who helped out in the peer review, have put great effort into improving the article. The Military History project rated it as A-Class, and it's also listed over at WP:GA. I think it's time to get it up to FA status, and maybe you can offer suggestions if you don't feel it meets FA standards. ♠ SG→Talk 12:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a nice summary article of the life of one of the great conquerors. If I could change one thing about the article, it would be the fact that it ends on a quote and, by the nature of the quote, on a POV note. I'm not sure what the summary sentence could be, but I'm sure there should be a closing sentence of some sort that is not a quote and not pushing a novel aspect that was not previously introduced in the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Well, I can't really think of anything to add to the end of the "Philosophy" section, so instead, I've moved it up and brought "Politics/Cyrus Cylinder" down. How do you feel about the end now? ♠ SG→Talk 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for your support! ♠ SG→Talk 21:27, 19 August 2006
(UTC)
Support, looks pretty good. The only thing I would say is that it would be nice to have more references, simply because I really like references. Still, it's a really good article. Stilgar135 01:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything in particular you'd like to see sourced? And thanks for your support! ♠ SG→Talk 11:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in particular, it just seems like there would be more citable sources for a subject this big. Stilgar135 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a bunch of refs thanks to Amizzoni. Should be better now. ♠ SG→Talk 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
"In historical artifacts discovered in the ancient ruins of Babylon and Ur, Cyrus identifies himself as King of Iran,": references needed.
Inserting a {{fact}} or {{cite needed}} in the article following the statement that is unsupported can help keep track of things more easily. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"including the eventual Acheamenid Shah". "Sha" is a middle Persian word derived from old persian (Achaemenid) "Xshayathiya". I think it is better to use Xshayathiya instead of Sha.
"An old Iranian portrait of Cyrus the Great." It should be re-written to state clearly thet it is not contemporanous to Cyrus.
"Inscriptions indicate that when the latter died, two of his sons shared the throne as Cyrus I of Anshan and Ariaramnes of Persia. They were succeeded by their respective sons Cambyses I of Anshan and Arsames of Persia" It is not neutral, the inscriptions mentined are sometimes belived to be a fake. See "Arsama" and "Ariaramna" at http://www.iranica.com, and Arsames and Ariarames at http://www.livius.org for references.
"During Astyages' rule, the Medes had conquered all Assyrian kingdoms apart from Babylonia, including Anshan and Persia." Assyrian kingdoms? What does it means? It is the first time I read that Babylonia and PErsia were Assyrian kingdoms.
"In 547 BC, the Lydians attacked the Achaemenid Empire. During the winter, before the allies could unite, Cyrus pushed the war into Lydian territory and besieged Croesus in his capital, Sardis. Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers, Harpagus advised Cyrus to place his dromedaries in front of his warriors; the Lydian horses, not used to the dromedaries' smell, would be very afraid. The strategy worked; the Lydian cavalry was routed. Cyrus defeated and captured Croesus at Pterium. Cyrus occupied the capital at Sardis, conquering the Lydian kingdom in 546 BC. According to Herodotus, Cyrus spared Croesus' life and kept him as an advisor, but this account conflicts with the contemporary Nabonidus Chronicle, which records that the king of Lydia was slain." I belive the place and the moment od the battle of Pterium are mistaken. In Herodotus (I 76) I read thwe following: Croesus crossed the Halys and attacked Cyrus, a battle happend in Pterium, near Sinop (that is, near the Halys), Croesus went to Sardis and was bessiged by Cyrus, who took the city and the its king. It also should be noted that some scholars as R. Rollinger think that the king mentioned by the Nabonidus Chronicle is not Croessus. http://www.achemenet.com/ressources/souspresse/annonces/Rollinger-Iran.pdf
Babylonia: Tolini, G. (2005): "Quelques éléments concernant la prise de Babylone par Cyrus (octorbe 539 av. J.-C)", in Arta (www.achemenet.com, go to Ressources, Publications en ligne, Arta, Table of Contents; I find it difficult give a better link). Here are given some remarks about the violence or non-violence of the persian conquest of Bebylon. I think they would be usefull.
I belive it is necesary to give further information about the conquest of the eastern provinces and of the Levant (Syria-Palestine). The Encyclopaedia Iranica article about Cyrus the Grat gives many theories. http://www.iranica.com . I'll look for more references anyway.
It would be nice to see a section on Cyrus' religius belives and policies, apart from the one al the Legacy section.
References Section: Long time ago, I uploaded a section entitteled "Sources". It was intented to be an account of primary and secondary -ancient- sources about Cyrus, but not necesary used to write the article. They are not proper references.
Alrighty, here's what I've done about those issues:
Per the discussion in the peer review, I moved references from the intro into the other sections. Not a rule, but I seem to agree after reading this discussion.
This is the English Wikipedia, and as such I'm inclined to use Shah instead of "Xshayathiya."
Good point, I'll reword that caption.
Perfect ref from Iranica, I've added that in.
I've changed the end of "Dynastic history" to accomodate for that.
Ha, that's definitely been changed.
The place of the battle is correct, but I should have clarified that the first battle happened at Pteria. I'll clarify that section, including the dates. I don't know about the Histories quote, this is what I was able to find from Herodotus' writings: Having passed the Halys with the forces under his command, Croesus entered the district of Cappadocia which is called Pteria. It lies in the neighbourhood of the city of Sinope upon the Euxine, and is the strongest position in the whole country thereabouts. Here Croesus pitched his camp, and began to ravage the fields of the Syrians. He besieged and took the chief city of the Pterians, and reduced the inhabitants to slavery: he likewise made himself master of the surrounding villages. Thus he brought ruin on the Syrians, who were guilty of no offence towards him. Meanwhile, Cyrus had levied an army and marched against Croesus, increasing his numbers at every step by the forces of the nations that lay in his way. Before beginning his march he had sent heralds to the Ionians, with an invitation to them to revolt from the Lydian king: they, however, had refused compliance. Cyrus, notwithstanding, marched against the enemy, and encamped opposite them in the district of Pteria, where the trial of strength took place between the contending powers. The combat was hot and bloody, and upon both sides the number of the slain was great; nor had victory declared in favour of either party, when night came down upon the battle-field. Thus both armies fought valiantly. Croesus laid the blame of his ill success on the number of his troops, which fell very short of the enemy; and as on the next day Cyrus did not repeat the attack, he set off on his return to Sardis, intending to collect his allies and renew the contest in the spring. [...] As for the king not being Croesus, I was unable to find any such thing in that PDF file. All I found was a note that the dates of Cyrus' capture of Lydia could be wrong.
That is a very interesting PDF! I've used it to add in the part about Cyrus' negotiations with Babylonian generals to avoid an armed confrontation. Is there anything from that document that you feel would be very important to see in the article?
See #10.
I have found it difficult to find detailed information about these topics. If you could, I would very much appreciate any links about them.
I, too, would like to have that picture, but the image isn't of use in its current form. It is overexposed, zoomed too far out of the relief, and not high enough resolution for that level of zoom. I personally tried my hand at cropping the relief itself and changing the lighting levels of the image, but it darkens the top (shadow) too much and still doesn't capture the relief as it should be. If we could get a better (and free) version, the article would greatly benefit from it.
With the exception of the "Biblical books," I say the "ancient sources" section should stay. Some of them are rather important. We don't necessarily use those sources directly, but rather indirectly from the "notes" section.
I see what you mean. Well, the first time the site is used as a reference is for the meaning of "Cyrus," which was balanced out by your addition about "Karl Hoffmann and Rüdiger Schmitt." The second one is now balanced as well, thanks to your above note about the authenticity of the inscriptions. The only one left is about the Cyrus Cylinder being translated by the UN, which I don't think is a problem.
Whew! That was a long edit. I hope I've addressed your concerns (apart from the ones which I would like your help on, mentioned above), if not, please let me know! ♠ SG→Talk 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point, but I'm unable to find any information about these documents, and I really would like to. I don't know in what way, but there must be references. Where ware this documents found? When? Who says that? --Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I worded it poorly. The second paragraph has now been rewritten. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"His overlord was his own grandfather, Astyages, who had conquered all Assyrian kingdoms apart from Babylonia." 1) Cyaxares is the king said to be the great median conqueror, not Astyages. 2) Assyrian kingdoms? What are you trying to mean? I know one Assyrian kingdom, and it fall in 612 BC.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, let me know if it's still incorrect. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still incorrect. Assyria was a kingdom in the Upper Tigris. You are using this term to the whole Near East. You should write "all Near Eastern kingdoms", instead of "all Assyrian kingdoms".
Page 6: "Thus the passage contains important information for the end of Urartu. We must therefore translate Chronicle 7 15-17: In the month Nisan Cyrus (II), king of Parsu, mustered his army and / crossed the Tigris below Arbail. In the month Iyyar [he march]ed to ^Ú\[rartu]. / He defeated its king, took its possessions, and stationed his own garrison there. " But in the Oppenheim's translation: "In the month of Nisannu, Cyrus, king of Persia, called up his army and crossed the Tigris below the town of Arbela. In the month of Ajaru he marched against the country Ly[lacuna; probably Lydia], killed its king [Croesus?], took his possessions, put there a garrison of his own. Afterwards, his garrison as well as the king remained there." Where Oppenheim reads Lydia, Rollinger reads Urartu. Croesus is the king of Lydia. For Rollinger, Croesus is not the king mentioned.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're absolutely right. However, Cyrus did in fact gain control over Lydia, that's not disputed; the years of the conquest, however, are disputed, due to the Nabondius Chronicle. I've given a notice in that section warning readers about the possible incorrect date.
Rollinger states that in the Nabonidus Chronicle we must read Urartu instead of Lydia. Of course, he doesn't say that Lydia wasn't conquered. --Amizzoni 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I may be messing myself with my poor French, but I understand that this guy founded babylonian documents talking about heavy demage in the fortifications of Babylon. It contradicts the Babylonian Chronicle version ("without battle"), which he belives is propagandistic.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see the following
OK. let me search--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let me know how it goes. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However it can't be shown, it steel must be explained. And I belive It's better to have a bad picture, than don't have it. In this picture, we can guess that there is a man, and if in the epigraf we read "he's Cyrus, and he has some kind of wings and egyptian symbols in his head", we would belive it. --Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're absolutely right. I decided to go ahead and correct the image as much as I could, here it is: Image:Relief cyrus-cropped level.jpg. I also added it to the article; what do you think? ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I like it very much.--Amizzoni 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a section summarizig and explaining the relevant (or all if possible!!) ancient sources on Cyrus. I've made a quite complete one for es:wiki, I should translate it.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the Esp. version, looks like you've got some sections which we could really use on the English Wikipedia. If you could translate them, I'd love to add them in. Even if it's a rough translation, I can probably get enough from it to be able to search for exact details. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the Cyrus Cylinder was translated by the UN? I'm not. It seems reliable, but ote that I haven't found anything about it in the UN webpages.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either. And the fact that ONLY Iran-related websites seem to give that information is a little suspicious. The best we can do for now is remove the sentence (which I have done) until, perhaps, we contact the UN to see if they have any information. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - The Philosophy section seems a bit schizophrenic. The first sentence mentions that there is a discource named after the ruler, but it doesn't say why. The second sentence states that he is still cited as a significant leader, but not why or how this relates to philosophy. The third sentence states that Cyrus is an important historical figure, but also not why or how it relates to philosophy. The fourth sentence at least seems slightly relevent to the topic as it mentions Cyrus' influence on ideas of human rights. This section should probably be rewritten to explain how Cyrus' leadership style and personal philosophy have impacted philosophy in general. Or if that's not possible, perhaps it should just be deleted outright. Kaldari 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've combined the "Philosophy" section with "Politics" and changed some of the text. What do you think now? ♠ SG→Talk 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an improvement, although the section still reads a bit like a list of bullet points rather than a coherant section of prose (especially the last few paragraphs). Sorry to be so picky. The rest of the article seems very well written. Perhaps just deleting or rewriting the section on The Garden of Cyrus would fix it, as that paragraph seems especially out of place and without context. Kaldari 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being picky is important for an encyclopedia. I just changed some of the wording from that section to make it look less like a list. Hopefully I haven't messed it up. ♠ SG→Talk 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big improvement. The article now has my support for featured status. Kaldari 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object
The claim that Cyrus was the first to use "the Great" requires explicit and credible sourcing. There are two problems here:
Did he use it himself? It is the natural Greek distinction between himself and Cyrus the Younger; if so, it is more than a century after his time.
If the editors mean that he was the first Persian ruler called "the Great", that is far more plausible; but does not belong in the lead.
The use of the Cyrus cylinder as "the first document of human rights", without qualification, is unacceptable. As the British Museum site linked to says: "Such a concept would have been unrecognizable to Cyrus or his contemporaries."
Ascribing the institutions and stability of the Achaemenid Empire to Cyrus, rather than (say) Darius, is unsourced, and unlikely.
The sections on Herodotus are plainly original research from a primary source. Consult an annotated edition, like Rawlinson, and get back to us.
still needs proof-reading. "his son eldest son, Cambyses," leapt out at me, and it's probably not alone.
Ah, my mistake. I should have put "Persian ruler" instead of merely "ruler" in that sentence. (And there was also Yu the Great.) Anyhow, I've fixed the sentence.
From my understanding, he did not call himself "Cyrus the Great." However, in the Cyrus Cylinder, he does state: [...] I am Cyrus, king of the world, the great king, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world, son of Cambyses, the great king, king of the city of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city of Anshan; great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, king of the city of Anshan; [...] [5][6] I am unaware of when usage of "the Great" started. Regardless, it shouldn't matter anymore, as I've changed the wording. I hope it's more acceptable now.
Not much fine. "including the eventual Achaemenid Shah, Darius the Great, and Alexander the Great". The reader thinks that if they ware called "the Great" in modern times, it's because they used the title "great king". That is untrue. All persian kings uses that title. See http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/inscriptions.html. The article needs a section regarding Cyrus titles, explaining its origin and uses.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another poorly worded sentence from me. I was going to change it to title "given to" instead of "adopted by," which is incorrect. However, after Pmanderson's edits, I figured it's probably better to just remove it entirely. Shouldn't be a problem anymore, it didn't really serve a purpose anyhow. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copying exactly what I wrote above: Per the discussion in the peer review, I moved references from the intro into the other sections. Not a rule, but I seem to agree after reading this discussion. The ref is in the Cyrus Cylinder section.
I read, and quoted, the reference. It does not justify the text. Selective quotation is not NPOV. Septentrionalis 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, how about now? ♠ SG→Talk 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the introduction paragraph of "Legacy," I've changed it a bit.
You still need a source for Cyrus's institution-building. Septentrionalis 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you referring to Due in part to the political infrastructure he created, the Achaemenid empire endured long after his demise? If so, I can't really find a source for that; so, should I just nix that sentence? ♠ SG→Talk 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; unsourced material should be removed. Put a question in talk, and someone may find your source; but I doubt the world knows anything about Cyrus's instutions. Septentrionalis 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a huge mistake here. This information was not from Histories, but rather Stories of the East from Herodotus. A freely available version can be found at The Baldwin Project, ISBN 0-76618-928-7.
There is only one work by Herodotus. Like most ancient texts, it can be tricky to use. Please consult a secondary source. Septentrionalis 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Stories of the East not a secondary source? It wasn't written by Herodotus himself. Regardless, there is no account of Cyrus' early life other than that of Herodotus, except for the fictional story by Xenophon. Yes, the story by Herodotus is probably fiction as well, but it wasn't presented as such, yet we do leave a notice at the start of that section about its factual accuracy. I'm not sure what else to do with that section. ♠ SG→Talk 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Bringing Yesterday's Classics to Today's Children". OK, use it as a secondary source, NPOV, you know. But use also schollary sources, please.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let the website's slogan fool you, they don't do any research. All that website is, is a repository of REAL books which have since fallen out of copyright, thus being free to put on the Internet for others to read freely (ie. children). Anything I use from that website is a real book, probably from before 1925. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have to apoligize. --Amizzoni 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A small error; I also found one typo (Acheamenid instead ae). Other than that, I couldn't find anything — I even put it through a word processor just in case.
With all that in mind, please look over the article again and let me know if it's up to par yet. ♠ SG→Talk 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article needs more sections and a wider bagage of modern sources. The sections needed are the following: 1) Cyrus policies. 2) Religion in the time of Cyrus (his suposed zoroastrism, his polyteism, and all such subjects . 3) Ancient sources on Cyrus. 4) Sections on other subjects (Cysurs army for example, or whatever).
