Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2007

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

The article was not promoted 16:31, 31 March 2007.

Joseph Goebbels

edit

A very nice article recently rewritten, well referenced, written and formed as far as I can tell. Covers Goebbels comprehensively. I saw few praises and suggestions for FAC on the talk page and decided to take this up.

  • Oppose For starters, the article should have plenty more images and a section on Goebbels in popular culture. Many movies have featured him and he was often parodied in much propaganda during the war. --128.253.240.31 00:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added one image more. --Pudeo (Talk) 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pop culture is embarrassing to FAs. I'd prefer it wasn't there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Keep those pop culture references out of there. The article is at 71k already and we're probably going to generate an extra talkpage archive for just for the discussion about Gobbles. Peter Isotalo 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a controversial area and such an article requires very, very thorough citations and extreme care. For example, immediately after the sentence where Goebbels says that the process of wiping out the Jewish race is of vast importance, the next sentence says that Goebbels kept his grip on reality. I don't think many people would agree that murdering many millions of people is keeping a grip on reality. DrKiernan 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks rather well-cited to me... Just please try not to push anyone into breaking any kind of citation record. I would certainly not want an article about such a prominent, if controversial, figure be the first FA to break 200-footnote limit. Let's try to focus on citing statements that are actually controversial for something other than being purely heinous. Peter Isotalo 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • After one week, I am still opposed. Some paragraphs have no citations at all, and there are still sentences for which I would like to see references: e.g. (just in the first two paragraphs) "his height (1.65 m; 5 ft 5 in), exposed him to ridicule and humiliation"; "student fraternities ... were dominated by extreme right-wing politics" DrKiernan 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know that you have citations, but what about a reference section, or having a full bibliography in the same section? I know that there may be some people interested in purchasing the book, or checking it if they already have it, and full bibliographical information would be nice. JonCatalan 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started the reference section. I couldn't be entirely sure about the exact editions, but I picked whichever ISBN numbers that seemed the most appropriate. If someone has a quip concerning the page numbers being from the wrong edition, it'll be easy to fix. Peter Isotalo 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Disagree that the article must have more images(tough more would be nice it is certainly not required), popular references can also be excluded. The level of citations seem thorough enough. The inclusion of a separate bibliography section removed my pet complaint. The information is well presented, and seems complete. Abel29a 10:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a good article, but I think there are a number of issues that need adressing before making it a featured article.
  • It is much too long and needs condensing.
  • The main infobox listing him as German chancellor is misleading, even if he was chancellor for a day. Would it not be better to describe him as propaganda minister, with a note that he was chancellor very briefly? The same applies to the box at the bottom of the article.
  • Speculation on motivation and emotional state (psychology) should mostly be removed. Some could be presented as opinion. Even if it is substantiated, it is not all relevant to an encyclopedic article.
  • There are other comments that may be good for readability but are nevertheless POV, e.g. "surprising degree of success [with women]". Actually, why should it be surprising that a man with such power, intellect, and persuasive powers, should be "successful" with women.
  • information about the conduct of the war, relations between Hitler's "lieutenants", etc. that is not directly relevant to Goebbels or is not encyclopedic in nature could be condensed.
  • Although there are a lot of citations, because of the length of the article there is still a lot of information that is not backed up by citations:
  • In my opinion, many of the direct quotes should be removed or relegated to footnotes.
  • The redlink should be removed (possibly by creating an article).
  • I saw no mention of his half-Jewish girl-friend/fiancée (who is mentioned in other sources).
  • His paper Der Angriff possible deserves more prominence. --Boson 07:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll admit I haven't read it quite closely enough to comment on the type of thing as individual occasions of poor phrasing or POV statements, but on the whole the article looks quite thorough, well-cited, and well-written. I would, however, second the notion that the infobox should label him as "Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda" not as Chancellor, a post which he held for only one day, and only as a result of the confusion of Hitler's death and the very much impending end of the war. LordAmeth 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Still a good article, but now it's starting to become a size problem, and some other issues still need to be addressed:
    • Article was at 71k when it was nominated and has now grown to 78. Excluding infoboxes, templates and references (but not the footnotes, unless someone wants to tell me they're not relevant to begin with), it's still just 78k. Lack of focus usually starts at around at 50k, and at 60k it's usually past encyclopedic.
    • There are still full quotes from Fest in the article which don't seem motivated. Either they should be worked into the prose or, if they're very speculative and exclusive to the author, removed entirely.
    • Overall, the article has a lot of quotes from Goebbels, some of them on the long side. It doesn't seem quite necessary to include them all. Also, remove the "he wrote" and "he said" from those passages and work them into the prose preceding them; they just look awkward and are mere artifacts of the sources. I'm pretty sure the amount of quotes are partly responsible for the size, not to mention the occasional instance of overzealous citation, the use of Fest p. 90 being the most obvious example.
    • Ameth and L&McC make a good point; "Chancellor of Germany" in the infobox is not relevant.

Peter Isotalo 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:31, 31 March 2007.

Great Barrier Reef

edit

I was using this page for much research and this article answered every single question I had. Also, no missing citations. Very good article in my opinion. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats here is reasonable, good in places. But the article is heavily slanted towards human interactions with the reef. Two small sections on geography and species of the reef are unbalanced compared to the threats and uses section. The species of the reef section is also heavily balanced towards large fauna, vertebrates basically. No mention is made of the ecology and biological processes of the reef (except insofar as how we are destroying it), the reef cays, and in general I don't think the natural side of the story is covered in enough depth. Sorry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the "No mention is made of the ecology and biological processes of the reef (except insofar as how we are destroying it), the reef cays, and in general I don't think the natural side of the story is covered in enough depth.", the German Wikipedia has some information on that side of things. I believe the article there has some kind of Good Article-like status. Unfortunately, I don't speak German. I filed a translation request some six months ago, but nothing has come of it as of yet. (I've just done a horrible google-translation of the page... erk!) As for the bias towards the big and beautiful, I chose animals to feature in there based on what Wikipedia had articles for. (Although I did create the soft corals article myself, cos I couldn't believe it wasn't there...) -Malkinann 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a good article (love some of the pictures!), just not up to featured quality.
  • The lead should be re-written to summarize more of the topics contained in the body.
  • More about the geological/biological history of the reef. Include human uses (indigenous and "western/European" as well)
  • Species reads like a "paragraph-ized" list and should be significantly expanded to cover the interactions between other ecosystems (open ocean, land, etc), natural predatory hierarchies and ecological stasis (what depends on what?), migration patterns, etc.
  • "Environmental threats" read like stubs. The topics in human use should be promoted to their own categories and expanded more.
A quick read left me wanting to know more -- in good and bad senses alike. Madcoverboy 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! Thanks for your faith in the article Anna (I've been working on and off it for about two years) but it's just plain not comprehensive enough for FA. It is a *huge* topic, and the article has slanted towards what's available/fashionable - which is the environmental threats. I've been a bit hesitant to add more information about the species on the GBR, as I'm not sure how much I could add from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/misc_pub/fauna_flora without it being a copyvio. In regards to Indigenous Australians, there's not a lot of information out there about how they used the GBR long ago. I've even attempted to look in "the literature", and I couldn't find useful information. If anyone would like to assist in the article, there's a very full to do list on the talk page, and I'll add any good points from this FAC. Madcoverboy, what do you mean by "The topics in human use should be promoted to their own categories and expanded more."?? I've been thinking of spinning out a page called Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef, is that what you mean? -Malkinann 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with above comments. The lead needs some work to get to FA standard as it should be expanded and summarize the article. The article also needs a cleanup in my view. Lots of one sentence paragraphs - pull these together into common thoughts. Expand and split (if approved) the sections that need those tasks and remove the banners. Perhaps a See also to direct me to similar articles that are not directly referenced in the article - other major reefs. Morphh (talk) 1:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please can you be specific about what other content you think the article should have?
I don't know much about the reef so I couldn't say what it should have. When I mentioned expanding, I was looking at your mention above that it wasn't comprehensive enough and the fact that it has tags (for expanding) on Geology and geography, Species, & Fishing. Morphh (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article won't pass FA this time, but specifics would be appreciated for any future attempt. -Malkinann 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of information would you like to see, then? I wrote a decent slab of the article, in my initial contributions, from my school notes, and as such, the article should serve school students well. For Featured Article, it has to be able to serve other audiences. Part of my trouble is that the most comprehensive resource available is the GBRMPA website, and I don't have the skill to tease out more than a paragraph and a half from any one page of theirs without feeling guilty. For example, I get the feeling that I could expand the 'species' section a lot from here, but I feel uneasy using just the one source, even if it is the best source available. (that, and it breaks my brain every time I try to read it.) -Malkinann 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:31, 31 March 2007.

Vincent van Gogh

edit

Came across this a few days ago. Made a few minor edits and I just can't belive it hasn't been nominated yet. Buc 08:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • "There he not only studied anatomy, but the standard rules of modelling and perspective, all of which, he said, "you have to know just to be able to draw the least thing." Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, "to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture." This quote is uncited.
  • "The theory behind this also stresses the value of complementary colours in proximity—for example, blue and orange—as such pairings enhance the brilliance of each colour by a physical effect on the receptors in the eye." I would think a citation here is also needed.
  • "In June he visited Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. He gave drawing lessons to a Zouave second lieutenant, Paul-Eugène Milliet, who also became a companion. MacKnight introduced him to Eugène Boch, a Belgian painter, who stayed at times in Fontvieille (they exchanged visits in July). Gauguin agreed to join him in Arles. In August he painted sunflowers; Boch visited again." Choppy prose or is it just my impression?
  • "Van Gogh cut off the ear lobe on one of his ears during some sort of seizure on December 23, 1888[citation needed]." A citation has been requested here. These tags must be fixed before the article gets FA.
  • "Wheat Field with Crows—an example of the unusual double square canvas-size he used in the last weeks of his life—with its turbulent intensity is often, but mistakenly, thought to be Van Gogh's last work (Jan Hulsker lists seven paintings after it)." Why don't you make a proper citation here with page number?
  • "Theo hastened to be at his side and reported his last words as "La tristesse durera toujours" (French for "(the) sadness will last forever"). Another important quote needing citing. And why in italics?
  • "Diagnoses which have been put forward include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, syphilis, poisoning from swallowed paints, temporal lobe epilepsy and acute intermittent porphyria." What sources report these diagnoses?
  • "It has also been suggested that Van Gogh suffered from the brain disorder, Hypergraphia. The disorder causes a near constant overwhelming urge to write and is associated with epilepsy or mania." This is one of the few one-sentence paragraphs you have in the article. Per MoS it is recommended that such sentences are merged or expanded.
  • "Van Gogh drew and painted water-colours, while he went to school, though very few of these works survive, and his authorship is challenged for many claimed to be from this period." What works are challenged, and who challenged them?
  • "Nowadays they are appreciated as his first masterpieces." This may be generally acceptable, but I would like some sources.
  • You mention all his notable works (or almost all) in the previous sections, so I don't really understand the necessity of "Notable works". For mentioning the museum in Amsterdam? But is this a reason strong enough for the creation of a stubby section?
  • "Legacy" needs prose improvement. All these short, stubby paragraphs make it look listy and seamless.
  • Fix note 4.
  • Check all your inline citations; some of them are before the pun.mark or with a gap after the pun.mark.

I think the article is on a good track, but it needs further imrovements. Therefore, I will not object yet, and give the opportunity to the nominator to further upgrade it.--Yannismarou 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I like the article, it is very good. However I'd like much more clarity about Vincent's posthumous success. How did this happen? What role did Vincent's family play after the two brothers died? How did publishing the letters affect the fate of the paintings? What role did Lust for Life and Hollywood play in Vincent's towering position as an artist? I recommend John Rewald Studies in Post-Impressionism, published by Abrams in 1986, the essay The posthumous fate of Vincent van Gogh in particular. An eye opener. Modernist 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments

**Lead a tad too long. The para on Theo borders on POV, and should be much shorter

    • Early life: the first para is not well written. Starting with the birth of Van gogh, in the middle, it suddenly becomes a description of family lineage.

**"bringing his father's profession to some of the most wretched and hopeless people in Europe. " -- pov. rephrase. **Etten: "Stricker had earlier tutored Vincent in biblical criticism in his attempt to gain entrance to a university to study theology, " -- this info is being repeated here.

    • "The rate charged by the hotel was 5 francs a week, which Van Gogh regarded as excessive. He disputed the price, and took the case to the local arbitrator who awarded him a twelve franc reduction on his total bill[55] (the weekly rate being reduced from five francs to four)." -- not clear where this takes us. Why is this interesting?

In general, work needed on the "Compelling prose" requirement.--ppm 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:31, 31 March 2007.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

edit

It has been the goal of Wikiproject A Series of Unfortunate Events to get A Series of Unfortunate Events to featured status since the establishment of the wikiproject. The page has gone through extensive revisions, additions, and ommisions, and I think it finally is at the featured status level. It had been peer-reviewed twice, Wikipedia:Peer review/A Series of Unfortunate Events/archive2 and Wikipedia:Peer review/A Series of Unfortunate Events/archive1. The suggestions given in the reviews helped guide regular editors of the page to pinpoint where improvements were needed. The subject of the page is a children's book series contained 13 main books and several spin-off books. It is extremely popular in the United States and Great Britian. Such a great series deserves a great Wikipedia article. I think the article finally lives up to the series. <3Clamster 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Sorry, not even close right now. Incredibly weak referencing throughout the article, no fair use rationales on images, stubby history section. Good start, but not FA. --- RockMFR 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree, good start, but you need to make some changes.
    • The "Genre" section needs expanding. Other examples of Steampunk are not needed, since the steampunk article would give that information.
    • The "Allusions" section is listy. Expand this into prose.
    • Cite, cite, cite! You have 13 references, that's a good start, but you're going to need to cite more often. The settings, themes, and storyline sections have references at all, and several claims are unattributed. Consult Template:cite web for proper formatting as well - It's not required for FA, but it is well liked by reviewers!
    • A Reception section would be a good addition. Event though this is a series article not related to any one media, there may be info the general reaction to ASOUE.
    • If you want a peer review, now would be the time to get it while the article is still listed and changes can be addressed.

All in all, the article is salvageable, and with some spit and polish it'll come through. Look through some articles like Harry Potter (Not FA, but something to aspire to for book-related franchises nonetheless) for inspiration. Good luck! Nall 06:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - see WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale for a more information on how to make good fair use rationales. The references need more details - like author, date, and last accessed date. You can look at WP:CITE to find out how to make the references format better. You may want to make the (specific, listy) 'Awards' section into a (more general, prosey) 'Reception' section, in which you can talk about sales, reviews and awards for the series. Look at other children's literature FAs, like Make Way for Ducklings and see how they do things.- Malkinann 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Basically echoing the same things mentioned above, refs need details, one sentence paragraphs make the article fail criteria 1, and the article could use more sources. M3tal H3ad 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I won't repeat what's above, but given that my line of work is directly involved with this series, there's a lot more that can and should be said, and perhaps a lot here that shouldn't (Snicket-as-steampunk is especially unnerving to me, for instance). I'd love to help more with this though in the coming weeks, I've watchlisted in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Dean Smith

edit

It has reached all of the Featured article criteria:

  • It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
  • It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.
  • It has images.
  • It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Image problems. All the fair use images are too large; the longest dimension should not be more than 400px. Please shrink the images, reupload them, and tag them with {{subst:furd}}. The fair use images all need detailed fair use rationales. Also, Image:Devoutdemocrats.jpg doesn't even have a copyright tag. ShadowHalo 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending the following issues: Coaching style section should probably be made into paragraph form, paragraphs in the lead should be condensed—several 1-2 sentence paragraphs in the lead is unacceptable, as a matter of fact there are too many short paragraphs throughout the article. The short paragraphs have the effect of making the article choppy as thoughts appear independently and randomly. Think of ways to condense them into larger paragraphs using sentences that bridge the gap between thoughts. Prose could use work also, here's a few examples:
"After the 1966 season, Smith would never finish lower than third in the ACC" would never finish is clumsy, just change it to "never finished".
"his decision about whether or not to replace a struggling Matt Doherty as" the or not is redundant and uses unnecessary wording. Just change it "his decision about whether to replace"
"He had said that if he ever felt he could not give his team the same enthusiasm he had given it for years, he would retire" This needs work.

Also there are a lot of self contained sentences that don't flow together with the surrounding material. Especially in the Recognition section, look at this section of the Michael Jordan article I helped write for a comparison. Incidentally the recognition section should probably be renamed Legacy, and should include some quotes about him. Furthermore, the article could use a little critical commentary of him, such as how his system was sometimes criticized for being too team oriented (such as in the old joke "Who's the only person that can hold Michael Jordan under 20 points?"). Quadzilla99 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the section on his coaching career could use significant expansion as well. Quadzilla99 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Mendip Hills

edit

This article has been a Good Article since August 2006. It has recently been peer reviewed (archived here) & all comments have been addressed. The article describes this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in a comprehensive way. It is well written and uses appropriate images (free where possible). It is supported by a wide range of citations and has been stable for a while, with only minor edits and additions. I did not create the article but have been working, with others, on it for the last year or so. I believe it meets the FA criteria and would welcome your comments.— Rod talk 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very good article, and close to FA status. I could make a few very minor improvement suggestions, but in terms of what's needed to get to FA status, I think there are just two things I'd like to see:

  • A map of the Hills themselves (in addition to the location map)
  • An article lead should only ever contain a summarised version of information found elsewhere in the article - in this article I can see some info which only appears (unreferenced) in the lead.

SP-KP 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the candidacy. It's a joy to read the article. I guess it sets guidelines how an article on a protected area should be written. There's a plethora of good articles on technical subjects, human settlements, IT issues, but very few on landscape/nature related topics. There's one, however, minor (minuscule) suggestion – I would remove the IUCN category National Park from the Geobox title. I'm not sure whether the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty real fall within this category (IMHO they're rather Category V - Protected Landscape, but I'm not an expert here). Regardless what the IUCN definition of this category is, in most countries a national park is usually the highest level of landscape protection with preserved primal ecosystems where human activities are strictly limited; so it might be a bit confusing here. – Caroig 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I've added a paragraph explaining the legal status of AONBs in comaparison with National Parks - I hope this meets the comment about a statement in the lead not being supported elsewhere. I was also unsure about how to classify AONB using the IUCN definition & would be happy for this to be changed if people feel that is more appropriate. I agree with the comment that it would be useful to have a map & I have asked others for this but I do not have the knowledge & skills (or software) to do this properly.— Rod talk 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of the National Park Status, thanks for clarification but the thing is, I'm still unsure whether both UK National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty could be placed in the IuCN category National Park, neither do they qualify for what a national park generally is outside the UK. I put the IUCN category in the Geobox design as it was in the older Infobox Protected Area but I'm not using it myself for any Czech or Slovak protected areas. The field can simply be left empty.
As of the maps, I can think of two solutions:
  • To use a satelite image from NASA World Wind which are in Public Domain (or GFDL).
  • To draw the map in Inkscape. I make such maps myself for Czech and Slovak localities. I've scanned some maps which have region and protected area boundaries (and rivers, mountains, roads and settlemnts of course) and use them as a background layer for drawing the boundaries upon them. See e.g. Commons:Image:NP Veľká Fatra - location map.svg or Commons:Image:Váh River (SVK) - location and watershed.svg. One could of course add more features than just the area outlines. So if there's an online map or a map you can scan it is actually pretty easy (well, once you've learnt to use this software).
  • You could also combine these two, have a satelite background map and draw the outlines on top of it. The imaps/images from Inkscape are in the vector SVG format, which is highly desirable for such purposes on Wikipedia. Both NASA World Wind and Inkscape are free software.
Response - I've removed the IUCN classification. Still working on a map.— Rod talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support -- pending inclusion of map. Weak oppose – 1. A left-aligned image in the lead is not recommended in the WP:Mos. Similarly, image:Mendip_hills.jpg, which is also left-aligned causes a squeeze in the text. Suggest it be moved elsewhere. 2. Units are inconsistently used. In some places metric are given predominance, in other imperial. Please be consistent SI (imperial). 3. What about the residents of the area? 4. bombing decoy is a red link; no context explaination. is given here to compensate for this. 5. AD --> CE 6. Mendip Gliding Club Please unlink. 7. Like has been said above, a map is very essential. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response1) I've moved the left aligned images 2)units addressed 3)I will add something more on villages & occupations - but I'll have to take something out as it's already LONG. 4) link removed & explanation added 5) sorry I can't find this one 6) delinked 7 still working on a map. Thanks for useful comments.— Rod talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 1. What is EX ARG VEB? 2. See under =Transport and communications= 3. For consistency, Fahrenheit equivalents req; 102 m (335-foot) -- missed this 4. Mells river --> River Mells (MoS) 5. Cheddar pink(Dianthus) -- space req 6. =Notable settlements= can be converted to prosed and renamed to =demographics= 7. Convert hyphens to dashes (800-900 mm) [&ndash;] 8. Are are more vigorous?~ =Nichalp «Talk»=
Response 1. latin inscription on ingots - changed 2. edited 3. added F units 4. changed 5. space added 6. will look at this along with population 7. I think I've done all of these 8. I've removed this complex sentance. — Rod talk 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The river has not been changed, and 2 conversions have been missed out. (6–8 km) & 76 m =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The Mells river was changed to River Mells - but has since been changed back by a local who insists this is the correct name. I've added ft to 76m & changed 6-8km - but see discussion on my talk pages about putting UK units ie miles before KM as a UK article.— Rod talk 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the River naming, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming where some UK-specific information is given. As per the MoS, only articles relating to the United States have imperial before metric. If the latter has to be preferred, it needs to be debated on the MoS talk pages before coming into effect. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For units within the text you can use these templates: {{Unit length}} and {{Unit area}}. Examples:
  • {{unit length|mi|25}} gives: 25 mi (40 km)
  • {{unit length|ft|25}} gives: 25 ft (8 m)
  • {{unit length|m|25.25|2}} gives: 25.25 m (82.84 ft) (the third parameter sets the rounding precision of the conversion)
  • {{unit area|sqmi|25}} gives: 25 sq mi (65 km2)
  • {{unit area|ha|25}} gives: 25 ha (62 acres)
There exist more conversion templates, they are even better in some aspects, e.g. {{Convert}}. Image:Mendip_hills.jpg can be put to the Geobox, in the image parameter, I'd suggest switching off (erasing) map_first then.
Response - thanks I've started playing with these.— Rod talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I don't think there is enough data available to do this - but could you point me to an example of one & I will take a look?— Rod talk 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators Update I have done my best to address the comments above and I think the objections have largely been met (with the exception of a climate graph). A topographic map of the hills has been added (thanks to User:SFC9394. Another map showing settlements, & key features has been offered by the AONB authorites, and they are currently checking copyright issues etc. I hope this now meets the FA criteria, but if you have any further worries please let me know. — Rod talk 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another user suggested moving all images to the right side of the article, however in my browser there is alot of white space. DNA, Frog, Chew Valley, and many (if not most) others use some left side images to stop this. I would strongly urge that some left sided images are used for spacial harmonics. Jhamez84 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - exploring the Wikipedia:Manual of Style further. In the section on images there appear to be 2 key points: # When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left & # Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. Therefore it appears it is OK to have left aligned & if you'd like to do this it would be fine by me. — Rod talk 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with the cite templates and have rechecked. The only error/absent details I could find was on the Barrington ref which I've now corrected. Are there others you feel need revision?— Rod talk 07:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a good article, except that there's way too much linking of dictionary terms ("caves", "grass", etc). Why is there an en dash in "Anglo-Saxon"? Tony 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The link to caves in the geology section takes you to Caves of the Mendip Hills which is very specifically about the area. I have removed the link to grass in this section and the second link to lead. I have removed a link to caves in the history section. I have removed a link to caving in the Caving and cave diving section as it is already in the lead for Sport, leisure and tourism. I have changed the hyphen in Anglo-Saxon within the Etymology section. Are there any other area which you still feel are over-linking to dictionary terms?— Rod talk 09:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Verbascum thapsus

edit

I was the one who created this article over two years ago. Over the moth of November and December of last, however, I revisited and completely rewrote the article. I've been making the occasional edit ever since, but today I finished various odds and ends and I now feel it is ready to be submitted here for review. It is of course a self nomination. Circeus 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. "Distribution and naturalization" seems to put too much emphasis on introduction and spread in North America at the expense of describing the introduction in South America and (possibly) variations by region in areas where the plant is native. Also, a map showing the worldwide distribution (with perhaps a separate color for native areas) would be useful. —Cuiviénen 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You put the finger on two thing that, despite extensive search in sources available to me, I was not able to add anything about. As far as I can tell, only the US introduction seem to have been documented, partly because it is the oldest, too, it is the best so. User:MPF, IIRC, was the one that located the data on subspecies, but I haven't been able to find any more details about variations myself. Circeus 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I left a bunch of minor style comments on the talk page about a month ago, most of which haven't been addressed yet. I'll to do some more reviewing soon. --NoahElhardt 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied below Noah's comments and my answers, for reference:

Nice article. This sentence in the lead paragraphs is awkward and confusing: "While not an issue for most cultures, it hosts many insects that can be harmful to other plants, such as the tarnished plant bug, and although individuals are easy to destroy by hand, it is difficult to destroy a population permanently." What do you mean by "not an issue for most cultures"? Also, the sentence has too many phrases and would ideally be broken up into two sentences. --NoahElhardt 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split and reworded the sentence.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are working toward FA, so I'll be picky. Some of these I could fix myself, but I'll just explain here so you can make changes as you see fit:

  • In the Morphology section: I would prefer metric units listed first, then American, but I don't recall if that comes up in the MOS anywhere.
    • checkY The order should ideally stay the same as the original, but it should be consistent. There is agreement that plants found only in a place using a specific should have that system first. Since only one place had imperial first, i switched it around.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Morphology section: "The stem is solid (nearly an inch across) and is sometimes branched". Try replacing the parenthesis with commas or working the material into the sentence.
  • In the Morphology section: "yellow and an inch or less wide, and five stamen." Give both American and metric units.
  • In the Morphology section: "capsules containing large numbers of minute (less than a millimeter) brown seeds." Work material in parentheses into sentence and give in both units.
  • Can you give some kind of description of the different subspecies? I assume they differ in more than just distribution. They may warrant their own section.
  • In the Distribution and naturalization section: "The species has a wide native range...". Animals have a range, plants have a distribution. I think.
  • In the Distribution and naturalization section: "By the 1630s, it was already escaped". Change to "it HAD already escaped", but I'm also not really comfortable with using the word "escaped" on plants. I completely understand what you are trying to say, but people with less botanical understand might not. Maybe make it clear somehow that the plant didn't uproot itself and hop the fence to freedom.
  • In Ecological aspects: "It is not an agricultural weed, although its presence can be very difficult to completely eradicate, and is especially problematic in overgrazed pastures." If it is difficult to eradicate, why isn't it an agricultural weed? Why would it be especially problematic in overgrazed pastures? Explain, considering the average reader doesn't have much of an agricultural background.
    • ☒NThat paragraph is intended to summarize the "Agricultural impacts and control" subsection, whose first paragraph goes into greater details about this very element.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ecological aspects: "in nature, it will only appear if the seeds are exposed". Change "appear" to sprout, germinate, grow, etc.
  • In Ecological aspects: "and Victoria, Australia (regionally prohibited in the West Gippsland region, and regionally controlled in several others)." Maybe change to "Australia, where it is regionally...." to work out parentheses?
    • ☒NNot sure about this. I wanted to place the specific levels in parenthesis. Moving "West Gippsland" outside the parenthesis leaves a problem with "several others." Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ecological aspects: Maybe move this last paragraph on weeds to the preceding section on Distribution and naturalization?
    • ☒NBy now, said paragraph (one sentence) has been added to the first paragraph of "Ecological aspects" instead. It did not seem to meld well in the previous section. Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article covers all of the important aspects of the plant that I would expect to see in an article, is thorough, and is very well cited. --NoahElhardt 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I couldn't knock this page for detail and information, but I didn't find it a lucid read. Small language errors crop up here and there and require a copy-edit, though I can probably sort those myself. The problem that leaps out at me the most is the over-use of reference tags, which in places makes the article semi-unreadable, in my opinion. Take this part:

V. thapsus is known by a variety of names. "Common mullein" is the usual name in North America,[1][2] but "Great Mullein" is the one used in the UK.[3][4] Vernacular names include innumerable references to the plant's hairiness: "Woolly,"[5] "Velvet" or "Blanket Mullein,"[4][4] "Beggar's," "Moses'," "Poor Man's," "Our Lady's" or "Old Man's Blanket,"[2][3][6][7] and so on ("Flannel" is another generic name).

Some names refer to the plant's size and shape: "Shepherd's Club(s)" or "Staff," "Aaron's Rod" (a name it shares with a number of other plants with tall, yellow inflorescences), and a plethora of other "X's Staff" and "X's Rod."[8][3][2][9][10] The plant is still called "Velvet" or "Mullein Dock"—"Dock" is a British name applied to any broad-leaved plant.[11]

The specific epithet thapsus was first used by Theophrastus (as θάψος, "thapsos")[12] for an unspecified herb from the Ancient Greek settlement of Thapsos, near modern Syracuse, Sicily,[13][12] though it is often assimilated to the ancient Tunisian city of Thapsus.[14]

<note: my example above has been improved by circeus so that it no longer fully relates to the following comment qp10qp 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)> Surely all this tagging isn't necessary. The edit-page version of this is a nightmare to try and copy-edit (and it needs a copy-edit, for phrases such as ""Dock" being appliable to any broad-leaved plant" or "though it is often assimilated to the ancient Tunisian city of Thapsus"). Surely a better approach here would be to cite a page or page range of a book or books which give all the various names and leave it at that (something like: Mabey, 329-40; Grieve, 75-84, or whatever, at the end of the section), rather than cite for every single name in this intrusive fashion. qp10qp 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Watts references, they are apreadacross the entire book (at "Rod", "staff," "Mullein" and "Velvet"), so the best I can do is move the refs for every group at the end of the paragraph, I'm afraid. How does it look now?
Grieve cannot be given a page number because I didn't look up the book: it is available in its entirety online. It seemed better to cite it as a book and link the relevant part instead.Circeus 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I combined the Watts references together too.Circeus 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about (put "ref" instead of "noref"):

V. thapsus is known by a variety of names. "Common mullein" is the usual name in North America, but "Great Mullein" is the one used in the UK. Vernacular names include innumerable references to the plant's hairiness: "Woolly," "Velvet" or "Blanket Mullein," "Beggar's," "Moses'," "Poor Man's," "Our Lady's" or "Old Man's Blanket," and so on ("Flannel" is another generic name).<noref>Niering, 798; Rickett, 389; Grieve, Mullein, Great; Watts, 108, 369, 633-634; Brako, 189.</noref>

Some names refer to the plant's size and shape: "Shepherd's Club(s)" or "Staff," "Aaron's Rod" (a name it shares with a number of other plants with tall, yellow inflorescences), and a plethora of other "X's Staff" and "X's Rod." The plant is still called "Velvet" or "Mullein Dock"—"Dock" is a British name applied to any broad-leaved plant.<noref>Rickett, 389; Grieve, Mullein, Great; Watts, 302, 634, 774-775, 819-820, 866.</noref>

That's what I meant by combining refs, rather than just grouping tags together. (If you wanted to tell the reader precisely which name came from which book, you could do it in the notes: just list the names before the particular pages.)

qp10qp 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Object - 1a. Bloopers like this at the top don't augur well:

  • "It grows in a wide variety of habitats, but favors well-lit disturbed soils the most, which it can invades rapidly thanks to its long-lived seeds." Remove "the most". "Invades"? The logic of why long-lived seeds allow this is unclear, and probably should be in the lead.

And more:

  • "Common Mullein is a weedy, but rarely competitive species." Logic problem: why "but"?
  • "it hosts many insects that can be harmful to other plants, such as the tarnished plant bug." Word order could be kinder to our readers - the tarnished plant bug is not another plant.
  • "Although individuals are easy to destroy by hand, populations are difficult to destroy permanently." Another contrast that brings up logical problems; why is manual destruction pitted against permanence?
  • "It is especially recommended for coughs and related problems, but also used in topical applications against a variety of skin problems. The plant was also used to make dyes and torches." More contrast/logic issues. Why "but"? Why "was also", and what are "torches" (means a number of things in English)?

Needs a good run-throught by a copy-editor before promotion. Tony 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You expect the lead to explain all the subtleties covered in the body of the article. There are no logic problem whatsoever (although I did replace "competitive" with "invasive").
  • "weedy, but not competitive" is a reaction to the fact that weeds are typically highly competitive or invasive (e.g. Purple loosestrife, Dandelion, Pilosella aurantiaca)
  • Contrasting individuals and permanence reflects that one seeking to eliminate a species from a location does hope to do so permanently.
  • The third case is a limitation. It's not only used for breathing ailments ("Most tigers are orange and black, but the Siberia Tiger is white and black"...)
Circeus 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Niering, William A. (1979). The Audubon Society field guide to North American wildflowers, eastern region. New York: Knopf. p. 798. ISBN 0-394-50432-1.
  2. ^ a b c Harold William Rickett, ed. (1966). "The Mulleins (Verbascum)". Wild Flowers of the United States. Vol. Volume 1. The Northeastern States (Part 2). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 389. LCCN 66-0 – 0. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference grieve was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c Watts, Donald (2000). Elsevier's dictionary of plant names and their origin. Amsterdam. pp. 633–634. ISBN 0-444-50356-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  5. ^ Brako, Lois (1995). Scientific and common names of 7,000 vascular plants in the United States. St. Paul, Minnesota: APS Press. p. 189. ISBN 0-89054-171-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, p.108.
  7. ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, p.369.
  8. ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, pp.774-775.
  9. ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, pp.819-820.
  10. ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, p.866: "A tall plant like Mullein attracts 'staff' and 'rod' names."
  11. ^ Watts, Elsevier's dictionary of plant names, pp.302, 634.
  12. ^ a b (in French)Carnoy, A. (1959). Dictionnaire étymologique des noms grecs de plantes. Louvain: Publications Universitaires. OCLC 3284108.
  13. ^ (in Swedish) Den virtuella Floran: Verbascum thapsus, retrieved on December 29 2006.
  14. ^ Charters, Michael L. "Plant name: T". California Plant Names: Latin and Greek Meanings and Derivations. Calflora.net. Retrieved 2006-12-06.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia

edit

This is a self-nomination. This article has had a peer review and has been passed as a Good Article. I've tried to make it as broad and well-referenced as possible.--Bookworm857158367 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed repeated sentence, added references for the nicknames.--Bookworm857158367 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned by the prominence of Occleshaw's claims, which are rather silly after all. However, I don't suppose I can really complain given that he was foolish (or business-savvy?) enough to make them. Perhaps "Some claim" should be changed to "Author Michael Occleshaw claims", and "However, most historians discount" in the Captivity and Death section could read "However, historians discount" DrKiernan 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Occleshaw is a fairly well-known historian of British military history, though, isn't he? The Tatiana book seems to be largely a flight of fancy, but he did dig up that diary entry by the sometimes untruthful Meinertzhagen claiming one of the grand duchesses was rescued. Granted, the speculation made in the book are laughed at by the majority and are refuted by the DNA tests done on the Romanov remains at Ekaterinburg, but the survival stories are part of the fascination for a number of people who are interested in this family. The missing grand duchess leaves the question open for some. But I've changed "some" to "Michael Occleshaw claims," and "Historians discount" since that's the truth. I moved most of the speculation to the Larissa Tudor entry last month.--Bookworm857158367 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fair. Thanks. DrKiernan 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 1a. Here are examples from the top, indicating that the whole text needs a run-through by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with it.
    • "However" should not start a paragraph. Merge.
    • "Rasputin had released ardent, though completely innocent in nature,[33] letters written by the Tsarina and the four grand duchesses to him." Clumsy sentence.
    • "They circulated throughout society, fueling more rumors." What, the letters or the duchesses?
    • Overuse of "rumor(ed)".
    • Check for ungainly repetitions, such as "given" ... "given", and "fourteen-year-old Tatiana" ... "fourteen-year-old Tatiana".
    • "While she enjoyed the company of the soldiers she met, the young Tatiana also sometimes found their behavior shocking." Remove "she met" and "also" as redundant.
    • "As Tatiana grew into adulthood, she undertook more public appearances than her sisters and headed committees." What kind of committees? Awkward sentence. Tony 07:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

RKO Pictures

edit

I think that this is one of the best works of Wikipedia. Tomer T 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Style "consistent with other recent Filmmaking WikiProject FAs" isn't the standard on FAC. Publishers should be clearly identified on all sources. As an example, please explain how http://www.film-center.com/ is a reliable source. Oppose, until sourcing and references are clarified. External links also include a number of personal websites that could be pruned. Agree that the middle of the article is very listy, and the images bracketing the TOC are jarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, that combination of website and author does not qualify as a reliable source--it was also an unnecessary source, as the note cites three reliable published sources covering all the relevant information in the main text. Any other online sources cited in the article that seem unreliable? (Publishers seem pretty clear--as the publisher was perfectly clear in the case you mentioned. Can you point to where they're missing?)—DCGeist 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Of course, consistent style within the WikiProject isn't the standard on FAC. The standard is the standard. Project consistency is the cherry on top.—DCGeist 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The middle part of the article is too listy. The section The Astaire–Rogers RKO films, Hepburn and Grant at RKO and Robert Mitchum at RKO — these sections IMO need summarization. Yes, these actors are intimately associated with RKO. However it would be better if daughter articles/lists are created and these sections are summarized. Also, the two poster images flanking the Table of content looks odd. Those images could be incorporated somewhere in the text. The last image of classic closing logo, that one should be right aligned. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...General guidelines certainly do argue against lists, even purely objective ones such as these three. On the other hand, users may find them particularly useful in this context and there's really no way to summarize them. They're either there or they're not--simply linked to. Disagree on the other points. The two images flanking the TOC looks attractive and is a very efficient way of introducing several of the leading figures associated with RKO and visually encapsualting the transformation of the studio from the 1930s to the 1950s. Ending the main text of the article with the centered closing logo is a fine design concept. Why right align just to save a couple inches/milliseconds of screen scrolling?—DCGeist 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes those lists may be summarised, in the sense that two new articles (or lists) can be created named "RKO films starring Robert Mitchum" (or something like that) etc. Now in this article a section called "Grant, Hepburn and Mitchum at RKO" can be created where the major films of those actors can be discussed in prose form. Movies that became particularly popular can be discussed in one sentence or so (if not already mentioned in any other part of the article). Why they were so intimately associated with RKO can be mentioned. At the start of this section, the newly created articles/lists are to be mentioned as "main articles".
Now, you can wait for what other people have to say, because it's not a rule that you cannot have lists in the article, it's just a trend.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood now. I couldn't see what you had in mind. I think, in the context of this article, the lists actually do the job better than the sort of narrative section you propose--which would not align with the chronological arrangement of the rest of the narrative--but it's an arguable alternative. As you suggest, let's see what others have to say. Thank you.—DCGeist 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, you need better fair use rationales. While they may very well be proper usages of poster the fair use poster tag says they can only be used for commentary on the film or the poster itself... so, your fair use rationale should explain why they qualify in this article. Same goes for screenshots. You may want to get trailer screenshots if you can find them because apparently many of them aren't copyrighted. gren グレン 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit confused here... Every single image has a pretty detailed rationale, whose last bullet point is quite specific to the image's use in this particular article. Can you identify those rationales you believe are specifically inadequate?—DCGeist 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Wyoming

edit

A general good article, very well written, lots of references, pictures. No mistakes, and good enough to be a featured article. Retiono Virginian 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article has only 6 references , too many data charts and is lacking in information overall.--MONGO 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My quirk as a reader only, but I love to read about transportation systems when I look at a geography article. Unfortunately, the trasnportation section in this article is just a bunch of highways, and this need either expansion or a paragraph with a pointer to a side article "Transportation in Wyoming" or something like that. In general the article is pretty good however, with a decent number of illustrations, although I am not all that good at distinguishing the brilliant prose from the other prose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Oppose This is not Featured Article quality. While the prose is excellently written, the sheer amount of figures and data which is unsourced is staggering. Six sources, true, but three of them are from the 2000-2005 US Census. Just looking at the article, I can see a lot of room required for sources. Additionally, there's a few items which could be substantially improved. The following is a list of things which caught my eye:
    • "Although French trappers may have ventured into the northern sections of the state in the late 1700s, John Colter, a member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, was probably the first white American to enter the region in 1807." (What's the source of this statement? And we need something better than "Was probably?")
    • "In 1869, Wyoming extended much suffrage to women, at least partially in an attempt to garner enough votes to be admitted as a state. In addition to being the first U.S. state to extend suffrage to women, Wyoming was also the home of many other firsts for U.S. women in politics." (This definitely needs sourcing as well, especially in regards to the statement that it was so Wyoming would have enough votes to count as a state.)
    • "Wyoming was the location of the Johnson County War of 1892 which was fought between large cattle operators and free ranging interest groups. This war was fought because of the new ranchers moving in following the passage of the homestead act." (Another statement in need of sourcing, especially the second sentence.)
    • Transportation needs to be turned into prose. It would would take all of two paragraphs to give the reader a lot more context about how those highways and interstates cross Wyoming, and I'm sure there's got to be railway information as well.
      • For example, Interstate 80 could be changed to read something like "The Interstate 80 runs east to west through the southern end of Wyoming, passing through (insert major cities here), crossing (insert other major roadways).
    • Likewise Sports needs to be turned into prose.
    • State Symbols could be turned into prose as well, and the trivia about the USS Wyoming could probably be moved up to the lead-in paragraph of the article so that you don't have the Trivia-like "Miscellaneous information" header.
Address those items and I'll support this nomination. Cheers, Lankybugger○ speak○ see○ 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Lot of problems need to be solved. A very non=comprehensive sample:
    • The 2nd sentence of the lead just shouldn't be the 2nd sentence. Surely there are much more important things to say about Wyoming.
    • "The region known today as the state of Wyoming was originally inhabited by.." what is "originally"? Hash this out, since when, for how long?
    • "After the Union Pacific Railroad reached the town of Cheyenne, which later became the state capital, in 1867" -- confusing. Which of the 2 happenned in 1867?
    • "which became the world's first National Park in 1872" -- citation needed.
    • "In 1869, Wyoming extended much suffrage to women" -- clarify "much suffrage"
    • "Wyoming is an alcoholic beverage control state." -- explain briefly what this is.--ppm 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Aquinas College, Perth

edit

previous FAC


This article has been listed as a GA for a decent time, if a former FAC (when it was assesed at B-Class), it has since undergone an amazing transformation. Please vote below Twenty Years 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - 1a. The prose needs work. Here are a few examples from the lead of why the whole text needs copy-editing by someone who's unfamiliar with it:
    • "The Christian Brothers opened their first school in Western Australia on 31 January 1894 on the corner of St Georges Terrace and Victoria Avenue in Perth, naming it Christian Brothers College Perth, although it was commonly referred to as CBC Terrace[c] in reference to the school being located on St George's Terrace." Long snake needs chopping up; the last clause is ungrammatical.
    • "... boarding students.[8] The first boarding students ..." Audit for such close repetitions.
    • "The accommodation at the site was very limited and as early as 1917, headmaster Br. Paul Nunan saw the necessity of acquiring a property away from the city center to reside the whole school." Try to avoid "very". Is the marked expression "as early as" necessary here? "Saw the necessity of" is a little awkward. Australian spelling PLEASE. Tony 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Masses of refs to unverifiable sources such as the Aquinas College student diary. I suggest that this be rectified. It has only been GA for under three weeks, and the GA reviewer left reservations despite passing it on the article talk page - have those been addressed? DanielT5 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, thought I'd chip in since it was I who promoted it to GA only seventeen days ago. My concern from that promotion stands. Also, not imperative for GA's is a nice, consistent ref format, obviously it's not going to get through in its current state. -- PhoenixTwo 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007. You may be looking for what was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/archive2, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort

Atomic theory

edit



Object. This article has some shortcomings content-wise and source-wise.--ragesoss 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an article on the history of atomic theories, but it draws almost exclusively on primary sources and websites of dubious authority with respect to the topic (ISCID, Encarta, etc.). There are many good histories of physics and chemistry that could be used for this article; Quantum Generations by Kragh is a good general source for the late-nineteenth and 20th-century portions of the story, and there are a number of histories of chemistry that would be relevant.
  • There is no mention of the many intermediate theories between what is described in the "Birth" section and J.J. Thomson. The vortex-based ether theories and other 19th century ideas are an important part of the web of ideas from which modern atomic theory arose. There is, for example, no mention of either James Clerk Maxwell or Ludwig Boltzmann.
    • I found no mention of intermediate theories in my research. I deliberately omitted obsolete theories from the Modern Atomic Theory part, unless a said theory was a vital stepping stone to another. Otherwise, this article would become too large, and the dead ends would distract readers from the core chain of discoveries that led to our current understanding of the atom. For instance, Gilbert N Lewis once proposed that atoms were shaped like cubes, in an attempt to explain chemical bonding. This was discarded when Schroedinger came along with his waveform model which was not built upon the Lewis model.Kurzon 07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I mentioned above, there are history of physics sources that deal with these issues. It is not legitimate in a historical article to omit "obsolete theories", especially when the the line between an obsolete theory and a precursor that has some retained elements is so fuzzy. It is more a gradual evolution of theories than a simple case of some wrong dead ends being omitted. I strongly suggest that you consult Quantum Generations as well as Intellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, volume 2 by Jungnickel and McCormmach. There's also a good atomic theory bibliography here: [4] --ragesoss 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no adequate transition between the "philosophical atomism" section and what presumably is the contrasting birth of scientific atomism. Much more relevant to the topic than Indian, Greek, or Islamic atomism was the assortment of Renaissance and early-modern atomic theories.

Weak object The tone does not always seem suitable. The comment that the Greeks would think graphite and diamonds composed of carbon, for instance, sounds very informal. The significiance of Einstein's work is also not made clear: it was the first evidence that atoms were actual physical objects of determinate size, rather than infinitely small theoretical models. Goldfritha 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "antiquated beliefs .. arbitrarily small quantity." contradicts the next sentence "Atomic theory began thousands of years"
    • Indian philosophy section needs more specific references.--ppm 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I am surprised to see so many comments in the previous FACs saying 'not enough refs' and few dealing with the problems the article has. It is far short of FA standards. My problems with its current version are:

  • Atomism - needs a paragraph or two discussing atomism as a concept rather than starting straight off with the Indian philosophy. I would like to see this section much more heavily cited. The section on the Greeks cannot continue to rely on Encarta, which is not a reliable source. Furthermore there were more Greek atomists than Democritus and Leucippus
  • The article doesn't cover anything from the 11th to the 19th century. How did the early atomic philosophy affect the later atomic hypothesis in science? Did medieval alchemists and renaissance scientists put the atomic hypothesis entirely from their minds? Were any theories developed in the missing period influenced by the idea of atoms (e.g. Newton's corpuscular theory of light?)
  • You should remove the 'Modern Atomic Theory' section and make each subsection a section in its own right.
  • Birth: Why are Brown's and Einstein's contribution to Brownian motion relevant, given that Dalton and Avogadro's work?
  • How quickly was the atomic hypothesis adopted; did it immediately gain acceptance or did it face opposition for ages?
  • I would put the discovery of nucleus and electrons into one section.
  • Isotopes: Why are they relevant to atomic theory? And the account of their discovery is not the same as that given in isotope.
  • I would make 'Quantum models of the atom' a section of its own. I think you need to give the reader an idea of the state of atomic theory today, even if it is largely unchanged since the 1920s. You also need to talk about applications of atomic theory and other theories derived from it (nuclear fission, quantum electrodynamics, etc).
  • The number of original papers in the references is a strong point of the article. However I would prefer to see some non-technical references - e.g. authoritative textbooks or popular science - included as well.
    • This is an explicitly historical article, and there is plenty of history that has been written. The number of original papers is a flaw, in my view, bordering on original research. There have been probably thousands of papers on atomic theory, and it is not self-evident which are the most significant.--ragesoss 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, The Land 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

The Ballad of the White Horse

edit

This is a brilliant modern-day epic poem that is essentially unknown outside of a few Catholic circles. I think it deserved more recognition. This is the first section of the article:

The Ballad of the White Horse is a poem by G K Chesterton about the exploits of the Saxon King Alfred the Great, published in 1911 AD. Written in ballad form, the work is usually considered an epic poem. The poem narrates how Alfred was able to defeat the invading Danes at the Battle of Ethandune with the aid of the Virgin Mary, and by extension the Christian God. In addition to being a narration of Alfred's military and political accomplishments, it is also considered a Catholic allegory.

(self-nomination) APAULCH 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Steel

edit

This is my first attempt at a Featured Article. I've had some input on some previous ones, especially Serial Experiments Lain, but I figured the best way to learn how to do it would be to dive in and try.

I was looking for a core-content article to edit and found this one; a nearly citation-free GA that seemed to be half FA-quality and half a mess. For a few hours, on and off today, I've done some pretty hefty editing to this thing: see diff.

There's almost certainly things to be fixed; but that's the job of the FAC. If you object, please give some examples as to what needs to be fixed and I'll try to address them as soon as possible. —Dark•Shikari[T] 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose The lede looks jumbled - not the text but just looking at it for a quick glance. The TOC should probably be moved down. Though there are no {{fact}}s, there are still some citations needed. Several paragraphs are completely sourceless. For an article, you should avoid the lists and convert to prose, such as in the types of steel and production methods sections. The uses of steel is also a list, and could use expansion once converted to prose. As a core article, I think it is too short, though it is on its way. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's looking better. Though sources might re-occur later, I think every sentence in the article needs a source (if two sentences in a row have the same source, put it after the second). Sorry if that might cause a lot of work, but I think that is the best way to show it is verifiable. I'd still like to see uses of steel expanded further as prose. Just a weak oppose for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- nearly there.Support I feel the article is about the right length for the material written about. I think you've done a good job with the prose which is composed in a succinct and clear manner. Just needs a few refs and you'll be there - inline refs needed in subsections Crucible steel, Styrian Steel and Historical Use of steel and you'll be over the line. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed pretty much all the issues now, after a lot more writing and references. Also, a note about the length; there are many {{main}} templates throughout the article; in fact, the entire history section has its own article also. Most of the topics are too long or detailed to merge into the main article, so its probably acceptable to have a slightly shorter main article with the subtopics in their own articles. —Dark•Shikari[T] 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few more images; tell me if its too much, but a topic like this probably needs many images to illustrate the various facets of the article. —Dark•Shikari[T] 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK by me but I wouldn't add any more. I think there are some who might feel this is too many but we can wait and see. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Allthough the article would benefit some more thorough information on the production process, I think it would merit a Featured Article status.
  • Oppose See the FA titanium and uranium to see how History section should look. Subheads for every paragraph is bad form, and organizing based on different types of steel seems odd. A more chronological order would be better esp if combined with info on how use of steel impacted civilization. Summarizing Uses section is little more than a list. No meat. Still much work needed but those are the two major issues I saw. --mav 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History section is not much better. My original objection is still valid as I wrote it. --mav 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues still need to be sorted out. --mav
  • Conditional Support, conditional on fixing following relatively minor issues
    • Copper ... 1000 °C, while tin .. 250 °C. Cast iron ... 1370 °C. Both temperatures ... - Both?
    • Ancient steel Early modern steel - Don't put Wootz/Damascus in both places. Pick one, I recommend Ancient.
    • Henry Bessemer's Bessemer process - wikilink the second. Yes, you linked it earlier, but it's crucial to this section.
    • 2,500 pounds of iron ore - you use degrees C, but pounds and feet? I'd pick either imperial or metric as your primary, but translate per WP:UNITS in any case
    • 90 %, 10% - either put a space before the % or not, but be consistent. I recommend not, but don't know of a definite style guideline, so will accept either, but not both.
    • nonmagnetic. - wikilink
    • alloyed with nickel other elements - ? missing a word or two?
    • stabilize amounts austentite - ? missing a word or two?
    • there also exists - clumsy
    • Finished steel is steel that can be sold without further work or treatment. - really? Not covered with a finish? If so, why in the same paragraph with galvanized?
    • Modern steel is generally identified by various grades of steel defined by various standards organizations. - this is only in the header. Surely the header is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article?
    • Similarly, "historically they were separate products" - did I miss this in the main body?
    • Many types of modern steels exist for different purposes. Made with varying combinations of alloy metals, their properties range to fulfill many purposes. - redundant
    • ferrit - typo?
    • It was also used for springs, - cite. Not as much that it was used for springs, but that it wasn't much used for other things.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will get around to these. You mentioned the issue of pounds; the source stated it in pounds, so I didn't want to convert it. —Dark•Shikari[T] 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the above errors except for some of the citing and content mistakes (like the last few). Going to get to those later. You mention that "historically they were seperate products" isn't mentioned in the main article; the statement is simply saying that iron and steel are one industry today due to the cheap cost of both, but in the past steel has been much rarer and more expensive than iron, and thus more of a smaller, separate industry. How do you suggest I work this into the article? I could also remove the problematic sentence altogether. —Dark•Shikari[T] 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just need to find a source that says something like that, use that for a citation, and stick the sentence in an appropriate place. History of Steelmaking, or Uses:Historically seem reasonable places. WP:LEAD says "concise overview", so the lead probably shouldn't be the only place a fact gets mentioned; we certainly shouldn't state a fact without a source to cite. If your source gives pounds, I guess you can start with that, but do provide an alternative to the rest of the world can understand, per WP:UNITS. Do read those links, I'm not just making blue text here for fun, they are useful. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to make a crack about the links; I've been a Wikipedian for nearly a year now, and I have read through most of the Manual of Style again while editing this article. I've read your links in particular many many times; though obviously I'll check the exact wording of the guideline as I fix your complaints. —Dark•Shikari[T] 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support --The sentence :Crucible steel is steel that has been melted, with the result that it is more homogeneous than if it had not been. Does not give any info what the process is about. There more info would benefit. --The two possibilities to produce steel, coming from carbon rich iron or from carbon free wrought iron is not always clear to see in the history section. --Stone 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)--Stone 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose "Uses of steel" should either be a bulleted list or in a narrative, but not both. I think Contemporary steel and Modern production methods could be merged as well with subsections on the various applications, which would in turn obviate the need for "Uses of steel." Otherwise readable, good pics, and decent referencing. Madcoverboy 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You can't have a complete article on steel that makes no mention of the Great Leap Forward.--ragesoss 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it could do with a sentence or a "see also" style link, there isn't a lot to say about it in the context of Steel per se. As our article on it says, it didn't really produce much steel, or otherwise have an impact on steel or its production. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a lot to be said regarding the importance of steel in processes of industrialization and modernization, and the cultural, technological, and architectural aspects of steel. That this article is missing any mention of the Great Leap Forward is but one example of a rather big swath of content that a complete article on Steel, at its most general level, should include. The fact that little useful steel was produced in the Great Leap Forward (though a fair amount of useless steel of highly variable composition) does not make it any less significant with respect to the general topic of steel; likewise, there is no mention of the role of steel companies in national and international economies and politics, despite the huge impact of steel industries on history since the 19th century. The "Uses of steel" section is grossly inadequate, especially the history section; most of it isn't even prose. There are two different sections that address modern steelmaking processes. The intro should give some indication of the size and economic value of contemporary steel production. Oppose.--ragesoss 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose In addition to above mentioned, references and WP:MOS work needed. For example, see WP:MOSNUM on percentages, and there are numerous blue links in footnotes which need to be converted to a consistent and recognizable citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Coil (band)

edit

The article slid through the GA process easily with a single recommendation that has been amended. --AlexOvShaolin 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Oppose. The "beginning" section has no references at all. —Cuiviénen 18:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object — Some good material, but I think it's not quite ready for FA yet. Specific issues:
    • The lead section isn't really a summary of the article, per WP:LS.
    • Needs to explain "Psychic TV" without the user having to drill down. It would be interesting if the history of Balance and Christopherson, as members of Psychic TV, could be summarized as a prelude to their formation of Coil.
    • How did they come up with the name Coil? Was it chosen for some particular reason? Or just a random pick?
    • I'm unclear about what this means: "The album was largely based around the ideals of industrial music as well as other British groups at the time"
      • Still unclear due to ambiguity. Does this mean the album was also based around ideals of other British groups, or that the album emulated the sounds of these groups? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what it means by "ideals". Does that mean ideals in the manner of a code of beliefs, or ideals as a penultimate level of the craft?
    • It should make clear that "Horse Rotorvator" was an album release.
    • Some citations improperly precede punctuation.
    • Who are "their Thai friends"?
    • The "Coil Live" section has no references. The final paragraph of the "Influence" section definitely needs references. The later is perhaps the one section of the article that seems to demonstrate their notability, at least in my mind.
    • I didn't see much (if any) information about their album sales or sell-out concerts.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haven't read the article yet, but two problems straight off:
  • The structure needs work; why is the discography stranded between "Death of John Balance" and "Background"?
  • The references are insufficently detailed - missing author name and date of publication in most instances.
I'm a big fan of the band bty, was amazed and delighted to see it brought forward; well done so far. + Ceoil 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the majority of the issues, please browse the article once more to make sure I have taken care of things appropriately. Concerning album sales, all albums were sold through labels run by the band (not reported to the RIAA) and the group have not released figures to this. On the subject of live performances, "selling out" shows wasnt really a factor as they have always performed in smaller venues with the exception of several major festivals which included other performers that may or may not have been responsible for the bulk of the ticket sales.AlexOvShaolin 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have combed over the remaining subjects:
Cuiviénen - I added 3 citations to the beginning.
RJHall - where the group got the name Coil is now explained in the opening; i also reworded the tricky sentence that you pointed out.
Ceoil - i moved the discography to a more appropriated place, if you have a better suggestion i would like to hear; i added author name and date of publication to many of the citations, where it is missing the source does not mention these details.AlexOvShaolin 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed my preference to support. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Support - These are from (another) brief scan of the article - wiki and real life stuff getting in the way, unfortunately:
  • The lead is an unsatisfying summary of the band's career, and doesn't convey the reasons for the high critical acclaim Coil latterly recieve.
  • "later credited as 'Jhonn Balance'" & "his intimate partner" - seems like unnecessary detail for the opening statement. I'm not a big fan of the phrase 'intimate partner'; it seems a little Catholic. Why not just 'lover', if that is what he was? But that's a subjective call, of course.
  • The list "Members and style" should be converted to a narrative. A sentence or two on each major contributor, and phrases like "also worked with such artists as x,y,z" would help here.
  • " The album was largely based on the sound of industrial music as well as British rock of the time" - "British rock" is too vague; never heard of that term; post punk?
  • "other songs represented a foundation to a style unique to Coil's following releases." - meaning is unclear.
  • "becoming the first AIDS relief album" - which became the first...
  • "The "Tainted Love" music video is on permanent display at The Museum of Modern Art in New York.[5][6]" - why does this require two cites? Either it is, or it isn't.
  • "However Coil have explicitly expressed their influence from..." - 'Hoevever' is redundant - sentence does not contradict the preceeding statement.
  • Are 'Discogs.com' & 'unknown, 2001' reliable sources?