Regarding the "modern sources", it is related with NPOV. Most of the references are from the internet. I'd like to see more printed references to get a wider view. Cyrus is an important subject, and to get a Featured Article status, there are much to be written.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Internet sources are unreliable; and printed sources will tell you when a scholar believes this or that story from a primary source. Septentrionalis 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree here. For example, Jona Lendering is a reputable source. Just because he uses the Internet as his medium should not discredit his work; times are changing, books are going digital. Many of my sources are in fact printed books, for which I've not only provided ISBN numbers, but also links to the books available on the net. These include: The Garden of Cyrus, The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Stories of the East From Herodotus. Other reputable sources include the Encyclopædia Iranica, Jona Lendering of Livius, and any sites which footnote their information. I know this comes off as very defensive, but if there's something I'm going to defend strongly, it'll be against comments that simply discredit work because of their medium. ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I absolutely agree with SG. We live in the 21st century! Of course, Internet can be a reliable source. Britannica is on-line now! So many books are online. Jona Lendering is doing an exceptional job! How can we discredit the work of all these people?! Even Google Book is an Internet based research. Editing in Wikipedia, I found some excellent non-printed articles on-line. I was obliged to use them, because they were so good! Do not discredit Internet!--Yannismarou 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that Lendering citates primary sources. But I've another question: You say "Cyrus was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC.", but you citate no ref for this statement. I loved this article! I cannot object. But for supporting I need a convincing anwer for the lack of citation in this particular point. Who makes these estimations about Cyrus' date of birth? Anyway ... Excellent work, pal! The star is not far away!!--Yannismarou 09:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't a single source for that statement. The problem is that varying sources give either one or the other, and I've found these two years to be the most common. I've placed a footnote after that statement to clarify; it is by no means a real source, but simply a footnote explaining the sentence. ♠ SG→Talk 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have no problem with internet resources, I use them (http://www.livius.org, http://www.achemenet.com, http://www.iranica.com) and I encourage you to use them; meny of them are actually very good. But we also have to use printed sources, if we want to get a wider view, a neutral view. 2) Talking about Cyrus birthdate, I belive the existences of two dates is related with the possible identification of Cyrus I with one persian king mentioned by the Assyrians during the middle VII century. I should chek it. 3) "Cyrus the Great" is on his way, but it's still so far of a FA status. Although most of the mistakes have been corrected (and all af them will be soon, I hope), It still needs more sections, more topics to be considered, we need to read more, -I repeat- to get a wider view, we have to write a lot. --Amizzoni 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectNeutral; there have been some improvements in the writing.—1a. Here is an example, taken at random.
From the lead: "Little certain is known, however, of his actual life or reign. He is best known for the stories told about him later and by foreigners, which range from depicting him as the exemplar of a princely education, or as the fulfillment of prophecy, to earning a death of bloodthirsty arrogance. He is perhaps most remembered for restoring the exiled Jews to Jerusalem." The first two words, plus "actual", and "or", are problems. "Best known" needs a hyphen. Use "for" if he told the stories. "Stories told about him later and by foreigners"—two items, one temporal and one the agents of the storytelling, don't mix. "Range from depicting" is not right here. Avoid "perhaps", particularly in the lead.
The whole text needs intensive copy-editing. Tony 08:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur in general; but "He is best-known" would be ungrammatical. Septentrionalis 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for the past two weeks, so I haven't been able to really respond to this FAC since then. I'll be back tomorrow to patch up any issues with the article. On another note, I find it amusing that Septentrionalis wrote the second paragraph, and now agrees with Tony about it being poorly written. Make up your mind, man! (And don't take that as an insult.) ♠ SG→Talk 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like my writing better than that; and Tony's ear for idiom is not perfect. But he is right that the article could use a proof-read. Septentrionalis 02:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I've rewritten the second paragraph. It's mostly what it was before, with some minor changes. ♠ SG→Talk 08:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good - I was initially concerned about the small size of the piece. Rama's arrow 21:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a comprehensive and neutral article. Tankred 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There are far too many grammatical errors.
Eg: "While Cyrus seems to have accepted the crown of Media, by 546 BC, he had officially assumed the title of King of Persia instead."
Although the size of their area of influence is not certainly known
This account is corroborated by Babylonian, nearly contemporaneous, sources
This apparent contradiction may reflect that the war was longer
The dates of the Lydian conquest are untenable
There are plenty more.
The second paragraph of the article reads: Little certain is known, however, of his actual life or reign.
Why is the word ‘actual’ there? Needs re-writing, for example: Little is known for certain of his life and reign.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say in the next sentence.
"He is best known for the stories told about him later and by foreigners, which range from depicting him as the exemplar of a princely education, or as the fulfillment of prophecy, to earning a death of bloodthirsty arrogance."
Are you saying that what we know about his life is mainly derived from subsequent stories of his life as told by Persians and non-Persians (foriegners) alike? If so it needs re-writing.
It badly needs copy editing. Too many typo and punctuation mistakes, and in too many places it is badly written eg: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence of Cyrus’ Cylinder’.
"The cylinder reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, as early as the third millennium BC, kings such as Urukagina began their reigns with declarations of reforms, the cylinder of Cyrus has been referred to, as above, as the "first charter of human rights"; though such a concept would have been alien to Cyrus and his contemporaries." For FA status, these errors are far too prevalent and apparent. Raymond Palmer 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've made a bunch of changes. What do you think now? ♠ SG→Talk 08:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following paragraph is largely irrelevant nationalist padding and I object to it:
In the Cyrus Cylinder, discovered in the ancient ruins of Nineveh, Cyrus identifies himself as the king of Persia, where he reigned from 559 BC until his death. Under his rule, the empire entered a phase of expansion, eventually conquering most of Southwest Asia to create the largest nation the world had yet seen.
I can see discovered in the ancient ruins of Nineveh being thought of as "nationalist padding" if I were Iraqi, but noting his title, his years of rule, the expansion he started and how large his empire became during his reign is rather important. ♠ SG→Talk 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More remarks: Why did you remove my additions regarding the conquest of Media? They were sourced. Such things need to be told if you want a FA status! The article is actually too (too!) short, because Cyrus is an important matter: many people wrote many things about him, but I see little of this in the article. You don't tell anything, for example, about the capital cities of Cyrus. I reccomend you to use the Encyclopedia Iranica article about Cyrus, the Cambridge History of Iran (available in google books) and a book by Dandamaev (also in google books). It is muych to be written yet. --Amizzoni 19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove all of your additions, I rewrote and compacted them per the comments above; the writing wasn't very clear. The only addition of yours that I removed was the Herodotus section, which was extremely confusing and far too small to warrant its own section. ♠ SG→Talk 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the writing wasn't very clear, but now it is shown as a fact, in spite of it is not a fact, it's just a conjeture. I belive it is very important to tell what the Babylonian sources say about the revolt against Media, and to ascertain that they corroborate the general situation depicted by Herodotus. Talking about the Herodotus section, it isn't mine. I agree with you that it "was extremely confusing and far too small to warrant its own section". Hawever, I think it is necesary to have a section about Herodotus' Histories as a source. --Amizzoni 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject and close This will not be a good article, much less a featured article candidate, until it is rewritten. When it is rewritten, it can be renominated.
The narration of Herodotus's stories as factual is merely the most obvious example of failure to distinquish between fact, fiction, and conjecture.
The presence of the Cyrus cylinder in the lead is nationalist POV=pushing.(I've removed it, again. When it comes back, it will be met with a tag.
It still needs a copy-edit to be reduced into English. Septentrionalis 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is quite bold of you. I didn't know you could "reject and close" a nomination so easily; I suppose you meant to vote "strong oppose," which you have already done. Herodotus' description of Cyrus is one of the best sources we have. Most of what he says is backed up by various other sources, with the exception of Cyrus' early life (and it is already stated in the article that it "belongs to a genre of legends [...]"). And how on Earth is using the Cyrus Cylinder in the lead "nationalist POV?" I didn't say "the cylinder is wonderful, amazing, the best thing ever to happen since women!" It is to Cyrus II what the Behistun inscription is to Darius I. And finally, what parts need copy editing? (P.S.: It is already a good article; score one for Cyrus!) ♠ SG→Talk 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The changes you made have improved it a lot, particularly the nonsensical sentences. It may benefit from a genealogy diagram to make the relationships clearer. If you want to make a comment about the reliability of Herodotus, you could link his name in the article to a short paragraph to the 'Notes'. It is a good article, certainly better than what it was, but not a great article, and not yet FA material IMO. Raymond Palmer 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination goes nowhere! Too many disagreements! I still support the article, but I think it would be better for SG to take his time, address without pressure the concerns of the users who object and then renominate it for FA. I think this is the strategy for success. Hence, I agree with Septentrionalis' proposal for closure, but from a different point of you. I think that closure right now is in SG's interest and, most importantly, in the article's interest.--Yannismarou 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment: Good article but the lead doesn't do it justice. Can you please expand to 2-3 paragraphs? - Tutmosis 01:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old nomination was incomprehensibly long [7], and the article has changed greatly since it was first nominated. I'm restarting this nomination. Raul654 04:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except that a number of my queries, now archived, have not received a response or been addressed. Please refer to the archive. Tony 05:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. 1a (as discussed previously), 1b and c (comprensiveness and facts/references, WRT over-reliance on one source, given that the issues are likely to be debated by the experts). In addition, the "differential" frame now makes the formatting chaotic in that section. Tony 05:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Formatting problems, lots of stuff is squashed into the article and causing overlaps it seems. The Notes section is very bloated, too many long paragraphs. Do we really need every single table and graph, and also...why do we need to see both covers of David Lereah's book? , one should be enough. Its close, but these things need to be fixed first. — Wackymacs 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Pretty good, but per Wackymacs. —Jared HuntSeptember 9, 2006, 04:09 (UTC)
Object. Headlines too long. --queso man 17:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am impressed with the no. of references, and usage of The Economist, but still I don't think I can support this unless it gets at least few proper academic refs.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify this comment, please? Robert Shiller's work is considered the definitive academic work on this subject, as far as I am aware, and this article includes references to him and his work and his most famous housing price index plot. -- M0llusk 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is independently getting very high praise and pointers from professionals in the blogosphere. E.g., here is Jonathan Miller at Matrix, "Housing Bubble Goes All Wikipedia On Us,"
Wikipedia adds an incredibly thorough entry on the whole housing bubble phenomenon called United States housing bubble. Hat tip to Calculated Risk.
It lays out much of the events associated with the end of the recent housing boom. Its long, but its a good read.
Here are some of the topics:
Controversy
Mania for home ownership
Widespread belief that housing is a risk-free, growth investment
Popularity of home purchasing in the media
Speculative purchases of homes
Crash of the dot-com bubble
Historically low interest rates
Differential relationship between interest rates and affordability
Interest-only and adjustable rate mortgages
Predictions and status of a market correction
Its makes a pretty strong argument for Wikipedia as a resource.
[italics added]. I think this independent blog entry by a professional real estate analyst pretty much says it all. The article has received excellent feedback during this process, and I'd like to thank those who took the time to make suggestions before. For the remainder of the comments, I will say that before editing this article and working for its inclusion as featured, I was concerned about, frankly, the well-known Wikipedia phenomenon of editors making pronouncements on subjects with which they have very little background or understanding. It's simply ludicrous to say for in an article with over 90 references that it is overly dependent on one source (Shiller), and also that it needs "proper academic references"— it's literally filled with these. And why have sequential covers of David Lereah's book? Isn't this (painfully) obvious just from reading the section in which these appear, the captions, and the book covers themselves?
NAR chief economist David Lereah's book<ref name="Lereah 2005">{{cite book |last=Lereah |first=David |title=Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom?: Why Home Values and Other Real Estate Investments Will Climb Through The End of The Decade—And How to Profit From Them|year=2005 |publisher=[[Currency]] |url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514344/}}</ref> in February 2005.
NAR chief economist David Lereah's book<ref name="Lereah 2006">{{cite book |last=Lereah |first=David |title=Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust—And How You Can Profit from It |year=2006 |publisher=[[Currency]] |url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514352/}}</ref> in February 2006.
The one substantive objection above is a formatting one. The article does have many graphs and images that are necessary to illustrate the reality of this controversial subject, and these overlap at some browser sizes. However, they look fine and professional at the default browser sizes I've seen. Making the article scale for all sizes is outside my Wiki-expertise—if other know how this can be done, please feel free to be bold. I've added votes from the previous page below. Frothy 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — A fantastic article, to be sure (prose, references, data and presentation thereof, informative on the subject and complete, etc.). As soon as all licensing concerns with the images are worked out, I'll throw in support. Ryu Kaze 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — With the image issues taken care of, I now support for reasons given right above. Ryu Kaze 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although copyediting remains necessary. Rama's arrow 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Support" - fantastic job Frothy, and all others. I love to see encyclopedic articles about -current- events. Something only wikipedia could do. SlapAyoda 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the page is thorough would be an understatement.
It has been meticulously edited and formatted with many of the most compelling and pertinent data including housing cost and P/E analysis, charts, and discussion on the media and overall cultural factors that influenced the housing mania along with an abundance of exacting footnotes.
It is truly a living document dedicated to what may, in the end, be one of the most compelling stories of our time.
Thanks Frothy (and to the others) who have done such a superb job authoring this great Wiki page over the last nine months.
Comment: There's simply too much supplementary material. If this page is viewed at 800x600, most of the page now looks fine, but those book covers mess up the layout. Just remove them—they are adequately explained in the text. There's also the issue of using fair use images to illustrate an article that's only somewhat related (that is, this isn't the article covering the book). There's also more work to be done on the prose, though it is better. Phrases like "Little did they realize that the values of investment properties, like those of stocks, will fluctuate from time to time" aren't completely neutral. All that said, this has improved significantly since it was first nominated. --Spangineeres(háblame) 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: This article is very important and highly relevant, but at this time it is mess that is awash with concerns. Without more editing this would make a mockery of the featured article process. For starters there are still copyrighted images that are not okay to be stealing. For another the article rambles endlessly from the very start. Seriously, "actual or hypothesized" is verbal mishmash. Stop it with the bigwords and write down what it is in clear and direct prose, already. Then come questionable references to time frame and relative bubbliness of various areas without even mentioning a metric. This article needs a lot of work and really isn't close to being worthy of featured status. Furthermore, I would specifically add that the recent ripping out of references to external blogs seems wrong to me because arguably at least one and possibly several of these blogs have content that is relevant, on topic, and reasonably well edited. -- M0llusk 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Famine in Greece forms part of a less-known episode in Second World War history. And the symbol- and value-laden mission undertaken by the Turkish steamer SS Kurtuluş emphasizes this episode well. There is a documentary film, sponsored from both countries, that will be released this month in Turkey (and I presume, also in Greece) relating the ship's story and mission.
Cretanforever 17:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Too short to be a featured article & focuses on a tiny part of an interesting episode. And, it doesn't seems to really be about the SS Kurtulus, it is more about the Greek Famine. Why not make this into a more comprehensive article about the famine?--Paul 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Superficial and incomprehensive. Footnotes need to be formatted. Images need rationales. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it touches three different themes (the ship, the famine and the film) at the same time, the article (I believe) is advantaged by its conciseness (concise is the term I would use, not superficial, as the context was grave). As for a larger article on the Great Famine, (once again, I believe) if we put this article in value, it should trigger one.Cretanforever
Self nom. Well written, comprehensive and succinct. Meets all criteria. Hope it will be featured this time around. I will make every effort to address the comments made. Thanks. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. It is also well-cited and has good pictures. --Ineffable3000 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, but may support if the article were thoroughly copyedited. As of now, it contains quite a few instances of awkward or overly grandiloquent writing (""We Belong Together" was not envisaged until. . ."; "sessions. . . failed to materialize"; the parenthetical sentence in the middle of "Music and structure"; the phrase "received unanimous praise" used immediately before a paragraph about how the praise was not, in fact, unanimous; etc.). I also have two other problems: one with the bulk of direct quotations from various sources throughout the article (they would be much more readable developed into original prose with sources given); and the other with the chart information at the end (the table contains nearly twice the number of charts recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts, and the weird trajectory graph thingy borders on indiscriminately collected information). --keepsleepingslackoff! 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment→ . Fixed. The chart was cut in half and the trajectory removed. Some of the direct quotations were also worked into prose (or removed completely if they simply reiterated what I had written). The parenthesis in the middle of "music and structure" is gone, and so is the comment about the song receiving "unanimous praise". However, I havent touched "envisaged" nor "materialize." The thing is I'm having difficulty finding precise synonyms. "Envisaged" (To conceive an image or a picture of, especially as a future possibility [8]) fits right into the context of the article. So does "materialize" — unless I'm going to write, "sessions that produced the single almost failed to become real, or almost failed to happen," which is wordy. Do you have any suggestions? Orane (talk • cont.) 21:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In some sense an afterthought, "We Belong Together" was not written or recorded until late into the production of The Emancipation of Mimi." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; I stand by what I've said before: this does not in my opinion adequately cover a song that achieved such a high level of popularity. If there were subarticles, I could live with it. Everyking 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Writing is not anywhere near FA quality.