Otherwise, I'm impressed by your access to print sources; Coil are noted for their animosity towards any press attention. I'll read it properly soon, back then. + Ceoil 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've noticed quite a few things I seemed to have missed. Concerning your first comment, I added in a few details, however Coil are not 'highly critically acclaimed' by the same people that write Rolling Stone, so there will probably never be citable information to add. However I did manage to add a few facts on the matter. I took your advice and replaced 'intimate partner' with 'lover' to make the first sentence more concise, and it does convey the same meaning anyway. I cleaned up the other points you mentioned as well. Furthermore I removed the shady citations you mentioned, without replacing them, since one was a double cite and the other doesn't need to be cited. I hope you will add more suggestions. --AlexOvShaolin 04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for neglecting this. A few more points:
  • The prose is still quite choppy in places, with many short one statement sentences. eg: Balance and Christopherson began working with John Gosling on the project Zos Kia. The group performed together live several times and released the album Transparent. The flow would be aided by including eg: "In Month X, 1982 Balance and...", "in date X, 1982, released their debut album Transparent", or other relevant details.
  • "and was said to have been produced under a variety of technological, spiritual, and meteorological conditions" I assume the linear notes state this, but the phrase "and was said to have" implies (to me at least) that you have switched to a different source.
  • "Since the initial releases, Transparent has been reissued in CD format" - again dates would help here.
  • "while other songs previewed what would become Coil's unique style" - Too vague.
  • "Sales from the single Panic/Tainted Love were donated to the Terrence Higgins Trust, which became the first AIDS relief album". - Unclear, did the Terrence Higgins Trust include tracks from the single on the first AIDS relief album, or did it mutate into an album. - Still unclear what happened here, current text states that the single became an album Ceoil 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horse Rotorvator followed as the next full length release. The album retained fewer elements of the classic industrial sound." - Again, choppy.
  • "Horse Rotorvator was in part influenced by the AIDS related deaths of some of their friends.[8] One song on the album..." ::I got the impression from the phrasing that the sentence beginning "One song.." would give examples of songs "influenced by the AIDS related deaths of some of their friends".
  • "Windowpane" and a Jack Dangers remix of "The Snow" became the singles" - "became" is awkward - released
  • The section "Coil Live" is currently too brief to stand on it's own, there is some good material in the sub article, maybe try incorporating. (eg: Balance's problem with alcohol etc).
  • "Religious views" is also beief, could this be merged into another section? Maybe in a discussion of the "Born Again Pagans" album. - Can live with this, agree that its not easily merged. Ceoil 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, images and music sample boxed crammed into short sections is bunching up the text, and giving the article a "squashed" feel. (I guess that was what was behind Kmzundel's "Can all the section headings be aligned left" comment below.)
  • Some retrival dates still missing.
Overall, the prose could do with work, I've listed some examples, can you go through the text and resolve others. Article would be much improved if you eliminate the short sentences, and expand on some of the leaner sections. Ceoil 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give all of these things a closer look. If you notice futher augmentations are still not up to par, please note them as well. --AlexOvShaolin 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments concerning your suggestions:
  • Point 1: I cant find the month for the release of the album on any of the best Coil resources, so I augmented the sentence for better flow.
  • Point 2: reworded awkward sentence.
  • Point 3: i dont feel that rerelease dates are relevant enough to be entered here however i have added the dates each album was first released in the paragraphs above.
  • Point 4: i added 'electronic' to this statement, however pinning down their style would require use of non-NPOV.
  • Point 5: reworded awkward sentence.
  • Point 6: removed awkward sentence.
  • Point 7: reworded awkward sentence.
  • Points 8 & 9: fixed
  • Point 10: i dont know what can be done with this section, however Coil + religion is a relevant issue among fans. I dont think that it should be added to the above discussion of Born Again Pagans since the side projects are a completely seperate issue. i'll think this one over...do some pondering.
  • Point 11: i resized my browser and noticed that the "side projects & soundtracks" section was cramped, i cleaned this up. this was the only section i noticed a problem on the 'cramping' issue.
  • Point 12: added several dates, adding more now.
  • Your closing statement: i'm going to look this over.
--AlexOvShaolin 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Alex, the article is very close. Ceoil 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns have been addressed; have changed vote to support. Ceoil 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Add lover's name in Lead (I'm assuming it's NOT Throbbing Gristle)
  • Date (year) of first release under the name Coil would be helpful in Lead
  • "created the proposed soundtrack" doesn't make sense to me.
  • Might make more sense to put the long quote re: the Hellraiser soundtrack to prose.
To clarify - the 2nd paragraph under "soundtracks and side projects" contains a long quote that's not exceptionally clear. Instead of the quote, can you put the thought regarding the creative differences into your own words? Kmzundel 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Kmzundel 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can all the section headings be aligned left?
Perhaps it's my monitor then. It happens from time to time. Kmzundel 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence unclear to me: "It is possible that Trent Reznor named the track as a reference to Coil, who provided remixes for the same album." Who provided remixes?
  • Have made a few style edits myself. Kmzundel 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: his name was in the lead but the sentence was difficult to read so i removed some information that didnt need to be there. Point 2: Done. Point 3: reworded the awkward sentence. Point 4: i dont know what you mean. Point 5: all of the headings are displayed on the left as far as i can see. Point 6: reworded the awkward sentence. AlexOvShaolin 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much Improved! Good work! Kmzundel 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comments. I didn't read this entirely, but I immediately noted it fails criteria 3 and 4 of WP:WIAFA:
    • Remove the band image at the beginning; a free alternative can be found, thus this violates WP:FUC #1.
    • Plenty of two-three sentence paragraphs throughout the article.
    • In the "Discography" section "Primary and most notable releases" are WP:POV'ish.
    • "1982-1984: Beginning", "1998-2004: Late Coil", "Coil Live" nearly unreferenced.
    • Image:Geffinlibrary.jpg lacks a thumbnail and a caption.
    • The lead should either be completely referenced or not referenced at all.
    • Full dates should be linked and years/month alone should not. See WP:DATE.
    • Overwhelming amount of multiply wiki-links. Whenever you mention a person's name, each further mention would just be his last name unlinked.
    • Most song lyrics are protected by copyright, and should not be linked.
    • Image:THRESH2.jpg isn't a "a necessary part of the article" to justify fair use claims. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 1: I'm beginning to go through your list of suggestions, however i want to state CLEARLY that A FREE ALTERNATIVE CANNOT BE FOUND! I have managed well over 600 Coil images, visited EVERY fansite and after an exhaustive search could located NO FREE IMAGES. You should keep in mind that Coil are not the Backstreet boys, they do not do red carpet events and before their appearance on tour were notorious for their recluse nature. Futhermore, out of the many live images i have managed, no photographers were willing to GNU their images after my request. I figured this subject would come up and i wanted to address it head on and directly.
  • Point 2: I'm going to look into this.
  • Point 3: Coil's discography is quite extensive. When you take out all the singles, remix albums, compilations, studio outtake releases, live albums, and albums which were not widely distributed you are left with the list I gave.
  • Point 4: i referenced everything in that area that could be viewed as non-npov, if you feel inclined drop 'citation needed' where you feel citations are necessary and i will review them, add citations or delete what cannot be cited (which i am certain should be next to nothing).
  • Point 5: done.
  • Point 6: i feel the lead needs to be refenced, please drop 'citation needed' tags where you feel they are necessary.
  • Point 7: i've combed over the article and i believe i corrected all instances of this mistake.
  • Point 8: i'm going to give this mention thorough application.
  • Point 9: done.
  • Point 10: it is not uncommon that music articles use album covers when discussing the album at length (as i have done in the article).
AlexOvShaolin 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that free images would be next to impossible to source. The article does not contain an excessive amount of FU, and we shouldn't handicap articles on lesser known bands in this way. Ceoil 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one right here. It might not be of high quality, but it's still a free replacement.
  • Please mind our verifiability criteria. All facts need to be referenced, including the "NPOV" ones. I'm sure you've got all the information in the article from somewhere, so it wouldn't be an issue to provide that.
  • "Widely distributed" still has a point of view. Not all editors may judge this as you did.
  • Not really, the date in the image caption of Image:2000June17CoilWithStockhausenAtSonar.jpg isn't properly linked. Also choose either US/UK date format and use it in the rest of the article.
  • Please separate it from the music sample template. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that a "widely distributed" coil album usually means that it was not strictly limited to under 1,000 copies.--AlexOvShaolin 01:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please state so instead of using that term. Personally I'd recommend just adding a list of studio albums in that section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, if there are any points you are still opposed to i'm all ears. --AlexOvShaolin 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article still requires a lot of references, especially to the provided sections above. Verifiability is a core policy, and each featured article should adhere it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further references added. --AlexOvShaolin 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every detail on the references that can be provided have. The majority of the interviews I found on the official Coil website did not have 100% of the details. -AlexOvShaolin--71.3.51.236 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All clips are approximately 30 seconds long, info added to each file's page. --AlexOvShaolin 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, having copyright images in the main infobox is frowned upon, especially when the caption doesn't state the purpose, in this case it's promotion. Though the site may permit the image be distributed, if so then strike out this comment.--The Negotiator 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What regarding the caption's fair use rationale do you have trouble with? Considering one of the members are deceased, what do you feel are the chances of a free alternative? LuciferMorgan 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed this subject. As I am willing to be no one has sorted through more Coil images than myself (having opened a gallery on flickr of 500+) Coil images and sorted through many more, NO GNU/FREE IMAGES EXIST! The group were notorious recluses for the majority of their career and after finally performing tours wore white fluffy suits, heavily used fog and sometimes hid under tents during the performances. The majority of the live images that exist are unfit for the article and the few that may be considered fit do not feature the two leading musicians side by side, NOR ARE THEY GNU. I certainly didn't vote for copywrite to exist. --AlexOvShaolin 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible to summarize the ideas and themes of their music to any extent? I've heard only a couple of their spoken-word songs ("Who'll Fall?", "Something"), and I've been wondering about the bigger picture of the kinds of things they write about. Also, "Members and style" currently focuses on members, by-and-large. When you talk about "magick" or "solar" music, and the use of various techniques and theories, just what kind of results are actually produced, and how has it varied over time? –Unint 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put several music samples up specifically for this reason. The main composer of Coil, Peter Christopherson has poineered new genres of music since the beginning of his career (see Industrial music). The best way to describe Coil is Industrial, though the music is truly its own breed. --AlexOvShaolin 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Coil discography? their discography is very confusing, its best to keep it in chronological order. --AlexOvShaolin 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the navigational chronology entries in the infoboxes for the individual releases: for instance, Love's Secret Domain, an album, links forward to a single, "The Snow", and backwards to another single, "Windowpane". Even if the discography were to be sorted solely by chronological order, the infoboxes as we've set them up here have always separated albums (and sometimes EPs) from singles.
Also, by fixing capitalization, I mean just lowercasing "to", "in", "the", "with", "of", etc. –Unint 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible for you to add something on (a) how the demise of WSD affected the availability of the band's music; (b) their feud with Stevo and the printed taunts on later CD releases (you do mention his debt to the band)? Also I just wondered if you felt the song "Who'll Fall" was notable enough to be worthy of a mention anywhere. It's one of their most nightmarish and effective pieces, IMHO. --Richardrj talk email 09:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Who'll Fall" was released on a b-sides compilation (Gold Is the Metal with the Broadest Shoulders) and as a b-side to a single (alternately titled "Is Suicide A Solution?"). It is far from one of Coil's most important songs. Furthermore i consider the song less dark than "Dark River" from LSD or anything under the ELpH alias. I mentioned Coil's falling out with stevo and the "stevo pay us what you owe us" quotes are mentioned in the individual articles for the remasters. Not really the most important thing to discuss on the front page. Coil's falling out with Some Bizarre was mentioned, that's probably all that's necessary. What is WSD? --AlexOvShaolin 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
World Serpent Distribution, the company that distributed CDs by Coil, C93, NWW and many others. They went bust owing money to a lot of artists and those artists' CDs were unavailable for a long time as a result. I was wondering how Coil in particular were affected by their demise. --Richardrj talk email 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt aware W.S. went broke. i don't know how coil was affected by this though. --AlexOvShaolin 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Japan

edit
previous FAC

Self nomination

I believe that the article has improved substantially over the last FAC application to FA standard. All citations requested have been added, even ones that Sandy threw in. The quality of the citations' structure has also been improved so they have a much more common format. Overall structure and content has also been improved. John Smith's 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose article cries out for a summary. The history in particular needs to be summarised into a single section. Science and technology is more of Economy than anything else, and the section on education is optional (I suggest you remove it as it does not come under the structure on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). Captions could do with better wording. (Shibuya crossing???). Administrative divisions lacks a map (preferably svg). Also avoid using subsections. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised by your comments. First there are not that many sub-sections. The very fact there are such things rather indicates there is nothing wrong with them being used in moderation. Second, many FA pages (even ones recently gaining that status) have sizeable history sections - Germany is a good example in this case. I have dealt with the caption on the Shibuya crossing picture (it is actually called "Shibuya crossing"). FA country pages like Germany also have a section on education. If that didn't block their nomination I don't see why it should here. Oh, and Germany has six sub-sections in the history section, whereas Japan's six are spaced out over the article. I can't understand why there is one set of rules for some nominations and another set for others, even if they're the same type of page. John Smith's 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I wasn't around to oppose Germany's FAC nom, doesn't invalidate my basis to oppose here. I will bring up that article on FAR in a month's time. I didn't even know it passed FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-note, I have reduced the number of sub-sections to three overall. I think the remaining ones (in the history section) are useful.John Smith's 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's useful. The section on history needs to flow as a single compressed unit. As such, it is not a dedicated article on the history of Japan (which would merit subsections), but rather a summary of one, very much like the lead section of the History of Japan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's more helpful to make a comment on how to improve its problems instead of immediately opposing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, FAC does not work that way. If it does not follow the WP:WIAFA criteria anyone can oppose giving constructive reasons. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a dedicated article on Japanese history, but it is the best place to talk about history in a brief way. Given Japan's very, very long history, I think it does an admirable job in bringing a lot of information together in a very short space. It's easy for countries with short histories, because there is so little to say. With Japan, if the length was the same it would only be able to make the most trivial and pointless entry into what took place. That said I have made three edits to reduce the material, as well as removed the sub-sections. John Smith's 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The history can be further summarised by precis writing. Look at the history section of the India article which condensed 6,000 years of a much larger entity into about six/seven paragraphs. Another point is the Image:Asimohonda.jpg which violates the fair use clause in the secion. As per the terms of FU, the image can only be used for the article in question. I still don't understand the caption "A view of Shibuya crossing". How does it fit into the demographics section? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about the same thing. Shibuya is not even mentioned in the article. I don't even think it's mentioned in the Japanese-language article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB Since "Shibuya" has now been linked and the history section is now subsection-free, is this oppose still valid? --WoodElf 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. I've commented on a lot of other things besides the history section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is, how is a picture of Shibuya representative of a section about Japan's demographics? It is one section of Tokyo, and most of Tokyo doesn't even look like Shibuya. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you might also want to look at Canada, Australia, Turkey, Nepal, Hong Kong, Libya, Cambodia, Pakistan, who all have around 1k words or more. I find it pretty ridiculous trying to fit a civilization's history in such short summaries, since they really don't say anything about what happened. You did a good job summarizing, but I personally believe India's early history summary doesn't do it enough justice, as its mostly just names without context. Also trying to compare a countries informational compression to one another is pretty ridiculous. When countries are under constant change it becomes harder to summarize such changes -- no offense to small isolated countries like Tokelau. falsedef 01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still think we need more recent updates in the History section on the past 2 decades or so. There's not much mention of the domestic or international effect of Japan's incredibly economy during the 80s (surely how Japan's auto industry affected the world in the late 70s and the 80s deserve a mention), or what significant things have happened in Japan in the past 10 or so years. Also, I thought Japan's boom ended in the early 90s or even late 80s? The article says that it ended in the late 90s. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the crash bit to "mid-1990s". And although I think a little more history would be good, there have been no suggestions as to what needs to be specifically discussed. Talking about it for the sake of it (some issues are mentioned elsewhere in the article) would just make the section even longer and more problematic. John Smith's 19:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I think it's a pretty decent article, but I can't provide whole-hearted support for FA just yet. Comparing it to (the arbitrarily chosen) Turkey FA, it's missing an etymology of the word "Japan"; the number of citations are on the low side; the Geography section doesn't give any numbers or a ranking among the world's nations, and there are a few too many one-sentence paragraphs for my liking. Overall it's looking pretty good though, and the introduction seems fine to me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Woh, wait a minute. I just noticed that the article is rated at B Class. I know it's not a requirement, but shouldn't it reach Good article status before trying to bump it to FA class? At the very least, it should be A Class. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was B-class when last reviewed, but I think it has hugely improved since then. It's more than no one bothered to re-grade it. John Smith's 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA is not really necessary. I once brought a stub class article to FA status over a month. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not necessary at all. My point only was that it would certainly help gauge the quality of the article by community standards instead of nominating it for FA only to risk it fail again for the second time, and have it still be B class. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it would get a more step-by-step review through the GA certification process. Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator can take care of valid objections, believe me it should pass. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the following page that supposedly ranks the country pages - Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Article Classification. One of the complaints is that there was no culture section, which has obviously been addressed. The History section has also been significantly reduced. If this FA nomination fails it can be requested to be regraded. John Smith's 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild supportI was quite impressed by the improvement in the Japan article. The history section's been compressed a bit...great job! much better than before. i like the current layout of heads. Plus, lots of citations, references and ext links. Although the writing style may need a bit of work. Plus the fact that it's still 63 Kb. But still, a thoroughly well-written and informative country article.--WoodElf 07:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article has improved much in the last 7 days. grammatical errors haxe been expunged; overall improvement. --WoodElf 06:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the Further Reading section, the list includes the following two books: "Barry, Dave Barry Does Japan, Ballantine, 1993" and "Klar, My Mother is a Tractor, Trafford Publishing, 2005". Could you please comment on why these books are worthy of inclusion in the list? Likewise, "Lonely Planet Japan, Lonely Planet Publications, 2003", which is simply a tourist guide to the country. Bluap 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the image placements might be problematic. Per WP:MOS#Images, we should avoid sandwiching text between a picture on the right and a picture on the left. The current version does this both in the History section (picture of Hasekura Tsunenaga), and again in the Demographics section (the picture from the section above it drags down into the Demographics section and sandwiches text with another picture). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed one picture that just had to go (in the history section) and others have been moved to the right to reduce the placement problem. Also I've come up with a new caption for the Shibuya crossing picture to try to explain it's to do with the fact Japan is densely populated - if anyone has a better suggestion, please update it or talk about it on the Japan talk page. John Smith's 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. Plus, it's a picture of their product - it's good publicity for them. John Smith's 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to oppose on such a small issue but this article has been a target for vandalism much more than a FA should have. If the attacks calm down, I won't see any problem with it. -ScotchMB 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there's a lot of vandalism. It makes sense to withhold featured-article status from an article that is vandalized because it's biased. However, having followed this article for nearly three years and seen the edits vandals have made, I would advocate carefully investigating the nature of vandalism before taking it into account in deciding whether to support or oppose promotion. I feel it's the fault of the vandals, not the fault of the article. Fg2 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Fg. In the past the reverts were sometimes due to disputes over the text. In the recent cases it is vandalism plain & simple. John Smith's 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article needs to be more balanced. The article skips the entire centuries from 3rd to 8th AD. There is no mention of anything of this time period. The fact that this time period is important in terms of introduction of Buddhism which is currently the most popular national religion and during this same time period writing was introduced and started to become wide spread. These are foundations for any civilization, writing and religion/goverments etc. It appears as if this article glances over important historical events that might not be appealing to Japanese. WWII section is very minimal and Nanking massacre is not even referenced, their should at least be a link to those events. --Tyler 09:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. One guy complained there was too much history, now there isn't enough. Tyler how am I supposed to please both you and Nichalp? I think you should reconsider, or at least propose something else. John Smith's 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was talking about wanting a more balanced article. May be we can edit out different parts. Who ever wrote the article seems to have skipped the entire 3rd thru 8th centuries. The introduction of buddhism is important cause it is still the most popular national religion, the concept of writing being spread on a massive scale is important for any civilization. The sections on WWII need to be more balanced also, otherwise this article will just appear to be some sort of propaganda article, where parts of history that are not appealing to the Japanese are glanced over or completely just deleted. --Tyler 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can combine the Nara and Heian period and shorten it. This way we can bring in the introduction of buddhism to the article.

Also, eventhough the wests influence on Japan is important, their is way more paragraphs on those sections compared to the influence of Japans close neighbors thru out the millennias. We need to balance the times better, the 20th cent section is way too long when compared to the other centuries. It seems off balance as if Japan is OK with being influenced by the west in their history, but if Japan is influenced by a close neighbor it seems to get glanced over or not mentioned. This makes it too ethnocentric, I'm not saying it is ethnocentric on purpose, but it is odd that the 20th cent takes up so much space compared to the sections that laid the foundations for Japans becoming a high civilization.

I will change my vote to mild oppose and recheck the article frequently.--Tyler 10:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will change my vote to comment for now and recheck the article in 24 hours. I still oppose it but an editor wanted more time to modify the article so I agreed. --Tyler 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler, first of all I have added a more specific mention of Japanese war crimes to the article. I also checked and Buddhism is in there. We could merge sections, but at the moment you're not being specific enough for me to help you. I have a lot of other work to do, and all the other editors seem to have disappeared. I can't make all these revisions by myself in 24 hours without even knowing what it is that has to change.
This nomination isn't going anywhere right now, so I need you to be more patient and more specific as to what you want added. John Smith's 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support As far as I know I corrected every error I can see. Of course, by no means, the article can be better, but in my opinion the article looks good. As a matter of fact, I am still suggesting some changes, but they are just ideas for improvement. -- Taku 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problems I was referring to were not corrected, I think this article needs more work, lets just kill the FA quest for now and after a few months to a year, lets try again. We need more information on the introduction of Buddhism, not just a mention centuries later, and we need to balance the information to correctly reflect that the 20th cent. is not most of Japan's history. The section about influence from the west in the 20th cent. takes up 1/3 of the history section while influence from close Asian neighbors is either glanced over or completely left out. --Tyler 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, 1/3rd of the history section in the India article deals with post-British-colonisation history. --WoodElf 16:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we are forgetting what this vote is about:identifying outstanding articles within Wikipedia. Its a waste of time time trying to make a perfect article. There is no such thing; but I am sure you shall all agree when I say that this article is one of the finest articles in this website. So please, vote reasonably. --WoodElf 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tyler, I think it's somewhat improper of you to vote against this because you don't think Buddhism has a high enough profile in the article. You added your section in as we discussed, so what's the problem? You didn't say you were going to add that and then vote against it - I think you've gone back on what you said earlier. John Smith's 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I got rid of blank spaces that were appearing in the middle of two sections by changing some image placements. I think maybe we've been concentrating too much on the history section and have ignored some of the other sections. For example, the "Sports and recreation" might need some work to conform to WP:MOS. There are thin stand-alone sentences that could probably be combined with each other or expanded upon by themselves. The "Science and technology" seems a bit small considering how much of a giant Japan is in global market for consumer electronics. There seems to be an over-use of parenthesis in the "Economy" section, with a couple of (see also list of Japanese companies), which I'm almost certain does not conform to WP:MOS. There's a littering of Japanese terms in a few sections that can be easily replaced with English - for example, shunto, the guarantee of lifetime employment (shushin koyo), and closely-knit groups called keiretsu (examples include Mitsubishi, Sumitomo and Mitsui), etc. I'm doubtful this article is ready for FA status. The article needs some editorial work. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support

Here is a review of the Featured article criteria:

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
    • (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
    • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are attributable to reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. See the attribution policy for information on when and how extensively references are provided, and citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
    • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
    • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
  3. It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. If fair use images are used, they must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

In my opinion, the article meets these criteria. I think especially pertinent to the discussion are #1(d) "articles need not give minority views equal coverage," #4 "without going into unnecessary detail," and #1(e) "vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply." Within those limitations I believe the article meets all the criteria for featured status. Fg2 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the article has problems under criteria 1 and 2. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not perfect, of course. But I agree with Yaanch that "a perfect article is impossible, we're not voting for perfection but for an article that will be featured." In my opinion, this is featured quality (even while still being imperfect). Fg2 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't meet criteria 1 and 2. --Tyler 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article meets all the criteria. John Smith's 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the following comments: I think that the article would flow better if there were longer paragraphs. The amount of one or two sentence paragraphs makes reading it a bit jarring for me sometimes. This is most frequent in the history section, I think. Again on the history section, I realize this has been debated and changed a lot, but I think that if possible adding sub-sections would be really helpful. Currently it's a big block of text and that's a little daunting. Germany and Turkey (previously mentioned FA countries) both have history sub-sections. But neither India nor Australia have history sub-sections. So never mind. I do, however, think that the pictures are a problem. More should be on the left side of the page to break up the text and make it more flowy and appealing, and to break up the big line of pictures on the right. BilabialBoxing 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blue-link was dealt with - sometimes people sneak them in under the radar. Plus I dealt with the references that used wikipedia - that was the only such reference.
I think you're being a little unfair. Beforehand there were lots of missing references and no real formatting - now all references have dates, working links, etc. John Smith's 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hello. This is interesting - I've never seen you take an interest in FA nominations. Maybe you could be so gracious as to explain your criticisms.
"Some bad referencing" Like what?
"Images do not seem to be fair use" Why?
"Gallery table" Huh - that's a reason to oppose FA???
I'd like to hear what you have to say, otherwise I will have to assume you are only here due to wikistalking and ask your vote be discounted. John Smith's 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Radiohead

edit

I have attempted to improve this article, and after much work, I think that it meets the FA criteria.ErleGrey 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add fair use rationales to all sound files. Ceoil 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. The article needs a thourogh copyedit which I note is underway. I'd like to see mention of Radioheads legacy, in paticular on bands such as Muse, the unbelivable truth, and (cough) Coldplay. Ceoil 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that legacy could be mentioned without taking a point of view, so I've refrained from adding that to the article. However, if you've got an idea for such a paragraph, feel free. ErleGrey 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those bands have explicitly cited Radiohead as an influence. No doubt you have seen this while reading the nine books, three dissertations, and eight online articles claimed as sources at the foot of the article, or should they be moved to a "Bibliography" section. Ceoil 23:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the references do present things from the band's point of view. I have a few quotes supporting that legacy, however they are used in Radiohead's album articles, and I think that they would not fit well in the main history section of the page. To have a separate section on that legacy would, in my opinion, be ludicrous, which is why I didn't include it in the article. Also, that information is better presented in the form of a list of influences on the relevant artist pages, which it already is. Look here and here to see what I mean. ErleGrey 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Keane and Snow Patrol are about the third wave of Radiohead influenced bands to infest (at least) the UK charts, I think a legacy section is needed. To say that the "The references do present things from the band's point of view", implies use of biased sources. Ceoil 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. What I meant to imply was that the other sources depict the band's history through interviews with them, and in effect portray their point of view. As to the inclusion of a legacy section, it doesn't seem a requisite for a FA article-see The Smashing Pumpkins. ErleGrey 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a "Legacy" section per se, but you need to acknowledge one exist if bands cite Radiohead as an influence. It helps establish notability. WesleyDodds 07:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that legacy is also cited in the intro, with the line "influencing artists in many genres.[12]", so I think that should be enough mention, as it is in a notable spot in the article.ErleGrey 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article should go in-depth about it. Anything that appears in the lead should be discussed in the body of the article, since it is an overview of the entire article. And Radiohead's influence on bands like Coldplay and Muse is certainly enough for a paragraph or two. WesleyDodds 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll start to work on and cite such a paragraph.ErleGrey 18:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a legacy paragraph (cited) here and would appreciate any comments/advice on it.ErleGrey 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. Made some minor copyedits and read through much of the article. Here are some issues I identified.
    • "initially formed by school friends in 1985." Date is relevant enough for first sentence of the article but probably not the part about school friends. That should probably come at least slightly later.
    • "caught on at home in the UK" colloquial language. at home in the UK is repetitive.
    • "expressive singing" POV
    • First paragraph launches right into chronology. Anyway to have an overview first? Maybe have genre(s) at beginning?
    • "Radiohead's original influences were" cite
    • "was noted for its mix of guitars. . ." by who? cite.
    • "expected for release sometime in 2007." cite
    • 'customary rehearsal date" don't we mean Day of the Week? date means a specific day in the year.
    • " always planning to return to the band" cite
    • " As the band's live bookings increased, record labels began to show interest in them. Eventually, the group signed a six-album recording contract with EMI, thanks to a chance meeting with a label representative in the record shop where Colin Greenwood worked. At the behest of the label, the band changed their name to Radiohead, after the title of a song on Talking Heads' True Stories album." All of these sentences need cites.
    • Creep single released in 92, but it says 93 in lede (because connected to debut album). Can this be clearer?
    • There's a lot of use of "However, . . .". Not technically correct at the start of a sentence in any case, this rhetorically device gets a bit dry as it continues to crop up.
    • "to this day" colloquial. probably change to today and add an [[As of 2007]] tag.
    • America - > United States
    • "then nearly broke up . . ." cite
    • "their wall of guitar sound and heart-on-sleeve lyrics" POV
    • "contributed to the sound of the album." Vague. Of course it contributed - what does this mean exactly and can we cite it?
    • "Tensions were high," cite
    • "The band responded by seeking a change of scenery" colloquial
    • "in an attempt to relax the atmosphere." cite
    • "However, the band, once again confronted with their newfound popularity, began to feel discomfort" I don't think bands in the collective can feel discomfort. And another "However"
    • "evolving musical style is sometimes seen as a product" weasel words who sees it that way?
    • "Yorke and Greenwood are sometimes seen as the main musical influences within the band." weasel words again
    • "However, songwriting is actually a collaborative effort." cite, sounds pretty POV
    • " Radiohead members have felt less constrained" cite. it's always hard to say what they "felt" but we can at least say what they said and what they've done and cite it.
    • "Changing roles" section title doesn't really speak to their musical style necessarily, and I'm not sure the section title is really encyclopedic. sounds more like a newspaper article title to me. Maybe just "Multi-instumentalists" or at least "Changing instumental roles" or something. Maybe there's a better idea?
    • It seems like there's not really a lot about their actual musical style (they play many instruments, they collaborate). I understand that musical style and content is one of the hardest things to write about. Do any of those dissertations have scholarly musical analysis that might be of help?

Lots of nice work has obviously gone into this article! I hope these comments are helpful. Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and fixed the problems which you have mentioned. Thanks for your advice. ErleGrey 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per criterion 3. Please review Wikipedia:Music samples, which states that only 10% of a song or 30 seconds (if the song is five minutes or longer) can be used in fair use sound clips. "Usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines" according to Wikipedia:Music samples. LuciferMorgan 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Reply The music samples have all been shortened to less than 30 seconds, except "Paranoid Android", which is 32 seconds, still in compliance with Guideline#1. ErleGrey 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawn. LuciferMorgan 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More comments Great work on the article! Here are some more things you may wish to consider.

  • Weasel words. While you've done a great job adding more citations. I still think it's not scholarly or verifiably accurate to include phrases like "Radiohead have often been cited as among the most creative musical groups of their era,"" and "are seen by some to have maintained a spirit of musical and political independence". and "Hail to the Thief is seen by critics as an attempt to distill and fuse the electronic and experimental influences" What critics? Are they notable? Notable enough to mention in the article body? Who do they write for? etc. "Are seen by some" doesn't tell us anything useful - (if I see it that way, then it's "seen by some", so we need to say who sees them). One solution is to add several sources into each footnote, but it would also just help to change the language. One source is not critics.
  • "drawing crowds to their concerts" that's pretty generic. what band doesn't?
  • I think a successful footnote is the one for "influencing artists in many genres". It links to a list which clearly shows their influence. It might be even better to say some of the most notable, either in the text or at least in the footnote.
  • Still some typographical errors like "groups of their era,[11]drawing" (no space) Same problem "from it!"[30]However,"
  • Still some prose issues: "initially formed in 1986. Originally named On a Friday,[1] Radiohead's lineup has remained the same since their formation," formed and formation in two sentences is redundant. Plus, do we need "initially formed?" Is it that important to separate that formation from their later recovening?
  • Still some sections that need cites and sound a little POV. Example: "The tense recording sessions for Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001) completely changed Radiohead's method of working as they moved away from standard rock music instrumentation. Since then, Radiohead members have felt less constrained to stick to their primary instruments, and now regularly switch depending on the particular song requirements. However, their roles usually remain more stable when the band performs live." Telling readers what Radiohead members felt is probably not verifiable in any case.
  • I feel this kind of sentence construction is awkward "Yorke has described the lyrical content of the forthcoming album as". If the source is notable enough for an encyclopedia, we should be able to say. "In an interview with the New York Times, Yorke described the lyrical content of the forthcoming album as 'terrifying'..." That particular quote might be a bit extensive for this article anyway. Maybe better for the main article on the seventh studio album. It's also a one-sentence paragraph, kind of a faux-pas for FA's.

This has come a long way! These comments are meant to apply not just to the specific examples I mentioned but to the entire article. I hope they're helpful. Thanks for helping make this article better! Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article, made some significant changes in respect to the issues brought up in the previous entry, and copyedited it. Thank you for your comments. ErleGrey 17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:MOS and reference cleanup work is needed. See WP:DASH for how to correctly name sections. References are inconsistenly formatted and haphazard, appearing to be added by different editors using different styles. Not all publishers are identified, and it's not clear that reliable sources are in use here. If you aren't familiar with a consistent referencing style, you can see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. A review of WP:RS is in order wrt to what appear to be some personal websites.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Adolf Hitler

edit

great man, great articleDavidYork71 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC) previous FAC[reply]

Something to do with reversing the insult of the Versailles Diktat and rescuing a bankrupt nation from humiliation. That sort of thing.DavidYork71 12:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I going crazy here? Must I mention the Holocaust? So, perhaps the Treaty of Versailles was not the most diplomatic move in history (which is, of course, debatable). Initiating a retributive war (after seizing power through a coup) and attempting to murder an entire race (genocide) as well as his political dissidents and other "undesirables" in reaction does not make a Hitler a great man. I would say that it makes him a vengeful, evil, bigotted tyrant. (I can't believe that I am essentially "invoking Hitler" in an argument about Hitler himself. It's so weird.) Awadewit 13:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the comment the benefit of the doubt and just assumed he meant "great" as in "important," which is one of the many definitions of that word. However, the user's comments regarding his good deeds makes me wonder. Not like any of this matters, though, as the user's politics has nothing to do with the status of this article. JHMM13 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was a criminal according to international law and even according to German law, but also an influential person. I'm no supporter of his ideas, but arguably you can find similar patterns throughout history, take Julius Caesar for example. Pacifying tribes is an euphemism for nothing else but slave labour and genocide, besides robbing other people to pay the armament debts and buying political support. See, our military history is full of such people you wouldn't possibly invite for dinner. Wandalstouring 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Okay, while the nominator's comments are a little frightening, the main issues are the lack of citations and ength. There are a lot of subpages and the article does deserve some length due to it's importance, but more needs to be transferred to the subpages. An "Early life of Adolph Hitler" subpage could be created to focus on his life up to and including his World War I service. Of course I would accept more length than most editors, so probably the main issue for me is the lack of citations. There are numerous citation needed tags towards the end of the article which are a red flag. There are probably more issues but until those two are addressed I'm not going to search for them at length. Quadzilla99 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't care about the nominator's opinion about the person. He may think whatever he wants. But this is irrelevent to this nomination, which reminds me of a previous Sadam's nomination. One thing is for sure: this article is not ready for FAC (lack of citations, listy sections etc.), and this nomination could be closed per SNOW IMO.--Yannismarou 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Try WP:GAC first before attempting this, not even sure it would pass there. Plus, there needs to be well over 100 citations for an article of that length, though at least 30's progress.--Wizardman 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggest withdrawal, peer review, stuff like that. Also suggest nominator should rethink his sense of humor. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, was delisted as a GA last year; I think that should be priority right now. The page is also a tenth of a megabyte long. Good thing 'great' can also mean notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding. PhoenixTwo 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You should try to make it reach Good Article status first. And add citations. Flubeca 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Politics mean nothing. I don't care if the nominator is a card-carrying Nazi. NPOV is what is important if such was the case, and I don't see anyone making that an issue. The article simply needs more research. There's tons of material to draw from. An article on a person of Hitler's notoriety has no excuse not to be fully cited. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 07:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

edit

A self nomination, with a lot of work done by myself and Wehwalt and a peer review by Daniel Case. Article is well sourced and has passed GA a while ago. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Two citations still needed.
  2. Reference #37 is erroneous and needs fixing.
  3. Consider removing the myspace link as they are usually considered "uncyclopedic".
  4. Image:Borat - Movie Soundtrack Cover.jpg should be sized down and a source is needed, "Rationale provided by Hahnchen" is also probably not needed in the rationale either.
  5. Image:Borat DVD Cover.jpg needs source.
  6. Some of the references should be re-ordered so they count up in order.
  1. Done some work with the citations. Hoepfully it will be acceptable now.
  2. For some odd reason the link still wouldn't work, so I had to arrange it differently.
  3. Will consider
  4. Sent a request to the uploader for the source, but he appears to have not edited since January. Will remove if nothing comes up in a few days.
  5. I've actually been thinking that one could be replaced with an image of the back of the DVD case, to better illustrate the text (Would such an image be considered a free image if it was a pic taken by a user, or would it have to be fair use?) In addition, it appears to be a promotional image that doesn't actually reflect how the final packaging looks. I'll remove it and put up an image request.
  6. Been working on that as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot synopsis concerns me the most. Some bit just don't sound right and could be better worded. Such as "He learns to his pleasure that his wife has been killed and resolves to go to California to 'have' Anderson's "vagine" and make her his wife, justifying the trip to Azamat by telling the skeptical producer that "Pearl Harbor is there (California) and so is Texas". A few WW like "beloved" and "In the midst of". Also it could discribe the plot in more detail, there is only a bref mention of the dinner party he attends and the driving lessons he takes. Buc 09:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't remember what scene preceeded the naked fight, otherwise I would remove "In the midst of". I'll try to add some deatil without going on for too long. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the plot summary sections that were of concern.--Wehwalt 10:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Overall this article is not on the same level as other film FAs; please take a look at the Star Wars articles for example.
  • Comment: Over the opening weekend Borat debuted to No. 1 on the, with a total gross of $26.4 million... Number 1 on the what? Andrew Levine 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Many of the fair use images are too large; in fact, the one in the infobox is larger than my wallpaper. Please shrink fair use images so that the longest side is no more than 400px and tag them with {{subst:furd}}. ShadowHalo 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now. ShadowHalo 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way, Borat! is a double redirect. Would you mind fixing that and checking to see if there are any others? ShadowHalo 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments When he learns, to his delight, that his wife has been killed by a bear, his course is plain- course is plain?
  • wikilink documentary, crockery
  • He meets gay pride parade participants, politicians (including Alan Keyes and Bob Barr) and African American youths playing Cee-lo. He is also interviewed on live television and proceeds to disrupt the weather report. He sings a fictional Kazahkstan national anthem to the tune of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at a rodeo, where his jingoistic pro-U.S. rhetoric excites the crowd. He rents a room from Jewish bed and breakfast owners, "escapes," and later attempts to purchase a handgun to defend himself against Jews. When told he cannot buy a gun because he is not an American citizen, he purchases a bear which he names after his dead wife. He then attends. Every sentence starts with he he did this, he did that, when he - makes bad prose
  • show him the infamous Pam and Tommy video - some readers might not know its a porno so make it clear (could add home movie after Tommy
  • merge this one sentence paragraph - In Israel, a proposed poster depicting Borat in swimwear was rejected by the film's advertising firm in favor of one showing him in his normal suit
  • released a statement external jump
  • Soundtrack section is a bit of a mess
  • If you're even going to use a picture of the cover of the DVD (seems pointless) at least get a good quality one without fingerprints all over it. M3tal H3ad 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

God's Son

edit

This is a very well written article with numerous diverse references that enhance the article, there is history about the album and behind it and it's makings. I was shocked when i finished reading it. Wuthai 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...in ages.--Rmky87 06:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to have one main editor (Noahdabomb3); was he asked if it was ready for FAC or notified that it was taken to FAC? Do we know if he is finished with the work? I believe original authors should be allowed to nom their own articles, as they will have to defend them, and they know if the article is ready. He should at least be notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - How about a few printed citations. --History Fan 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal For Above Appose That is an absolute weak oppose. The only other albums that are FA are 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), 36 chambers, and Enta Da Stage. The first is comprised of nearly all magazine articles (like those are truly verifiable), the second (which is far more in depth and better of an article)is comprised of all online sources (ready for viewing), and the third is also comprised of all online sources (about 9 less than the candidate in question). Even former FA-album articles, such as Illmatic are made up of nearly all online sources. Your opposition is not nearly substantial enough to deny God's Son its well deserved FA-Status. Wuthai 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Three fair use images are missing fair use rationales
      •  Done
  • See also has a redlink (whole point of the section is to link to articles that exist)
      •  Done
  • Point of view statements - a solid rating of four stars. - It was the second most successful single - The second and most successful single - "I Can" received significant commercial success - It was not much of a commercial success - The three singles display the diversity of God's Son
  • certification from RIAA - from the RIAA
      •  Done
  • God's Son only reached #12 - only? is this a personal statement for a poor performance
  • a chart position that Nas had not fell to since his first album - fell implies the album was higher then #12 or are you referring to his other albums? make it clear.
  • After the release of the acclaimed song (reference?) Nas gained acclaim - acclaim twice in one sentence
  • Nas explained how he was the old king of New York rap, but later sold out, and soon reinvented himself to reign again as New York's king. reference?
  • Nas' 1994 debut album, don't wikilink solo years unless it provides context to the article, which this doesn't and should be linked to 1994 in music.
  • "its three singles performed well on the charts (POV and you're saying three singles performed well when the biggest selling reached the same position as the album?)
  • certification from RIAA - from the RIAA. If you spell it out it's "certification from Recording Industry Association of America"
      •  Done
  • link studio album - some people think it's just a record recorded in a studio when its a collection of unreleased material.
      •  Done
  • Because of personal content, don't start a sentence with because. Could be - God's Son is considered a leap of maturity and spirituality for Nas, due to personal content or w/e
      •  Done
  • During 2002, some speculated that - who is 'some'? critics?, fans?, other musicians?
  • Remi produces five tracks - produced. M3tal H3ad 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
  • What is the point wikilinking July
      •  Done
  • The third and final single on God's Son, released in July of 2003, is "Get Down." Produced by Salaam Remi and Nas himself, it samples vocals and the melody section of James Brown's "The Boss" and the percussion from James Brown's "Funky Drummer," as well as "Rock Creek Park" by The Blackbyrds and a speech from an unknown source. Five 'and'
      •  Done
  • The story may be inspired by a similar real life incident that occurred in 1970 - WP:OR
I believe you should of let the author of the article nominate so he knows its ready. M3tal H3ad 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Hulk Hogan

edit

Very good article, well written, appropriate references, most sections go in-depth. Can't see reasons why this shouldn't be FA. Davnel03 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that the article shouldn't be a FA without the citations it's lacking and other reasons, I find it down right stereotypical to !vote against an article because you don't like the subject matter. — Moe 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki PW articles have become notorious for being crammed full of fancruft and becoming the battleground for edit warring. There is no serious effort to remedy this. Hence, very rarely would a PW article qualify for FA status, unless the standards on Wikipedia have suddenly been lowered beyond belief. Manager Of Champions 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunately very true. If all the cruft was removed from Hulk Hogan it would be sadly inevitable that some fanboy would feel the need to make his mark by cluttering it up again. This is a problem that articles on classical mythology and horticulture don't have. One only has to look at how much s**t was added to Donald Trump after he became involved in WWE storylines. No matter what warnings and guideline pointers we put on wrestling articles they still get ignored regularly. Suriel1981 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while agree that few PW articles would qualify for FA status, Hogan's would be one that I can seeing having enough interest that it should be. Unfortunately, this one doesn't meet the standard. Not enough pictures for an american icon. The intro is too short. The citations are significantly lacking. And an article of just too full of list of fights... the sections up thru the Japanese stint were interesting. But from Andre the Giant forward it got boring...Balloonman 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry but there just seem to be too few references/citations and an excess of fancruft currently. Suriel1981 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, but I did mention this is close to FA status before, all we need to do is add a few more images and get a load of references, this was just elected at the wrong time. Govvy 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added eight images, now they just need to work on the references.PepsiPlunge 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not only does it need work on the citations, but it also needs to be trimmed---we don't need a play by play on Hulk's wrestling history/matches. Here is my suggestion, that might take care of some of the fancruft. Break the article into a couple of sub articles. Make one of those sub articles "Rivalries of Hulk Hogan" and put most of the play by play into the sub article. Focus on the IMPORTANT events in Hulk Hogan's life. Pick a few notable matches that he was involved in, but put most of them in another article---the average reader (to whom an FA must appeal) doesn't care.Balloonman 04:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding images of fair-use are alright if there are fair-use rationales included in each of them. None of them have one at the moment. -- Oakster  Talk  20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I don't dispute the notability of the person, the article is full of fancruft that matters little to people outside of WWF/WCW/etc. Poor organization within sections, excessive use of bullet lists, poor referencing. Madcoverboy 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Žirmūnai

edit

Article informs readers about one of Lithuanian capital Vilnius elderates (neighbourhoods). By combined effort, team of editors made this article to GA status. Later, the article undergone further improvements and now, I think, the article is ready for FA because:

  • It is well written
  • Comprehensive
  • Well referenced
  • Has illustrations

M.K. 10:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
  • Overwhelming ToC. Cut down third level headings
Fixed M.K. 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images too wide. Thumb instead of setting a default pixel
Comment. Could you elaborate - you suggesting to remove placed pixel sizes and leave only default? M.K. 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed M.K. 11:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an elderate should be mentioned in the lead like you've done in this nom
  • Altitude?
119 metres, added
  • Lead should summarise the article
  • Are religion stats available?
Could not find separately for elderate. M.K. 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarise history
Done Novickas 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • closest airport, railhead?
Fixed M.K. 11:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate?
Comment. Climate, for instance temperature, is available for Vilnius as hole not separately to elderate. Do we still need to include whole city Vilnius climate section? M.K. 11:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map should ideally be svg.
Could not find svg format. M.K. 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't compare crime rates to other cities. (Chicago/Toronto etc)
Fixed. M.K. 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • use &ndash; for dashes
  • Use &minus for negative figures.
Fixed, M.K. 10:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Agree with Nichalp, and I want to further nitpick the history section. History seems incomplete/unbalanced, with two and a half centuries of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seeimingly curiusly omitted (and the Commonwealth itself not mentioned until 20th century section...). There are quite a few references missing, including for controversial issues (pogrom), the quote from Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (not disambiguated in the article) report is rather misleading, as the report declared Polish conduct acceptable (see Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War and the report itself). Besides, I don't understand why the report is discussed, and not, for example, the battle of Wilno (1919) or the events from that time discussed at history of Vilnius. Then we have not a word about history of the region during the interwar period - did nothing notable happen there between the Polish-Soviet War and the Nazi rule? I doubt it. The history section is further confusing in its layout - describing history of several objects mixed up with the main neighbourhood (and additional sections exploding ToC as Nichalp noted). Lastly, I added a few ilinks to the lead, but the article is ilink light, with notable places and people (ex. Alexander Rimsky-Korsakov) not linked. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would place my arguments. The most of sources concerning PLC times are in Polish at best, if there could be any, and unfortunately there were no Polish editors in this article, that could be reasons for lack or this info. The same goes about interwar - there are no comprehensive Lithuanian of English sources available. Iulius 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame, than, that nobody asked WP:PWNB for help in perparing this article. Unfortunatly, that doesn't address my objections - the article is still incomplete. And I have to say I am suprised that no Lithuanian source would describe the history of that settlement during those periods...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps is never to late. Only three people put most of the work in, and probably were not aware of this posibility, would be great if someone could provide really relevant and encylopedic info.Iulius 16:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I find anything to improve on this article, I will, however I again recommend asking for help at WP:PWNB. Also, User:Halibutt would be most knowledgable for this time/place (as his comment below shows); however judging from some past issues I am afraid he may be reluctant to devote his time to this issue. If you want to FA this article, you should do your best to prove otherwise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now. In addition to what my colleagues stated above, I managed to find a plethora of factual inaccuracies. The entire 1900 to 1960 section seems to be flawed. For instance, the article states that "During the Inter-war period, when Vilnius was under Polish control, the southern part of Žvejai became known as Pióromont", even though the name of Pióromont has been in use at least since 16th century and it did not became known as such, it simply used to be called that way even before. The traditional toponymy attributed the name to a guy named Pióro who was some chancellor to Grand Dukes some time in 15th or 16th century and owned the place. But let's move forward: "the entire Žvejai area was referred to as Rybaki (Polish for "Fishermen");" - and again, the place used to be known as Rybaki for quite some time then. I could find evidence of the name being used in late 18th century, perhaps much earlier. "Šiaurės miestelis became known as Plac Broni (Polish for the "Square of Arms");" which is also wrong since Plac Broni means Military Training Ground (literal translation does not apply in all cases); besides the place used to be a military training ground in the times of PLC as well, not to mention the tsarist times, so the name was originally descriptive (locals used to call it that way because it... was a training ground). Besides, the article suggests that the locals spoke Lithuanian and it were the Poles to rename all the places there, while this was simply untrue. On to the next phrase: "During the Polish-Soviet War in 1919, the Bolsheviks made their last stand at the Shnipishok cemetery.", which is pretty unclear. Probably it is taken from some memoirs of some Russian soldier who read the name of Śnipiszki and put it in Russian, yet the author of this article transliterated the name back to Latin alphabet (thus creating a new name) instead of mentioning the true name in the article. And so on, and so forth. I guess the best thing to do with this article is to submit it to some peer review, then list all the things that should be done, and then resubmit here. //Halibutt 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of Pioromont has appeared not in the 16th century, but more likely is that it could have appeared somewhere in the 19th century - the sources differ.Iulius 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

edit

Self-nomination. This article has had a massive expansion during the past month. It also had a rather uneventful peer review; it's currently listed as a GA, and I'd like to know what people think about FA status, especially since we have a lack of featured articles about albums. ShadowHalo 08:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object per 1a, and per what I said at PR. At the end of the articles there's a table under "Charts" which violates 1a, and as this is FAC and not FLC it can be turned into prose. The redundant info is already in "Sales and chart performance", so isn't even needed. Why's it there? There's no valid reason. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the article, as it's fine overall. LuciferMorgan 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a table instead of prose does not preclude an article from being FA. Lots of recent FAs include tables; the first three in this month's log I clicked were Adam Gilchrist, George VI of the United Kingdom, Flag of Portugal and all have a table that could theoretically be converted to prose (yet works better as a table). Andrew Levine 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My criteria concern is actionable per criterion 1a which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose" so yes I can object based on this. Tables don't work better at all and in this case it's totally redundant as it's just duplicating info already in the article, and because nobody has raised it in past FA noms of this month doesn't mean it can't be raised here - Raul's the one who deems whether an article passes / fails, so take it up with him. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe your concern is actionable, though I do disagree with it. From what I've seen the point of tables of chart positions is to give readers an idea of the chart performance using a simpler layout as well as to give more detail than may be reasonable with prose. For example, the prose may say, "In Europe, [album/song] reached the top twenty in France, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands". These are all major music markets, but giving exact chart positions in the prose itself would likely result in poor, choppy prose. The way to fix this would be to include other information such as debut date, debut position, peak date, duration, etc., but this ends up in a huge section that goes into too much detail for the reader to follow. With a chart, the important information can be conveyed without going into unnecessary details. If there's substantial discussion regarding the chart here, it may also be worthwhile to amend (or propose amending) the MoS by starting another discussion afterward at Wikipedia:Record charts. ShadowHalo 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that your interpretation of (1a) is a novel one; I just took three examples but there are literally over a hundred FAs which have passed with tables. This is not just a few that have slipped through the cracks. Requiring "brilliant prose" does not mean "the article must contain nothing but prose" but "the prose must be brilliant." The redundancy should be fixed by eliminating the prose, not the table. Andrew Levine 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to disagree with Lucifer on this one: chart performance is relevant data and there's no better way of presenting it than in a table. Not a support as I haven't read the article yet. --kingboyk 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Charts don't work better for the presentation of numerical information? I would disagree pretty sharply with that. A chart seems ideal. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little of both Overall, I think it's a standout as a really good album article, and it's better than it deserves to be, since the album itself is nothing special. I would be OK with giving it a star, but I have a few minor complaints, though:

  • There are a couple red links, I think. That is easy to take care of.
  • Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but some statements seem to lean more to Stefani's side than not. For example, "Cool was very well-received by critics". No citation for this, and the article for the song itself doesn't give that much to back it up.
  • The track listing should probably be made into a chart, instead of just plain text.
  • A bit more helpful information in various sections. would be good. Info on the songs that weren't released as singles, and awards and accolades in a bigger variety of categories, are examples of this. Also, the article doesn't answer something I have been wondering since I first hearing this- why is there no Parental Advisory sticker for the album, when some of the tracks are just total cussfests? It would be good to answer this.

Anyways, nothing that really stands in the way of promoting this. Again, it's strange there is so much to write about for an album that is comprised mostly of inane lyrics and irritating vocals and beats. Still, the article isn't bad. Covering info on the album a little more than this would be a good idea, though. 2Pac 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can address some of this tonight, but I want to make sure I know exactly which changes to make before I do so. I think "Hollaback Girl" is the only track that contains profanity (though it does go all out), but so far as I can tell the album itself didn't attract much attention for profanity (see this review). Are there other specific instances of POV in the article? I've added two citations for "Cool", but the lead for Cool (song) states, "'Cool' received praise from pop music critics", so I don't see the problems in the article (especially some of the strong negative reviews). Oh, and I can take care of the red link pretty easily; I think it make #1 in the UK, so it should be easy to find enough info for a stub. ShadowHalo 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've created Why You Treat Me So Bad as a stub; I can't find any other red links in the article. I can't find any POV problems, and I think the Harajuku Girls and Critical reception sections deal with the subjects pretty accurately and neutrally. I've converted the main track listing into a table and added the producers for each song. I did a search for any more awards and accolades, but there don't seem to be many others, most likely because it takes a few years for albums to accumulate any (other than the annual events like the Grammys). Also, I'm not quite sure how one would go about describing the other songs. I started writing a section on the songs in general, but there's substantial overlap with the Singles section (worsened by the fact that the six singles came from the first eight songs). Any suggestions? ShadowHalo 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- There's a small error. The section about sales indicates this album debuted higher than any of Sefani's No Doubt albums. That's incorrect, as Return of Saturn debuted at number 2 on the Billboard charts. WesleyDodds 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's odd. I added that based on this source, though you're absolutely right that Return of Saturn debuted at number two. I'm guessing the phrase "scores a bigger opening week than any No Doubt record ever has" means in terms of sales, not chart positions. Either way, I've simply removed that part since it's not explicitly stated. ShadowHalo 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, weak writing. (Oppose withdrawn per improvements.) I'm afraid it's quite unencyclopedic to write as if from inside Gwen Stefani's head. "Stefani considered...", Stefani was "unsure", "Stefani felt..." "Stefani decided that she was comfortable" (sheesh!), etc. I see that sources are offered for these statements, but the sources don't know either. Tthe fact that they claim to know just shows what feeble sources they are. I can't really blame you for using feeble sources, since there may well not be any other kind, but please don't use them to make this kind of claim. What the sources can know, at best, is that Stefani or her agent or ghostwriter said she considered, felt, was unsure about, was comfortable with, etc. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Is there a better way to address the topic though? The worst stuff isn't included at all (like repeatedly having emotional breakdowns), but I can't find any better way to word what's there. WP:RS seems to state that these sources work: "For example, the diary of a famous politician (a primary source) would probably be reliable as source for a statement of opinion." I do see what you mean about it being personal, but I think that's just the subject matter. Most of the issues with creating the album were personal ones: she kept breaking down crying, she couldn't write anything for six months, etc. These are things where a primary source such as an interview is necessary; I don't see any other way of writing about or sourcing how the album was created. ShadowHalo 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not objecting on the basis of the sources being poor (that they're poor comes with the territory for album articles), so quoting WP:RS to prove they're good enough is a bit of a straw man. You can't evaluate the sources in isolation from how you use the sources: to supposedly verify the strictly unverifiable, the content of Stefani's mind. The analogy with using "the diary of a famous politician (a primary source)" to verify the politician's opinions is rather remote. Your sources aren't diaries or primary sources, they're promotional material — they're part of an industry. And my quotes above aren't about Stefani's opinions, they're taken from narratives about how (it is claimed that) she felt or thought or reacted. It's necessary to say who claims she felt that way, because nobody really knows how she felt. I'm not doing some subtle epistemological objection here; I actually find it unlikely that Stefani had those simultaneously over-simplified and over-dramatized feelings, that she experienced that emotional narrative. I suspect the published accounts you cite were written because they're the kind of drama fans like to read. But of course I can't know either, and I'm not asking you to remove it, I'm asking that the text takes a distance to it instead of presenting it as gospel. Even if it's cumbersome, an encyclopedic account needs to say, at a minimum, that "according to x, Stefani felt", or "In an interview in y, Stefani is quoted as stating that she felt", or some such. I know those examples are ugly, sorry. I don't know how to fix it either. But if there isn't a better — more encyclopedic — way to address the topic, the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Okay, I think I see what you mean now. I've rephrased the problematic parts. I left the part that said "considered recording material that modernized 1980s music" though. Nearly every review (separate from interviews) stated that it sounded like 80s music, so implying that she hadn't actually thought about 1980s music when making the album would be misleading. I didn't put "according to" or "in an interview in" because, as you stated, that sounds pretty ugly. But I did put that she "stated" or "later stated" these things since that's the accurate way of putting it. ShadowHalo 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm withdrawing my opposition. (Note that withdrawing opposition doesn't amount to supporting the article for FA, though.) Bishonen | talk 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Stylistically, it's pretty jarring. Semicolons are wonderful things, but recall that Kurt Vonnegut said that they should be entirely banned. His point is that they introduce an air of erudition without any of the hard work and provide ugly rivets in sentences that should flow. This article is overridden with semicolon junctions and repetitions of initial adverbial phrases ("During recording" and "During recording" and "During recording"). Use semicolons as potent spices, where the two independent clauses are so nearly aligned in sense that there is no justification for a period and yet when they are not appositives and therefore in need of a colon. The usage issues of "she thought" and the like that Bishonen noted are generally gone. That said, the tone is still pretty wide-eyed and fawning. With greater sentence variation and syntactic easing, I could support. Geogre 17:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really can't identify the POV in the article, so I'm convinced it's because I wrote most of the article and have worked with it too much. I've removed almost half of the uses of the semicolon, and the word "during" is now only used twice in the "Conception and writing" section (unlike the semicolon, the word "during" isn't evil in itself, so that should be fine). I've also posted a request for WP:LoCE to look the article over for POV/structure issues, and I've asked Extraordinary Machine if he'd be willing to look it over for POV. ShadowHalo 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Belarus

edit

previous FAC

OK, after several attempts of peer review, some issues related to content and from the Countries Wikiproject, I personally believe the article on Belarus is ready for FAC. Unlike with previous FAC's that I have done, I managed to enlist the support of the Copyeditors League, so grammar should not be a major issue. Picture wise, Belarus looks great, though the pictures of Putin and Lukashenko and the USSR stamp I have questions over or are being discussed on the Commons. Other than that, I hope this article makes yall happy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a better way of showing that the Largest cities in Belarus section - the populations and so on - are sourced?-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • This sentence : "Belarus is also the only European nation that has been formally barred from joining the Council of Europe because of human rights violations and for conducting elections that do not meet democratic standards." is a very controversial and complex point to have in the lead without attributions or citations. Issues about human rights violations and democracy cannot be easily explained in one sentence. Human rights violations could mean anything from poor practices in the workplace to the Khmer Rouge killing fields, and hence could be misleading to unknowing readers glancing at the article. Also, democracy is incommensurable and no authoritative body owns that definition. There is no counterpoint from the Belarusian government. I think this needs to be discussed in detail in the body of the article, which it is, rather than the lead. I'm fairly sure someone will challenge that sentence if it ever appeared on the main page and I've seen some very nasty edit wars and even lawsuits break out over these types of sentences in nation article leads before. They are perhaps the most contentious parts in all wikipedia. Therefore I preach caution and encourage discussion about this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Going by the featured article norm that every piece of information that could be challenged should have an inline citation, I think there are too many unsourced facts and a number of unsourced paragraphs. For instance "The first known use of the term "White Russia" to refer to Belarus was in the late sixteenth century by Englishman Sir Jerome Horsey." at the start of the history section. I think the first thing to do would be to add inline citations to some of these more precise details, such as the above, and "The spellings Belorussia and Byelorussia are transliterations of unofficial alternative names of the country in Russian." "Belarusian territories remained part of the Russian Empire until they were occupied by Germany during World War" etc. -- Zleitzen(talk) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Needs better referencing (I generally resent editors who qualify an article's quality based on ref counts, but only, cmon, only 38?), I want to know more about the events, leaders, and issues that lead to post-Soviet independence, politics makes no mention of foreign relations except to Russia and non-EU status (what of other eastern European and Soviet-bloc countries?), picture sizes need to be standardized, aligned, formatted better, administrative divisions could be split into either "Politics" or "Geography" as there is not enough info to warrant its own section unless more information was given about these in relation to each other, "Culture" suffers from some NPOV and attribution issues. Madcoverboy 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Created paragraph on foreign affairs, though I need to expand about the Americas and China (especially). I need to mention that Belarus is part of the NAM and Lukashenko was present at the last NAM meeting in Cuba in 2006. I am trying to tackle the POV issues in the Culture section, but I am also expanding it and introducing some references. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Alexander Lukashenko Mogilev visit.jpg is tagged as {{president.gov.by}}, but it does not appear to be a free image, since the listed rights only include copying, not the creation and distribution of derivative works.
    2. The image Image:Soviet Union-1961-Stamp-0.03. Belarusians.jpg is tagged as {{PD-RU-exempt}}, but it does not appear to fit in any of the classes of works exempt from copyright.
  • --Carnildo 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - another pet topic as I have ancestors from Grodno..Umm a few points:
The lead is a bit short and should summarize points in the article - thus I expected to see a brief note on the political background of Lukashenko/ruling party (need only be a few words). Also (possibly) the fact that a third of it still had issues with irradiation from Chernobyl.


In history section there is "archagologist" (?) - do you mean archaeologist?

will look more later cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I mean archaeologist. Well, I had a sentence about Lukashenko's rule, (just him, since from what I understand, there is not a major party, unlike in Russia) but in a few replies above, I was told to take it down. I had Chernobyl mentioned in the lead also, but not sure why I took that out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting those government sentences in the lead to stick for a long period and be agreed, particularly I imagine for a more unconventional country like Belarus, is a painstaking business. Like balancing a coin on a tightrope. There should be a way of explaining the government position in the lead, but this is wikipedia! A featured article that then appears on the main page will be subject to so much scrutiny by both knowledgeable and idiotic passers-by that the challenge to make it accurate and NPOV that isn't changed regularly is daunting. I'll try and help over the next few days on the page and see if we can fashion something as tight as possible.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that if there was one article that was pretty hard to make it seem FA material, this is it. While I should be blesed that many POV issues were relegated to Lukashenko's article or the POV wasn't too hard to fix. The sourcing ain't hard, though just trying to make sure I have enough information in is what kills me. I expand on the indepenence, then the previous history looks stubby. But, the novacain should wear off in a few hours, so I will take some more stabs at the history and the sourcing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel that the prose is in very poor shape. It's not just a case of requiring a copyedit but in my opinion of needing more precise thought in many places. I do have a list of actionable criticisms but I can't bring myself to post them here because they might seem too harsh and because addressing them alone would still not be enough to change my vote. Once this candidacy is over, I will be able to frame them in a less judgemental way, if the main editor wants to look at them. I would like to say that this article is very informative in places and taught me a lot: it is very valuable to Wikipedia. But in my opinion it is a long way from FA quality. qp10qp 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a copy edit done earlier this year, but I am not sure if the new text I introduced was bad, or everything is crap overall. I think that right now, anything for me to fix is fine, despite on how harsh it is. I am not sure how long this candidacy will last, but I suspect it won't last for pretty long. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 12:56, 21 March 2007.