Fails 1a.Not well written (some examples):
"the song was the last record to be composed for the album." Wouldn't "track" be better? And, what is the significance of it being last?
"and comprises a modest musical arrangement," wouldn't "is" be better than "comprises"? And what does "modest" mean? Is there something special about its "modest musical arrangement?"
"at the turn of the millennium," pompus
"was not envisaged until" also pompus
"to try and outmatch previous efforts" pompus and needlessly obscure
"which, according to Carey, combines the formulae of two of her previous 1990s hits:" where's' the reference for this? What is the formula?
"Carey became limited by time constraints" might "ran out of time" or something similar be better?
"and a trial version of the song" trial version? what made it a trial version? Who did they try it out on? Wasn't it really the best take they completed in the time they had? If not, please provide a reference for it being a "trial" version.
"final syllable of the titular phrase" stilted.
Fails 1b. Not Comprehensive, it isn't illuminating. Did it have any cultural impact? Is there anything special about it, other than it was at the top of the charts? I read the entire article and still don't feel I know anything useful about the song.
Fails 4. It is not of an appropriate length. It is much too long for the subject. The article substitutes unending clouds of awkward prose for any true insight into the subject. Here is an article about a song which, though it is only one-fifth the size of the submitted article, is more entertaining and much more illuminating.--Paul 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment→ I have correct the following:
"the song was the last record to be composed for the album."
"at the turn of the millennium,"
"was not envisaged until"
"to try and outmatch previous efforts"
"Carey became limited by time constraints"
"final syllable of the titular phrase"
It may be too early to tell if the song had cultural impact. Afterall, it was released last year. However, as pointed out in the article, it was a career defining song for Carey, as it relaunched her carrer: she regained some credibility with critics and fans. There's nothing "special" per se. The subject of a featured article doesn't have to be 'phenominal' (for example, shoe polish).
"And comprises a modest musical arrangement," wouldn't "is" be better than "comprises"? And what does "modest" mean? Is there something special about its "modest musical arrangement?" Actually, no. I've researched it, and "comprises" fits: the song consists of, or is composed of... See what I mean? "Modest" means to be free from excessiveness, showiness or ostentation. As described in both "history and composition" and "music and structure" the modest music arrangement ("music" as in both instrumentation and singing) gave the song more power, because it became simple and restrained. Thats what the critics from NY Times et al said. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then is there a citation to support that the musical arrangement is "modest?" Or is this an editor's opinion, which would naturally be POV and an actionable item. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "modest." However, NYTimes, MTV and Metrotimes called the musical arrangement "simple." I didn't think that finding a synonym would border on POV. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object It's not a matter of just one word (reference "modest" because that sentence also includes the interpretive adjective "simple" with no citation of a critical review). This article won't be featured status until the Hollow Wilerding et al's stilted prose has been excised. The prose is the problem and I don't see it ever being improved over the last several FACs. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with you on that. I have made considerable effort to change/improve the prose: then — now. There is undenaible difference in the intro, "history and composition," and especially "music and structure." Unfortunately, some people refuse to see this because of the article's former connection to Hollow Wilerding. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll give you some examples of stilted, awkward, and just plain silly phrasing. I'll even throw in some structural deficiencies.
...comprises a musical arrangement built on simple piano chords, and an understated, mid-tempo backbeat. Stilted and interpretive.
As a means of insurance... What does this mean? Sounds like a Wilerdingism.
After two days at Dupri's Atlanta studio the pair composed two tracks for The Emancipation of Mimi, and Carey returned to New York; however, "We Belong Together" was still lacking. Huh?
...prominently utilized in hip-hop music.
It's unnecessary and redundant to include the Babyface and Womack lyrics after you already said they were included in the song.
...comprises a very simple and understated musical arrangement... Here we go again with "comprises" and "understated."
Do you have a reference for the song being in the key of C and 4/4? The link to the sheet music site is not acceptable because it could be a transposition. A critical interpretation would be acceptable. The citation for the last part of this paragraph does not support the musical interpretation.
...some of which have eclipsed the success of their original counterparts.
The music video...serves as the sequel to the video for "It's Like That," the first single released from Carey's album. Says who? There's no citation for this.
Critical response subsection: first sentence of first paragraph is a run-on with a comma splice.
Commercial reception subsection: The first sentence is redundant to the opening of the section.
Free downloads controversy subsection: Repeated and redundant usage of word "ascend."
Over-use of websites over trade publications for references.
These passages have existed since before the first FAC nomination. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to admit that most of what you pointed out has to do with a matter of personal taste and not with correct/poor prose. For instance:
...comprises a musical arrangement built on simple piano chords, and an understated, mid-tempo backbeat, which you called "stilted and interpretive" was paraphrased from an article by the Ny Times. The structure of the sentence of that article is nearly identical to this.
As a means of insurance... Taken in its entirety, the sentence reads, "As a means of insurance, Antonio "L.A." Reid, the chairman of Island Def Jam Records, encouraged Carey to attempt additional studio sessions with producer Jermaine Dupri." "Insurance" here means "as a means of making sure that the album was solid," or "as protection against failure...." (given that her earlier releases had failed. The mere mention of the slump in the preceeding sentences should have indicated this). There is nothing wrong with it.
After two days at Dupri's Atlanta studio the pair composed two tracks for The Emancipation of Mimi, and Carey returned to New York; however, "We Belong Together" was still lacking. The sentence means just that. After her first session with Dupri, she still had not composed "WBT," but yet, she went back to New York.
...prominently utilized in hip-hop music. You haven't commented on this. Is there something wrong with writing that an instrument is prominently utilized in hip-hop music?
It's unnecessary and redundant to include the Babyface and Womack lyrics after you already said they were included in the song. Personal opinion. Many of the articles I've read about the song include the lyrics to show when and how they fit into "WBT."
...comprises a very simple and understated musical arrangement... Here we go again with "comprises" and "understated." You're saying that an article is not good enough because it repeats two words? I'm sorry, but my writing teacher told me that it is o.k to use a word twice if it is precisely what you are looking for.
Endash punctuation inconsistent. how so?
Do you have a reference for the song being in the key of C and 4/4? The link to the sheet music site is not acceptable because it could be a transposition. A critical interpretation would be acceptable. The citation for the last part of this paragraph does not support the musical interpretation. I'll deal with these soon then.
...some of which have eclipsed the success of their original counterparts. No problem here.
The music video...serves as the sequel to the video for "It's Like That," the first single released from Carey's album. "Says who?" Says Carey. It is sourced.
I'll deal with the comma splice. However, "ascend" was used twice in a paragraph? How is that a crime?
Lastly, there are few if any "trade publications" of the song. It was a pop song released a about a year ago. I doubt that you'll find scholarly journals or text books on it; the most you'll get are magazine article. And even then, that is still an unfair ground to oppose an article.
It seems that most of your points are the result of thin reading of the article (as indicated with the "insurance" point et al), or just a difference in writing taste. At this point, I don't expect the article to pass, but I'm proud of myself.
PS: None of these problems existed at the first nomination. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did some tidying. Veltron 02:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are back, then I want nothing to do with this article. Have you no shame? Orane (talk • cont.) 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to do some tidying, since the FAC was lagging again. I have no intention on working on this horrid song's article anymore. Velten 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The writing is not of FA quality. There are many errors in grammar, diction, and punctuation. The lead is too short, and doesn't supply any context for readers who aren't Carey fans.--Fashionslide 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written article of a good length, an important topic, and I think it meets all of the Featured Article criteria. C. M. HarrisTalk to me 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Lead is too short and does not summarize article; and refs need consistent formatting. Rlevse 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the names of the headers. Otherwise the references look quite consistent to me.
No they're not. Some have prose, some are the web address of the site, and some are the site's title. Use cite php format. Lead should be 2-3 paragraphs and summarize the article.Rlevse 09:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes are not limited to just specifying references. They can include comments that for some reason don't fit in the article itself. There are also several different types of formats for referencing that are acceptable for FAs (see actuary).
But in this case they're not consistent, some are just the web address and my objection stands. They should at least be consistent-they could be consistent and they're not, merely listing the web address is unacceptable. For example, compare fn 9 to 18. Also, the lead is still unsat.Rlevse 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article has potential and is fairly good, but I would not consider it FA-worthy. Here are the problems I've identified so far:
The prose needs work. It's slightly awkward at times and there are plenty of one-sentence paragraphs. I'm working on copyediting as we speak.
There's a hidden comment inserted in coal#Composition that points out a contradiction in the description of methanogenesis. I don't know the subject matter, but it seems quite valid.
The section "Energy density" is interesting in it's findings, but it should either be condensed and included in another section or expanded. And are the tedious equations really necessary?
"Early usage" seems to suggest that coal mining before the 20th century was entirely confined to the British Isles.
Comment. An FA on Coal would be great. My concerns are: a main section on environmental issues is necessary for the topic. Also, "types of coal" should go into greater detail, and be less "listy". Regards, –Outʀiggʀ 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very well elaborated and comprehensive biography article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eacz12 (talk • contribs)
Commment You didn't do this nomination correctly, so I fixed it for you.Rlevse 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Not nearly enough footnotes/references. Rlevse 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Listed in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Poor references for her notability in the lead, only one footnote. Significant article anyway, may be should pass the GA nomination first? --Brandспойт 14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object 1c: Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations. This article does contain enough references. Karma Thief 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object You can always tell that an article is going to fail when the user doesn't even sign his own nomination. The article is barely sourced. The Filmaker 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. It falls short of many FA criteria. To start with, it has a very short lead. A good lead should summarize the whole article. Some of the sections are stubby (like etymology). The "Components" section could do with more prose (as against list) to bring out the essense of the lists. I am also greatly concerned that this article uses only one set of works (by Zarrilli) as a reference. There should be more independent sources for verifying the information in the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is far too premature too, but on the source issue - the reason the article uses only one major sources is because that is the sum of literature on the subject - it cannot be helped, so when this article does finally meet criteria, it shouldnt be judged on that. Vastu 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Agree with above objection. Also, can you be a supporter of the article if you helped write the article? It would seem that strong support was from one of the wikipedia contributors to the article. Seems like a bias toward supporting it, It would seem that various facts in the article including the different styles of kalaripayattu were in dispute in the past. Various sentences in the article will need grammatical cleanup. Kanga1 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Lead is too short, several sections are too short, most of the References are duplicates, this should be fixed. — Wackymacs 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to peer review--Peta 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - the article is short, has no citations and no inline references. --Ineffable3000 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object No references, as well as a list in the discography section. Some P.Erson 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Please remove this article from FAC and read the contents of WP:FA? carefully. To aid you, I shall reiterate some important points for an article to be considered FA. An article must have references to begin with in order to be even considered as a Featured Article. Just having a sub-section of External links is not enough. For more information on this, please read WP:REF carefully. The prose used n this article is also not quite brilliant or compelling. The article is also one-dimensional in nature as well and does not quite meet WP:V as well. The links link to mostly fan sites, which are of dubious reliability and the others link to non-English websites. More NPOV and reliable links and references are needed in this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zana Dark put the fac tag on this article, but failed to create the proper subarticle. I have done the honors.
Looking over the article, Object, no references. --DanielNuyu 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - no references --Ineffable3000 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/request: In England, is it court or Court? Also, please provide a wikilink or add a section to tell us what exactly "court" is. I've read most of Jane Austen's work but I confess to not really knowing what "being presented at court/Court" is, and this article doesn't help explain it. --kingboyk 17:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Too little information about the subject, no references, and too many redundant words. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Object. No citations. Why was debutante ball merged with debutante rather than with cotillion which is, in fact, a debutante ball? - PKM 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting topic, but I must say that I'm put off by the nation-based sectioning for Anglo-Saxon countries (and the Phillipines) while all of Latin America is dumped in one section. Describe these things with broader strokes, please. / PeterIsotalo 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by me. I believe this article really meets the criteria for a featured article. It is very organized and is sourced in many areas. The pictures are great. However, it may be overwikified, or maybe the opposite depending on where you stand. The maps are also very neatly organized and full of information. Thanks. W123 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination, listing now. RN 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to meet the criteria unless I missed something. — Wackymacs 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object.
Not "Factually accurate", for example, the state has 19 districts, but the map is an old one showing 18 districts.
Style — Citation style is not consistent.
"verifiability" —Sentences like "West Bengal has the third largest economy (2003-2004) in India. In terms of per capita income it ranks twelfth (2003-2004).NASSCOM-Gartner ranks West Bengal Power Infrastructure the best in the country" needs citation.
Needs copyedit — example - "...total valie of industrial output in India...";
See also - a template will be better.
Am working on all these points at present. Probably a peer review is better at present, followed by an FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the image in the info box is a red link too.Rlevse 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be anymore... — Wackymacs 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object there are too many instances of poor grammar, redundant word usage. Needs a thorough, cleansing copyedit. Rama's arrow 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support pending the addressing of Dwaipayanc's concerns. Rama's arrow 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Changed to Conditional support pending more copyedit, fixing of remaining issues. --`Ragib
Incomplete: The history section doesn't include a single line about Siraj Ud Dowla or the local nawabs, who were virtually indpendent of the Mughals.
"The vast majority of the population of 80,221,171 in West Bengal[32] are the Bengalis. " Reference 32 gives total population, but doesn't support the ethnic breakdown.
Factual errors: West Bengal has a long tradition in folk literature, evidenced by Maimansingha Gitika,.Maimansingha Gitika is from Mymensingh District in Bangladesh and has little to do with West Bengal.
I take back the comment on Gombhira and Bhawaiya, but keep the comment on Bhatiyali. The first two is from northern Bengal, and can be considered part of nearby districts in both WB and BD. However, Bhatiyali is a central- East Bengali folk song tradition. --Ragib 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply Yes, Bhatiyali has been removed, so is Mymansingh gitika. Instead Charyapada, Chau nach etc have been added. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a comment on the inclusion/exclusion of Bhatiyali. How does one accurately divide the cultural heritage of pre-Partition Bengal fairly between West Bengal and Bangladesh? Do we do it on the geographical basis of what is located in which region in modern times? I have no issues with Bhatiyali either ways but I think this is a curious question. Abbas Uddin Ahmed was born in Cooch Behar in undivided Bengal in what is now West Bengal but emigrated to East Pakistan until his death (which was before the formation of Bangladeshi) Yet, he is considered a Bangladeshi musician (at least according to the wikipedia article) and an expert in bhatiyali. Geographically, he is from what is now West Bengal. Likewise many bhatiyali exponents like Amar Pal and Sachin Dev Burman composed and compiled songs in this category in West Bengal, India though they are from the East in pre-Partition times. There are many Bhatiyali musicians in West Bengal with traditional roots to East Bengal. Similarly Nazrul was born in West Bengal India but became the National Poet of Bangladesh and lived in the country the last 5-6 years of his life. Do we exclude contributions of refugees and the diaspora? Just food for thought guys. :) --Antorjal 21:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong about my comment on Bhatiyali, I have to admit. I don't know that much about WB folk traditions ... I assumed that Bhatiyali was strictly limited to the Bhati region (Kishoreganj/Netrokona/Sylhet districts of Bangladesh). Banglapedia mentions this to be traditional boat song of eastern Bengal, sung in a specific mode, noted for its long-drawn notes. My comment was not based on singers, rather on whether these folk songs were traditions in West Bengal as well. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me on WB culture can throw some light on that. If, as you said above, There are many Bhatiyali musicians in West Bengal with traditional roots to East Bengal, and Bhatiyali has become part of the folk music scene in WB, we should definitely include it. Thanks for the update on this. --Ragib 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree with the omission based on the wording and use of the word "traditional". Traditionally, it IS from erstwhile East Bengal, now Bangladesh and not West Bengal and whether in the last 60 years it has been part of West Bengal tradition is beyond me. In a brief article for the sake of accuracy, it is wiser IMO not to have "bhatiyali". I was just thinking out loud about categories and classifications and how they become difficult. Anyways, it it only an aside because the article needs working on, especially in the sections you mentioned such as Flora and Fauna. Take care. --Antorjal 00:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good article. but I'd also like to have the above objections taken care of first. Some further points that need to be addressed: 1) Durgapur Asansol needs to be hyphenated. 2) All proper nouns should be wikified and stubbed. 3) Red links should be stubbed. 4) Reduce overlinking. 5) List of Districts (Zilas) in West Bengal is the wrong format and article: It should be Main article: Districts of West Bengal 6) The districts image should be placed in the subdivisions section, not the politics. =Nichalp«Talk»= 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Points (1)-hyphen, (5)-main article, and (6)-map placement — have been taken care of. Regrads.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support my only qualms were article length and redlinks, and both seem to have been or are being addressed -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article meets the featured criteria, and would like to give it a shot. My rationale:
The article is very comprehensive and factually accurate, relying on many, many sources. Some concern over the prose was lodged during its good article review, but some adjustments and changes have helped the flow, and I'll gladly make adjustments if necessary. The article also has no apparent neutrality issues, and is very stable.