Sonoma County, California

edit

This nomination was supposed to be withdrawn. I never expected it to cause bad blood, and I'd rather everyone just get along. I still think it's a beautiful page, but it's not worth it if it's going to make people hate me. This page has had a GREAT deal of work put into it. It's not only an important page, and well done, but it meets all of the featured article criteria as well. It's a joy to read. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Article is heavily comprised of lists and contains only one inline citation, which is nondescript. Slof 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer I contributed almost nothing to the article, but the reason I reformatted and beautified it was because it was so COMPLETE. If one looks up any state or country in a printed encyclopedia, you will find that it is heavy in lists. This is because the article has no bias slant at ALL, and is completely neutral. The article is also full of citations, they are simply not cluttered inline. This was a necessary deed, as the artical with so many facts would have been cluttered with several HUNDRED inline citations. The article really is well laid out, and informative. More than deserving of a Featured Article Status, in my humble opinion.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: WP:SNOW Contrary to being a featured article this article needs a banner saying it requires Wikification. The introduction has nothing to do with the article. If wine growing is so important to Sonoma, why do you start out the article with a list of watersheds? Why are watersheds so important to Sonoma County, California that they deserve to be listed as the eighth sentence of the entire article: intro, SC is in California, on the Coast, Wine Country, it has this many people, this much land, and here is a list of its watersheds. A featured article requires compelling writing. Regurgitating facts in random order on a page is not a featured article. The formating is dreadful. Please read [[5]] as this article appears to meet none of them. Sonoma County is one of the most stunning and beautiful places in all of California and here we at Wikipedia don't have a single image of this beauty on the page--for that alone it simply cannot be a FA and should be withdrawn before anyone else spends time reviewing what is clearly nowhere in the ballpark for a FA. If you want FA status for the article, meet the criteria. If you disagree with the criteria gather consensus to change them, rather than bringing something here that isn't a FA. However, the article does need tagged for clean-up and I have taken care of some of that. KP Botany 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Wow that was pretty rough. Had I written the article, I'd probably be a little offended by that. But all I did was format it and nominate it. I agree with you about the picture though. Perhaps you will find one. Needless to say I disagree with just about everything else you said. Not sure what cleanup you might be talking about, please don't vandalize it, thanx.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS I went back and checked the page, and surprise, surprise, surprise, you pasted 12 or so banners all over it. I deleted your defacing banners, but I won't edit-war. So if you feel compelled to deface the page again, somebody else will have to take it down. All I wanted to do was nominate a really nice page (and it is) for Featured Article, not attract trouble, so I'm done with this. I hope the article gets it, it's a worthy article, but I won't get into an edit war over it. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about nominator I posted a comment on WP:AN/I about this user,[6] as her user page, her list of interests, most of her user boxes, and her statement of why she is editing Wikipedia, were largely copied from the user page of another, long standing (longer than Sue's 8 days at least), Wikipedia editor--her claim that she was on the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University (sic, as copied from her now edited user page[7]) was not, however, copied from any other user that I can tell. Also, this user is not the least bit interested in FAC criteria, and I suspect there is something else going on here. I ask an administrator to please remove this FAC for the time being. I am concerned about the sources for this article, in light of the outright copying of another user's identity to represent the nominator. KP Botany 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Well, you sure managed to turn this into some sort of personal vendetta. All I was trying to do was nominate a nice page for Featured Article. I won't edit war with you, and I won't defend what's on my user page, it has nothing to do with any of this. Accuse me of anything you like, but it doesn't take away from the page we are supposed to be discussing here. Your personal attacks are very inappropriate.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Given the huge amount of work that needs to be done, it's difficult to take this candidacy seriously. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting out of hand. KP Botany, please tone down the conspiracy theories and remain civil. Sue Rangell, we appreciate your enthusiasm but FA is a very strict process and one can see just from glancing that this article doesn't meet the criteria, in particular with regard to the citation of references. I move that we close this nomination, restore civility, and revisit the matter when the article is in a better state. Try WP:GA first, by the way, that's slightly easier to get and will bring more feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the article. WP:PR is also a recommended port of call before FAC in most cases. --kingboyk 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy theories are properly being taken care of elsewhere. However there is a lot of work in reading FACS, and I do not appreciate the time being wasted. I think in this rather unusual case that a warning to other editors was appropriate, if not well-worded. For the latter I apologize. KP Botany 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. --kingboyk 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

edit

old nom

In much better shape since last time. It is now the best article on the subject available on the internet. I know this because I spent alot of time looking for references. -- Selmo (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes are done, give me some time to fix the dates. Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not sure where the date problems are. They all appear to follow WP:DATE. -- Selmo (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unwikilinked dates in the references don't allow preferences to work. Trebor 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Selmo (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 22 and 34 still aren't right. Reading through the article:
 Done -- Selmo (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction of the Canada and Evergreen lines is underway. - very subjective to the present. Better would be "construction began in xxxx on the..." or at least "As of 2007, construction...".
  • Are these Canadian dollars being used? If so, perhaps make it explicit the first time by using CAD$, given the pervasiveness of U.S. ones.
  • Given the length of the article, the lead is arguably a bit long, and delves into unnecessary details at times. Try trimming it to a crisp two paragraphs (maybe three) and try to make it more general.
  • A third line - The Canada Line is under construction until November 2009. - missing a second dash after "Line"? You probably want to use em-dashes as well.
  • Overparagraphing in places. For instance, I don't think it's worth starting a new one just for the sentence beginning When not in use.
  • It was originally built in 1985 - was it built again later? "Originally" seems redundant.
  • When it first opened - again, was there a second opening or is "first" redundant?
  • Is there any reason that "Expansion lines" is a lot longer than "Lines in operation"? "Expansion lines" again has a lot of stubby paragraphs.
  • Busby + Associates Architects - should that be a "+"?
  • Why is "history" right in the middle of the article? To me, it would make a lot more sense straight after the lead, as it would provide background for the rest of the article. Is there a plan to your ordering?
Haven't read through it all, but it could probably do with a copyedit. I can't support for now. Trebor 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (sorry for delay). I think this meets the criteria. Trebor 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see several problems with NPOV and comprehensiveness. Both the Canada Line and the Milennium Line were strongly opposed on grounds of cost-effectiveness, route selection, disruption to local businesses, and environmental impact. Many people in the region, not to mention taxpayers from other parts of B.C., consider SkyTrain to have been a poor technology choice compared to light rail or even buses. The Milennium Line provided yet another method to get from Broadway & Commercial to New Westminster, while two of the most important destinations in the region (Central Broadway and UBC) have no rapid transit at all. There should be a description of the controversies.
    I can't just write down criticisms of the project without citing sources. maybe the people have complained, but if nothing's published, it would count as original research. NPOV requires that all significant (ie. published) viewpoints are represented. I'll look around nevertheless. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course criticisms we include must have been previously published. The newspaper archives have lots of material on this. An article like this should be based as much as possible on independent news coverage and independent scholarly studies, rather than government publications. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remembered the blurb about the millennium line being called a "skytrain to nowhere" at the end of the history section. Perhaps I'll see what around on the web. — Selmo (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of problems:

    • Handwaving: "Over the years, violence and drug abuse has been a major concern, but TransLink says the system is safe." This needs to be much more quantitative and explicit.
    • There is no discussion of crime rates in neighbourhoods around SkyTrain stations, particularly residential burglaries.
    Give me some time, I'll add it in. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Predicted completion dates and budgets are stated as facts rather than forecasts, e.g. "It will cost $970 million."
  • Projected costs of engineering projects are opinions, not facts, even if they come from the government ;) Attribtuting the opinion, e.g. "TransLink expects it to cost $970 million" is necessary. Even better would be to include other points of view about what the costs are likely to be. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I've missed this, there seems to be a discussion of capital costs, but not operating costs. SkyTrain operating losses, and SkyTrain debt servicing costs, are huge.
      I'll look, but if TransLink hasn't said anything, I cant report. WP:OR. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did projects meet expectations? There should be a discussion of forecasted versus actual ridership and forecasted versus actual costs. The purpose of SkyTrain is to give people access to their destinations, reduce traffic, and manage how the region grows in terms of land use. Has it succeeded? Kla'quot 10:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be awesome. This could be a very valuable article; maybe other cities will learn from the Vancouver experience and make better planning decisions because of it. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's been done so far

edit

I have created a "controversy" section, and I have added most of what has been asked for above. I still need to find something on the crime, though.— Selmo (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Progress has been made, but the controversies and the issue of cost-effectiveness still need more coverage. I've suggested some sources on the Talk page. Considering the richness of the source material and the hundreds of millions of dollars involved, we need to go beyond simply stating that there are opposing viewpoints, and help the reader evaluate the substance of the controversies. The article relies too heavily on websites and The Buzzer. There are far better-quality sources available, but they're not on Google. Kla'quot 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information, using newspapers form the VPL website. — Selmo (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Kulintang

edit

Been recieveing comments that this article I'm self-nominating was really good when it passed for a Good Article today. It was according to some: "well written, well sectioned, and very informative: it contains more meat than is found in some books. There is cultural context, history, technique, media files, and even a table of major performers in nice format, not to mention the numerous informative illustrations. The reference section is outstanding." I personally worked on this so if you have any comments, please feel free spill them and i'll be happy to address them. PhilipDM 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The text quoted above is mine, and I stand by it. I found the article by following a DYK link from the Main Page, and was pleasantly surprised to find an article on par with the AotD; DYKs are typically a crapshoot. The article has been very thoroughly researched, is well written, formatted and illustrated, and very comprehensive: if there is anything you've been dying to know about kulintangs, the article has it :-) Freederick 14:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, numerous problems, suggest a thorough peer review to prepare for FAC. There are WP:MSH issues; the lead should summarize the article and need not be burdened by inline citations based on text from the body of the article; hyphens and dashes aren't used according to WP:MOS; the prose relies heavily on slashes; why is there an italicized title above the info box; and this is an example of an article which is burdened by overciting of trivial facts and poor placement of inline citations. Attention to prose organization should allow for less peppering of citations throughout the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will address those issues shortly.PhilipDM 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Those issues have been addressed. See below. PhilipDM 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually did go to Peer Review, where it was completely ignored, and then archived. TheCoffee 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody does PR nowadays, anyway... --Howard the Duck 09:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody does peer review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have switched to a strong (above) because there are problems in the info filled in to the cite templates throughout the article, which, although I'm sure it's not intentional, unfortunately give the impression of misleading references. This really needs to be fixed before the article is promoted, because the references are misleading, and not all appear reliable. Some of the sources are blogs and personal websites, but that information is obfuscated by the way the info is listed in the cite templates. (This is after the blogs removed by Indon, below.) The information filled in under work and/or publisher on the cite templates (which often should be publisher) isn't always descriptive, giving the impression (for example) of very reliable sources which are actually personal websites. For example, this personal website was listed as Gamelan: architecture of carved rhythm. The University of California Press, but that information can't be verified on this site (is it a book? if so, the info is incomplete.) This blogisn't specified in the templates as a blog. There's nothing to indicate that Kipas Gallery is a reliable source.; the cite template had been filled in to indicate the source as Music instruments from the Philippines, but it is Kipas Gallery. This (PnoyAndTheCity: A center for Kulintang - A home for Pasikings. ) for example, is another blog. I've only had time to correct a few, beginning at the top, but I didn't get through most of them, and the article needs still a lot more work on specifying exactly who the website publishers are, and determining if they are reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, adding 1a object; the prose is quite troubled, and a serious independent copyedit is needed. The prose is not professional, or compelling. Sample prose:
      • The main purpose for kulintang music in the community is to function as social entertainment at a nonprofessional, folk level. This music is unique in that it is considered a public music in the sense everyone is allowed to participate. Not only do the players play, but the audience members, consisting of neighbors and guests who come to the event, are also expected to participate.
    • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-published Sources Issue - to do
Well, we definitely have a situation here. I read the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources with the sentence 'Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. I understand that totally.
However, I also wished this was a topic that was fully researched that there are enough of these so-called "reliable sources" out there that we could use. Kulintang is a musical genre on par with Gamelan but comparatively speaking, on the amount of research done on each, kulintang cannot compare at all. Gamelan has hundereds of books published thoughtout and has been researched so throughly, there's even a center for this music in Yogyakarta.
For kulintang music, we have only a limited amount of journal articles here and there. Research has never been done as throughly because it is not as widely spread worldwide as gamelan, much of the music resides in indigenous tribes where there are not many scholars recording what's going on and finally, areas where this music occurs are not as accesible to those who are scholars becuase of internal strife i.e. Eastern Indonesia and the Southern Philippines. I mean, I would like to go to the library and borrow books on kulintang and source them but there has yet to even be one single book, specifically writing about this musical genre. It's sad. In fact, i'm hoping to publish the first one of its kind this year. That's primarily the reason why i ended up referring to those sources.
So, what i could do is knock out every personal website in the article. I'll defend two though becuase they seem to fit under the "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise" exception.
One is this blog by Mohammad Amin. It's a paper about the kolintang gong music of Sulawesi but it's really sourced well. However, though Mohammad Amin has not published anything concern kakalu music that I know of, he has his own group, Hawai`i Kakula Ensemble, and happens to be the top source for this music in the states. Without him, we have almost no information about Sulewasi kolintang music.
Another blog is Pnoyandthecity. It has the online textbook enclosed within it, "Traditional Music of the Southern Philippines" by Philip Dominguez Mercurio. Unlike Amin, Mercurio has published information about kulintang music in both Philippine News and Manila Bulletin. The editor of this textbook is Master Danongan Sibay Kalanduyan, a legend in this field. He has also published numerous things in journal of "Asian Music" and he perhaps is one of the sole resources for kulintang music from the Philippines... almost all those who published information about kulintang music, either published or not, used him as their primarly source. Also all the pictures in this article come from this source which they shared with wikipedia. This source is in the process of being published into a book... later we willl use that as the reference source for this information and not the blog.
For the other sources, if they classified as personal websites, i'll knock them out. Chances are some of their information overlaps with the reliable sources. We'll just have to wait and see. PhilipDM 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Matusky, Patricia (2002). Musical Instruments of Malaysia. Musical Malaysia. Musicmall Conservatoire Productions Sdn Bnd. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Cite is repeatitive of Matusky, Patricia. "An Introduction to the Major Instruments and Forms of Traditional Malay Music." Asian Music Vol 16. No. 2. (Spring-Summer 1985), pp. 121-182. It's actually the same source. Replaced it with Matusky2. PhilipDM 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Buchholdt, Titania (2007). Kulintang Classes @ Pusod. Pusod Online. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Titania Buchholdt is well-versed in the culture of kulintang music. She is involved in kulintang groups, particularly Master Danongan Kalanduyan PKE group. However site is not clear if she is the author of information given... information which could be found in many of the other published sources below. PhilipDM 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Ethnic Music. Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Berlin - Germany (2007). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a government website published by the Indonesia Embassy of Berlin. Unless they made massive typographical errors, I'm assuming this site is reliable. PhilipDM 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Amin, Mohammad (2005). A Comparison of Music of the Philippines and Sulawesi. Sulawesi. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a blog but as I stated above there is a well-referenced paper written here by a one of the few scholars involved in Sulewasi kolintang/kakalu nuada music. Mohammad Amin fits the exception of personal websites. PhilipDM 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Butocan, Aga Mayo (2007). Maguindanao Kulintang. Tao Music. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Text here written by Aga Mayo Butocan. She, like Master Danongan Kalanduyan is also heavily involved in kulintang music, participates in ensembles and teaches it at the University of the Philippines. Another exception. PhilipDM 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Jager, Fekke de (2006). Kulintang Ensemble. Kipas Gallery. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Personally, I remember Master Kalanduyan mention to me that this fellow did some astounding documentation on the kulintang music in Indonesia and the Philippines. However, since I can't find any published documentation he has done or any other affiliation he has with kulintang music, I'm removing him. If you find evidence that proves otherwise, i'll be happy to revert this removal. PhilipDM 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Jeanson, Aled (2005). Gamelan in South-East Asia. Gamelan: architecture of carved rhythm. The University of California Press. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Really hard to figure out would wrote or published what on this page. Couldn't even find where the name Jeanson, Aled came from. Removed. PhilipDM 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Cruz, Gray (2006). Musicians - Rondalla and Percussionists. Likha Pilipino Folk Ensemble. Likha Pilipino Folk Ensemble. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Personally, not familiar with this group. They could be legitamate but becuase they have not published anything that I know of outside of this website, I'm uncertain, I'm removing it. Again if you find evidence, tell me. PhilipDM 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Grafias, Robert. Music of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Anthro 1385. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Definitely a legitamate source. Once the boss of Master Kalanduyan in University of Washington, works as the dean of music in UCLA and published information about kulintang in Asian Music. PhilipDM 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Brandeis, Hans (2006). Photographs of Mindanao, Philippines. Gallery of Photographs from Mindanao, Philippines.. Filipino Association of Berlin. Retrieved on February 12, 2007. Another legit guy from Germany. Does documentation on indiginous music of the Philipines and has reviewed articles before in legitamate journals. PhilipDM 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Panis, Alleluia (2006). Magui Moro Master Artists in Residence. Kularts. Kulintang Arts Incorporated. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Unclear on who wrote article, about legitamate group though. PhilipDM 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Canave-Dioquino, Corazon (2007). Philippine Music Instruments. Articles on Culture & Arts. National Commission For Culture And The Arts. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. I'm not familiar with Corazon Canave-Dioquino as familiar with kulintang music but I would say this is not a personal website but an article published by a governmental commission. Should be legit. PhilipDM 06:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Butocan, Aga M. (2006). Palabunibunyan. Kulintang and the Maguindanaos. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Personal website but as stated early, Aga Butocan is a known expert of kulintang music and has participated it legitamate traditional kulintang groups. PhilipDM 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Danongan Kalanduyan. Spark. KQED - Arts and Culture (2006). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a website of American public broadcasting show on KQED profiling the legendary Master Danongan Kalanduyan. PhilipDM 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Trimillos, Ricardo D. (2004). Performing Ethnomusicology: Teaching and Representation in World Music Ensembles. California: The University of California Press. The University of California Press. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. This is a published work of the University of California Press. Kept. PhilipDM 06:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Hila, Antonio C (2006). Indigenous Music - Tuklas Sining: Essays on the Philippine Arts. Filipino Heritage.com. Tatak Pilipino. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. I leaned toward removing this essay found on a commercial website. It has lots of information about pre-colonial Filipino music and an author. However, I do not know about this author familirity with kulintang music, I don't if he published works and there are no sources attached to this essay. So I removed it. PhilipDM 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Mercurio, Philip Dominguez (2006). Traditional Music of the Southern Philippines. PnoyAndTheCity: A center for Kulintang - A home for Pasikings. Retrieved on February 25, 2006. This is a blog but as I established before it encloses a online textbook, referenced well, has a legitamate author with published works on kulintang music and its editor is a legend in kulintang music, Master Danongan Kalanduyan. PhilipDM 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED but with reservations Dria, Jose Arnaldo (2006). Maguindanao. Philippine Literature. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Seems to be a legit site intent on documenting all the indigious people of the Philippines. Has author and well-referenced but I question reliability. I removed it but this could always be reverted if you believe otherwise. PhilipDM 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Kalanduyan, Danongan Sibay (2006). What is Kulintang?. Palabuniyan Kulintang Ensemble – Traditional Gong Music and Dance from Mindanao Island, Philippines. Retrieved on November 1, 2006. Personal website of the legendary kulintang master, Master Danongan Kalanduyan. Another exception. PhilipDM 06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Phillips, Frances (2001). CWF LEAD ARTISTS: DANONGAN KALANDUYAN. Creative Work Fund. Creative Work Fund. Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Legitamate event but unclear author or publisher. PhilipDM 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT Musical Instruments. SabahTravelGuide.Com. Sabah Tourism Promotion Corporation (2007). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Website of the Sabah tourism board. No author but it should be considered a informational website about musical instruments of Sabah. PhilipDM 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVED Culture. Labuan, Malaysia: The International Garden Island of Borneo. Labuan Corporation (2001). Retrieved on February 22, 2007. Seems to be a commerical, non-governmental website with no author. removed. PhilipDM 07:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyedit by an independent editor - FOR SOMEONE TO DO
Could someone work on this becuase I can't. Thank you. PhilipDM 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An interesting article, but the prose has severe problems, starting with grammatical errors in the first two sentences ("Kulintang is a modern term of an instrumental form of music..." and "...kulintang music ensembles has been played..."). It gets somewhat better later on, but the whole article needs a thorough copyedit.—Celithemis 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Thanks. Your copyedit suggestions have been implemented. Please edit more. PhilipDM 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the other issues are resolved you can list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading#Requests_for_FAC_and_FAR. —Celithemis 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Enjoyed the article, but the prose need work throughout:
  • "kulintang music ensembles has been played for centuries" - have played
made it have been played PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from a simple, native signaling" - comma not needed
  • "developing into its present form with the incorporation of knobbed gongs from Sunda." - and developed, maybe mention when this development occured.
No exact dates provide by source. Oral tradition and based on etymology. PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its importance stems from the fact it is representative of..." - the fact is redundant
  • "existing culture in these islands" - indigenous?
  • "By the twentieth century, the term kulintang has also come" - had also come
  • "to mean the entire Maguindanao ensembles of five to six instruments" - to denote an entire
Made to denote an entire Maguindanao ensemble PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are examples from the lead only, but similar problems occur throughout the text. Ceoil 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Thanks. Your copyedit suggestions have been implemented. Please edit more. PhilipDM 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Romanian general election, 1946

edit

A very well-referenced, detailed and well-structured article about one of the most significant elections in Romania's history. Ronline ✉ 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, could some of the redlinks be at least stubbed? Is 'crushing majority' appropriate language? Is "In August 1946, Berry attested that Groza intended to tighten connections with other countries occupied by the Red Army, as the basis for a customs union." <-- this talking about the plan for Balkan Communist Federation? If so, was Yugoslavia occupied? I seem to remember that the Soviets "assisted" in liberating Belgrade, but withdrew after the war was over. This could be clarified. More soon... - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it has more to do with its relatives, the idea pushed by Dimitrov and Tito before Stalin pushed them apart, and the obscure Valev plan (no countries are mentioned by name, and the text, afaicr, does indicate that it was in tune with Soviet control - could be with or without Yugoslavia). Say, are you actually working on some history of all these things? Because I think we could should really consider an umbrella article on Balkan federalism or Pan-Balkanism, to group info from Feraios and Ypsilantis to Rakovsky and Valev. Dahn 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Anittas that it could do with some photos (if they exist). Perhaps election propaganda ? This would make a perfectly fine GA as it is, but could do with work for an FA. - Francis Tyers · 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: too many red links; no photos of people or some other environment; the notes are not well structured; barely any English references. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object to the theory about the notes "not being well structured". When one quotes many pages from a text at length, that is arguably the best and simplest system for it. Dahn 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The official POV is only marginally presented. The opinions of the winners are presented through second or third hand sources.Anonimu 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now). As the creator of the article, I have to say that it still needs work for FA requirements. Pictures, mostly. No, Anonimu, not POV-pushing. Dahn 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (with some reservations). I thinks it's a very good, well-constructed, and informative article. It could use though some improvements, as suggested above -- mostly the pictures, yes. But also the notes could use some "compactification" -- for example, grouping references {5,6}, {7,8}, {71,72,73,78}, {76,79,80,81}, {87,88,90}, etc together. Not sure whether this can be done easily, but it may be worth a try. Finally, I think the "POV-pushing" allegation is simply a red herring, if you'll pardon the pun. Turgidson 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol :) Splendid pun! - Francis Tyers · 09:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe we should respect here a bit more the will of the article's main editor. I don't doubt it is a very good article, but the person who knows it better than anybody here says that he needs to work a bit more on it. I try to put myself in his position, and I recall to my memory, at the same time, the first nomination of El Greco that I opposed being the main editor of the article. Anyway ... I just think that the point here is not just to promote more and more articles to FA status, but to promote the right article at the right time and when all the appropiate work is done. If Dahn says that the article is not ready, this is it for me! If Dahn changes his mind, and does the additional work he regards as necessary, let's discuss FA promotion again.--Yannismarou 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Strawberry Panic!

edit

This article has gone through a ton of positive revisions in the past month or so and was recently granted Good Article status. I believe it statisfies the FA criteria.--十八 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportSatisfies the FA criteria exceptionally well.--Orthologist 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now due largely to concerns below about the number of blogs/forums cited as sources, especially in the "reception" section, which is critical to making a FA appeal to more than just people who are already fans of the series.
    • " Shoujoai.com forums discussing Strawberry Panic!." is listed as a source... general forums threads really aren't acceptable as sources in any articles, let alone featured articles.
I'll try to find some way to phase these out. Edit: I've replaced the reference.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • "The original artist was Chitose Maki" If they were original short stories, why was there an artist? Were the stories illustrated? Needs to be made more clear for people unfamiliar with Japanese media perhaps. It does go on to explain this somewhat in the "Short stories" section, but that's far from the intro where this question was raised. But I was still wondering if these were what western readers would recognize as a "short story", e.g. several pages of text, or was it more similar to a manga?
Using the term "short stories" is basically because that is the closest thing I could see them as. I suppose "illustrated short stories" would be better then. The first 18 or so stories were very very short, only encompassing a few paragraphs at a time. There is an example of the length of the first short story at Strawberry Panic! (short stories). And now, nothing like a manga. It was more like here's some text, and here's an illustration that goes with the text.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • Could "fan service" include a short definition? This phrase is relatively important to understand and, I think, is going to be unfamiliar to many readers. I assumed it was a take-off of "lip service" but had to read the article fan service to really figure out the full meaning.
Will do.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
This is a side-effect from an earlier time in this pages history. I have tried to phase out most of them, and will get on that.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • "the later adapted visual novel version of the series" is this the manga or the "light novel" referred to earlier? Terminology should be consistant or at least explained for people unfamiliar with the topic.
When it says "series", it's meant to be taken as a whole. The short stories were used as a basis for the manga and light novels that followed, and the anime was adapted from those. The game would then most likely be adapted from the manga and light novel as well, or at least the stage in the history once the short stories were done.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • Why aren't the subsections in "Adaptations" ordered chronologically? Seemed kind of confusing to talk about the "Internet radio show" with voiceactors from the earlier anime before talking about the anime.
I thought they were listed chronlogically. The Internet radio show began in November 2005, a full 5 months before the anime aired. It is noted which person played which part in the anime, but this was merely so the reader would know why these people were hosting this show and what role they played within the story. I guess I could make it more specific on how the anime aired later on, but as far as chronlogical ordering goes, it is in such an order.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • Is the "Internet radio show" basically a radio play that tells the story of the short stories? Article didn't fully explain this.
It was difficult to translate the wiki page, so this may be a part that doesn't get much info. I'll try to translate some pertanant information and include it.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some uncited paragraphs... mostly minor, but this sentence might need a cite: "[the anime] has a central yuri theme though nothing of it gets to the point to be considered hentai, or extremely lewd." That's somewhat interpretive and should probably be attributable to a source in a FA.
Ah, you're right. I'll just remove the POV.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • "panned by Erica Friedman" Who is Erica Friedman? Should describe her basic position or what publication she writes for. Also this looks to be referenced to a blogspot blog... rarely a reliable source.
I'll try to work on this. I've now removed it.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
Erica Friedman works for Yuricon and ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri, one of the genres SP! belongs to. Her Okazu blog, although unaffiliated with Yuricon and ALC Publishing, is used to review yuri anime and manga. She could be considered something of an expert in the field. -Malkinann 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it could be written to briefly mention her status, I think that would be reasonable (the entire mention of her seems to be gone from the article at the moment). As it was it just said her name and nothing about who she was. --W.marsh 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it for the lack of a reliable source (I had no idea about what Malkinann has stated). I will reinsert her paragraph with the explanation.--十八 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
Thanks for listening. -Malkinann 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The next review is attributed only to the pseudonym "shoujoboy". I'm not sure if this counts for much of a meaningful critic either. Another review is attributed to yet another blog (animeblogger). Did no published critics ever write about this series?
I do see your point...As far as published critics, the series has not been released in English yet, and as far as reputable Japanese reviews go, I'd say they are either very hard to find, or very little in number. Edit: I've removed the blogger entries from Reception.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • Doesn't have much about it's overall market success. I don't know if "1,918 units" of the box set sold is much. Was this considered a successful venture?
There was a comparison drawn between the DVD sales of this series with Maria-sama ga Miteru which recieved higher sales numbers. As far as if it was successful or not, I wouldn't be able to say at this point.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Most of "Reception" seems out of place. Much of the information should be worked into the other articles or the sections on that specific media (e.g. Famitsu review should be under "Visual novel" section"). The section should be on critical opinions on the series as a whole, not just one medium of it. Erica Friedman's comments for example, are fine. Everything else needs to be elsewhere.
But if a person wants to know about the reception of the visual novel, shouldn't it make sense to put it in Reception? Making the reader do more work doesn't make sense.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the opposite happened for me, which is why I brought it up. I read the section on the visual novel and thought I had read all there was on it, but then saw the Famitsu review later it slightly frustrated me that it seemed out of place. Also, the statement "The first day in the game requires over a full hour of non-interactive reading" seems likely incorrect. Does the game actually not have any fast forward options to get through the first day in less than an hour? Is the pacing set? Because that'd be rather odd for a visual novel.--SeizureDog 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the "full hour" thing, I got this from the same site that I got most of the gameplay from, and this was from someone that played the game themselves. If you think it's disputable, then I'll remove the "full hour" statement, and just write that the first day is non-interactive reading. And about Famitsu, if you think it should be moved, then I'll move it.--十八 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • Exactly how important is the "Seven mysteries" section? It seems crufty to me.
Ah! I knew this was going to come up, I was just waiting for someone to say something...I agree in that it probably shouldn't be there. I will remove it if you think it's a problem. Edit: I'll just remove it now; it is cruft...--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • Why are there "retrieved on" on non-internet based cites (damn pun)? Remove these instances for magazine (and other) cites, as the information is only needed for internet cites because what you linked to may later be different or gone.
I was under the impression that cites had to show when they were accessed despite what type of source they are. If this is not the case, I will remove it from the ones that aren't from websites.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • The in-universe information is excellent, but I'm concerned of the lack of out-of-universe sections like "Development". However, since the article is on all of the series, it's kinda hard to fault you on this.
Development in terms of what? Development of the series? I thought that's what the Adaptations section is for, to show the history of the series.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I don't know. It just feels like it's missing something, but I can't really suggest anything to do. --SeizureDog 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to avoid voting on this article, as I prefer to remain neutral for articles in the anime/manga Wikiproject as I use such articles as case studies and prefer them to pass from the approval of non-otaku community rather than my own. --SeizureDog 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the information was posted on a forum does not make the information false. Those figures are accurate. And this article has already gone through extensive copyediting, but sure, it probably needs some more. I've done all the copyediting I can do at this point.--十八 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it being in a forum doesn't neccessarily make the information false, but a more verifiable source for them would be appreciated. Even in the thread itself, people asked the poster of the sales data for a source. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful in copyediting. Maybe if you asked at the League of Copyeditors for some assistance with the copyediting? -Malkinann 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do realize that if it wasn't on a forum it would look better for verifiability, the reason I cited it from that source is because I couln't find any other sales figures. Not that those are particularly amazing since they're only as of Nov. 2006, but they're something. As for the LoCE, it says that since the article is current an FAC, then we should wait until copyediting is the only thing left until we ask them for assistence.--十八 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this is a nice looking article. The content flows well and despite the occasional sentence, is written very well. A user has changed the format of the Grading table and when it is expanded it looks cramped. I think it looked better in the first place but perhaps it should be revised anyway, maybe with some more whitespace. Overall I think the article is developed and it is well on its way to FA. --Squilibob 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Interesting article with sourcing problems (as brought up above).
    • I escalated the copyediting problem to an "object", since the prose seemed a bit stilted in places. I'll try to help out myself, either by fixing or by tagging problematic areas.
    • Reception and sales should be noted in the lead.
    • Sales should be moved into reception, since that's where I would look. Or otherwise make a section-reference to where it can be found. Either explicitly to section or with "As mentioned above ....." --GunnarRene 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Non-object comments:
    • How about making the release information in the lead less detailed? Months instead of full dates for example?
    • The balance of the article suggests more about the plot in the lead, but I'm not objecting on that. There is some there already. --GunnarRene 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Arbroath

edit

I and a few other editors have spent a good few hours trying to improve this article, in line with Dundee and I'm just wondering if it's there yet or if there's anything need a little more work. -- Nick t 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I think this may need a copyedit to clean up the prose. I changed several typos or small things I noticed in my glance through. Here's some minor comments on the lede prose:
    • "Its history begins, like nearby Dundee, with the Picts in the Iron Age, and remained a small village..." It's history remained a small village?
    • "Abbey" why capitalised if we're using an indefinite article. And I'd link it right away, not in the third paragraph. In some parts of the article it's not capitlised even with the definite article - I'd decide and stick with it.
    • "eventually disrepair" either the first word's supposed to be an adjective or the second a verb. . .
    • "rumoured to have been used in the manufacture of bullets" needs a cite.
    • There seems to be a lot of references to "just like Dundee". By the first line of the History section, it's already been said 3 times. MarkBuckles (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's there yet - the prose needs a lot of work (some parts are rather wordy) and some areas of elaboration are needed. I had a go at Demographics and Geography, the original version of the latter was in large part a long list of distances to other towns. Orderinchaos78 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Crawdaunt

edit

A lot of work has been put into improving this article. The article shows all of the major aspects of the subject such as role in video games, anime, and Pokémon TCG. It has a lot of references in compliance with 1.(C) of the FA criteria. It appears to be stable right now. Funpika 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Task accomplished - The access dates of citations have been inserted. So there is no major flaw in the article now. It has a good flow, and per criteria, it is neutral, comprehensive and well written. It has no controversial content, so I hope it gets FA status. Vikrant Phadkay 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - The sections are complete. And the article has taken great leaps forward. It covers the scope well, has suitable images and has all that is required in a Pokémon article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While it's without doubt a well-written article, by my view it's close to failing the 4th FA criterion (stays focused without going into unecessary detail) in the video games section: the examination of its types' strengths and weaknesses is a little lengthy (though not too bad), and the analysis of commonly taught moves, while very well written for what it is, isn't needed - a short mention of its potential versatility is probably sufficient. Once this is cleared up, I'm definitely in support of this nomination.
  • I don't think an ideal article should have incomplete information. And just naming moves is too techincal for an encyclopedia. So, the unique movepool has been described as it minimises the Pokémon's drawbacks, and any special traits of a Pokemon are very much acceptable here.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In strong agreement with the game guide material listed in the video games section. I expect to see the likes of SD/AA in Smogon movesets, but not here As a point of comparison, Bulbasaur doesn't delve into that amount of detail, while Torchic does seeem to kind of veer off a bit deep. Hbdragon88 07:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing like a game guide here. The species' major advantages and disadvantages have been stated as briefly as possible(and I've still shortened it some time back), so that all diverting and unnecessary details stay in the cited source.Vikrant Phadkay 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe only one example type for each part, like "types such as the Fire type"? And we can't just say "other types have no advantage or disadvantage", because not every relevant type is listed - I'll change that right now. And the attacks section reads like a (well-written) battle strategy guide - it's just too much info, and even though the listed moves are contained in the source, the in-depth descriptions of how they help are not. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some research on this is needed. Funpika 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: The manga information has been noticed and has received its rightful place.

Vikrant Phadkay 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This article fails on several style and content issues.
    1. Not a single one of the references in reliable sources mentions Crawdaunt even in passing. It's mentioned (along with every single Pokémon) in a couple of referenced game guides and episode recaps, but this doesn't pass even the exceedingly low bar set in WP:FICT. (All of the references to IGN, Time Asia, etc. are generic articles on Pokémon as a whole, added to the article with a boilerplate template that is used in all Pokémon articles.)
    2. The biological characteristics section is still written in a totally in-universe style.
    3. The interpretation of the name's meaning/origin is totally original research.
    4. The game section is heavy with game-guide and original research material.
      For example: "Moreover, they can learn the uncommon move Swords Dance,[8] which raises their naturally high Attack statistic, and are usually taught attacks of other types such as Aerial Ace, Brick Break or Sludge Bomb.[9]" - The cited refs do not say Swords Dance is uncommon, which attacks are usually used, or even make much distinction between Sludge Bomb and Tackle.
    5. The rest of the article lacks entirely in analysis or interpretation. (This is a combination of WP:V and brilliant prose.) There's no substance in the references for this article to say anything other than "Crawdaunt appears in such and such game/anime episode/card set, and such-and-such happens in that primary source."
    I am aware that some of the previous Pokémon FAs suffer from these serious problems, and that some of them may be inactionable without merging this article to a parent article, and working on this as the minor aspect of a major subject that it is. Hopefully, my editing history will lay to rest the previous quagmires over "hating Pokémon" when people raised these objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure you also wanted to mention that the article does not discuss the creation of or reaction to this fictional character/species using reliable sources. Don't want to leave anything out. Jay32183 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-cited, writing seems to have improved in the past few days...a bit short, I guess, but hey...it's Crawdaunt. Phediuk 02:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object Image:Crawdaunt tcg.jpg is a too high a resolution for fair use. It should be reduced to preferably no more than 400px high. ShadowHalo 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object The video game bit is still far too detailed and is of no interest to a non-player. I would expect to see this attention of detail on Smogon or something, not on Wikipedia. Also object to use of fan sites (Serebii, PsyPokes) until the PCP comes to a consensus on them (as well as seeing as the Torchic FAR plays out). Hbdragon88 07:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on that problem. Also Torchic will most likely revoked of FA status. Last I checked the last edits since it was nominated were just vandalism and reverting vandalism. Funpika 11:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I firmly oppose what Hbdragon88 has stated above. I don't understand what kind of opinion this is.
    • The details in the games section would have been unnecessary, and too technical otherwise. But what is the grudge against explaining a move that boosts Crawdaunt's already excellent Attack? And what is so, against two moves that eliminate five loopholes! Such rare, crucial and special facts cannot be ignored. The explanation of type strengths and weaknesses is quite proper now.
    • Now, a word about this world we share - This is an encyclopedia, not a fanclub or community site etc. So, whether or not an article proceeds towards perfection, its contributors are never expected to think about the interest of readers. Otherwise we would had less than half as many FAs as we do right now. The ideal article must no exclude anything important and Crawdaunt doesn't.
    • Next, is Reliability of Sources - a long and tiring journey indeed. But long doesn't mean its existence should be questioned. The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......% and we'll never get another Pokemon FA if we can't rely on them. We'd rather be bound to lose the current two. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.
    • Finally, I have a request for Hbdragon88: Please do not spark off such opinions as they are very harmful for all Pokemon articles and the project too, on the long run
  • Revelation Could it be that this nomination is being opposed after so much effort, just because the topic is of less importance? Maybe. But all those who oppose must know that importance of the topic cannot hinder the progress of the article Vikrant Phadkay 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - By this logic, we should just go ahead and declare every pokemon article to be an FA. After all, anyone can just go to some other site or play the games/watch the anime to get any information missing or unsourced. Saying that sections of this article are too detailed and that some of the sources are not reliable enough is not "very harmful for all Pokemon articles and the project". Saying that all details should be included because they are "special" and that reliable sources aren't needed because no source is absolutely perfect is what is harmful to the project, and is why Torchic is going to be de-featured. --PresN 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ROFL, I'm curious to know if you actually know that I am a PCP editor or not. Of course, I tend to skave away from the individual species articles as a whole, mostly concentrating on the games themselves, so I'm not very finely tuned to the mechanics of the species articles. All I know is that the use of Serebii is in chaos now, and if Torchic gets docked for using Serebii, Crawdaunt shouldn't be raised to FA because it also uses Serebii. Quite frankly, compared to Bulbasaur or Torchic, the game section is still way too detailed. Notice how Jay, AMIB, and eotd have expressed similar sentiments about the same things. Hbdragon88 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the nomination is being opposed because the writing is less than brilliant, because the article isn't comprehensive, and the sources aren't very good. You realize that Hdb88 and myself are longtime members of the Pokémon Wikiproject, right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the video game section being too game-guidish and too many non-reliable sources used. --PresN 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Backronym

edit

self nominated. Seems pretty good to me, seems to meet critera : Otheus 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the WP:Review article needs some work. I went there and did not see antyhing about peer review, GA, etc. So, if I'm "jumping the gun", "just shoot me".
  • The first mention of the subject of the article should be in bold (once). Any established alternate names ("bacronym") that is mentioned in the lead, is also bold. Beyond that, bolding every letter of an acronym seems unusual, and I can't find it mentioned in WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, nor in WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. Gimmetrow 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thank you for fixing. --Otheus 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, credit goes to others who removed much of the extraneous bold. Since some acronyms had bold and some did not, I un-bolded the rest. Still not sure if MoS says anything directly about this. Gimmetrow 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I found this to be a really interesting, well-written, and well-sourced article!
    • I noticed there's a redlink for apronym which is a problem for FA's. I would say just creat a stub but this appears to be complicated by the fact that there was an article an it was deleted, although I'm not sure there was total consensus.
      Comment I suppose I could add a stub for apronym. I added a wikilink to a wiktionary article for apronym. Of course, I added that article too. --Otheus 14:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned that the nature of the many lists of examples in the article will require continual pruning and matienance, especially as a FA.
      Comment I have added more in-line comments to ask authors not to add examples without Talk first. Nonetheless, you may be right. --Otheus 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the first two sentences of the lede still pretty hard to parse, particularly the second sentence. Is there any way to clarify this language? I think it reads much easier in the sections below.
    • Seems to be a formatting error at the bottom of the references with marine. MarkBuckles (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Sourcing looks problematic... Urban Dictionary (twice), Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, several dictionaries, some which seem to accept definitions from anyone, Reference.com (which is a mirror of a Wikipedia article, you can't cite Wikipedia articles as sources in this case), Webster open dictionary (apparently a delayed Wiki), a list of jokes, and articleworld.com, a Wiki. I would say only about half of the sources really come close to meeting the standards of reliable sources, and even then they are mostly webpages with debatable reliability at times. As an example of the sourcing problem, the first sentence of this article isn't really backed up by reliable sources... even if Word Spy is reliable, it doesn't actually say backronym was coined in 1983, as the Wikipedia article claims. --W.marsh 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You are right -- sourcing was difficult, but I didn't realize it was that bad. If another seconds your point, I'll probably withdraw consideration (to save others' time). Notes:
    • WordSpy quotes the earliest in-print citation, being 1983. Urban dictionary says it was coined in 1983. At least the reader can conclude there is agreement between two disparate sources, thus making both more reliable.
    • And reference.com does cite Wikipedia, but it is not being used as such here. Perhaps I can make that clear in the footnotes.
    • Dictionary.com was brough under the Reference.com domain. This is why the reference to dictionary.com now resolves to reference.com. You might want to note that for future link analysis.
    • Reference to "Columbia Encyclopedia" (See SOS mentioning) replaced with authoritative source.
    • I live in Austria now. Access to a good, up-to-date dictionary is probably not going to happen for me.
    Otheus 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • [8] is the reference.com reference I referred to, and that's certainly a mirror of a Wikipedia article. As for the WordSpy thing, it's still an original conclusion to say it was actually coined in that year... and we try to avoid stuff like that. --W.marsh 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would this perhaps be more appropriate as a featured list than a featured article? Gimmetrow 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sources aren't reliable, references aren't fully formatted, including publisher, author and publication date when available, and last access date on websources, and the article is mostly lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Lyme disease

edit
  • Nom & Support - This article is nice and long with quite good images and formatting. Not only that, it has been rated as GA-Class and high-importance on the assessment scale, it has been listed as a good article, and has had a peer review. Also, none of its images are fair use (they're PD and GFDL), and it has cited alot of sources. I think this would make a great featured article. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object very strongly: the article is enormous, 120KB, as I pointed out on the talk page immediately before this nom was made. Subarticles must be split out. I don't favor strict adherence to 32KB, but surely 50-60KB is not too much to ask. Everyking 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object. Pls review medical guidelines at WP:MEDMOS. Far too much uncited text, references not completely formatted. Red links in See also with External jumps. Notables not referenced. External link farm. Listy. Incorrect use of dashes and hyphens (see WP:DASH) Prose is not compelling (and the lead contains the specifics of a reference, which should be in ref tags!) More work and another serious peer review is needed. Disagree that length is a problem; it has 32KB of readable prose, which is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent more time in the article, and found numerous issues that still need attention throughout. Most of the comments below are samples only—fixing them alone will not suffice, as they are only examples.
  • I corrected the section headings per WP:MSH
  • Lyme diagnosis and treatment are highly controversial, so the article should be extensively cited. I added fact tags to a few sections only; the problems exist throughout.
  • I found weasle words and words to avoid—changed a few. Be careful that words (like whereas) don't convey POV.
  • The citation style used in the article makes it very difficult to edit—I can't understand why HTML comments surround every cite, but it makes it very hard to find and work on the text.
  • The lead is not a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD); I put a fact tag on a statement in the article that I couldn't find in the text.
  • I found problematic prose throughout, suggesting the need for an independent copyedit—examples: The cause of Lyme disease is a bacterial infection with a spirochete ... Lyme disease has many signs and symptoms, but skin signs, arthritis and/or various neurological symptoms are often present. (why but?) Lyme disease may be misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), or other (mainly autoimmune and neurological) diseases, which leaves the infection untreated and allows it to disperse and invade various organs and tissue. I also corrected a hanging reference in the lead, which again suggests the need for a thorough copyedit.
  • Choppy and confusing prose: More confounding is that patients may present with Lyme Disease and a related disease such as MS. This makes diagnosis exceptionally difficult. It should be noted that this kind of misdiagnosis is the exception rather than the rule as it is widely held that Lyme Disease is underdiagnosed and underreported ranging from factors of 10 to upwards of 40. (Ten to forty what ??)
  • Another example of prose issues: Hard-bodied (Ixodes) ticks are the primary Lyme disease vectors. In Europe, Ixodes ricinus, known commonly as the sheep tick, ... The first statement doesn't clarify it refers to US; we only realize that when hitting the second statement.
  • More on prose: The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission;[citation needed] typically, for the spirochaete to be transferred, the tick must be attached for a minimum of 12 hours, although, only the first part of this statement can be said to be strictly correct. What ???
  • Choppy prose, sentence order seems backward, sentences could be connected— There is at least one case report of transmission by a biting fly. Lyme spirochetes have been found in biting flies as well as mosquitos.
  • Another copyedit issue—There is no doubt that Lyme disease exists, and most clinicians agree on the treatment of early Lyme disease, there is considerable controversy as to the prevalence of the disease, the proper procedure for diagnosis and treatment of later stages, and the likelihood of a chronic, antibiotic-resistant Lyme infection.
  • There are many areas where the text is prescriptive rather than descriptive; for example, "should consult with a doctor" and "proper removal of ticks". This should be corrected throughout.
  • Symptoms dives straight in to "Like syphilis, ... " before describing the symptoms.
  • Dashes, hyphens not used correctly (see WP:DASH)
  • Considering the controversy surrounding Lyme treatment, the Treatment section is particularly lacking in comprehensiveness, and dives right in without defining the territory or the controversy. It also needs to be extensively cited (like the rest of the article). Found another copyedit issue when reading that section—In later stages, the bacteria disseminate throughout the body and may cross the blood-brain barrier, making the infection more difficult to treat. or late diagnosed
I did not read the entire article; these are issues I found in a couple of sections only. The entire article could benefit from thorough citing and review, an independent copyedit, followed by a thorough peer review before resubmitting to FAC. Asking for help at the WikiProject Medicine may be fruitful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Kansas Turnpike

edit

I have been working on this article on and off for about a year, helped along by SPUI, and finally feel that it is ready to become a featured article.—Scott5114↗ 07:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think near the middle of the page, there are too many green Exit signs. I think one or two would be fine, but it seems to jumble up the prose of the article too much. Also, there's several redlinks in the article that distract from the rest. Overall, it's well written and the references are good, but I think some of these concerns need to be addressed before it goes all the way. Anthony Hit me up... 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, refs should have consistent format, web refs should have retrieval dates, like ref7.Rlevse 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's way too many red links. You should take off the the non-notable ones which I think is most of them. Warhol13 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the ones that probably won't have an article in the foreseeable future, and probably shouldn't. I kept the Kansas state highway ones linked because they should have an article, and traffic study is still linked because it seems like a subject that could be worthy of an article.—Scott5114↗ 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Myocardial infarction

edit

I nominated this article for featured article status because of the exemplary contributions of the community medical editors and contributers in making this a premier medical source. The amount of information and organization is top notch. This is an excellent opportunity to show off our skilled health science pages. Scope2776 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just started looking. Not sure that the "bad cholesterol" and "good cholesterol" phrases mentioned in the lead are a particularly suitable tone - maybe they can be left out? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


*Comment - also, under subheading Risk factors, you can't have a citation needed tag. That one should be really easy to get a ref for. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


*Comment........and 5 citation needed tags under Causes. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment..I'd put First aid subsection under Treatment section as it is a part of treatment.

Overall, I think most of these are readily fixable though the number of them would be a tad daunting to me. The prose is succinct and clear to me, but I am a doctor so am very familiar with the jargon. Would be good to get a layperson's view of it. Once the above issues are rectified I'll be happy to support. Good luck cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In the interests of clarity I am happy for you to strike out my comments once addressed. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the review of the article! Yes, the things you brought up do need to be addressed, for the moment I fixed the first five of your comments, i'll begin work on the others shortly. I cited a few statements under the "Causes" tab with the same article for now because I thought the article covered the statements well - but i'll revisit this later too. Thanks again! Scope2776 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I suggest a GA review, and a peer review, may help polish this article in preparation for FAC. A lot of attention to wiki-linking is needed, there is an incorrect use of a hyphen rather than an em-dash in the lead (older age- ), and there are numerous cite needed tags. The article is listy in places, and Cardiac arrest is included in See also, rather than worked into the text. These deficiencies show up with a quick glance only, suggesting that a peer review might help bring the article up to FAC standards. Reviewing the recently promoted/reviewed Tuberculosis, Influenza and Tourette syndrome might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inordinately long, I'm afraid. Also many uncited statements last time I checked. Wouldn't you like to refer to peer review first? Fvasconcellos 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some conflicting ideas about how long the page should be, I'd appreciate some suggestions about where we can shorten the article, e.g. what sections should be shortened or split out from the article. Thanks.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the reviews! I will submit this page to peer review and try and do some more cleaning myself. I do think on second glance this page needs a little more cleanup. Thanks again! Scope2776 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea a peer review is in place.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Aikido

edit

There has been a long, slow, measured process to get this article prepared for featured article. It was nominated and accepted for GA and underwent a further peer review. I feel that this article even then was ready for featured article status but suggestions were made and incorporated.Peter Rehse 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the form followed by the press is to treat aikido as a 'common noun' whereas Daito-ryu is considered a 'proper noun' for the name of a particular style of jujutsu. Therefore aikido, jujutsu and judo are non-capitalized while Yoshinkan, Yagyu Shinkan-ryu and Kodokan will take capitalization. Of course, titles make all things equal. :) --Mateo2006 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a bit of discussion regarding the naming of the more common martial arts such as judo, karate and aikido (especially those that have become loan words) vs more obscure arts. The consensus was how it appears in the article and generally is so in aikido related articles. Some claim to an aikido connection is quite common so I have not seen all instances but where they are found its usually changed. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#CapitalizationPeter Rehse 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong effort was made to have the aikido article follow both Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).Peter Rehse 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article has matured to a state where even those without knowledge or experience of aikido could come away from the article feeling they have an understanding of the art and what it consists of. It handles the tricky business of explaining the physical techniques of the art with line drawings in an unique way capturing an element that has eluded many fairly good articles on the martial arts. I support the idea that "Aikido" should be given 'feature article' status.--Mateo2006 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment needs more refs and is rather listy.Rlevse 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Too many sections entirely lacking citations. Prose could use some brushing up. I don't think the lists are an issue, necessarily -- lists seem like a valid way of cataloguing important techniques -- but I do think they should be supported by more prose, not simply "Some common techniques and their Aikikai terminology:". It's a pretty impressive article, but it's not quite there yet. Shimeru 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have you list a few more examples of where prose needs improvement? Merely stating the subsection heading would be sufficient. Thank you, Bradford44 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's really not concentrated in any one section, as far as I can see, but I'll list some examples that read awkwardly to me. I do want to note, though, that you've already gone a long way in addressing the issues I had.
  • "Ueshiba developed aikido primarily during the late 1920s through the 1930s through the synthesis of the older martial arts that he had studied."
  • "In aikido, as in virtually all Japanese martial arts, there are both physical and mental aspects of training, which are often dependant and interrelated. The physical training in aikido is diverse, covering both general physical fitness and conditioning, as well as several specific areas."
  • "In applying the technique, it is the responsibility of nage to prevent injury to uke by employing a speed and force of application that is commensurate with their partner's proficiency in ukemi."
  • "As a martial art concerned not only with fighting proficiency but also with the betterment of daily life, this mental aspect is of key importance to aikido practitioners."
  • "The vast majority of aikido styles use the kyū/dan ranking system common to gendai budō, however the actual requirements for each belt level differs between styles, so they are not necessarily comparable or interchangeable."
In general, my issues are with repetition of words and with placement of clauses. I'd suggest taking a look at the longer and more complex sentences, and checking that they're succinct and express a solid idea. Of the five sentences above, I think the first, third, and fifth are unnecessarily long/wordy, and the second and fourth could be clearer in their intent. I don't want to make too much of it, because it's a fairly minor point -- the writing is not bad. I just think it could be better, in places. Citations were my major concern; since those have been addressed, I've stricken my oppose. Shimeru 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to comment that I think the picture in the box is *PERFECT* - if this is promoted and goes on the main page, that's definitely the one I'm using. Raul654 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I've always found it kind of lackluster. To the uninitiated, it probably just looks like "Some guy holding his arms out while some other guy does a somersault or something." --GenkiNeko 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but I don't think it is far off, and if you fix these (or convince me they don't need fixing) I'll support.
    • The section on ki drifts off the subject somewhat, covering what should be covered by the ki article itself (first two paragraphs could be condensed into a couple of lines).
      • Good eye; this was in need of editing. I've done a bit, though there's plenty of room for further refocusing. (If anyone wants to expand the Ki article itself, that'd also be helpful; it presently seems mostly focused on the Chinese concept of Qi.) --GenkiNeko 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section on styles is too listy, when it could be covered nicely in straight prose, and what seem to be the criteria for inclusion (stated at the beginning of the section) are not applied to those styles included. Some mention of the wider "traditional v sport" aikido styles might be appropriate here too.
    • Some sections are under-cited: Philosophical and political developments (important to reference this as it makes claims as to the primary influences on Ueshiba), The international dissemination of aikido, Techniques, and Ki.
      • I think it has been addressed.
    • It would be nice to have some more photos. While the infobox picture is indeed *PERFECT* the techniques look so good when performed properly that it is a shame not to have more pics, and some of the weapons wouldn't go amiss either (Not objecting on this basis, I just think it would look better if you can get hold of some). Yomanganitalk 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we have. I re-added one that had previously been used. The difficulty is finding a picture which corresponds to a point being made in the article.Peter Rehse 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most issues have been addressed but - well there were quite a few changes. Can those who made comments take another look and be specific in their comments.Peter Rehse 04:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - Can someone please do something about the use of sub-sub-sub-etc sections? I think the article layout looks horrible at the moment. Sub-sections are more than enough. If this issue is addressed I will change my vote to support. (If I don't check back, please leave a message on my talk page). John Smith's 10:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Well, first of all, for some reason, every letter "O" has been turned into a little square, It only happens on the Aikido Article, and I didn't bother to check the code to see what's up. That's probably an easy fix tho. The prose, while well written, is a little watered down and white-breadish, It would be nice if the photos, instead of saying "an aikido throw", would say the name of the technique being used. I think the section on the techniques should go entirely out, as Judo, ju-jutsu, daito-ryu, etc., also use the same names for the same techniques. Put something there that's unique to aikido, and differentiates it from other martial arts. While on the subject, there is a wholly inadequite explanation of "aiki", what it is, how it works, and what it does. This is an element that is at the very core of the art, and it is hardly touched on. Opposed for now, but overall the article has real potential. Be well. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
I think the section on the techniques should go entirely out, as Judo, ju-jutsu, daito-ryu, etc., also use the same names for the same techniques.
Actually they don't (even different aikido styles use different names) and the techniques listed are considered representative of the aikido repetoire.
wholly inadequite explanation of "aiki"
Its mentioned in the very first section - with a link to an expanded article.
The square O's are probably a reflection of the bar above long o sounds which is discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Its pretty standard - I would check your computer settings.Peter Rehse 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The square O's are a computer setting. On one of my machines I see them, but on the other I see the kanji. Mike Searson 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the responses to the above. I think the main thing we can take from that reviewer's lookover is: "Put something there that's unique to aikido, and differentiates it from other martial arts." Perhaps working in some comparison makes sense? I say "perhaps" because this could be more trouble than it's worth. --GenkiNeko 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Hugo Black

edit
Previous FAC

This was nominated and failed before, but now it has been revised and has already gained Good Article status, so it is the appropriate time to renominate this article. Wooyi 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the first sentence in "early life" adding Harlan is in the state of Alabama. But I don't know how to do retrieval date, someone can help? Thanks! Wooyi 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Citations need cleanup per WP:CITE. LuciferMorgan 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Needs citations for some fairly controversial bits. "defense of an African American forced into a form of commercial slavery following incarceration" clearly needs citation. Klan bit even has a "citation needed" tag. How does someone known for defending an African American get accepted into the Klan anyway? 85,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan needs a cite, influential over politics needs a cite. Widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices - clearly needs a cite, if not several. Why is Elizabeth Seay DeMeritte a red link - did she do anything notable other than being his wife that would merit her an article? Similarly Dryer, Johnson - did they do anything notable other than losing an election to him? If we write what Dreisbach believes we need a cite saying that. School prayer constitutional amendment - surely we have an article on that to wikilink to. The Jackson/UMW controversy is important - not a single specific cite. some have characterized Black as an originalist - WP:WEASEL. Specify and cite. According to Black - similarly needs a cite, we can't talk for people without that. during the 1960s, the Court under Chief Justice Warren took the process much further, - that needs a citation, otherwise we're doing WP:OR by combining facts in novel ways. There are probably more things that need citation like that, this is just a large-enough and representative subset. Why is the painting captioned "often described as a "textualist" or "strict constructionist."" - is that written on the picture somewhere, is he sitting there looking like a strict constructionist? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Tara Conner

edit

Self nom (I was the article creator and have been one of the major contributors) I began to see the potential in this article back in December and have done my best to improve and maintain it so that it might possibly meet the FA criteria. I think it is now up the the test. There have been two peer reviews (see here and here) which I believe I have addressed. There were no major issues in either of them and I have worked to implement all suggestions made. Conner will complete her reign on March 23 and I believe this article is now stable enough to be nominated. I am prepared to do the "hard yards" to work on all suggestions thrown at me here. The subject matter isn't everyone's cup of tea but I feel passionate about pageants so there you go :). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The principal area we need improvement is sources. Access Hollywood may, or may not, warrant mention as part of the controversy, but they can't be our source (though we can cite others, who discuss them). Also, the Miss Universe Organization should not be used as our source, as they are not neutral. This is being picky, but for a featured article, on a living person, I suggest, the rule is, 100% independent, reliable sources, even for items that are largely uncontested. Given the ample coverage of her, I'm sure these sources are available. --Rob 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - the only Miss Universe Org reference is to the titleholder event calendar, which is simply a list of events she has/will be attending, so I cannot see where neutrality issues lie there. I have been able to replace the Bravo TV link with the previously cited Lexington Herald-Leader link. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; there are a number of references which don't include the publisher and access date. Please fix this.--The Negotiator 13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, soures could be better and it isn't very well-written. Might pass WP:GAC, send it there first and see what they say.--Wizardman 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Bongo (antelope)

edit
former fac

This article has been cleaned-up a lot and worked on by many since it's last FA candidacy.

A thorough copy-edit has been performed along with many formatting & grammar issues fixed. Now that a peer review (as suggested by talk) has been submitted and changes made accordingly. This is one of the most in-depth resourses about the Bongo on the web.

Please comment on the article and improve it in any way to make this Wiki page the prime source for public Bongo information.

Previous FA candidacy comments

edit

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]

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]

  • Object. Still has zero inline citations and the prose is, in my opinion, not approaching anything noteworthy. For an example, the first sentence of almost every paragraph or section looks like this: "As young males mature, they leave their maternal groups." This seems to follow a formula for "A B C, D E F." It's like a mini roller coaster at the beginning of every paragraph and it really disrupts the flow. Another example is here: "Bongos are herbivorous, like many other forest ungulates." Please refer to WP:CITE and a heavy copyedit. JHMM13 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A two sentence lead, no inline citations, and 1-2 sentence paragraphs for starters. Although inline citations are not technically required as standard in WP:CITE, (at least the last time I checked) you'll never get an article passed these days without them. Also see WP:LEAD a two sentence lead is way too brief. You'll need at least 6-8 sentences comprising at least two paragraphs for an article of this size. Also the short paragraphs need to go. All of this shouldn't be too hard to do given the articles size. If you make any significant changes to the article, please contact me and I'll look it over again. Quadzilla99 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Copywriting for a less eyecrossing read would be in order. The lack of inline citation is not acceptable in FA rated articles. Style is short paragraphs without noticable flow and needs reconstruction for lack of a better term. Tirronan 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC) It looks like much of the article has been rewriten and I withdraw my comments on writing style. I however will not recommend this until it is inline cited. Tirronan 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to User:JHMM13 many of the objections have been addressed. Work still in progress. Thanks for the comments. Please can some one help on the inline citations? Thanks.
  • In response to all those with objections have been contacted and in many cases addressed. Still, the inline citations require doing. Please can someone help with those? Thanks, Black Stripe 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Manchester United F.C.

edit

The article is very well written. Very intresting, and of a very notable worldwide football club. Retiono Virginian 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous nomination here. Oldelpaso 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Ioannis Makrygiannis

edit

Not really expecting this to pass, but since it passed A-class review at MilHist and GA review, as well as having had two peer reviews, it seemed logical to give it a shot. So, fire away! Go on and tell me just why this article sucks. ;) Druworos 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Starting from humble origins, he joined the Greek struggle for independence..." appeares to be a value judgement, which, if it wasn't in the lede, would need to be cited. As it is, I'd rephrase to simply describe his origins. Let the reader form his own judgements. -Fsotrain09 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Prose has many problems, including failing 1a, many unsourced statements, and many that violate WP:NPOV. Here's a sampling from the lede:
    • "Starting from humble origins" violates NPOV
    • "some notable victories." clean up prose. "Some" is superfluous (as is often the case), "notable" is POV. But we need some qualifier - where did he lead them to victories might be a good solution.
    • "tumultuous public career" POV, don't need this line
    • "merchant, military officer, politician and author." wfy
    • "important contributions to the political life" POV
    • "general Makrygiannis" capitalize
    • " is mostly remembered for his Memoirs." POV. who remembers? who says? cite
    • "his work has also been called a "monument of Modern Greek literature"" weasel words. cite, and even with a cite, it might be POV - pretty strong praise - just tell us what it said or what it influenced neutraly.
    • "pure Demotic speech" what does this mean? Is it a term? If so, link and cite. If not, may be POV.
    • "More than that, however," unnecessary
    • "its literary quality" subjective, need cite
    • "Makrygiannis, having been ignored by history," POV violation
    • "As mentioned, Makrygiannis concluded work on his" cut As mentioned
    • "The general's objectivity, however, has often been questioned" POV, cite
    • Please include ISBN's for all print sources. MarkBuckles (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should point out that statements in the lead section do not need to be cited directly if the relevant citations are available in the parts of the article they summarize. Kirill Lokshin 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll agree to most of the comments above, just indicating that this: "his work has also been called a "monument of Modern Greek literature"" is actually cited to Seferis in the main body of the article. I'll agree a lot of the prose needs reworking. These should be more clearly attributed to Sphyroeras, who is the source of the comments: "The general's objectivity, however, has often been questioned"; "Makrygiannis, having been ignored by history,". Some of the phrases do need to go, I agree, such as this: "Starting from humble origins". ISBN for every single source could prove to be hard, especially as some of these are rather old. An honest attempt at it should be made though, I suppose. Thanks for all the comments on the prose and POV. What about content though? Cheers! Druworos 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. First, you don't start a nomination with "Not really expecting this to pass"! If you don't expect to pass this, then you are in a wrong place here! Some remarks:
  • "achieving the rank of general and leading his men to some notable victories": I agree that this sentence does not properly illustrate his role in the War. Why were these victories notable?
  • "and later being sentenced to death and pardoned". What for? You could add two words here: "sentenced to death for this and this".
  • "Despite his important contributions to the political life of the early Greek state." Vague.
  • "this work has also been called a "monument of Modern Greek literature". You do explain this is the relevant section, so I don't think it is necessary to cite it in the lead. Per Kirill.
  • "was killed in a clash with the forces of Ali Pasha". Who is he? You and I know him, but not everybody here! Maybe it would be better: "was killed in a clash with the forces of Ali Pasha, the ruler of the western part of Rumelia".
  • You don't cite pages, when you use printed sources.
  • "It should be noted, however, that he condemned the assassination itself in the strongest terms." Avoid expression of the style "It should be noted...".
  • "Strategus Makrygiannis, Memoirs". I would propose to choose between "strategos" and "general" and stich on the term you choose.
  • "He was always outspoken about his views, and as a result he stirred negative reactions among his opponents." You should cite assessments like this one.
  • "Eventually, in 1852, he was accused of planning to "overthrow the establishments and assassinate the King"." What led to this accusations? The events here are a bit blur. What gave the opportunity to the King to accuse him? Definitely the pretext were not the events of 1843. Almost ten years had passed. There must be some other events which constituted the pretext or the reasons for the severe accusations and the sentencing.
  • "He was finally pardoned and released on September 2, 1854, thanks to the Crimean War. The blockade of Peiraeus by the French and British fleets also led to the imposition of Kallergis as Minister of War ..." I think "also" is useless here. You explain the previous sentence, and the "thanks to the Crimean War". So why do you need "also"?
  • "Makrygiannis suffered greatly in prison, and after his release suffered from hallucinations." Repetitive prose.
  • "It should be noted that Makrygiannis had received only the most basic and fragmentary education". Again "It should be noted".
  • "One could say that Makrygiannis was forgotten, not only as a fighter, but also as the author of a text written in adulterated Demotic Greek". What is "Demotic Greek"? Explain to the ignorant reader with a few words. This is very important for the section.
  • "Despite this, after the initial interest in the newly published Memoirs, they were hardly used as a source of reference for almost 40 years." I'm afraid bad syntax, and bad prose here.
  • "Makrygiannis, having been ignored by history, and hardly mentioned by chroniclers of the War of Independence, had renewed interest in the revolution by offering a significant personal testimony to historical research." Vague IMO and uncited.
  • "a text that, besides reproducing the heroic atmosphere of the War of Independence, is also a treasure-house of linguistic knowledge concerning the common Greek tongue of the time." Panegyric wording and uncited. In sentence, the whole paragraph here is problematic IMO. Not a clear line of thoughts; I fail to get the point; I see weasel and vague assessments. I think it should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way.
  • "Makrygiannis was resurrected, so to speak ..." So to speak?
  • "Since then hundreds of essays have been written on the subject of his Memoirs, and it would be fair to say that the chronicler has overshadowed the fighter, and with good reason, according to Sphyroeras." Again, the sort of expressions you should avoid.