The manual of style is followed. The bottom area with the discography, features, and member roll call is consistent with other band articles as a easy reference tool. The lead is concise and the proper length relative to the size of the article, and the table of contents is sensible.
Currently one fair use image, and my plan is to get a free image to replace this the next time they come to my area for a tour. The current image has no copyright issues, and I am not currently aware of a free GFDL alternative at the moment.
The size of the article is concurrent with the information available and the stature of the subject.
Comment. It seems rather short. That's not really a criticism; I can't evaluate how much WP:V material there is out there that should make it into an encyclopedic summary. It does make it somewhat difficult to evaluate. I'm tempted, for instance, to remark that the WP:LEAD is too short, but I'm not certain that it is for this article length. Is there a reason why the "Members" section is just a list, and not paragraphs of prose (see, for instance, The Waterboys)? Do we not know anything about these people? Jkelly 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list because there's absolutely nothing "verifiable" I can say about them that isn't already in the upper area, outside of the lead singer who has her own article. I can turn it into a paragraph - or outright remove it, as the information is in the paragraphs above as well as the infobox - if that's a sticking point, but, for the purposes of how we verify here, I can't do much to expand on the former bands at this point. I would like to, but it's simply not possible at this point. I thought about changing it, but I looked at Dream Theater, Marilyn Manson, Genesis, and Duran Duran and realized that there really wasn't any consistent way it was done, so I figured I'd leave it and change it if anyone had any issues with it.
Meanwhile, yes, it's short. Honestly, it's as long as I think it can get at present time given what's available for use. I checked up on some other FA's regarding length (Hurricane Irene, and, although somewhat controversial, Jigglypuff and Spoo), and felt that the length wasn't poor in contrast to the subject matter. I've bulked it up considerably over the last few months for flow in order to bring it to this status, I can't imagine going much further without making it look bloated. --badlydrawnjefftalk 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why articles must have a gargantuan length to be an FA- this article is comprehensive and referenced, which is enough, content-wise. Borisblue 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object. It's a decent enough article but is it really one of Wikipedia's best? I don't think so. The prose isn't brilliant ("tiny regional tours"? tiny??, "Elmore ended up requesting a leave of absence", "The Reputation have cycled through a number of members in their 4 year existence"). It has multiple red links. 15 references isn't much for a band's entire career, and that might explain why the article is very short. There's absolutely no mention of why this band might be considered important or notable. There's no audio samples and the article doesn't even tell us what they sound like! (indie rock covers a multitude of sins, after all). Sorry but this is way way short of being one of Wikipedia's best. I'd think twice before even giving it a GA. --kingboyk 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps surprisingly, the amount of references available for an indie rock band of their stature is actually pretty comprehensive. I've been following this band closely since their formation, there's a limited amount of useful references (useful being defined as "having something new and different to provide information with.") I can certainly try to clean up the prose a little more if you need me to, and audio samples won't be too hard to pull together (i've never really liked them, but if it's a dealbreaker...). My only real qualm with your thoughts here involve the redlinks, which I don't consider bad things and would not change, but certainly some of these can easily be dealt with, no? --badlydrawnjefftalk 10:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When The KLF underwent FAC (or some other process, I forget which) the redlinks were questioned, with the logic apparently being that new users can't create articles. So, we created stubs for the useful red links and (presumably, my memory is terrible) removed the others. It's worth doing - one of the links we filled in, Oberheim OB-8, is a decent enough little stub now :) --kingboyk 10:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for some of 'em, I can certainly do that (I won't be able to do it until Sunday, though). I think some of them are indeed useful, just not really in a position to be articles that would survive some of our processes at this very moment given what I have at my disposal. --badlydrawnjefftalk 10:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of the references are to the printed media, with no URLs provided, but they say "date unknown". If you didn't get from the web, and you don't know what date they were published, where did they come from? How can they be verified? --kingboyk 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any way of currently verifying exactly when a few of them were done, but they did get printed. I figured "date unknown" was more honest than just providing an incomplete citation or a link to what could be considered unreliable to some. --badlydrawnjefftalk 11:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But where did you get them from? A fan site? Sleeve notes? Clippings you kept but you didn't keep a note of the date? --kingboyk 11:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're reprinted on the band's website as it stands now. Somewhat interestingly, I had compiled a number of them and sent them off to the band on request, and apparently either I forgot to include dates, or the datesweren't transcribed. Many of them (for instance, the Christgau ones) I originally pulled from the main site and as able to find the actual publication dates later. Other archives, not so lucky. Without LexisNexus access or anything similar, I don't know what else to do at current. --badlydrawnjefftalk 11:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 1a. Full of redundancies and vague/unexplained wording. Here are random examples.
"the band is currently working on writing and recording their third full-length." That's how the lead ends. Full-length what? "Working on" is redundant.
"This group of musicians would tour as The Elizabeth Elmore 4, and they completed a short, not-too-serious East Coast tour." "They" is redundant. What on earth does "not-too-serious" mean in this context?
"The group continued to record some demos and complete smaller regional tours under Elmore's name, and, learning that Hulet and Root matched up with her well musically,...". Continued to do that? But you haven't previously mentioned that they were recording demos etc. "Some" is redundant. What does "matched up" mean, exactly? All a bit impenitrable. Tony 08:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I was thinking about the "brilliant prose" issue relating to this article and I think the basic problem is that (forgive my frankness but I think it will be of benefit) it's really quite boring at the moment. Unless I already know about the band there's nothing but nothing to stimulate my interest. Why are they important, what do they sound like, what influence have they had, what's happened to them good and bad. At the moment the article is basically "they're a band from Chicago, the members names are x, x and x, they went on tour, made an album" etc etc. Something of a yawnfest, sorry. I don't feel any of the rock and roll excitement reading this that I feel when I read an FA on a musician or a great piece in NME or Rolling Stone. --kingboyk 09:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just not currently sure how to fix that without venturing into OR territory. --badlydrawnjefftalk 17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object:
Article is way too short to be considered comprehensive. No discussion of musical style, songwriting, lyrical content, recording techniques, etc., etc. The entire history of the band is consists of two paragraphs; the entire discography consists of five (of which half are quotations from reviewers); and the entire tour history consists of five sentences.
If you can give me an idea of how to do so without venturing into OR territory, I'll be glad to fix this.
Article is not well-illustrated, and the sole image used lacks a fair use rationale.
I wasn't aware the image lacked a rationale. As for "well-illustrated," I'm currently lacking in free images to do so. Not sure what else to look for here.
Several instances of clumsy writing as mentioned by others above.
This is the signature article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil. It reached "done" status in Wikipedia:WikiProject Science earlier today, completing an article improvement process initiated with WikiProject Science on January 82006. The article has been prepared as a FAC in an effort to respond to a May 162006 nomination for inclusion in {{WPCD}} and an August 252006 nomination for Wikipedia Version 0.5 (see {{0.5 nom}}). -- Paleorthid 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object.Support, seems fine now. Lead section is far too short. A lot of very short, choppy sections. Wikipedia articles (in this case Biorhexistasy and Paleopedological record) shouldn't be used as references.GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Biorhexistasy and Paleopedological record are now commented out. A more encyclopedic lead section will follow. WikiProject Science can provide some direction with the various expressions of choppiness. -- Paleorthid 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved the "overview" up to expand the lead section, which I think is where it belongs, that makes the lead more reasonable in length IMHO. Walkerma 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: The sectional structure of the article has been consolidated and reorganized. The lead section has had significant information added in an effort to achieve higher prose standard. Other minor additions occurred during this process. I believe these changes fully mitigate the actionable elements of the stated objections, opening the way to address any additional concerns. The changes increased the page size to 32 Kb. If this is undesireable, please comment. -- Paleorthid 20:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Quotes should not be in italics, per the MoS.
Wikipedia articles have a lead section - which is basically the introduction to the article, to have another section called introduction, that introduces the topic is pretty redundant. Information on history of soil could be moved to a section on the history of soil science.
Soil characteristics is a weird list of topics related to soils, and is not well focussed on any one topic, and many of these topics really should be further expanded on in an article on soil - like structure and profile and soil biology/life.
The structure of this article reduces the readability of the article - I would suggest you get a soil textbook and copy how its introductory chapter introduces the topic, take a look at protein which introduces the topic well and covers the important aspects in some depth.
Consolidating intro with lead makes sense. The suggestion to move history to a seperate section is workable.
To respond to the initial portion of the comment "not well focussed on any one topic", (agree), the soil characteristics section can be organised along: soil morphology, soil functions, and other (like soil odor). This section is intended to fit the Science WikiProject's structural element What is (soil)> Properties / capabilities of (soil), with the range of values / behavior that can be observed, or significant values. The comment "and many of these topics really should be" seems to be a suggestion to improve articles such as soil structure, soil profile, and soil life, which I appreciate but wonder if I missed the point intended.
Not sure how to process this comment, in that the Science WikiProject suggested article structure is intended to enhance readibility. The SWP structure was chosen over soil textbook intro structures reviewed because it was the most encyclopedic and I don't believe the potential benefits of that structure have been exhausted yet. On the other hand, I agree that the protein article is well structured for that topic and see that it does not follow the SWP structure.
Fixed the introduction. Moved most to the lead paragraph. History and disciplines moved to new sections consistent with SWP suggested structure.
Fixed the soil characteristics section in terms of focus and readibility. Concentrated the content on soil profile, color, structure and texture (ie soil morphology).
The article is looking much better, thanks for your work. A notable ommission is a section on the formation of soil (which I would put prior to the classification of soils); there is some information on this in soil in nature, but it gets mixed up with too much other stuff there. Something like this is what I would have expected.--Peta 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biodiesel is an useful, interesting and comprehensive Wikipedia article. --Mac 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Lots of tone, formatting, grammar problems. "Environmental benefits" section has a "in need of attention from an expert" tag. Not enough inline citations. Needs a lot of work, refer to WP:PR. — Wackymacs 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. First ref doesn't appear until middle of article, there aren't enough, and they're improperly formatted. Also, portaltags are supposed to be in See also. Rlevse 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, serious formatting problems. Too many point disrupt the general flow of prose. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Action: all you can collaborate to improve the article. --82.159.136.238 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the surname and its ancient clan.
Support I will admit that this page used to be below featured article standards, but now I have improved it, I don't see why it can't become a featured article. --Footballexpert 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two of the above supports seem to be from the same person. Rlevse 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object Lead is too short, article not sufficient in depth, a one-sentence section, and no references. Rlevse 10:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - no inline references, or references at all. In addition, a one sentence section? Has room for wast improvements, but is not suited for FA at this time. Has a Peer Review been done btw? WegianWarrior 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object This article is too short. If you add some references, you should consider nominating it for Good Article instead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object. The entire article is too short, and there aren't any references. — Wackymacs 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Not up to FA quality at all. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Object Not even close to FA standards. Tobyk777 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Clearly not an FA. --DanielNuyu 06:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object - Sucks ass. I've seen some bad nominations, but this takes the prize. Where to begin? Ummm, the entire article is just not FA material. From length, to sources, to format. It's obviously a joke nomination. --Sean WI 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, looks more like a stub to me. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this? --kingboyk 11:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object. I don't think I need to explain this again.--queso man 17:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object. Way too short, and the legends section is ridiciously stubby. CloudNine 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of criticising, why don't you help bring it up to featured article standards? --Footballexpert 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Footballexpert, it seems you don't understand what the FAC process is. You come here to have it voted, everyone Objects, and you say we're criticizing. We are telling you how to get it to FA standards. Maybe you need to do your homework. — Wackymacs 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW: I unfortunately underanticipated my work load from the outside world. I recognize that this article needs a through copyedit and more references and perhaps more information. However I am not prepared for such a task at the moment and will instead focus on something smaller. I would like to withdraw this nomination from the FAC. The Filmaker 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. I've been working on this article since The Phantom Menace was promoted to FA status, having finished the prequel trilogy I decided to continue on with the original trilogy. I've written this article to follow suit in the same style as the previous articles. It was recently named a good article and has received a peer review which unfortunately did not receive much notice. Instead I decided to simply put it up for FA. It has also received a copyedit from User:Judgesurreal777. I believe that if The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 12:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
"Nineteen years after the formation of the Galactic Empire just as development has been completed on a weapon capable of destroying an entire planet, the Death Star." Is this a sentence?
"After American Graffiti debuted as the third highest grossing film of the year, Lucas received rave reviews. " Doesn't getting "rave reviews" usually mean the movie was well reviewed? And isn't the movie usually reviewed before its release? And when you say it "debuted as the third highest grossing film of the year," do you mean that on AG's debut weekend, it was already the year's top-grossing film, or was it not reckoned as the #3 film until the year was over?
"a "used universe" in which all devices, ships and buildings could be seen as having been logically built." Logically built? This is vague and hard to understand.
"Burtt ran "beeps and boops" of his own voice with an electronic synthesizer." Er, what did he do?
"According to Daniels, one of the major voice actors was impressed by his voice and recommended to Lucas that it be left in." The actor's own voice? Daniels' voice? Freberg's?
For that matter, there are no contemporary reviews of Star Wars mentioned in the article. We get no idea of what contemporary film critics thought at the time of its release.
Added Roger Eberts 1977 review. Judgesurreal777 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned by the fact that an article on such a well-known subject draws almost entirely from two sources (a DVD feature and a single unofficial website).