In general, the article has the potential to become a FA. It is well-written and well-cited. Nevertheless, some details should be worked, with a focus IMO on the lead (which must get a more professional prose), and "Assessment and significance of his literary work" which must get a better prose, a "to the point" expression and structure, and to get cleaned from "weasel" and "vagueness". Despite that, I do believe that this article can pass!--Yannismarou 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn for the time being. I should like to withdraw this nomination at present, and thank everyone that took the trouble of looking at it. Useful comments that should be implemented, as soon as time allows. Again, thank you. Druworos 13:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Human security

edit
  • Nominator statement: I stumbled onto this article and was stunned by its high quality. I have had nothing to do with editing it. Apparently, creation of this page was a semester project for an entire class at University of Hong Kong in Spring of 2006. Few changes have been made to the article since then, so it is highly stable. I am skipping the usual peer review here because 1) this article is just that good and 2) I know nothing about the topic and so would not be able to do much in response to a peer review. It's well written, comprehensive and factually accurate (as far as I know), and scrupulously neutral. It also has excellent sources.-Fagles 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment interesting article. Needs citations throughout. Hmains 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it has sufficient referencing and being very informative. Lord Metroid 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As a student of international relations, I haven't come across a resource on human security as easily usable as this one. It's comprehensive while still being short and readable, and is an outstanding resource. Although it comes close to FA standard, I feel I have to oppose it at this stage, as there are just too many challengeable (although I think neutral and justified) statements unsupported by citations - if there were less I'd set them as an action. Mostlyharmless 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a real mess. Bureaucratic language, grammar problems, sections are POV...
    • Human security refers to the security of individuals - defining a term using part of the term. Rephrase.
    • Numbers like "17 million people annually" need citations - I imagine they're from the HDR, but that is a big thing, need sections or page numbers
    • 5.5 million of deaths in a year. - grammar
    • our security apparatuses - Wp:mos#Avoid_first-person_pronouns_and_one
    • for youth in Africa in 1980s - grammar
    • attempts to operationalize this human security agenda - aiee! translate from bureaucratese
    • The emergence of 'security dilemma' also help explain - grammar
    • Arms Control section is highly POV; why focus solely on the Ottawa Convention? US world's largest military? List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
    • Critics of human security note - like who? WP:WEASEL
    • Terrorism section similarly POV -
    • HIV/AIDSin - space; 3 mentions in same sentence, all linked
    • According to Peter Gleick... considers the three biggest threats to national security are - grammar
    • human security proponents argue - who? WP:WEASEL again
    • supplement and encourage existing channels for climate change response. - bureaucratese
    • vicious cycles of lack of development leading to conflict leading to lack of development can readily emerged. - aieee!

There are lots and lots of problems like this, needs a thorough copyedit, simplification, and translation into English from bureaucratese. The basic idea is simple - people want to be safe, fed, clothed, working. It's not a subject requiring latinate words, it's not a new idea. Simplify, drastically simplify. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Youngstown, Ohio

edit

Already a good article, the article about this city in Ohio is about as good as it can get. Thus, it should become a featured article, and rival other featured article cities. Lorty 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Demographics section needs references, as does Post-steel economy and Transportation. Don't wikilink solo years (years alone) such as 1969. Full dates like September 19, 1977 should be wikilinked - September 19, 1977. Education section contains several one sentence paragraphs, remove, merge or expand. Historical Society[1]. - external jump that needs to be converted into a reference. The park also features two golf courses: an 18-hole short holes course, and a 36-hole professional course - needs a reference. Web references are incorrectly formatted and are just blue URL's, they need a title, publisher (website you got it from) author and date if applicable and date last accessed, {{cite web}} template can help with this. At this stage i neither support or oppose but it does need work, if my concerns are addressed i will have another look. M3tal H3ad 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those issues should be taken care of. Please take another looks and give your assessment. Cheers, Daysleeper47 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now - slightly slanted in favor of the city. Take out some of the puffery and advertising language.
    • 65 miles - WP:UNITS
    • located in, and heavily affected, by - move second comma one word right
    • He plotted the town in that year, which was recorded on August 19, 1802, with the date and name of "Youngstown, 1797" - What?
    • Within a year, Youngstown was the home of several families, who were concentrated near the point where Mill Creek meets the Mahoning River - dump both commas
    • With the opening of the city's steel mills, - when?
    • borders or touches - why not just borders?
    • According to the 2000 Census numbers, Youngstown has - that's a while ago, I'd say "had"
    • Demographics section is pretty dry. How does it compare to other town in Ohio or the US? Older, younger, more crowded, whiter, blacker, richer, poorer?
    • For every 100 females, there are 91.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 87.8 males. - math doesn't work. Must mean 87.8 males ages 18 or over.
    • premiere - premier, probably
    • Unfortunately, Fortunately,- we can't opine thusly
    • Youngstown Iron Sheet and Tube Company (a name that would later be shortened to reflect the company's emphasis on steel products).... Youngstown also served as headquarters for the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company - redundant
    • the WCI Steel plant, are - dump comma
    • many Americans might be surprised to learn - puffery
    • September 19, 1977 - WP:DATE

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Chemistry

edit

I believe it meets all the criteria of what is a FA. Unlike my past nomination for another article this article does have inline citations. --Paracit 00:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose :
  • This article needs to be copyedited. I saw serious problems with the writing; not only was it far from "brilliant" or "compelling" (which is, albeit, hard to achieve) it was also grammatically incorrect.
  • I also felt that this article lacked comprehensiveness. Although I am not a scientist, I felt that many of the subsections were incomplete. For example, to have only a one-sentence definition of the molecule seemed inappropriate.
  • I simply got the sense that one would have to click on a lot of other articles to get an idea of what chemists actually studied.
  • Certainly the "History" section should be expanded; the narrative of the development of chemistry as a discipline is difficult to follow.
  • Also, the article needs many more citations; there are whole sections without any citations. Awadewit 07:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:
  • The article seems incoherent at times; some sections just look like a jumble of topics and buzzwords added for linking purposes but without logical connection between one sentence and the next (for example, see the section on chemical reactions).
  • Some sections are way too short (for example, chemical industry) and others mention topics that are not suitable for a brief, general introduction (Hamiltonians and operators in Schrödinger's equation).
  • I'm not convinced by the selection and order of the "fundamental concepts" listed. For example, I'm not sure that ions are fundamental enough to deserve their own section in an article of this nature.
  • Also, some of the definitions are oversimplified or outdated. Some simplification is obviously needed when summarizing, but not at the expense of accuracy. For example, "the Atom is also the smallest portion into which an element can be divided and still retain its properties". While this is still taught to millions of secondary school students all over the world, it's just wrong, especially as a blanket statement. There are some atomic properties that are retained, of course, but most of the properties that chemists care about are bulk properties that are not retained by an atom.
  • Also, the definition of a bond as "the multipole balance between the positive charges in the nuclei and the negative charges oscillating about them" is unfamiliar to me, does not appear in the article about the chemical bond, and is unreferenced.
  • In general a few more references would be useful, especially for questionable definitions like this. If the definition matches that of the more specific article and is referenced there, I would relax requiring a reference a bit. But in general, I heartily recommend more references to the Gold Book for the definitions of the fundamental concepts. But don't be disheartened, I do recognize that writing a short article about such a large topic is not easy, which is one of the main reasons that I haven't edited here at all, other than fixing the occasional typo. The articles about the highly specialized topics are much easier. I also recognize that my writing suffers from some of the same flaws I mention (notably incoherence!), but I hope that this criticism will be useful. :-) --Itub 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I generally agree that the article could use some improvement, the criticisms of this nomination are also somewhat incoherent and unrealistic. I see conflicting statements about breadth versus depth (which the primary difficulty in writing such an article). On the one hand mentioning Schrodiger's equation and the Hamiltonian (the most basic and fundamental basis of about half of physical chemistry, and essentially the only true expression of all chemistry) is too specific and on the other hand the article wasn't comprehensive enough. A chemistry article without a mention of The Equation that defines all chemistry would be a huge mistake. I don't mean to say that there is not useful criticism here, just that on further consideration these concerns would be significantly mitigated and will probably never be resolved to the degree that is expected based on these reactions. No one can write a paragraph that goes from zero to understanding quantum chemistry. Its just infinitely complex. It should be recognized that this article describes all matter and all ways of approaching its study, a pretty big task. Regarding the multipole balance statement: I see no need for this statement to be referenced since all it says is that there are multiple point charges in an equilibrium and that electrons generally move and nuclei stay relatively still (this is general knowledge). Whether this is the best way to say that or if it really describes a bond is a different issue. (My statement although simpler really does not address bonding.) Bonds can not really be described without quantum mechanics but this is a reasonable classical estimation (that it is an multipole electrodynamic equilibrium). On the other hand the simplistic statements are also criticized such as the loss of bulk properties when considering a single element. Yes, true but let's not get too detailed on such a broad article. That seems more appropriate for a small paragraph on the elements page. In general there will never be enough space to explain everything broadly or thoroughly. The article will need to remain as largely a starting point more than anything else where even schoolchildren can learn that there are many areas of chemistry beyond the scope of what they might study any time soon. I think we would be mistaken to try to turn this into an introduction in the instructive sense. The issue of citations is an area where some improvement could be made; however, general knowledge about broad subjects that can be found in college level text books are generally not specifically cited but covered by broad references to college textbooks. Although I generally agree with the use of goldbook references as primary source we could effectively turn this article into a series of goldbook quotes on each of the subjects we cover and it would make even less sense. Sorry for the long entry. My criticism of the article is that the language in many parts needs improvement to be more easily read and there needs to be more fluidity between sections although clearly this will never be very good since there necessarily must be quite a bit of jumping about. Perhaps this is more on an issue of organization than anything else.--Nick Y. 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must clarify, I didn't say that the Schrödinger equation should be removed, just the discussion of technical details such as operators. Mentioning the equation, its importance, and its applications is necessary in my opinion, but the paragraph that talks about the operators is like having a paragraph in the article about Cars that talked about the isothermal and adiabatic expansions that can be used to model a heat engine. It may be important and fundamental, but it is not at the right level of detail. Leave the operators for the article about the equation itself or about quantum chemistry. On the other hand, the section about chemical industry is at the other extreme: it consists of two sentences. A paragraph or two, that can be basically taken from the lead section of Chemical industry would do the topic more justice. Now, going back to the definition of atom, you don't need to add more detail; it is perfectly possible to have a short and clear definition that is not incorrect. For example, define atom as "the smallest particle still characterizing a chemical element", or "the smallest portion into which an element can be divided and still retain its identity" rather than talking about "properties". For the chemical bond, rather than creating an original definition that just confuses the reader with unnecessary jargon (e.g., multipoles), look at dictionaries or glossaries for inspiration: "a force acting between atoms that is of sufficient strength to cause a collection of atoms to function as a combined unit", or "there is a chemical bond between two atoms or groups of atoms in the case that the forces acting between them are such as to lead to the formation of an aggregate with sufficient stability to make it convenient for the chemist to consider it as an independent 'molecular species'" or "force holding atoms or groups of atoms together". One should of course mention that electrons and orbitals are involved later in the paragraph, but at least start with something intelligible. The article does not need to be necessarily "an introduction in the instructive sense", but at least needs to be readable and cohesive and should not require a PhD to understand. I think the article suffers from trying to link to every conceivable topic in chemistry and is only potentially useful for someone who already knows a lot of chemistry. If someone fitting that description wanted a comprehensive list of subtopics in chemistry, I would refer them to Category:Chemistry which better serves their needs. --Itub 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand how difficult this problem is. I would shudder to write such a page myself. The editors might look at the physics and biology pages. I believe these pages are better in many ways. They explain crucial elements of the field without going into what Itub refers to as a PhD-level of detail but they also do not have sections like those on the molecule, atom or industrial chemistry which are so brief as to be pointless. That is not to say that these pages do not have problems. But I feel that they are better than this page and they have not yet achieved FA status. I particularly liked the "Future directions" section on the physics page. I thought that it rounded out the description of the discipline well - the history (where it had been), the current state of affairs (where it is now), and questions for the future (where it is going). Since the audience for these pages may well be high-school or college students, I thought that one advantage of that section may well be to excite students about the field and draw them into it. Awadewit 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, on the point about citing well-known knowledge that NickY brought up. I understand that it seems pointless and silly to cite pieces of information such as "atoms are made up quarks" or something like that, but remember that wikipedia does not have a great deal of legitimacy in the world. Citations are one way for wikipedia to establish legitimacy. Another way is credentialling (make sure that the people writing the articles know what they are talking about), but this is against wikiphilosophy. That is how traditional encyclopedias work. I think that adding the citations is a small price to pay for being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Awadewit 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding citations I would point you to Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines especially the section on uncontroversial knowledge Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature (most importantly in review articles). The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources at the start (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify later statements for which no in-line citation is provided. This is what I was referring to in saying that it is common knowledge.--Nick Y. 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that this article is not as good as Biology and Physics. And agree that especially with regards to organization they are good templates for chemistry. Chemistry is somewhat more of a hodge-podge of inconsistent theories than either of those however and may always seem less of an elegant article because of that. I simply disagree with many of the criticisms offered here, other than issues of organization and language and much less so citations where I think there is some room to improve but is largely covered by Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines noted above.--Nick Y. 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a general comment, a primary utility of references in an overview article like this is not 'see, we're not making this stuff up', but providing the reader with a place to go for further information on specific topics. Even a well-organized further reading section might not fulfill this need, since it can be hard for a novice in the subject to determine which reference to consult for a particular area of interest. This kind of article has no need for thickets of citations, but inline pointers to appropriate texts, even for obvious material, still have their place. (I'm not really bothering to officially oppose here, because the suggestions above pretty well cover what I would suggest about this article at this point.) Opabinia regalis 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • One could rely on Wikipedia:scientific citation guidelines to argue that virtually no citations are needed on this page. The entire chemistry page is common knowledge (to chemists). You could put one little note at the end of the page referring the reader to one textbook. But, of course, the point of the citations, as I tried to argue earlier is partly about legitimacy, and as Opabinia regalis pointed out, it is also a courtesy to the curious reader. By the way, perhaps I should establish "Humanities citation guidelines." One of them would run like this: if everyone if a particular discipline, such as English, is familiar with the interpretation you are describing (e.g. "rise of the novel"), there is no need to footnote your sources. That would make my life so much easier. :) Awadewit 10:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • IIRC there were a couple of humanities people who approved of the principles in that guideline. Which isn't recommending no citations, but only a small number of well-chosen sources without footnoting them repeatedly. This can actually help with the apparent 'legitimacy' problem, as a) anyone who knows anything about the subject and sees 'All ordinary matter consists of atoms or the subatomic components that make up atoms[1]' will think the lunatics are running the asylum over here, and b) people who get this 'needs a cite, any cite' meme into their heads tend to toss up a footnote to any old reference they stumble across, including random websites, very poor-quality textbooks, their copy of 'Chemistry for Dummies', their teacher's lecture notes... etc. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sections choice seems chaotic, there is a problem of fluency (continuity). Also, in some cases like for "molecule" the existance of a main does not justify just a line or two. Molecules is a major subject in chemistry and the main has to represent that. Fad (ix) 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Am I the only one who noticed the user who nominated this article has only a handful of edits, ,(contribs), while the nom may have been good faith it seems to be, especially based on this users [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Timber framing/archive1|past nomination]], that they don't yet have the experience to adequately judge and evaluate an article for FA. Perhaps, just a thought. IvoShandor 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess but wouldn't it benefit more, then, from a Peer review. I mean it occurs to me that those participating in FAC could better use their time to offer comments to articles that actually have a chance. No? Perhaps? Maybe? Just my two cents? IvoShandor 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a lot of the same people at peer review and at FAC (at least, I seem to see the same usernames repeating). So, since it's up here, why not? Besides, I prefer the idea of constructive criticism to slamming the article down. Awadewit 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should've checked the contribs first, I believe the person behind this account has had previous accounts that disrupted the FA process. But I tend to review the articles that I actually know something about... Opabinia regalis 00:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it meets all the criteria of what is a FA. Unlike my past nomination for another article this article does have inline citations. I think this alone is suspicious enough. Fad (ix) 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. If the person has consistently been "disruptive," then that is a problem. I guess I am just not suspicious enough of people on wikipedia yet (I have only been seriously active here for about three-four months). I suppose that will develop. Awadewit 07:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Partition of India

edit

Nominating for FA status. --Maclean1 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment:
  1. Get rid of {{fact}} templates by providing inline citations.
  2. Quotations that are in {{cquote}} need to have inline citations, too.--Crzycheetah 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose:
  • There are a number of problems with this article. First and foremost, don't you think you should have brought this up on the Talk Page of the article first, rather than nominating it for FAC out of the blue, especially as someone who has no history of working on the article? There are a number of people who have worked on the article and (judging from the talk page), they don't think it is anywhere near completion, or indeed even neutral.
  • The article needs a copy-edit. I myself copy edited (only) the lead for readability and clarity and didn't even get to the rest of the article. Here are the two versions of the lead before and after my copy edit: before and after (and I just noticed I missed a "the").
  • The the rest of the article likely still has grammatical mistakes. It is far too "listy." It has too much focus on post-partition events (favoring the Indian version) and far too little on the partition itself.
  • Finally, although any editor can nominate an article for FAC, I am concerned that an article that has been the battleground for many POV-wars, has been nominated by a new editor Maclean1 (talk · contribs), who not only has no history of working on the page, but also joined Wikipedia only on 12 February, 2007, and thereafter made no edits until 12 March 2007, when this article was nominated. Doesn't add up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have not read the talk page, but are you inferring that user Maclean1 was involved in a POV war? You are not assuming good faith, which is one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. I suggest you strike out your last comment, and keep your responses constructive, like you did before your last statement. While I appreciate all the FAC rewievers constructive comments as I see they have put their time and effort in that, but the rewievers should not let their personal feelings get in the way, and be Objective. --Paracit 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't infer anywhere that Maclean1 was involved in POV-wars, just that s/he might not be aware of the complicated history of the article. Your point though is well-taken. My apologies to Maclean1. I withdraw my last set of remarks. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose:
  1. POV
  2. Poor content. Doesn't delve too much into the reasons of partition and why it eventually led to the two nations splitting up.
  3. Uncited claims
  4. Poor maps, better ones can be easily sourced.
  5. Presence of lists
  6. =Division of assets= too small
  7. =Aftermath= goes too far into the future. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, how does your Speedy Close can not be construed WP:BITE. You have mentioned no constructive comments at all! --Paracit 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Psychology

edit

nom by-Nicktalk 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 1. Lead needs to be at least three paragraph long; please refer to WP:LEAD. 2. There should be more inline citations than five. --Crzycheetah 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, refer to Peer review. Referencing and citation is entirely insufficient (you'd need at least 30-40 citations, probably far more), most sections are far too short and stubby, "See Also" is bloated and contains numerous irrelevant links. I could go on, but these alone are enough for now. —Cuiviénen 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, refer to Peer review. Ditto - has the basis of a good FA but needs refs for each section (which should be fairly easy though time consuming to retrieve), and a good lead. The first sentence is clunky and a largish copyedit is needed. Good luck. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per above, and please submit to a lengthy peer review; several months of work and review are needed to bring this article to GA standard. I suggest a peer review, then apply for WP:GA, then another peer review before re-considering FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong does it not meet the criterion? --Paracit 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm yes. It fails 2(a) and 1 (c). As it fails these, I have not looked at the prose closely. These should be rectified before a copyedit. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Arctic Ocean

edit

I believe it meets the criteria. --Hirakawacho 07:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment promising, though some of the prose needs tightening:
  • In Natural resources section "greatly alter the flow.." - sounds odd - influence is probably a better verb here.
  • In History section "This lack of knowledge of what lay north of the shifting barrier of ice gave rise to a number of conjectures." - last word is used idiosyncratically, theories (?)
  • Actually the more I look at it I am concerned; seems a bit short and only has 12 refs so doesn't strike me as particularly comprehensive. I'd think there could be more on the ecology as well as the political history, resources and claims. Anyway, good luck cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per comprehensiveness. Virtually all of the sections strike me as underweight. Some examples:
  • Sovereignty issues need much greater treatment (there's a single BBC link thrown unformatted into the Natural resources section).
  • Post-1937 history gets all of two sentences.
  • One sentence paragraphs.
  • Given that Arctic is the canary in the mineshaft regarding global warming, the "Environmental concerns" section ought to be much larger. Marskell 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Clan Fraser

edit

Self-nomination: I've been working on this article for god knows how long, on-and-off, and I feel it's been above GA status for quite awhile, now. I believe it to at least meet all of the FA criteria, and surpass some of them. Canæn 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How would you present the information given in the various sections that appear listy (I'm assuming you're talking about the lists of battles)? I'd love to improve it any way I could. Canæn 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has this been established in effect by consistent opposition on these grounds? 1 a makes no mention of lists, simply saying that the prose should be good. Canæn 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Red links represent a lack of adequate Wikipedia coverage on related articles, but not on this article itself. Should the lack of coverage in other areas hold this article back from Featured status? Canæn 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Ilaiyaraaja

edit
You may be looking for a different FAC: see sorting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a musician. This article was first nominated for FA status in November 2006 (see following link). It is now re-submitted for FA nomination after substantial improvement. This is a self-nomination. For reference, the old FA candidacy page can be found here. Thank you. AppleJuggler 07:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your fine eye for detail and thank you for the comment. I have addressed your comment by improving how the headings are phrased. As part of the exercise, I surveyed all the FA of musicians that are on Wikipedia. I have made the headings more concise and hope they sound more formal now. Cheers, AppleJuggler 11:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've further tweaked the section headers a bit. The article on a whole seems short for someone with a thirty year career. Surely there's more detailed information available on his life? Tuf-Kat 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be insightful to ponder on the terms 'short' and 'comprehensive' here. Though short, the article tells us all we need to know about the musician and his work with adequate detail and without going overboard (see Wikipedia Featured article criteria, points 1(b) and 4). There are also Featured Articles that are much shorter; see here. The non-text media used in this article, such as the music sample section, and references (see, for example, reference 31, 32 and 33) speak a thousand words and so saves us from having to go into musical minutiae. Note that in the academic journal articles that I obtained in which his career is described, the story of his life is limited to brief career highlights. Nevertheless, editors of this Wikipedia article went through great pain to flesh out the early life and rise of this musician by digging out reliable sources (good newspaper articles and academic journal articles and book chapters). This musician's career path and life is fairly simple (no scandals, drama or excesses) and editors of this Wikipedia article have consciously endeavoured to describe the gist of things in easy-to-follow, logically-flowing narrative. This film score composer is markedly prolific (he has composed music for over 800 films). It would be a tedious, repetitive or unnecessary to spell out the details of his work for each film or groups of films, apart from highlighting some outstanding work across general periods which is representative of most of what he does. This is only practical given the circumstance. A more blow-by-blow account may be possible for a film composer whose oeuvre consists of say 30 films (as the average may be for many Western film composers), but in this specialised case it is not feasible. Outstanding works of this musician are mentioned in the text (albums with some good background music, albums for highly-acclaimed films etc.), although involved analysis of the characteristics of these film albums is deliberately left out (as it should be -- independent analytical writing is contrary to the fundamental spirit of an encyclopedia and Wikipedia biography guidelines -- see talk page). In fact, this issue of brevity for a musician with a 30-year career was raised in the previous FAC and discussed substantially (please see this discussion) and an agreement was reached with regard to the format of this musician's life/career biography. It was decided that a broad but comprehensive overview of the essentials be provided (viz., the musician's early life, formative music years, rise to prominence, characteristics of his works and notable works) to render a general yet sufficiently informative encyclopedia entry. You may be interested in reading the hyperlinked discussion to gain a better picture of this. We can discuss this further if you like to. The heading changes that you made are perceptive, and I have tweaked it a little more (please take a look). Thank you for taking the time to look at this article and providing helpful comments! AppleJuggler 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think that's really an argument for having more detailed subarticles in addition to a comprehensive main article. I think this article is missing important information - for example, the "live performances" section begins following a 25 year break, when it should cover what came before the break too. The article notes he used elements of stuff like doo wop and flamenco, but that isn't explained or described or placed in any kind of context.
True, as you say, his previous performances and reasons for his break from live performances can be elaborated on and this has now been done (check article). I have also elaborated on the common characteristics that make his songs distinct in the 'Style' section. In relation to doo-wop and flamenco etc., one could make mention in the article about which songs of his contain strong elements of these, to substantiate the point, or alternatively, see below. Where else do you feel that important information is not apparent? AppleJuggler 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sound samples are nice, but each need fair use justifications, which means each one needs to explain what it adds to the article by linking the sample with something encyclopedically notable. The best way to do that is to move them into boxes in each subsection, I think, with the captions expanded to link the sample with what's being explained in the text. Tuf-Kat 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found the music samples pleasant. The samples were selected with great care and effort to illustrate different styles, sounds and compositional/arrangement methods. The rationale for their inclusion in this article is to justify and demonstrate these various musical styles/approaches listed in the 'Impact' and 'Styles' sections of the article. As such, these sound clips exemplify tribal folk (Nila Athu), Tamil traditional folk and an example of Ilaiyaraaja's singing (Ponna Pola Aatha), disco (Ilamai Itho), funk (Oru Nayagan), pathos/sad/wistful songs (Nadanthal Irandadi, Mandram Vantha), modern pop (Ninaichu Ninaichu), modern Indo-Western syntheses (Nee Partha, Antha Naal Nyabagam), doo-wop (Raja Kaiyya Vecha), classical-rock fusion (the violin concerto), acoustic guitar-driven folk (Ponmaney Theduthey), synth-pop (Ninnukori Varanam, Konji Konji), psychadelic (Vaanam Keezhe Vanthal Enna), a Rimsky-Korsakovian ballad (Chittuku Chella Chittukku, which has the Rimsky-Korsakov 'The Tale of the Kalendar Prince' piece (from 'Scheherazade', 1888) as its inspiration and leitmotif), an example of polyphonic use of vocals (Poo Maalayeh), and a theme from a film (for the film 'Netrikan'). As you suggest, boxes could be made containing the music samples with captions to link it to the main text. For example, the musical styles described in the main text (the use of polyphonic vocals, an example of a traditional folk or Carnatic sound, an example of funk or psychadelic-sounding music) or some other interesting observation that can better educate the reader with regard to this musician's musical style could be linked to the music samples in boxes besides relevant paragraphs. Also I wonder if some additonal music samples could be left at the base of the article with further justifications provided in captions? Please advise. Thanks AppleJuggler 09:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I neither support or oppose, but this article needs work.
  • Remove the IMDB link from the infobox, its for official websites note it just says website not websites
Done. AppleJuggler 10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence under Early life and education has no reference and is a one sentence paragraph. Remove, merge or expand the once sentence paragraphs, with one sentence paragraphs it is not well-written, thus failing critiera 1a.
Done. AppleJuggler 10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teatro Comunale di Modena, External jump
Done. AppleJuggler 10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreferenced paragraphs and statements in 'Awards and honours' - if you say he won an award you need a reference.
Done. AppleJuggler 11:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many song samples which violates fair use, Wikipedia is meant to be a free encyclopedia.
According to Wikipedia:Music_samples, there is "no limit of how many samples you could use in one article", as long as their use can be justified. And the reason why there appears to be too many samples is because Ilaiyaraaja has made more than 4000 songs and there are 28 music samples on this Wiki article, but these music samples constitute 0.7% (hardly 1%) of this artiste's total output. AppleJuggler 11:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so good with computers and I did my best for the referencing of this Ilaiyaraaja article. Using these templates sounds like a good idea, but I do not understand what you mean by containing Blue URL's (and how to link something through the title of the page)? I took a look at Slayer and its references also have Blue URL's. Could you help me with this please, M3tal H3ad? Would appreciate it a lot. AppleJuggler 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The samples use are not justified. Justiied refers to making a reference to the song in the text, this article slaps twenty samples on the end. Regarding URl's the URL is linked through the title of the article where you have the actualy addressed. It currently is like this - Wikipedia home page http://wikipedia.org/ -Where it should read Wikipedia homepage to clear the clutter made from the address. M3tal H3ad 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get your point about justification. I am also aware of the guideline at Wikipedia:Music_samples that states that "you have to put in mind that music samples serve as tools for a better understanding of the article, so insert only relevant samples". This will be addressed soon (please see my response to TUF-KAT about the possibility of boxing up music samples and inserting justifying caption). The key here, as I understand it, is to be able to provide adequate justification for each and every music sample provided, regardless of whether one includes just one music sample of one thousand. With regard to slapping music samples at the end, you might be interested to know that this Featured Article --> Nirvana (band) slaps all of its music samples at the end of the article (with no justification given for each music sample); you can find more of the music sample 'slapping' at this other Featured Article too --> Pink Floyd. I don't think the issue is whether a bunch of music samples are slapped at the end, although according to Wikipedia:Music_samples it's "better to insert the samples next to paragraph mentioning them to justify their fair use, instead of grouping them in the end of the article". The keyword here is "better", and not "must"; it is not a necessary condition. It all depends on the way the article is crafted. In some Wikipedia articles, it is simply not possible to integrate a song sample within the text without obstructing narrative flow. (This is the case with Ilaiyaraaja: the musician has literally made hundreds of notable/hit songs and so you cannot mention all these in the text; the best strategy is to describe the style or musical characteristics of his representative hits, and illustrate these styles and characteristics with music samples). In others Wiki articles, you can create boxes beside the relevant paragraph containing music samples and then link the music samples in the box to the text that refers to the various styles (this way, you justify your samples and preserve narrative continuity). In yet some other cases, it may be more suitable to have some music samples near the end of the page. On the separate issue of URL formatting: I understand what you mean now, and I will fix this soon. Thanks. AppleJuggler 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object 1.b. Don't feel article does justice to such a long career. I have difficulty reconciling your plea for a short concise article on one hand, and utilisation of twenty eight samples, none of which have fair use rationale, on the other. Ceoil 09:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Article 1(b) of the FA guideline states: "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details". If you say the article does not do justice to such a long career, then please highlight in what respects that is so. This would substantiate your comment and simultaneously help editors in a big way to improve the article. To summarise, this article at present covers (i) the early years, rise and status of this musician (ii) the characteristics of his music, (iii) the people he has worked with, (iv) other albums he has made apart from film music, (v) aspects of his live performances, and (v) awards received. What would be valuable is that you provide constructive comments; in other words, you are able to say that "this article is not complete, BECAUSE x or y or has not been addressed, or z could be explained like this... etc". Secondly, the number of music samples can be greatly reduced, and the provision of rationale for their use is under way. AppleJuggler 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

NeXT

edit

This article has been edited extensively since its second FAC failed (First FAC nomination and Second FAC nomination). It was rated a 'good article' by its Peer review (Peer review ). There are new sections, the citations have all been fixed and the text has been edited for readability. This is a self nomination, I was also involved in the other two FACs as well.Tomhormby 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Extremely well written, fully referenced - certainly meets the criteria. A serious amount of work has gone into this article. Well done! — Wackymacs 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wow, this article has come a long way since I last looked at it a few months ago. This has gone from being merely decent, into being a definitive computing history article, well worthy of FA status. -/- Warren 09:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tomer T 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the time being. Looking at the article history since the last nomination, the article is yet to pass the necessary overhaul in order to meet criteria 1a of WP:WIAFA. I strongly advice requesting someone with strategic distance to give it some copyediting. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The lead is inadequate (refer to WP:LEAD); Further reading contains sources that are used as references (please refer to WP:LAYOUT); and references are not completely or correctly formatted (last access dates are missing on several, dates aren't correctly formatted, authors and dates are missing, etc.) Quotes should not be italicized. Prose and copyedit needs, mostly for flow: a most strange introductory sentence ("After a successful 1984, Apple Computer struggled in 1985. ") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Ronald Reagan

edit

I have nominated Ronald Reagan to be a featured article, because I think it meets all of the criteria. After a lot of cleanup, and an expansion to the "Presidency" section, I think it's ready. All the sources have been cited in the correct format, and everything is in tip-top shape. Again, I urge you to support this nomination. Thank You, Happyme22 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination.