Comment -I would be concerned as well, were it not that the documentary is co-directed by Ken Burns, one of the most acclaimed documentarians in American history. Why have 50 different references, when you have a vast resource all in one place to draw from? Judgesurreal777 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the documentary is subject to Ken Burns' own point of view and his own decisions about what to include and exclude. This is something that fans of baseball and jazz are already familiar with, though really it is the same with any documentarian, historian, or chronicler. That's why we need more diverse sources. I admit that I haven't watched this movie myself since I was a kid (late '80s), but there are probably less than a dozen films ever made which have been more heavily written about, reviewed, probed, praised, criticized, and generally remarked upon than Star Wars. There is no shortage of material out there. Andrew Levine 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will read the rest of the article later, and make other suggestions. Andrew Levine 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have contributed to this article, and I must say it is a real treat, in that since such extensive documentation was done on this film, there is a depth of detail that is hard to top. It does the film justice. Judgesurreal777 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Judgesurreal777. -86.132.113.77 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I didn't object...lol Judgesurreal777 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha - well, whoever it was then. I oppose per the objections above. :) -86.138.100.21 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Inadequate range of references, relying entirely on the internet and a documentary. This was a major movie. What did the newspapers and film journals have to say about it? Books? It's dangerous to rely on such a narrow range of sources, as you're going to be reporting Burns's view not the NPOV. --kingboyk 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
Oppose, per above. A lack of variety in references was a point I brought up in peer review as well. The Wookieepedian 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It looks pretty good right now, but the article probably should have gone thru at least one more peer review, I think, before being submitted for FA. Definitely have to agree that using such an incredibly limited range of references is a major failing. This is an important film with a wealth of available information out there. Many other sources could be utilized for production details; as an example, Cinefantastique did an amazingly detailed "Making Of" article a few months after its release. Using strictly fan sites or Lucas-approved documentaries will only tell you part of the story. Also, the critical response section desperately needs to be greatly expanded. The film received many positive reviews at the time of its initial release, not just from Roger Ebert -- why is his the only one cited? And a mention should be made of some of the negative responses, too (such as Pauline Kael in The New Yorker or Terry Curtis Fox in Film Comment).Hal Raglan 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just as a point of fact, there was a peer review right before we submitted it. Thanks for the comments. Judgesurreal777 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object due to the prose problems mentioned above and others ("Ladd, Jr. was often scrutinized in board meetings because of the rising budget and drafts of the screenplay that was difficult to grasp."). –Outʀiggʀ 03:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. I also think there could be a few more refs. This is one of my favriote movies and I would be proud to support it in FAC. If you fix the objections listed here (without creating new ones), I will support. The article is almost there just needs a bit more work. Tobyk777 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now per prose problems; I promised to copyedit the article, and I have some free time this afternoon (and maybe even before morning classes). — Deckiller 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response While I can see the desire for a wider range of references in the "Allusions" section. It would redundant and unproductive to ask for different references for the "Production" section. The documentary the section is sourced on appeared on the 2004 DVD edition of the Star Wars trilogy. It was produced by Lucasfilm Ltd. therefore giving it George Lucas' own personal stamp of approval. Whereas film journals, news articles, and magazine articles can contain misreports or misinterpretations, or even fabrications. As a result they are more POV then Burns' film which I would consider NPOV since Lucasfilm itself signed off on it. Any references found books, magazines, newspapers, or film journals would provide the same amount of information and would be inferior unless they had been written by Lucas or someone actually involved in the production of the film. As for the prose problems, Deckiller will be my hero and copyedit it, and hopefully Thefourdotelipsis will too. I will attempt to gather more people together to copyedit the entire article. The Filmaker 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated a preference for sources that are only limited to Lucas-sanctioned production reports. This means that any contentious details, or comments from technicians/actors that don't conform to Lucasfilm's POV, would be eliminated from the article. From your response, you seem to be assuming that any other sources would not include information from people who worked on the film. The Cinefantastique article I mentioned in my original comment above is actually full of dozens of lengthy interviews with a multitude of individuals associated with the production. Its an extremely comprehensive production history article, one of the best I've ever read on any film. Because the interviews were conducted by different writers, and the article was published by a reputable magazine with no actual association with Lucasfilm or Fox, I would think its actually less POV than a self-serving Lucas puff piece. I'm not strictly pushing this one magazine; certainly there have to be many other periodicals/books that have also conducted interviews regarding this film. The problem with sticking only with very few fan-associated or press release references is that you are consequently only stuck with their inherent POV -- which in fact could involve deliberate "misreports or misinterpretations, or even fabrications". My personal view is that I can't fully trust a wikipedia article that only provides citations to a small amount of potentially biased sources.Hal Raglan 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hal's right. More sources for the information could only serve to strengthen the credibility of the article. You don't have to remove the Lucas-approved reference. Just add alternative sources to go with it. If the information pans out, there should hopefully be more than a single source for it anyway. That isn't always the case, of course, but with a subject like this, it certainly should be. It's one of the most documented films in history. By including other writers' perspectives, the NPOV factor of the article would not be compromised. Quite the opposite, in fact. It would be reinforced. Ryu Kaze 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is quite possibly the most misunderstood policy we have. It doesn't mean casting subjects in a favourable light, it doesn't mean we have to neuter articles, it means simply that we report what the "experts" (the reliable, verifiable sources) have to say without letting our own opinions get in the way. If majority critical opinion is that a film stinks, with a few dissenters, we report mostly on the majority and mention the minority opinion to give some balance . If majority critical opinion is favourable, we lean the other way. In short, a top quality article draws on as many reliable sources as possible and lets the reader draw their own conclusion. --kingboyk 08:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above. — Wackymacs 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fixed the prose problems listed above, will start looking for suggested reviews. Judgesurreal777 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Hal Raglan. Also, can you get better photos for the Cast and Production sections? The production photo is blurry and boring (a pic showing Alec Guinness just sitting there could go in any of his films) and the cast photo fails because Chewbacca is cut off. Why not use the very final shot of the film in that section?--Dark Kubrick 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. A film as important as this should have a section that deals with its influence on other films, pop culture, etc. (besides the reaction from the critics). I'm sure there are some valuable print sources that deal with this, particularly works by film and cultural historians. I ran across various references as I was writing the recently featured character articles. I can list some here for you when I have the time. Dmoon1 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination: Barely failed last time and I feel that the concerns brought up then have been addressed. --SeizureDog 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any statement in quotation marks need to be properly sourced. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The prose doesn't seem brilliant to me - it's too conversational. Try to adopt a more scholarly tone. I found a spelling error at a quick glance ("sentimentallity") so there may be more. At least one quotation isn't cited. Some of the sources are questionable at first glance. For example, Moby Games didn't look like a quality source to me but it has a Wikipedia article so I'd suggest wikilinking it's name in the reference (same goes for any other sources which have Wikipedia articles; those that don't and whose pedigree is not obvious to the casual reader ought to have a note saying why this source can be considered authoratative - see e.g. Fuck the Millennium and in particular footnote #31). You do have a good range of sources, and the makings of a good layout but the "Endnotes" section looks messy and needs cleaning. --kingboyk 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting Mobygames in the references would be like putting imdb into movie references, which we generally don't do. What's the uncited quote? As far as your dislike for the endnotes is concerned, I'm do understand exactly what you want. --SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you people are misunderstanding my use of Scare quotes. --SeizureDog 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worst game ever, worst nomination ever :P Try adding more informations. Was it released only in America? What year was released in Europe? ( if was released ), etc... KYMYK 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it was never released outside of the US. What other informations do you want?--SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To KYMYK: Are you sure of your assertions: Worst game ever, worst nomination ever. Based on your claim I presume that you are not new to wikipedia and must surely have read Wikipedia:Civility. --Bhadani 12:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the lead, I noted no less than 3 weasel words:
"It is widely considered..."
"is seen by many as..."
"is widely regarded as..."
If they were sourced, then they wouldn't be so bad. Additionally, the quotes in "Endnotes" fail to cite from where they are derived, making their usefulness as references questionable at best. The gameplay section is almost entirely uncited (I know this is a pain, but it is becoming standard procedure), on top of being somewhat bloated. Finally, the "In popular culture" section is written in trivia section style. I recommend finding more people interested in the subject matter to help out with the article—collaboration on a strange and somewhat obscure subject such as this can go a long way. JimmyBlackwing 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are sourced, but in the "Critical response" section (btw, those are actually WP:Peacock words). The entire gameplay section is referenced by the instruction manual. There's no point in adding the same cite to the end of every sentence. And what are you talking about? The quotes very directly state what they are quoting from. The popular culture comment seems like a mere stylistic concern. --SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize. I missed the sourcing on the quotes. However, the things I listed are indeed weasel words (compare the examples in "WP:AWW" to those of "WP:PCK"), even if the article has a peacock term problem, as well. Bulleted lists are normally frowned upon - I've seen objections based on "listiness" alone. JimmyBlackwing 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Support the article looks good to me. igordebraga≠ 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, based on the poor grammar, prose and general writing quality. — Wackymacs 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per Wackymacs and Jimmy. Tony 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To lick the text problem, try printing out a hard copy and manually editing it. You might also just paste it into Word. It helps put things in perspective, and the fat just melts away. --Zeality 01:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very informative, great examples, written in a very professional viewpoint and style, great layout. I'm surprised it hasn't been a featured article in the past, really. 64.135.205.238 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object a decent article but the way it uses referencing is insufficient. It should use ref tags or inline cites etc.. Too many links. RN 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Waaaaay too many examples and links with basically no refs. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 13:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object ref not in proper format and all the samples make it look more like a manual. Sumoeagle179 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, the history of ASCII art does not seem to be explained. Too many examples, not enough references. Needs some cleanup too. Refer to WP:PR. — Wackymacs 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough references. That's the first thing I check for. Add a few, and maybe submit it to GAC instead- I'm looking for something like 40, not 6. --01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What's "GAC" -- please don't use acronyms without explaining or linking them to whatever. Neale Monks 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Added some more references. I think 40 is a bit over the top for a relatively simple article, but there are now 15 paper references and 11 online ones.
Object "Halfbeaks in aquaria" is unreferenced.RN 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ironic I hadn't done this -- a magazine published an article of mine on halfbeaks in aquaria just last year!
It is actually pretty good and reads like a real encyclopedia article. There are still some cites that need to be cleaned up but I'll try to get most of those. A couple more paragraphs might need a citation to be on the safe side which I'll mark as well. RN 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the empty references. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Lead seems too short, Notes section should use a smaller font (for example see Belton_House#Notes). Would be nice if the red Genera links could be fixed before this becomes FA. In the "Halfbeaks in aquaria" section, there are many references that should be put into <ref> form with the proper templates for formatting like the other notes that already exist. — Wackymacs 09:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done some of the genera, at least turned them into stubs. Will do the rest when I have the motivation. Flu getting the better of me now, I'm afraid! Neale Monks 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the ref-related stuff should be taken care of now. Basically what is left is the lead, whose subject I am unfortunately unfamiliar with. RN 10:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Neale the lead is based off of WP:LEADRN 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will go back and re-write it. Sick with flu at the moment, so not much else to do! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC) PS. RN -- thanks for your help; even if this doesn't become a feature article, it looks a lot better now![reply]
Comment This article is now a Good Article. All the flaws listed above have been fixed, I think, with the exception of the fact that some of the genera listed in the taxonomy box remain empty articles. So please, go back, look through the article, and see what needs work. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even monsters have to eat...and der Führer could be very picky on the matter of food. Here is a very well writ, well referenced, comprehensive and illustrated piece on history's most notorious vegitarians. I truly enjoyed this article, and believe it fits the bill of fare for an FAC,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is far too short, it has a trivia section, and it should probably talk about those crazy proscriptions for his stomach troubles that Hitler's doctors had him on. Raul654 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead can be expanded for the mainpage. It seems to mention quite a bit about Hitler's digestive drug cocktail. Though there, we would be in some danger of wandering off topic into the realm of "High Hitler";>, which is another article unto itself--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Lead is too short, it does not summarize the article. The image with Bormann's children has an obsolete tag, it needs to be fixed; and you may want to review the tags on the other images.Rlevse 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object strenuously. That's some really badly structured interesting material. The article consists of one section, all in choppy little paragraphs, plus a two-line lead. Oh, well, plus a trivia section, but that should obviously be got rid of. No trivia sections. I remind the nominator that a FAC is supposed to meet the Featured article criteria when it's nominated, not have them stuck on when it's about to hit the main page. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Self-nomination Me and a few other editors have done our best to improve this article. I worked on making it abide by the style guldelines, and more importantly, WP:FA? as best as possible. -- Selmo(talk) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work bringing so much info together. Thoughts:
Refs are simply listing the article title, which is insufficient. Consider using {{Cite web}} and similar to break out relevant information; the talk page details usage.
The Trivia section with very stubbish sub-sections needs to go. The material itself can still be incorporated elsewhere, but not as it is.
The TOC comes close to being overwhelming. Do you really need to employ level fours in the Arts and culture, for instance?Surely, "Flora" and "scenery" don't both require a section.:* "Social fabric" as a headline? Perhaps make Demographics the main level two.
The info box may also be bloated. Looking at a couple of other city FAs, political representatives beyond the mayor aren't typically listed. (Is there some standard we have in this regard?):These are basically "macro" points. I'll try to look more closely at the prose later. Cheers, Marskell 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I used to live in Vancouver and I feel like this site represents the city well. It has good detail and is visually appealing because of all the beautiful pictures of the city. --Midnight Rider 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The prose needs a thorough copy-edit (1a). The lead needs to provide a satisfactory introduction (2a); the inclusion of trivial details such as the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone thing—a whole paragraph—and the coverage of film production at the start, where there are no pointers to the origins and history of the city, works against this (?). There's an apparent obsession with ranking the city against others in many parts of the article, which becomes tedious after a while. Rankings often do not say much. There are lots of stubby paragraphs. The section on "Economy" is far from comprehensive (e.g., unemployment is a significant problem, but goes unmentioned) (1b). And a small point: if the English pronunciation is shown at the start, why not provide the pronunciation in the other official language (Vongkoovair). Tony 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Presumably, your "Vongkoovair" suggestion was not serious. If it was, the answer is that this is English Wikipedia.:>) Bobanny 17:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Ref format still not consistent. First two subsections of Arts have no refs at all and much of the Architecture section has no refs. Refs come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. Rlevse 10:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make it conform to WP:FN (footnotes go after the punctuation)., thanks to User:Icey! :) Candamir 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spellcheck the whole thing, esp. references section., addressed by User:Danaman5 (thanks!) and me. Candamir 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise image contents in the caption (this is a common problem across Wikipedia, let's change it!), I hope it's better now, and you're right, many WP pages present this problem... Candamir 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to cross them out as they're being addressed, and don't shoot me if I come up with further comments later on. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This article needs to have more history of kernel development. Right now, it doesn't contain a single mention of Microsoft Windows, the most prevalent modern operating system. Does Windows not use a kernel?
I have copyedited the article, and fixed some wording issues. --Danaman5 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to Support, concerns addressed. --Danaman5 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to objections. Thank you, User:Danaman5 for copyediting and spell-checking. I also added one more section to the history part, containing a description of the modern situation, mentioning Win, Mac and Unixoids as well as the osdev community. Please express any further concerns you might have. Candamir 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns. I have changed my above vote to support.--Danaman5 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment on the Windows issue. The article says:
The modern, NT-based line of Windows is generally considered a hybrid kernel. However, it is closed source and distributed under the terms of the Microsoft EULA, a proprietary license.
The last sentence leaves us in doubt as to what the license has to do with the kernel architecture. I assume the sentence is meant to hint that we don't know any details about the NT kernel. If, for instance, the architecture of the kernel considered a trade secret by Microsoft, this might be worth mentioning. Thanks again. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object "Modern Kernels" issues
As of 2006, Microsoft Windows dominates the end-user market for operating systems with little space left for alternatives like Mac OS and various Unix-variants, such as Linux or *BSD.
"with little space left"? This is awfully sensationalist and a mostly pointless aside at best, and at worst it is a biased take on how Microsoft is somehow forcing others out of the market. A suggestion would be shortening it to something like "The NT kernel, the current dominating kernel" with better english .
The modern, NT-based line of Windows is generally considered a hybrid kernel. However, it is closed source and distributed under the terms of the Microsoft EULA, a proprietary license.
"However"? What does this have to do with the previous sentence? Also, it assumes that kernels must be open source, which is a heavy POV!
Also, as a request it would be nice for it to elaborate a bit more rather then just labeling each kernel "hybrid", "monolithic" etc. as that doesn't seem that informative :). RN 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to objections: I completely rewrote the Windows part of that section and slightly modified the other parts, hoping to achieve NPOV... Do you think I should further explain the architectures of those kernels instead of just declaring them as hybrid? Candamir 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If at all possible - it would really add to it. IIRC MS originally claimed NT was a microkernel - maybe if possible try to sum up the relations in a sentence or two (difficult job but at least an overview of what major traits it takes from each structure would help). Anyway, thank you very much for clearing those things up! RN 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to objections: Now I added a phrase describing a little bit of the NT kernel and also mentioned how XNU was originally created. Hope it meets your expectations. Candamir 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You are doing a great job! I read through the article a couple more times, I think I am starting to see a problem though - and that is that DOS, Early Windows, and Classic Mac arn't mentioned at all. For example, it delves deeply into Unix, but one is left with the question on whether DOS or [classic] Mac had a kernel at all or what kind, yet the article mostly assumes having a kernel is the norm (I'm deliberately being ignorant here :)). I don't know if each of the two needs three paragraphs on it, but I think people are going to have those questions and they are probably essential to the article. If it were me (and this is in no way a requirement - please use your own judgement :)) I would make a seperate section for early mac/windows there and just touch on it. Thank you :). RN 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to objections:Added paragraphs on Mac OS and Windows... Candamir 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not as deep as I thought but it is great as an overview! Thanks again :). RN 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ran the auto peer review script and pasted the results on the talk page. Can you fix and or verfiy those and strike through when done? Also I know it's probably imposible to have a generic kernel structure picture but if one could be created for the upper right it would really help out. -Ravedavehelp name my baby 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and this may help make a slightly dry subject more intersting [9] -Ravedave(help name my baby) 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the link you provided, but IMHO it contains more information on how to make jokes in texts, and while I truly approve most of what he says in there, I don't think if it fits for an encyclopedia... Candamir 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section could use more dates. Also working in apple's OS where it belong could help as it has been one of the most used OSes for quite a while. Also maybe the page should be re-arranged. The history section is very interesting and might do better at the top. Overall a good article though, I will definitly change to a support once some of these things have been addressed. -Ravedave(help name my baby) 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to objections: The problem is that the history section is based on the knowledge of the kernel design approaches section (readers won't know what a microkernel is if history comes first). Thus, I ask you to reconsider your position about this issue, but of course I'll change it if you convincingly argumentate against my point. Candamir 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point takn. The Image adds alot, thanks for making that, overall its better. Everything seems to be addressed execpt for the lack of dates in the history section. There are 4 dates in 10 paragraphs. At the very minimum the beginning should talk about *when* the concept of a kernel started. Did it start in the 40's with the ENIAC? The paragraphs go in chronological order so just throw a "in the 19xxs...blah blah blah" -Ravedave(help name my baby) 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. this article is not aware of the academic status of the subject. For instance it assumes the modernity of an architecture based on hierarchical privilege levels (as Supervisor mode), while academic research on computer architecture replaced this outdated technology many years ago (see for instance the bibliography of capability-based security), showing that it provides both poor protection and poor performance.--BMF81 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made some changes so the article no longer suggests that all kernels use virtual addressing or pre-emptive (as opposed to co-operative) multitasking. I would like those to stay. Otherwise the article is a concise introduction to the subject. If it doesn't make featured status, I will happily promote it to good article status (just message me). Cedars 11:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a pending tasks list in the talk page.--BMF81 13:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object again. I've just had a look at the todo list on the talk page, and it is clear that this article has a lot of potential that isn't currently realised. If any of the points have already been addressed, maybe this can be indicated? I think it would be a shame to have this article go up on the front page before it's reached that potential. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MY GOODNESS that is a great todo list... Acedemically it isn't as deep as it could be and in referencing as well. However, it is reasonably comprehensive and sets out what it is trying to achieve in an article on kernels for a general audience. Taking those things into account one could very well be looking at a seperate article entirely - one more focused on being a reference work. While it is a very enticing proposition, the current article presents a readable overview on an otherwise difficult topic. RN 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is very technical subject, one of the core topics of CS; don't you think that we would give a poor image of wikipedia if we present as its best work something that is not academically relevant?--BMF81 03:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I commented last time on the large-scale and irritating use of "in order to". Just why you think it's necessary write three words when one will do is a mystery. Tony 13:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this is sometimes done where the use of "to" – which can take various meanings as a preposition as well as preceding infinitives – is ambiguous. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object unfortunately. The referencing is still inadiquite in places (I put some fact tags a couple days ago...) and I agree with BMF81. If there was ever a case for good article, this would be a decent one :). It is such an important article which I encourage the editors to keep working on, because they are doing a really good job on a tough subject :). RN 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article now has cited references, and explores many aspects of the topic in detail with many images. Personally I think it is well-written too. Chris1219 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking very tidy, but I think there are a few things that need to be addressed before this is FA quality. None of them are too major though.
The main problem here is that entire sections lack references/inline citations. Even the sections that contain the odd citation still contain various statements that should be verifiable. Pulling one example at random: "The filmmakers, however, admitted that the story of The Lion King was inspired by the 1942 Disney animated film Bambi, Joseph the Dreamer and Exodus from the Bible, and William Shakespeare's Hamlet."
The number of fair-use images is excessive. I normally don't comment on images, but I think we're really pushing it here. Try and use only images that strictly help the reader to understand what is being discussed.
I trimed a few album covers and coverted that section to prose. Jarandawat's sup 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections are frowned upon. Please merge any worthwhile material into appropriate sections.
The list of titles in different languages needs to go. I'm not even sure this is worthy of another list article.
Some sections contain only lists or tables. Supervising animators, Songs and Awards sections suffer from this. If the sections are really necessary (and two of them probably are), then please work some discussion into this or merge them into other appropriate sections. For Supervising animators - Why is this is important? what they did, how they did it etc.
Maybe a quick copyedit from someone not familiar with the text? I'm not the best judge when it comes to grammar/spelling but I did notice a few things. Eg. "Nala, voiced by Moira Kelly as and adult and Niketa Calame as a cub."
Several wikilinks are duplicated. Please remove duplicates.
That's all I've got for now. Other than the lack of cites, nothing too major, so most of these shouldn't be too much of a problem to address. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 11:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comments. Trivia and Title in other languages should be dealt with. Very listy, with too much unencyclopedic content. Weasle words (generally, etc.). And, not well-cited. Sandy 11:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images need fair use rationale 216.189.165.232 00:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've fixed most of the minor problems stated above, and somebody has also removed the "Title in different languages" section. Chris1219 10:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I struck off a few things, including the concern that some sections were only lists. I still think that, overall, the article is very list heavy though and should be addressed. darkliight[πalk] 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Here's my overview:
The plot summary in the lead is one sentence, and, even for a lead, just seems way too general for me. At the very least, there should be a mention of Scar and Mufasa.
The "Production" sections is lacking in several areas. The first two sentences of the first paragaph need citations, and the third sounds like a POV statement to me. I have a feeling you could expand on the use of computers with the animation. What is multiplaning, and how is it like Bambi? Also, does the DVD have any information regarding the writing of the script, casting, release, etc.?
The plot section could greatly benefit from a copyedit and removal of POV sentences ("After Mufasa departs, Rafiki advises Simba in a particularly memorable moment.") It is also overlong because of a little too much detail. I would trim it to a little more than half its size now.
I'll let someone else to that part, I agree it does need an trimming. Jarandawat's sup 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Reaction" has no critical opinions whatsoever. The box office performance table should be converted to prose, or maybe just deleted, since it repeats information in the same section. Awards is so small that the heading should be taken out and it just merged into a paragraph.
Merged the Awards section, and added an opinion by Roger Ebert Jarandawat's sup 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Cast" section is very good, with a nice image. My only quibbles are the two sentences in Scar's and Mufasa's entries; they're obviously trivia, get rid of them.
"Music" just feels like there could be more there. Also it needs citations for sentences like: "Many critics felt this played a crucial role in establishing the grand mythic tone of the African story."
Well I removed the minor songs section as unnessarry. Will try to work on this later, as I think this article should be an FA, still needs much work. Jarandawat's sup 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sequels and spin-offs" is okay too, although: "Next, a direct-to-video sequel called The Lion King II: Simba's Pride was released in 1998, focusing on Simba's daughter Kiara. However, as revealed in the book set The Lion King: Six New Adventures, Simba and Nala's new-born cub at the end of the first film was a son called Kopa. This means that Simba's Pride completely disregards Kopa's existence, and replaces him with Kiara." Duh.
"Home video":
It says the VHS edition contains a "certificate of authenticity". Why's that included?
It also says the Laserdisc edition has a director's commentary the VHS didn't. I don't think most VHS tapes have them, so this is not notable.
The last paragraph needs citations, and seems to contradict itself with "The DVD was also the first to include an optional Disney Enhanced Home Theater Mix for the film's soundtrack, and received great response from consumers."
For the "Soundtrack and other albums" part, split the track lists into subarticles, and remove all the album cover images.
Done, I kept one album cover though. Jarandawat's sup 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the article's talk page has a failed featured article nomination link, but apparently that failed nomination and this one are exactly the same thing (including my comments). I think you would have to remove the Failed FA Nomination box, since that never seem to have happened. --Dark Kubrick 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the one that failed. When the new FAC began, it must have been linked to instead because it now has the same page name as the original. Ryu Kaze 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nomination and also a re-nomination. As I stated previously, I believe that this article should be featured, as it is very stable, contains relevant images, and is referenced. It also has already been given the status of good article. Since, it was last turned down for nomination, I submitted it for a peer review. It mentioned a few ways to improve the article, which I have done, such as having made the article being less of a list. I also followed the adivce given by the previous nomination, however there is very little in the way of other reviews of the webcomic. There does not really appear to be much a source that reviews webcomics. However I did include a section about controversy. ISD 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the external jumps need converting into footnotes.Rlevse 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the extermal jumps and how do I convert them? ISD 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
external jumps look like [10] and you put them in standard footnote, preferable cite php, format.Rlevse 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've now corrected them. ISD 08:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Lack of any sort of reaction or response from sources not originating from the comic itself (or its creator). The bulk of the article describes information found only within the world of the strip. Every single reference given is to a strip from the comic, or to an interview with its creator. There are no reviews from newspapers or from major comic websites; that no such reviews exist makes it hard to get a handle on how signifcant or well-known the strip is. This sort of thing is necessary for completeness and perspective; otherwise, it is as if the article's subject exists in a vacuum. Andrew Levine 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a nice article about an important person in history. I contributed some of the text and pictures. Steve Dufour 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no in text citations, few reference materials, rather short, too much listing... I didn't read the whole thing but those things jumped out at me right away. He was a relatively important man and I think there is much more information on him that would satisfy the "comprehensive" requirement. grenグレン 01:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. Maybe the article needs some more contributions. I did cite a couple of books in the text. Steve Dufour 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, I'd love to see this an FA as I admire him, but I mostly agree with gren. Also, the quotes need to be footnoted. Rlevse 10:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will footnote one now and the other when I get the book back out of the library. Steve Dufour 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unreferenced, and very listy, almost no actual content. Sandy 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it is not ready to be a featured article yet. How do I remove it from nomination? Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by ACEO (talk·contribs) (who placed these comments on Talk:Creativity): This is one of the better articles on psychology that I have seen in Wikipedia (and my job, incidentally, is to teach and research psychology, a subject in which I have three degrees). It is well-written, comprehensive, and factually accurate.
Comment: I haven't yet read through the article, but after scrolling down I noticed the image of the brain in the "Creativity in psychology" section. What use is this image serving? Most people know what a brain is or looks like, so I would remove the image or replace it with a better one. Although I don't know if an image like this exists or can be made, one could be highlighting areas of the brain that involve or are thought to involve creativity.--Dark Kubrick 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only use the picture serves is illustrative. There are some theories in the neurology of creativity section about specific areas, but it is certainly beyond me to produce a graphic highlighting these areas. If anyone else can, they are welcome, but in the meantime I suggest we leave this picutre for its illustrative value. BrettRob 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to a more relevant one showing the frontal lobe. BrettRob 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As someone who has spent a fair bit of time editing this article, I would love to support its nomination for FA. However, looking at it objectively, I think there are a few things that need to be done before I will be happy:
The Creativity in Art & Literature section is important, and should be expanded (based on referenced material!). The article is meant to be on Creativity in all its forms, but there is currently too much emphasis of psychological/cognitive perspectives. Some mention of creativity in music would also be appropriate.
The History section is currently based on only one book. The book (which I have not read) seems comprehensive, but is perhaps a little biased towards the author's Polish nationality, and is mainly about aesthetics rather than creativity. Other sources should be used for balance. Fixed. The section now has 3 sources and more frequent inline citations. BrettRob 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Neurology of Creativity section (also based on one source) is probably too long for this article. I would prefer to see it shortened, or moved to its own page with a summary here. I have drastically shortened (and moved) this section and hopefully made it more accessible. BrettRob 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - There's some language and phraseology issues that, while they'd work well in a textbook meant for instruction, work less well in an encyclopedia meant for reference. Additionally, the article could use a lot more references, which would likely help clear up the phraseology problem too. Here are two examples that jumped out at me:
I don't think I'd agree that it needs "a lot more references". A few more in the right places, certainly, but wouldn't a lot more would be overwhelming for casual researchers? BrettRob 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*"It is fair to say that without creativity, human beings would have remained in a palaeolithic existence." - Says who? Fair point, removed this para. BrettRob 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*"...it is useful to explicitly distinguish between creativity and innovation." - Says who? Added inline citation. BrettRob 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides thoses, there are long passages and sections without a single inline citation. This makes referencing facts found in wikipedia very difficult, for, say, a college student doing research on the subject. He can't reference wikipedia himself, he has to go to the sources wikipedia referenced. An FA should make this as easy as possible. Fieari 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The worst sections are the ones I mentioned above - Creativity in Art & Literature, History of Creativity, and Neurology of Creativity. Each of these sections is based on only one reference. I'll be working on this. BrettRob 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not necessarily prepared to oppose on this basis but the article strikes me as a bit of a mish-mash with little coherent organization. Much of the article appears to be a list of instances in sources where creativity is mentioned, e.g. we jump from a discussion of "creativity and madness" to creativity in industry and so on. This makes the article very disjointed, for instance the section "creativity in organizations" is just a fact that is thrown into the article, with nothing to provide a bearing as to the importance of this fact, its bearing on the rest of the article, or the reaction of other scholars. The article in general seems to be a large list of individual facts rather than an article presenting a comprehensive picture of the topic. Christopher Parham(talk) 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points. I have tried to address them by moving the sections around a bit. It is difficult to give the Creativity in Various Contexts section a more logical flow, because the different contexts have been studied very seperately and it is difficult to find unifying themes. I have tried to explain that fact with a few introductory sentences at the beginning of the section (so that at least the reader is aware of why it seems so disconnected). I will keep thinking about how to improve this. BrettRob 06:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Unrelated to the point above, on which I think you've made a good start, the last large section of the article is paraphrased very closely from the source article, [11]. This section urgently needs to be rewitten in original language. Christopher Parham(talk) 06:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. BrettRob 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object at this time. I have a lot for respect for people who undertake to edit such a nightmarishly large and slippery subject, and I'll leave content commentary to people who have studied it. Though I do have a few unformed doubts, especially of unlucky generalizations like "Renaissance men had a sense of their own independence, freedom and creativity" — what, all of them? And it's not proper these days to leave the Renaissance women altogether out of the story. But mainly, I have some more superficial points:
Accessibility: the level of difficulty is uneven, with strikingly varying expectations of the reader's background knowledge. The image captions seem aimed at, uh, the very young or something like that ("Leonardo Da Vinci is well known for his creative works"), while for instance the final paragraph is highly academic. It begins "The findings of contemporary neurology regarding the nature of creativity provide a physical substrate for manifestations of a paradigm of paradigms concerning creativity — concerning innovative thought — based on recombinant conceptualization". If the italicized phrase at the end is important, it should be explained, or linked to stubs created for the purpose, and well, I feel stupid today, but what does "paradigm of paradigms" mean?
Absolutely agree. Fixed the whole last section, which I think was the worst offender. BrettRob 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Style: there are concrete problems with the prose, which needs to flow better. The paragraphing is choppy, with lots of one-sentence paragraphs, the section "Neurology of creativity" being a disaster area in this regard. I don't think a drive-by copy-edit would solve this problem very constructively, or I'd try to help. There's also some awkward phrasing. "Creativity is regarded to have occurred when there takes place the production of a creative product" — ouch — "In Rome, these Greek concepts were partly shaken", " both the Greeks and Romans had no words..." (= "neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any words..."), etc. I'll try to help on this issue.
Thanks for your edits. I need some help with this. BrettRob 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images: it's very difficult to illustrate this subject, no doubt. The images selected frankly don't "illustrate" — throw light on — the sections much. (And, again, I don't admire the captions — the one on Newton is OK, the others not so much.) When you say above that the brain image is purely "illustrative", no it isn't, I wish it were — do you mean it's purely decorative? Bishonen | talk 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed. I have replaced the brain with a more informative picture. Any specific suggestions for the others would be welcome. BrettRob 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the above points, which were well taken as potential objections to make the article about the possibility of work on creativity. Having just re-read the article, I can see how it still requires some further development, but I think that it might not be too long before this particular paper can become a Featured Article. My responses to the above would be:
1. I shall respond to the person who mentioned the brain picture first. BrettRob, thank you for putting in the image which displays the frontal lobe, as this does mean that this image is informative, and remember, appropriate images where appropriate is a quality of featured articles.
2. One of the objections was that perhaps there is too much focus on psychology, but I might be a little biassed here, as my background is in psychology - also, I did think that readers of this article might primarily be interested in psychology. In fact, I was quite struck by how this was not exclusively on psychology, covering grounds such as economic creativity. Some one called for a case for musical creativity to be considered - that point is well-taken, and there is a lot of literature on the psychology of music, with journals wholly devoted to this subject.
To contrast your psychological viewpoint, have a look at this comment on the talk page (I sit somewhere between the two of you in my opinions). Consider how important creativity is to artists, writers, musicians, etc. The current section on this topic is inadequate and unreferenced.BrettRob 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. There was a call for this article to be better structured and more coherent (I am using to seeing loosely structured pieces in undergraduate essays!) I think that its current re-organization is not too problematic, except for one thing. Its introduction is arguably too long, and arguably, it still needs a more precise summary of what is to follow at the start of the article.
4. Within psychology, I do think that this article does cover a good range of ground, but I still note some omissions. There is nothing, for example, on age and creativity, and how older adults may still engage in creative work. I also felt that the section on madness and creativity could have covered more ground, looking, for example, at reduced lateral inhibition in psychotics as a possible reason as to why some psychologists have linked creativity to psychosis. This would give the article more scope for bringing this section into greater correspondence with the neurology of creativity section, thus making the article better and less incoherently structured.
Thank you, BrettRob, for all your hard work on this article. I seem to recall contributing to the bit about Wallas in this paper. My only remaining comments are that I think this article needs:
(a). A section dealing with the relationship between intelligence and creativity;
(b). Some greater cognizance of the work of Robert Sternberg.
That done, I wonder whether we might be there? Thank you again for all the comments that my nomination aroused. ACEO
Thanks, ACEO and everyone. This will serve us well as a to-do list moving forward. I would like to encourage anyone who has the knowledge and the time to help out - I can't really give much more of my time to this in the short term. Particularly as it is so close (in my opinion) to making it as a FA - just a little more effort should get it over the line. BrettRob 00:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object at this time, for all the above reasons. (just to make it formal) BrettRob 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It gives a nice, clear picture of a pioneer band, their whole history from the beginnings to present day, there are also photos in it from the different eras. It gives an explanation of their unique genre, their fans, it gives a complete discography with studio, live, compilation albums, EPs, singles. Each album has a very detailed page too. The article names its sources, provides many links to look for further information on the band.
Gocsa 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is inspiration to us all. I was recently sent to the website from TweakGuides.com and this aricle could help many people. This website is dedicated to the people of the internet. It informs websites of what they are doing that is bad for everyone. They are so powerful that when AOL 9.0 was reported to them, AOl even responded. This article is very informative. Please send in you support.
Zrulli 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This nomination seems to be more concerned with the subject matter than with the quality of the article. The article is far too short, not comprehensive, and has no references. --Danaman5 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Not even close. Look more like an ad than an encyclopedia article.Rlevse 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose — For the reasons given above. This is nowhere near ready. Wikipedia isn't a help site: it's an encyclopedia. Phone listings are very helpful too, but that's not part of our mission. Please consult the featured article criteria before placing a nomination. Rlevse took the words straight out of my mouth: this seems more like an advertisement than anything. Ryu Kaze 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom: I've worked on this article since June 2006, and I believe it currently offers comprehensive information about all three GayFest events that have been held. Even though not as long as other FACs, I have included all possible information about this event without going into trivial details. I have consulted numerous media sources, from different points of view, and the well-referenced article hence offers balance about an event that has been somewhat controversial. Ronline✉ 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Comprehensiveness. Who organized it? Why? What about news coverage? It could also use some more background information. Furthermore, while the article mentions (too briefly, in my estimation) the slogan and purpose of each of the conventions, it never follows up with the actual impact had, if any. I'm sure that an event for a controversial topic has more to say than just this... Fieari 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from the article (mentioned multiple times) that the GayFest is/was organised by ACCEPT, with the support of other organisations, which are also named. The reaction of various groups, including the media, is also given, including quotations, etc. As to the impact of each parade, the fact is that the immediate impact was quite negligible (like most gay pride events, actually). Other than a few comments from political parties about same sex marriage (which I have now added), the impact of the parade was mainly just to do with raising public awareness. In 2004 and 2005, there was no substantial public debate after or during the parade, it was only in 2006 that more attention was given to same-sex marriage (and I have now included this). I am wary, however, of duplicating information found in Same-sex marriage in Romania.
In fact, the point of the GayFest isn't so much to fulfill a clear political aim in each event, but rather to raise awareness and to express gay pride (like most LGBT pride events in the world). As to background information, I would like to include more information about the pre-2004 context of gay rights in Romania (since before 2001, Article 200 was in force, banning gay prides). But, where would such information be placed? At the end of the article or at the start? Thanks, Ronline✉ 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd place it at the beginning, under the header "Background". Could be useful context for understanding what follows. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dread saying it, as it would require restructuring, but with each of the large sections dealing with individual annual events, this article would require substantial expansion every year, forever (hoping, of course, that Wikipedia and the human race last a long time). I'm wondering if the main text should be moved to a History of GayFest with this one left to cover common themes among each event. Also, why reverse chronological order? CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute? 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed new information would have to be added every year. I think there will be people prepared, myself included, to do that. I have reversed the order, so that 2004 is first and 2006 last, so that we can have a Background section. I initially favoured the reverse chronological order because it made sure that the most recent event was read first (particularly since the 2006 section was the longest). I have also added a new Background section, which talks about the pre-GayFest context in Romania. Ronline✉ 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's good, but I don't think it's yet enough of a standout to be featured. Great picture, by the way. More on press coverage (especially domestic coverage) would be good; I imagine that it has annually been the occasion of quite a bit of editorializing. I'd also perhaps be more specific on the slogans of the counter-demonstrators. (I think for now the year-by-year approach is fine, but I suspect that 2-3 years from now we'll want to revisit that. But that's a long way away.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating my alma mater. It was an awesome university and this page looks very well done.
So good FAC candidate.
Mercenary2k 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Only one ref and contains external jumps. Rlevse 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Too many lists, insufficient references. Darkcore 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object little or no referencing. RN 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Information is not exactly expansive, and a single reference within the article is not enough. -- mcshadyplTC 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above reasons.UberCryxic 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a previous failed FAC archived here: archive1
Okay I like to think this article has finally reached a level of quality and completeness that may be deemed FA-worthy. It has undergone a PR and is a GA. Three of the non-English articles on this topic have already been FA'd, so I went through those and tried to make sure this article was at least as thorough. It is also heavily cited, and is a tad on the long side. But it's a major subject, so it's difficult not to be long and still provide a complete overview. (There are already quite a few daughter articles, although many of those are in need of further development.)
My biggest concern has been that this page is subject to the occasional puerile vandalism, perhaps because the subject has a high visibility. However I've observed the vandalisms for several weeks now and they seem to get as quickly reverted, so perhaps that isn't an issue? Anyway, please take a look and let me know. I'll try to deal with any issues that arise. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just quickly before I have to go. The diagrams in the fusion section have had SVG's created for them (click on the images for details) and the SVG's should be used in place of the PNG's. I fixed a few small ref spacing problems, and I think I got them all but it might be worth going over them and checking there is no spacing between punctuation and refs. darkliight[πalk] 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the SVG issue has been addressed. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support: Some parts of the article, especially the introduction, lack footnotes. Also, the star designations-section have some grammar issues and inaccuracies, such as using "mythology" as a plural of "myth", listing Uranus as a Roman god(Uranus is the Latin transliteration of the Greek Ouranos. The "Latin Uranus" is called Caelus), and the like. Also, Babylonian astrology, which is almost even more important than the Greco-Roman one, barely gets a mention. I'll try and correct the latter issues myself, if you want me to. Otherwise the article looks fine. I'm quite confident it'll reach FA status soon. Lemegeton 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The introduction should not have footnotes, since it should be a a summary, and all the footnotes should therefore be found later in the article. --Peter Andersen 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've seen plenty of articles, FAs even, which contain footnotes in the introduction. It's important in that introductions often state certain facts. Lemegeton 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule (not even a guideline or suggestion) that sources shouldn't be cited in an article's lead. Personally, I think it's for the best that they be cited everywhere they need to be, including the lead. Ryu Kaze 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't mind footnotes in the lead as long as it's not overflowing with them. And as Raul654 pointed out (elsewhere), if the lead is indeed a summary of the article, there may not be a need for them in the lead.Rlevse 15:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there's technically not a need for them there per se (because, as you said, the lead is a summary of the rest of the article), it's just playing things safe to source claims whenever made. That and some people will take one look at a lead section that has no sources cited for its claims and say that the article doesn't properly cite its claims without looking at the rest.
I personally like sources to be cited in the lead, though. If the lead's summarizing some of the major points of the article, it's convenient to be able to access the sources for those right from the start. Ryu Kaze 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some general footnotes to the introduction. Every other section has footnotes, so I'm unclear about what you mean regarding "some parts". Perhaps you could clarify? I wanted to keep mention of astrology to a bare minimum, and I think further coverage of that topic is best left to the astrology page. In fact I'd like a good excuse to rip even that brief mention out of the article, as I don't believe that the supposed "influence of the heavens" has anything to do with the topic of a star as an astronomical object. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admitting I'm no expert on historical astronomy/astrology, this article seems good to me except that it ignores possible early Asian/South American contributions to the field. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were significant Asian and/or South American contributions that predate the Greek/Roman/Babylonian ones.Rlevse 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is fully possible that they might predate them, there is little amounts of evidence of such. South American, maybe. "Asian", doubtedly. If you said "Indo-European", I might see what you mean, since the various Indo-Aryan epics(particularly the Rigveda) contain numerous astronomical references.
Though modern, or at least Western, astrology, and perhaps also astronomy, has its origins in Mesopotamia. Lemegeton 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I'm confused by this concern. This article is primarily focused on the modern understanding of the star. There is a section on the Astronomy page that covers the more general topic of the history of astronomy. The only reason for the mention of Arabic/Latin contributions was for the purpose of explaining the naming conventions. Is there something specific missing that is related to the "Asian and/or South American contributions" concerning our modern viewpoint of stellar astronomy? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to the conclusion that this commentary was entirely about the astronomy article, and so is unrelated. No action taken. — RJH (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - needs further copyediting. I did a little work on the lead, which included fixing a link to a disambiguation page. I also happened to notice that at least one other disambiguation link exists in the article — give it a full check. "Surprise links" needs to be removed. For example, the word "radiated" is linked in the lead, but takes the reader to "Black body" — this is confusing to the average reader. The sentence "This scientific study of stars is called stellar astronomy." in the lead is rather clunky, it feels thrown in. Other examples at random:
the amount of helium in a star's core will steadily accumulate - The amount can steadily increase, or the star can steadily accumulate helium, but the amount cannot accumulate.
Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, - This doesn't sound very scientific.
Astronomers estimate that there are at least 70 sextillion (7×1022) stars in the known universe.[29] That is 70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars, - does this number actually need to be written out?
the theoretical minimum mass the star can have, and still undergo fusion at the core, is estimated to be about 75 Jupiters - Is the "Jupiter" an accepted unit of measurement?
(which exists as a steady stream of electrically charged particles (such as free protons, alpha particles, and beta particles) emanating from the star’s outer layers) - Try to avoid parentheses within parentheses.
Intrinsic or absolute magnitude is the apparent magnitude a star would have if it were observed from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years) from Earth - I think the author intends to say that absolute magnitude of a star is what the apparent magnitude of the star would be if the distance between the star and the Earth was 10 parsecs. However, the sentence seems to indicate that the observer is 10 parsecs from the Earth, not the star.
The star with the hightest absolute magnitude is currently LBV 1806-20 - Spelling mistake aside, the term "currently" is somewhat confusing. Does this mean "currently known", "for the next month", or "for the next few millenia or so"?
The main classifications can be easily remembered using the mnemonic "Oh, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me" (variant: change "girl" to "guy"), invented by Annie Jump Cannon. There are many other mnemonics for star classification. - Do we really need to include a mnemonic in this article? Further, the classifications for which this mnemonic is used are not even introduced.
Many stars undergo significant variations in luminosity, and these are known as variable stars. - Yikes.
Finally, there's one image problem: Image:Crab.nebula.arp.750pix.jpg appears to be used under a non-commercial license. If this is correct, it should be deleted.
One small point re Pagra's extensive list: "Jupiter masses" or simply "Jupiters" is not a formal unit of measure like "solar mass" but it is common and accepted to describe large planets and small stars this way in ordinary descriptions. Example: "A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star" as an article title in Nature. Marskell 09:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Jupiters" was changed to "mass of Jupiter". — RJH (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good look-over. I believe I've just addressed the specific concerns you had listed, but please check if you would. The "OtherUses4" template reference is showing up because it is used as part of the "OtherUses1" template. That's the only use of an OtherUses template I could find. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country on the Balkan peninsula of southern Europe with an area of 51,129 km² (19,741 square miles), and an estimated population of around four million people.
Object. The history section is tooo long. You should only provide a short summary. And get rid of the gallery. Finally, compare the article to other featured countries. CG 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like you explained your objection, CG. For HarrisM's benefit, I'll make an attempt at doing so based on why I think an objection applies here. Basically, the history section seems to be pretty much lifted straight from the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina page. Since that page is serving to summarize eight others (two of which need to be merged into it anyway because they aren't any longer than their sections in the umbrella page), the history section of the article you've nominated should use History of Bosnia and Herzegovina as its main page reference, with a summary of it instead of those other eight. It's good information, of course, but there's no practicality in duplicating it exactly from another page like this. Either the "History of" page would have to be entirely merged into Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Bosnia and Herzegovina page should use Wikipedia:Summary style (the latter being the most practical for obvious reasons). Ryu Kaze 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My English sucks :-( CG 06:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. By the way, I've never noticed any issues with your English. Until you said something, I hadn't even realized it wasn't your first language. Ryu Kaze 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Object I didn't even bother reading the article. Before I read an FAC country article, the first thing I do is make sure everything is in order in terms of sections, section lengths and references. Have you even looked at this page? It gives you a complete prototype of what the page should look like.
References are alright but it would be better if the bibliographic style was the same throughout (3-8 are good but why is 9 different?).
My biggest problem is really with the sections, "Culture" is dreadful, "Education" should be a sub-section of Demographics. "Tourism" should be a sub-section of "Economy" or "Culture", whichever suits. "Discoveries" should be removed; it's completely irrelevant. "Ad. divisions" and "Geography" should be hacked down (as should the whole article really). "History" is FAR too long.
Overall VERY poor organisation, but I think the basis is there for an FA.
Fix the sections according to WikiProject Countries/Templates (above link)
Reduce the article length and section lengths
Fix the references
then I'll actually read it and talk about more important things like fluidity of writing, compelling prose etc. Come back again for FAC when it's ready as per above suggestions (Oh and don't forget to delete the Picture gallery!) Jaw101ie 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started to read this article, and soon after found myself engrained. After reading it, I was very impressed a man could do so much during his life, and wanted to make it a FA. I hope you too will find it interesting, and will nominate it. AndonicO 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment The reference formatting needs attention. Jkelly 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object First, you didn't the nomination right by not putting the fac tag on the talk page and following directions and used the redirect name vice the real name of the article (which 3 different people are overwriting each other right now trying to fix), but I and two others fixed it for you. Also, the external jumps need fixed, you need to unlink the solo years-only full dates get linked, the first three military achievements sections need to be expanded or be made regular paragraphs vice subsections, and the refs should be in cite php format.Rlevse 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Stubby sections, not well referenced, poorly organized lead, doesn't follow WP:GTL or WP:MOS, has external jumps, suggest WP:PR first to get the article a bit closer to FA. Sandy 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - under referenced + having this article in the FAC and PR wastes everyones time - suggest you withdraw it from here and let the PR nomination run.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come a long way from the last time I nominated it foolishly too early for FAC. Not this time. Thanks to me kick starting the new look & to Bridesmill & Co for perfecting eveything, I finally think it is time to resubmit. The article was accepted into the release of Version 0.5 & was rated as an A-class article (That's one away from FA! Yay!) by the team. The article is a good representative of Wikipedia & of hard work & diverse knowledge. The article goes into most aspects of jewellery, & is planned out in a unique style. There are ample pictures & it is overally well referenced. I hope you enjoy the article & feel the same way I do about it. Thanks. Spawn Man 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Support. As per above. Spawn Man 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC). [reply]
Oppose the geographic content covered is lopsided. Too much content on European history, while Africa is absent, only India and China are covered in Asia and the Pacific gets a small mention. =Nichalp«Talk»= 16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the geographic content is a bit lop-sided. I have corrected the absence of Africa, as Egypt is part of Africa, although more closely related to other Middle East countries. The reason for the absence of jewellery in the rest of Africa is that contenbt thought of as too broad, (such as a paragraph on slave beads & on South Africa's blood diamonds), was moved to other sections of the article. For the Asian reference, there is also the Paduang tribe mentioned for its body modification uses of jewellery. I think it would be unwise to try & mention every culture that's ever exsisted, as the page would be both long & repetitive. For example, in New Zealand, we have much the same jewellery as Australia & America for example. To write about all three countries & say the same things for their jewellery again & again would be pointless. The jewellery of Asia is very much the same; elegant, ceremonious & revered. China ruled much of Asia at one point, so their jewellery styles influenced much of Asia, thus making it all seems similar. This too also happened in Europe when the Romans conquered most of the continent & Roman styles were adapted throughout. Again we also see this happening with the Incas & south americans when the Spanish invaded; they adapted many of their designs. My point is, is that we should aim for a diverse selection of cultures who each use their jewellery differently, rather than add every culture whop have similar designs (which could get quite boring). Your suggestions are good, but I hope you may understand my rationale after reading this. I will definitely expand the Australasia section. I did have a referenced paragraph on the Australian opal trade, but it was deleted for some reason. Thanks a bunch! Spawn Man 00:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of doing a historical analysis, (I don't see a drastic chronological evolution of jewellery), you can break it up into geographical zones, covering all six continents. Take a look at the article on Butter which is a general topic but covers the topic on a global scale without going too much into detail over each country. Secondly, what about the usage of jewellery in animals? I've read that primates and birds also use natural jewellery. This could be added perhaps as a sentence somewhere? PS will be busy till next weekend. =Nichalp«Talk»= 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a weird caption in that Butter article: "Butter is regulary found in modern Kitchens" - quite apart from the two typos, that has to be the most pointless picture caption I've ever seen. I've chaged it. Carcharoth 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call me stupid, but I'd like someone to explain what they want on the article exactly. I'm not one to take hints, so if you continue like this, I'll never get it done. But tell me what you want exactly & it'll be done in days or hours. For example, I would need something like this:
Cat anatomy.
Cat whiskers.
Cat noses.
Cat eyes.
Fedding habits.
Mice.
Beast mice they eat... etc etc.
If you could swap cats with jewellery & how you would like me to rearrange the text & section to your requirements, it will be done. If everyone could come to a sort of concensus it would really really help. Thanks a lot. Spawn Man 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - too many uncited sweeping and general statements. Some examples:
"many items of jewellery, such as brooches and buckles originated as purely functional items, became more decorated over time, and in some cases became purely art objects as their functional requirement disappeared." - says who?
I was on an extended leave from wikipedia with a couple of other editors editing this page. I referenced every paragraph apart from the one with slave beads, which I got from here. As to why my references for this paragraph was deleted, I will never know. I've rephrased & referenced the sentence.
"As early as the 13th century, Murano glass and Murano beads became known as the finest glass in the known world." - source? Also, repetition of 'known' is jarring.
I've rewritten the sentence to a well known fact, rather than speculation.
"Islam for instance considers the wearing of gold by men as Haram" - it is annoying for a reader to have to click the link to find out what Haram means. A short explanation is all that is needed, and should be in the article, either in the prose, or as a footnote. See Wikipedia:The_perfect_article - "the perfect article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles."
I 100% agree with your point. I myself find it annoying, almost makes you feel dumb. I've changed the word linked to a commonly known word. Again, this & most of the other problems here were created whilst I was absent.
"It has shaped the course of history and provides various insights into how ancient cultures worked. - you fail to say anywhere how jewellery has shaped the course of history. If you say things like this, you need to expand on it and cite what someone else says about this.
Deleted that speculation al together. Good job pointing that out.
"The first signs of established jewellery making in Ancient Egypt was around 3,000-5,000 years ago." - source?
Again, it was referenced, reference had been deleted. Now referenced.
"Egyptian jewellery was predominantly made in large workshops attached to temples or palaces." - this needs a source, and this is a one-sentence paragraph. Not good. Some of the sections come across as bullet-point sentences joined together to make a paragraph, rather than flowing prose telling a narrative about the subject.
Again, it was referenced, reference had been deleted. Now referenced. Joined this sentence up with a bigger paragraph too.
Picture missing from the "Jewellery in Greece" section.
I'm not too sure what you mean by this? I checked & all pictures seem to be there? Maybe you could explain?
Gold earring from Mycenae, 16th century BCE is not appearing properly for me. Carcharoth 23:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's appearing for me. Maybe it is something to do with a glitch on your computer? I could replace the pic with one you can see though if it will cause you to continue to object? Thanbks.... Spawn Man 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "In popular culture" section is too short. Either expand or (preferable) get rid of it. At the moment, the shorter sections drag the article down.
Ridded. :)
Overall, some good bits, but many bad bits as well. Needs tidying and tightening up. Nice images though, and I'd be interested to see how much better it could be in a few months. Carcharoth 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your valuable insight into what was wrong with the article. My question is: Why wait a few months when I can do it in days? I'll be adding an extension onto the Pacific section & will be doing general copyedits all round. Hopefully I can get more stuff on Africa & such too... Thanks... Spawn Man 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Object. Although many sections are well written and thorough, the sections on Modern jewellery and Jewellery and body modification are sorely lacking. Kaldari 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I disagreed with the above comment but on further ruminating I feel they could be expanded, just not sure how. In modern jewellery I recall plasting and modelling clay type thingies, especially with broaches and things. Also, there is scope for some thing on body-mod things but this is something I know little aboutCas Liber 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes: I have significantly expanded many section of the article. These include; Jewellery in the pacific - generally expanded. Australia & New Zealand cited & expanded. Modern jewellery - Rewritten and a small expansion. I don't feel there is much more to say about how much better modern jewellery is etc. Jewellery & body modification - Added cited section about hooks & trance induced piercings. Hope this helps everyone? Thanks, Spawn Man 08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good article. It has several references and is very informational. It is already a good article as well. I think it meets all the standards.
Object Stubby paragraphs, the citation tags need to have proper refs found, the ref needed tag needs to be taken care of, refs go at the end of punctuation, not before it and not in the middle of sentences.Rlevse 22:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Please replace all of the unfreely licensed images that fail Wikipedia:Fair use with the great deal of freely licensed content available at commons:Category:Queen. Jkelly 22:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Peer review: This article is not ready for FAC yet. AreJay 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have made a decent effort here. From one paragraph (on tiger legion) last month, this is now is a very detailed article on a very interesting topic about which very little is known. I think it addresses the allegations of collaboration on the unit as well as well is also well referenced considerations on different NPOV viewpoints addresses the point of being freedom fighters.Rueben lys 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few comments about references. Footnotes should go after punctuations, I fixed a few for you. Is there a reason ibid are used instead of <ref name="name">? Wikipedia can't be used as a source. Use the Category:Citation templates if possible. Thanks. WP 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This statement:The allegations that the Free India Legion was nothing more than a collaborationist Heer unit is therefore a very simplistic but distorted view of a formation of men who saw themselves as patriots and pioneers, not Nazis or collaborationsts. is extremely POV. It either gets sourced or it gets removed.
And then the very next section starts off like this:
The Free India Legion did not engage in it's original conceived role in the western front of British India, so it is a fallacy to hold any arguments as to whether they did- or could have- fulfilled the destiny that the men of the Legion had dreamt of. Moreover, the Legion was, and still remains, far removed from public perception in India, possibly because it did not engage it's enemy, the British Raj, Even the 9th Company's engagements in Italy with British forces are hardly known outside those circles with an interest in WWII history. Was, then, Bose's plans for Azad Hind Legion too grandiose for its own capabillity? In terms of military capabillity, that answer is probably a definitive yes, for the fate of Free India Legion was tied like a corpse to that of the Axis. But in political terms, to consider the Azad Hind Legion a paper tiger is more than an untruth. To consider the effects that the legion had, one has therefore to consider the effects that the entire Azad Hind movement had on the culmination of British Raj in India.
That's not encyclopedic writing, to say the least. It's the opening graf of an essay and sounds perilously close to OR.
Some cleanup is also required before this reaches FA-level. I think it would be best to take it to peer review first. Daniel Case 17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Indische Freiwilligen-Legion Regiment 950" is rather uncommon, even in German. "Indische Freiwilligen-Legion" would be enough and more understandable, otherwise I start to wonder if there were other Indian regiments in the Wehrmacht, perhaps even a whole division. You could put the creation of this unit perhaps a bit more in the political context. Nazi Germany made several attempts to support decolonization (Iraq, India, etc.). Japanese tried to ally with Indian nationalists and there was even consideration to launch an attack against British India with the help of several allies. This led to an enforced regime change in Iran during WWII.Wandalstouring 19:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination and no vote. I believe that the article is well-written and comprehensive.Spikebrennan 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support by virtue of the fact that I have been heavily involved in writing it, and, being connected to the organ itself, I know that it is factually accurate, which the outside sources can also verify. AdamBiswanger1 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:LEAD: a one sentence lead is too short. Teemu08 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "It is played twice daily except Sundays (except during the Christmas season)" So is it played more than twice daily during the Christmas season? Or is it not played during Christmas? Or is it played on Sundays during Christmas, or is it something completely different? P.S. once fixed, this would be a good sentence to go into the lead. Andrew Levine 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are 5 total citations in the entire article. There are only 2 citations in the entire history section. There are numerous facts that deserve citing. KnightLago 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The lead picture is inappropriate. It doesn't even show the organ. CG 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this objection makes sense. The most distinctive set of the pipes is right in the middle of the picture, and there are more pipes in the higher levels of the atrium all the way up to those crescents at the top. The problem with photographing the Wanamaker Organ is that it's not geometrically possible to get all of it in one shot. There are sets of pipes at both ends of the atrium and the console is on the second or third level of the atrium, on one side. It would be like an attempt to photograph all of Yankee Stadium, inside and out, by a photographer on second base.Spikebrennan 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could write a better caption describing the picture and relating it to the article. CG 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Needs inline citations, and prose is not brilliant (for example, consecutive sentences beginning with "It was designed .. ") Sandy 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The statement that it is played twice daily appears in the opening statement and also under "Organists." The one oppose was due to the statement of playing on Sundays and I believe it was the one mentioned in the "Organists" section. Since this staement is already mentioned earlier I believe it can be deleted. IanBlade 11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Self-nom) The unofficial marriage of this dolphin with a British woman attracted media coverage around the world. I feel this article provides a factual, well-referenced and neutral point of view account of his life. The only unusual thing about the article is that it is fairly short, but I feel it is long enough for its own article as opposed to merging into a list. Andjam 16:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Besides, as you already mention yourself, it being incredibly short, it is made up largely out of one or two sentence paragraphs. The writing could be better in places. It lacks any photos. BabyNuke 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Remove and Refer to Peer Review A ton of work will be required to get this article to FA status. Right now this is little more than a joke.UberCryxic 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to peer review. Andjam 22:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this article. It's informative, well-written, extensively documented and has some great pictures. I highly recommend it for inclusion as a featured article. Wilybadger 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very short lead. Almost half of the content is presented in lists, when there shouldn't even be one. Many of the sections are sorely lacking in information. Not enough references. The only FA criteria that it meets are great pictures (as you said), and a generally good level of writing (although maybe not up to brilliant standards). Either way, this article falls far short of FA standards. bob rulz 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It falls short of greatness. It has relatively few references, needs more diagrams. Among many examples the habitability section doesn't cover how you could grow food on Mars, which presumably is needed for colonization. I also would have expected the article to cover travel to Mars better. There's no coverage of the POVs that are out there about the why's and wherefores of why (or for that matter why it wouldn't) it would be a good idea or who would fund it. Intangibly, there's no zing here. It's a workmanlike article right now. C+ could do better.WolfKeeper 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Though, I'm not a member, so probably can't vote, but the article needs a lot of work. At the moment much of it is generalised and empty statements like "two way radios will work for line of sight communication" - yeah, as they would in most parts of the galaxy. The constant use of the verb "should" esp. in the latter parts of the article reads like the thing is an (immature and very slipshod) attempt at... something, but something that isn't an encyclopedia article. It should be about actual real-world attempts and ideas on the colonization of Mars, such as those sponsored by the various Mars Societies. The whole thing stinks of original research at the moment. Having said all that, the opening sections on how Mars differs from/is similar to Earth are generally very good. It's the latter parts that desperately need attention - or a rubbish bin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.30.157 (talk • contribs) 05:22, September 27, 2006
I'm nominating the article for Public Access Television for Featured Status. I strongly believe that it is worthy of it. Please feel free to visit the article and/or leave your support or other comments including how you think it could be better. Thanks. DavidWJohnson 20:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Lead is too short, article is filled with one paragraph sections and worst of all, no references whatsoever. Far from FA status. The Filmaker 20:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've failed your good article nomination for the same reasons. I also happened to notice that there is a trivia section, a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons, most importantly a complete lack of citations. Also:
Several sections, including the lead, are too short.
Article contains a trivia section, which should be worked into the article, killed with fire, or both. ClashMan 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look around at this and found it a pretty great article. Wiki-newbie 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just given it's GA status this evening, so the FAC so soon is flattering, thanks. We have been given some very good feedback tonight, though, which we, naturally, haven't had the chance to implement yet. The GA assessor said that it's very close to FA, but probably not there yet. As one of its writers, I'd have taken his advice and waited a bit before coming to FAC. The JPStalk to me 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a very good article, no doubt about that, but it's not quite ready for FA. There are no less than three sections, Episodes, Remakes and legacy, and Radio, that I consider stubby. One section, Other characters, does not have any citations.UberCryxic 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it's best to withdraw this FAC until we've worked on the constructive criticism we've been awarded this evening. (Or is the nominator the only person allowed to request withdrawl?) The JPStalk to me 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I agee with The JPS and UberCryxic: this is very good, but not quite there yet. It is generally a very nice read, and well illustrated, but there is some unnecessary repetition between certain sections, some sections are rather short or choppy, and there is not as much inline citation as has become the norm recently (very few for the first six (!) sections: none for "Plot", only one for "Background", two for "Inspirations", one for "Episodes", none for "Other characters", and two for "Opening titles and music"). Well done so far, and good luck! -- ALoan(Talk) 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too have added to the article and agree that it's too soon to be an FAC. However, there are some sections, e.g., "Other characters" and "Episodes", that contain basic facts and I can't see that these would need to be verified, since there is no disputing the content of these sections. Also, I can't see how "Episodes" can be expanded without duplicating List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes, since the episode titles are all that is missing. Having said that, I could dig out the Lotterby interview from Radio Times if more background is needed. Overall though, I'm pleased with the GA status (congrats to The JPS) and hope we can work towards improving it further. Chris 42 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—1a. The first paragraph does not look promising:
Yes Minister was a satirical British sitcom transmitted by BBC television and radio between 1980 and 1984. This was followed by a sequel, Yes, Prime Minister, which ran from 1986 to 1988. All 38 episodes were written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn and all but one last half an hour.
"aired on" for "transmitted by", which sounds awkward here. Wasn't it only the original series that were aired during that period? There have been repeats ...
Were the 38 episodes under both titles or just the sequel?
"All" twice in a sentence. Replace the first one with "The".
"Last": Present tense all of a sudden? In any case, talk in terms of "duration", or "were 30 minutes long".
The rest of it looks significantly short of the requirement of "professional" writing. Please have it thoroughly copy-edited. Tony 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Aired on" is more of a US expression, whereas this is a British series. I have changed the tense of the opening paragraph to reflect that it "is" a series (i.e., the episodes still exist) that "was" first transmitted between the years stated. I've also fixed the other points noted above. Chris 42 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and a belated YAHARR to ye. Now get me some two-days-out-of-date rum! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ronline ✉ 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ronline ✉ 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