Comment The comunicator and teflon president occures two times in the lead. Are the church habits importened enough for the lead. --Stone 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

 Done The comunicator and teflon president were changed, and are said only once now.

Comment - The nominator withdrew this nomination I thought? Or has someone else re-inserted it without even contacting the nominator? LuciferMorgan 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - I, the nominator, was the old nominator. We, the editors of Ronald Reagan, fixed up the article, and we are ready to try it again. Reagan's Christian belief was important to him. The errors you listed will be fixed. Thank You for your input. Happyme22 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment There's no fair use rational for the TIME magazine cover and you have mention the specific magazine in the text to justify it's inclusion. Quadzilla99 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The award given to Reagan (TIME's Man of the Year) is now included in the text.

Oppose I wrote a brief peer-review for this article a couple of days ago. In that review, I mentioned that the article should not rely so heavily on Reagan's autobiography as a source (see footnote 2 of the article). Autobiographies are not secondary sources, not NPOV and notoriously unreliable. Since the article has a long list of references, I assume that the editors do not need to rely on the autobiography. If indeed they have written the article based almost solely on Reagan's autobiography, I object even more strenuously to this article being accepted as a featured article. See my peer-review for a few further issues [9]. I might also mention that issues such as the Iran-Contra scandal get very short-shrift here. Awadewit 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a rebuttle to the above statement, I say: Yes, President Reagan's autobiography is the main source in the article. Yet, if you look (and actually read), it is very rarley used in opinion statements, and only in facts. In the "Cold War" section, Reagan's autobiography outlines what he believed would happen with the Cold War, and we listed that there. It's fair. The above writer says that autobiographies are notoriously unreliable. Okay - President Reagan's has been noted time-and-again by historians as being one of the true (and FAIR, I might add) sources of the Reagan Presidency. The above writer says that the Iran Contra Scandal takes up a little bit of the page. Okay, I agree. We should expand on that. Overall, if you actually read the article, you will find that most of what I am saying is correct. I support Ronald Reagan's nomination. Happyme22 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, let me state, one cannot read an autobiography uncritically, that is, one cannot assume that all of the statements in it are true. Reagan would have had an interest in representing his life story in a particular way. That is why even basic facts have to be verified using secondary sources. But beyond basic facts, you present Reagan's analysis of his own life as a fact and as at times the undisputed interpreation. This is problematic. Here are some examples:
  • Reagan's father was a problem drinker and sporadically unemployed. - It is Reagan's decision to portray his father this way.
 Done Found another reference for it
  • Witnessing what he believed to be inefficient and overreaching government programs firsthand, Reagan believed that liberals were naively leading the country down a road to serfdom. - this should be a quotation, not a statement of fact, if it is coming from an autobiography
 Done Added quotes, and found the page in Reagan's autobiography
  • Reagan implied that Roosevelt would have also disapproved of the change in the Democratic Party. - this should be a quotation
 Done Added quotes, and found the page in Reagan's autobiography
  • Reagan would often ask his flight crew if it would be any inconvenience to change the published flight schedule because he did not want to keep his support staff from being with their families and any family planned events. - this is Reagan's interpretation - make that clear
 Done Specifically stated
  • The misery index had considerably worsened during his term, which Reagan used to his advantage during the campaign. - which Reagan believed he used to his advantage - that is his interpretation of events; aa political scientist or historian would be more reliable here
 Done Got it from one of Reagan's biographers, Lou Cannon
  • His most influential remark was a closing question to the audience, during a time of skyrocketing prices and high interest rates, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (a phrase he would successfully reuse in the 1984 campaign). - you should use a secondary source to prove what his "most influential remark" was, not Reagan's opinion.
 Done Found other reliable sources, and cited them correctly
  • Your sole source on the "Federal Air Traffic Controllers' strike" is the autobiography? This is an event which sparked a lot of controversy. You need to have sources from across the political spectrum and from more dispassionate observers.
 Done Found other sources, and cited them correctly
  • Reagan was considered a small-government conservative and supported income tax cuts, cuts to domestic government programs, and deregulation, but no one knew what concrete steps he meant to take, or whether the House (controlled by Democrats) would support him. - Reagan was considered by himself?
 Done Found another source
  • All of your citations in the "Reaganomics" section come from the autobiography as well. Reagan was not an economist. He cannot speak with any authority on these issues.
 Done Found other reliable sources, such as Reagan's biographer
  • Nevertheless, some surveys showed that illegal drug use among Americans declined significantly during Reagan's presidency, leading supporters to argue that the policies were successful. - so quote the surveys and the supporters
  • Again, I would point out that all of your citations in the "Judiciary" section are from the autobiography. For such contentious issues, you simply cannot rely on a single source, especially one that is so biased.
 Done Found other sources
  • "The invasion of Grenada," a military action, also only has citations from the autobiography.
 Done Found other sources (one is very good and informative, I might add)
  • Supporters responded that SDI gave Reagan a stronger bargaining position. Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned, and SDI ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War. - you mean, Reagan believed it did!
 Done Fixed it

Even historians who use Reagan's autobiography are going to verify it and use it judiciously. This article appears to tell the story of Ronald Reagan from Reagan's own perspective. That is not the function of an encyclopedia. Since there is an abundance of sources on Reagan, there is no reason to rely so heavily on the autobiography. Scholarly biographies would be much more appropriate. Awadewit 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that the editors of this article need to seek out scholarly sources. Replacing some of the above source problems (which, by the way, are only some of the many) with obituaries, for example, is not an improvement. There is so much written on Reagan that there is no need to resort to using obituaries (except perhaps to discuss his death and funeral). It is especially egregious that the editors are using an obituary as one of only two sources for the "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" section. Awadewit 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say to Awadewit that I respect you, but if you read the Los Angeles Times Obituary, it covers Reagan's life and Presidency, The "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" included. To make you happy, I'll find another source. By the way, you will notice that Reagan's autobiography is much less prominent in the article than before, and is being replaced with "scholarly biographies." In all of biographies that I listed as sources, everything is true, and you can check for it youself (I did not just replace on source with another). And, if you look above, you will see that 12 out of the 13 things that you listed were fixed. Are you any happier with the article? Happyme22 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look over everything again in the next few days, but I feel like you are missing the point here. For you to be able to write on the air traffic controller's strike, you need to read more than an obituary. An obituary is not going to give you the detail necessary to understand that event. When a reader sees that you have used an obituary as a footnote, he or she will assume that you have not read deeply on the topic (in this case, the strike) and know nothing about the topic (I do not know whether or not this is true, I am simply pointing out what it will look like to a reader). Obituaries tend to be used in very particular contexts: to prove that a person is dead and to give details of the funeral. They are often cited to prove that a person is noteworthy as well; Reagan had obituaries in many world newspapers, for example, therefore a historian in the future could argue that he was famous. Obituaries are rarely used for basic factual information unless there are no other sources available. This can sometimes happen with obscure historical figures. Reagan is not an obscure historical figure. There is a wealth of information available on him. Getting back to the strike, putting "Reagan air traffic controllers strike" into Google scholar gets you a wealth of material. I think that perhaps the editors of this page are assuming that the research for this page can be done entirely from biographies. I would question that assumption. I would suggest that the editors look at the list of sources on the Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt page for the kind of variety I would expect and that would make the page more reliable. It does seem that wikipedia does not always require this kind of variety, though. If they decide to stick only with biogpraphies, I would recommend that they look at Calvin Coolidge. Note though, that the variety exists on FDR's page, a well-known president, while the reliance on biographies is relegated to Coolidge's page (not a president many people even remember in a quick run-down). I would argue that since Reagan is such a recent president, his page deserves extra-special treatment. I would like to reiterate a message I left on my talk page responding to Happyme22 that I applaud his/her efforts on this page. It is not easy to write on a polarizing political figure like Reagan. I simply feel that a page on one of the United States' most important recent presidents should be done as well as possible. Certainly it will be highly trafficked, therefore it must be very carefully reviewed.
On a side note, I checked out a lot of the other president pages and I haven't found any other (albeit I didn't click on every single one) except for Bill Clinton that had a "Criticism" section. I really would like to reiterate that this structure is problematic. In fact, I consider it POV. To have an article that discusses the greatness of Reagan and then essentially says, "oh, yeah, we can lump all of the criticism into a little section over here" misrepresents the Reagan presidency and the reaction against it. The editors must integrate these criticisms into the timeline of the presidency. Also, the bulletted list of Reagan's "positions" and "achievements" is highly problematic. For example, it says that Reagan was "intolerant of crime." This implies that his opponents were tolerant of crime. The whole "positions" section is essentially a propaganda section - what Reagan wanted the public to believe about him - but it is presented rather innocuously. I'm not particularly sure why it is included. If the editors want to discuss particular positions in relation to particular legislation, they should do that. The "polices" section should be done in prose. Discuss those policies, if you believe they are important - explain them - source them - link them. Lists like these are simplistic and reductionist. Awadewit 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I nominate this page. It is quite excellent and presents Reagan in an unusually honest and sincere way. A good article like this will make the reader agree and disagree with some things - and learn a few new things - but accept it as reasonable. I think this current article is reasonable. It is also afree of the previous partisan lies (from both sides) that had plagued it. Reagan did proudly vote for FDR four times, and I am happy to see that it is honestly stated here - which adds to the credibility. This is a very impressive work for it's accuracy and not fakery. People will like this.

Also, I would nominate Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Washington.

Object - I have no objection off-hand to criticism section, but in this article it is used to relegate certain facts and do display them only from a critical perspective. For example, dereguation of the banking industry should be discussed side by side with his economic policies, with all the facts in one place, just as Reagan's (lack of an) AIDS policy should be discussed within the broader context of health care/medicine during his presidency. The same goes for certain facts about the Iran-Contra affair (e.g. a link to Nicaragua v. United States. "Criticism" shouldn't be synonymous with "fact that might be considered damaging to Reagan's legacy. Here are some specific problems throughout the article: Savidan 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"credited with restoring America's power and prosperity" in the intro - I think it might be a more neutral route to describe the overall tone of his economic and foreign policies (already done to some extent) rather than to discuss it from the angle of praise or criticism in the intro.
"well-received autobiography titled An American Life" - try a more neutral adjective; e.g. (if true) "best-selling"
 Done Thanks a lot for your comments. I'll try to fix them. I agree with you on the autobiography, but I don't really agree with you on the "credited with resoring America's power and prosperity." Many, many people will argue that Reagan did exactly "restore America's power and prosperity." Would it be better if I cited it? I have a good source- I'll do that. You'll also notice that I moved many of the criticisms into the article section, like with "Reaganomic's and the Economy". Again, you are carefully pointing these things out, and I'm grateful to you. Do you feel any better about the article? Happyme22 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement, but I don't consider this addressed yet. The cite is a step up but its just one person's opinion (maybe more people) which I consider to be given undo prominense in the intro. If it's a notable subject of praise of Reagan then it should be attributed (i.e. no weasel words like "often credited"; cite the specific author and acknowledge them by name in the text. Might I suggest a "praise" subsection to the "legacy" section or similar. Also I don't consider the AIDS issue to be adequately addressed in this article. If you need some help doing the research see Google, Google Books, Google Scholar. The problem isn't just that the most notable criticism is omited (the "what's aids" comment), but that the article should provide a general background on Reagan's health policies as well. Savidan 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight object I wonder if it possible to include some of the serious allegations put forth by David Stockman (budget director) in the 1986 PBS Frontline interview [12] which essentially said that Reagan was deliberately kept out of the loop during his first years of the presidency by his own cabinet because he himself did not know where he stood on his own policies. For example, one example Stockman gave was a "test" he gave to Reagan in 1981 in regards to the budget cuts which asked him to cut funding for social programs such as welfare and SS. In his words, Reagan "failed" the test as he couldn't bring himself to cut anything. He dozed off during meetings and had to be trained by Stockman to know "where to stand" on his platform. I think this deserves a mention but its worthy to note that virtually no one (that I know of) countered Stockman's claims at the time.--MarshallBagramyan 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hi. Thank You for your comments. I really do not think the David Stockman thing is worth mentioning, because I don't think that it's very important, and is worthy of going into Reagan's article, but I did it anyway for a neutral point of view. Plus, it's a proven fact that Reagan did not fall asleep in cabinet meetings (see James Baker if you disagree). If you disagree, please respond to this, or drop me a line. Happyme22 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - I think the article can do much better if there are even more citations (esp. for a 110kb article and provide publication info, details such as ISBN and page numbers) and if most of the spelling and grammar are fixed but I'm satisfied with its current status.--MarshallBagramyan 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support There have been quite a bit of objections, but if you look at the article, almost everything that people objected to has been fixed (see above, or the article), either by myself, of another editor. Again, I think it's ready to go into the Featured Article list. Happyme22 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You have already supported - we know your position - please do not stuff the virtual "ballot box" or consensus-cluster. Thanks. Awadewit 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
This is the third Support registered by Happyme22. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Additional objection - I'll make my comments about meta-issues on this page, but most of the {fact} tags in the article speak for themselves. I don't want to clog up this FAC by listing all the things here, but if you have any questions about them, let me know here. Savidan 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Savidan. Its nice to talk to you again. I've fixed three out of five [citation needed] tags. I was not the one who added a lot of the uncited info. I've already tried looking for a source about the Iran-Contra is the 9th worst mistake thing, and I can't find one. Should I just delete it? Happyme22 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to use your own judgement on that one. But simply to delete the poorly cited sections will not improve the article in the long-term or satisfy Featured-Article-level completeness. Savidan 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Reagan autobiography is a reliable source. Reagan was an honest and sincere person the the point of being labeled "an amiable dunce." Reagan in his autobiography actually disproves other false claims made about Reagan, such as the suggestion that he destroyed USSR as some sort of Godzilla-type neo-con. Reagan reveals himself to be firm yet very willing to use diplomacy which led to a peaceful end of the Cold War (as stated in this article) and not the phony claim that he made it explode.

And the conservative neo-cons would never want you to know that Reagan favored abolishing nuclear weapons. This is favorable yet honest article, and I must say a great article. It is more honest and complete than much else.

The failings of the Reagain autobiography is what he leaves out; not what he put in. It was mainly written from his diary and ghost authored by a reported for the New York Times. There is no mention of the increased pollution or the political favors for his donors, which every elected candidate is forced to do to keep power. That's the dirty aspect of all politics, and Reagan pretty much removed himself from the patronage aspects. Also, Reagan was very tough on the poor - specifically the able-bodied. His biographer Richard Reeves said that Reagan felt bad for the poor but said it was of their own doing. Reagan optimistically believed in individual initiative as the best way to handle economic issues, which is covered in this article, and said that people should pull themselves up by their boostraps.

Other than those nuances, I cannot think of anything missing or false in this article. This voting for the Discovery Channel rating Reagan the Greatest President ever was suspect. The descriptions of the other nominiees were not always fair. For example, FDR's description made NO reference at all the World War II. The vote count was not audited and then Technically Lincolns still could have been named #1 depending on how you counted the multiple vote process. But this is standard hyping, such as that which followed the death of Kennedy.

Under a differ IP address, I previously ruthlessly edited out the fake stuff. This is now a good acticle. I have read several Reagan biographies and believe this article to be reasonable.

First, it is immaterial whether or not Reagan or his ghostwriter was honest in the autobiography. It is extremely difficult to figure out the political agenda behind an autobiography; you could easily fall into the trap of repeating propaganda. That is why scholarly sources, which are more objective, are desirable. Your own statements support this view; you list examples of what has been intentionally left out of the autobiography to make Reagan look better.
This is far from a great article and there are numerous POV problems, such as this statement: preserved the core New Deal safeguards (such as the SEC, FDIC, GI Bill and Social Security) while rolling-back the excesses of 1960s and 1970s liberal policies. Since this article is the very first article that comes up on a google search for Reagan, it must be superb and very carefully researched; this is supposed to be a featured article, that is, wikipedia's best, after all. Awadewit 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I, Happyme22, have only registered one support. The other two that are not signed are by two users without a username. They used their IP addreses, and did't sign it, for some reason, with four tildes. You can even check out the history to see that I am not lying. -- Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs from history are provided throughout; all Support votes come from you and one IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering about what has been said above, I think one of the most important things this article fails to state is how Reagan was found by the Iran-Contra Select Senate Committee did not "faithfully execute" his role in office during the scandal. The fact that his administration unilaterally circumvented Congress' Boland Amendment and raised non-federal funds to supply and aid the Contra rebels that they themselves had created is one of the most glaringly obvious items that is missing from the article. Something like this some people would consider as a subversion of checks and balances is worthy of mention but I feel this article simply relegates all of the "Criticism" to the bottom of the page. I share much of Awadewit sentiments.--MarshallBagramyan 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to put that in if you (or anyone else) can find a reliable source for it. I've looked for things about Iran-Contra, and I know that to be true, but I can't put it in without a source. Find me a source, and I'll put it in. About the "Criticism" section: Many of the criticisms listed there do not pertain to anything in article (i.e. Some Jewish Leaders criticised Reagan about his laying a wreath at a cemetery where Waffen SS Soldiers were buried-where would that go?). Many of the criticisms were moved from the criticism section into their correct places (i.e. the economic criticisms were put into the "Reaganomics and the Economy" section). I understand what you guys mean when you are talking about POV issues, but we can't portray Reagan in a negative way either, and I feel that that is what many of you is trying to do. I don't see a lot of POV problems, yet many of you are trying to say that there are, and I just don't see it. Give me some specific examples, and I'll see what I can do. Again, whether I agree with you, or not, thanks for your comments. -- Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have never removed an FAC before, but I am to the point of removing this nomination as a flagrant abuse of process, considering that all of the Support registered above appears to come from the same source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to you- I am not the one writing all of the supports! Check out my IP address, and check out the editing history! Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Sandy If you feel it's an abuse of process Sandy, I'd recommend you report it to Raul who can take the appropriate action in his position of Featured Article Director. As concerns this being referred to peer review, as far as I'm aware it actually was in its first FAC (albeit for all of 5 minutes)? That peer review shouldn't have been closed, and this FAC is too premature definitely. LuciferMorgan 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I am the one who changed my own comment from "comment" to "support." Happyme22 did not change it. I am supporting this article. I also made several picky attacks on the article, which means that the main points are sound. I picked at the hype after Reagan's death and the patronage, which is common for any president. FDR's patronage was legendary. JFK is was probably the most hyped president ever after his death. I am honest and saying that the Discover Channel poll is hype, but the rest of the article looks good. It dishes out plenty of criticism. This is really good work!

[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Contra I think there should be criticism but be reasonable. FDR also pushed the limits of the law in his escalating war against Hitler. FDR by law was allowed only to defend US ships and shipping in a neutrality zone around North America, yet he stretched the Neutrality Zone to almost all the way to Ireland. His sparring with Hitler in the North Atlantic is well documented in the book Hitler versus Roosevelt and The Undeclared War, as well as the Pulitzer Prize-winning Freedom From Fear. Are we going to grill FDR in his article? And then Roosevelt goaded Japan into attacking in the Pacific by cutting off their oil. He did NOT know about an attack on Pearl Harbor, but he and the top military leaders knew the Japanese armada was heading to Southeast Asia and were bracing for an imminent attack in Indonesia. FDR's advisor told FDR that they should attack Japan first in self defense of Phillipines, but FDR said, "We have maneuver them into firing the first shot." So Reagan's sin is minor compared to that, not to mention that Teddy Roosevelt stold Panama from Columbia so he could build his canal. And how about all the other interventions in Central America that nobody knows about by Eisenhower and Nixon, such as Guatamala and Chile. Criticize Reagan but please be reasonable. Iran Contra was slightly overhyped. I would say the current Bush has much more to worry about.

I just want to clarify that I am not ballot stuffing for Happyme22. I have never written anything at this page under a different name. I'm sorry that I do not have a user name.

  • Oppose.
  • The lead is not an adequate summary of the article, nor is it compelling or brilliant. (See WP:LEAD.)
  • The article size is 58KB of readable prose; it could probably benefit from better use of summary style (see WP:LENGTH.
  • Section headings need work: for example, "Reaganomics" and the economy could be just "Reaganomics".
  • Section headings don't conform to WP:MSH; for example, The Judiciary and The Close of the Reagan Era.
  • Several sections of the article are listy and should be converted to compelling prose.
  • Per Jimbo, criticism sections should be avoided, and balanced into the overall text. (Besides, the heading is POV: what is criticism to one is praise to another.) See Wikipedia:Criticism
  • Scandals and controversies is a two-sentence section. Besides, one of the sentences uses incorrect bolding and has convoluted prose (The Reagan administration saw several controversies unfold in their ranks which resulted in a number of administration staffers being convicted.)
  • Positioning two images across from each other squeezes the text between them. Prose is choppy; there are one and two-sentence paragraphs throughout.
  • Legacy is one of the shorter sections: you must be kidding.
  • Trivia has no place in an encyclopedia; usable facts from that section should be woven into the article as compelling prose.
  • See also needs trimming; much of it can be, should be, or may already be linked into the article.
  • Footnotes need massive amounts of work; there are newspaper articles with no titles or authors (how are we supposed to find them in a library?), blue links with no publisher info or last access date (and author and publication date when available), and named refs aren't correclty employed.
  • It doesn't seem likely that all the sources listed are actually used in the article.
  • For a biography of a recently-deceased public figure, the article is undercited.
  • Dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly (please read WP:DASH).
  • Wikilinking is inadequate and needs sustained attention.
  • Mixed references styles, based on a missing reference—for example, we find Harvard style inline references (LaFeber 2002, 332) in addition to cite.php, but the LaFeber source is never specified.
  • The section Supreme Court Appointees (should appointees be capped there?) is nothing more than a short list, not warranting its own section unless there is some discussion.

All of these should be fixed (in addition to diversifying the sources used, as mentioned by Aradewit); then the article should be submitted for another peer review (which typically takes at least a month), then seriously copyedited, and then it should come back to FAC to see if it has captured the essence of the man. With all of these structural deficiencies, it's doubtful the article does justice to the man. Please don't just fix these items listed and mark done—that won't do it; the article is not ready for FAC, and needs extensive work, including diversification of sources, summarizing, and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your comments. I'll try to fix a much as I can. Happyme22 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happyme22, I think you are missing the point. This page needs to be revised (in some places radically). You need to take time to think about it and carefully rework it. Good writing takes time. If, as you say on your userpage, Ronald Reagan is your hero, you should want this page to be truly excellent. Please take the time to make it that way. A good example of a section that is in serious need of radical revision is the "Invasion of Grenada" section. It is only a description of the military action. It does not explain the real reasons that the United States invaded nor the worldwide outrage (Thatcher was even opposed). You have said that you have an excellent source for that section but most of it is copied from the wikipedia page on the invasion. That does not fill reviewers with confidence and the POV clearly present in that section is highly problematic. This is just one example. Awadewit 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in principle; the article is already too long, and makes use of (and needs to make better use of) summary style. An article about Reagan needs to discuss the Invasion of Grenada as relevant to the man, but is not about the invasion of Grenada; that should be covered in the main article, employing summary style (which the article currently attempts to do). One aspect of an 8-year presidency, governship, radio and entertainment career doesn't get undue weight in an article; that's where summary style comes in. That isn't to say that what is there now is necessarily adequate, but in general terms, the article should not give undue weight to any one issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a major military action that was condemned around the world. I don't think that spending a few paragraphs on it is out of line. The way to fix the problem is to cut down on the military details that are there now and to expand the other aspects. Awadewit 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current amount of "space" devoted to the topic is out of proportion; my point is that what is there should discuss the topic as relevant to Reagan, and not expand to cover the entire issue, which should be done in the Invasion article. What is there now doesn't establish much relevance to Reagan. This is probably true in sections throughout the article, since the article is in dire need of lots of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Many problems in this article.

  • Let's start from the lead. Why six paragraphs, some of which stubby? And is this "Reagan is credited with restoring America's power and prosperity " generally acceptable?
  • Stylistic problems: You wikilink single years, something not recommended by WP:MoS.\
  • "In 1989, after leaving office, Reagan was contacted by the producers of the Back To The Future film trilogy about taking the role of the mayor of the fictional town of Hill Valley, "Mayor Hubert" in the third installment. According to Reagan's agent Lew Wasserman, he contemplated taking the role before eventually turning it down." Citation?
  • "Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are."[cite this quote]" Tagged for citing.
  • In "Governor of California, 1967-1975" you mention nothing about how and why he was chosen by the Republicans as their candidate.
  • "Poor management of expectations". What does this mean?
  • "This economic growth generated greater tax revenue, although the new revenue did not cover an increased federal budget that included the military buildup and expansions of social programs, in violation of the doctrine of fiscal conservatism. The result was greater deficit spending and a dramatic increase in the national debt, which tripled in unadjusted dollar terms during Reagan's presidency. The U.S. trade deficit expanded significantly, particularly with buoyant Japan." These aggregate feautures are also uncited.
  • I see a couple of [citation needed]s that should be fixed.
  • "most of these nominations were not controversial, although a handful of candidates were singled out for criticism by civil rights advocates and other liberal critics, resulting in occasional confirmation fights." Vague and uncited.
  • "According to several scholars and Reagan biographers, including Paul Lettow (Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), John Lewis Gaddis (The Cold War: A New History), Richard Reeves (President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination), Lou Cannon (President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime), and Reagan himself in his autobiography, Ronald Reagan quietly worked to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war and earnestly desired the abolition of all nuclear weapons." Vague references. Pages? And why not cited properly like all the other citations?
  • "In his autobiography An American Life, Reagan earnestly wrote, "The Pentagon said at least 150 million American lives would be lost in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union - even if we 'won.' For Americans who survived such a war, I couldn't imagine what life would be like. The planet would be so poisoned the 'survivors' would have no place to live. Even if a nuclear war did not mean the extinction of mankind, it would certainly mean the end of civilization as we knew it. No one could 'win' a nuclear war. Yet as long as nuclear weapons were in existence, there would always be risks they would be used, and once the first nuclear weapon was unleashed, who knew where it would end? My dream, then, became a world free of nuclear weapons....But for the eight years I was president I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind." Again not properly cited. Page?
  • "End of the Cold War" is the first section where the prose is starting to get worse, listy. WHy all these one-sentence paragraphs?
  • "As a politician and as President, he portrayed himself as being." He portrayed himself where and how? anysources? And why isn't this section proper prose?
  • "Policies and decisions" is listy and uncited. Reagen "is credited" by whom? Because of the lack of sources, this section could be regarded as POV.
  • "Scandals and controversies" is stubby and uncited.
  • The first three paragraphs of "Post presidential years, 1989-2004" are undercited.
  • Poor listy prose and one-sentence paragraphs in "Religious beliefs".
  • Is his legacy only what Richard Reeves says?! A poor "legacy" section for such an important and controversial personality. Under-developped and not properly worked.
  • "Facts and Trivia" in a FAC?! No!!!
  • And what is this long "See also" section with articles already linked within the main text. It needs cleaning and trimming.
  • Where are the pages from the printed sources you cite, such as "Cannon, Lou (2001). "Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio"?

Many many problems. I don't know how all this could be fixed. And another problem of me is that not even the peer-review's suggestions have been implemented. For istance, Awadewit correctly proposed: "Might you integrate the "Criticism" into the appropriate sections of the chronology, such as the Iran-Contra Scandal and the S&L Crisis, rather than relegating it to a list-like section at the end." Why isn't that done? Another correct remark by Awadewit not fixed: "Why are the bulk of your references from Reagan's autobiography? Autobiographies are notoriously unreliable. Since the page has such a long list of sources, I would have expected those sources to be used. Also, you need to cite more extensively throughout the piece, particularly when you say "some people" or "there is dispute". Maybe the last proposal has been partially implemented but not thoroughly. ANd a final remark of mine: I'm also a bit concerned about the structure; 19 subsections in section 6? Does this huge number of subsections constitute proper structure?--Yannismarou 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice TakenIt sounds like we should resubmit this article for featured status in two months after improving the citations. Do keep in mind that this article is MUCH better than it was six months ago and better than many other entries for other presidents. I think the overall story told is accurate and excellent. I will take some time to work on this article. I am one of the authors who improved it from the dribble it was a few months ago. I am one of the main authors of the introduction. I will start by citing the sections that need it, such as the reference to opposition to nuclear war. Some quick comments: the sentence about Reagan restoring America is so widely agreed upon that it would be impossible to cite an "expert" on this. This is simply a fact, and the fact that Reagan won a massive landslide reelection and remains highly popular among Americans means that this is a concensus of We the People. (It's unfortunate that we could now use another Reagan to restore America's position in the world following this Bush fiasco). As you can see, I am not a partisan conservative. I am not a Reagan worshipper. Instead, I am a history buff, and I think the overall theme of this article is very fair and good. Despite the huge Reagan deficits, the economic period following Reagan until today has better than it has ever been. Nobody would ever have ever thought that under 5% unemployment would be achievable without inflation. Other than the New Deal, Reagan had the biggest impact of any president on economics. Prior to Reagan, the West was plagued with both unemployment and inflation. In the United Kingdom this resulted in heavy problems, calls for anarchy from punks, major heroine problems, etc. History shows the changes to have been the right changes.

Recommended Authoritative Books for References:

Cannon: President Reagan the Role of a Lifetime Cannon: Governor Reagan Matlock: Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended Reeves: President Reagan, Triumph of Imagination Reagan: An American Life Reagan: In His Own Hand Tygiel: Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of Conservatism Diggins: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History Gaddis: The Cold War LeFeber: America, Russia and the Cold War Powaski: The Cold War Oberdorfer: From the Cold War to a New Era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.96.105.74 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 March 2007

Please sign your entries by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your posts. Improving the citations alone will not be enough for this article to become featured, and being ready in a few months doesn't seem doable. If editors are serious about improving this article, I suggest the following:
  1. Work on some of the suggestions above
  2. Then, submit to a lengthy peer review
  3. Then submit to WP:GAC
  4. Then submit to another peer review, allowing enough time for it to run
  5. Finally, consider for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have come to the realization that you guys are right: I nominated Ronald Reagan's article, but I guess it's just not good enough. I'll try my best to undergo a lot of the recommendations listed above, and talk with other Wikipedia editors. Again, I think everyone here want's Reagan's article to be a FA, but it does take time. I just wanted to let you all know that I am grateful for the constructive criticism, and, hopefully, we can all work together. Also, I was the won who added a massive expanision to the Presiency section. Yes, like everything else, it needs work, but It's a lot better than before. Again, thanks for the opportunity, but I guess it's not the right time. I am setting a goal: we get Ronald Reagan's article to the featured list by the end of 2007. I think it's achievable. Again, I thank you. -- Happyme22 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Snooker

edit

I (and others) have worked extensively to bring this article up to (hopefully) FA level. It is a nice stable subject that has been meandering a bit aimlessly for quite a while. Now it has all been tied together, extensively re-written, tidied-up, referenced and substantiated. Any problems preventing FA status mentioned here will be quickly resolved by myself or others; in the grand scheme of wikipedia the article subject is relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. Thanks, SFC9394 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that this is more like GA or maybe A level work. I still don't quite understand snooker and the article structure could probably be improved and more content be added. Geoking66 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - confused, needs copyedit, treats references and citations cavalierly to say the least
    • "to pot the balls in the manner described below." - lead should be fairly self-contained; also "pot" is an unlinked jargon term.
    • "multi-million pound": WP:$
    • particularly popular in English-speaking and Commonwealth countries,[2]- er, no. Your source doesn't say that, it instead writes about Britain dominance, one Australian player, and one mention each of one Canada and South African player. The US is a rather notable English-speaking country - does it play much snooker? How popular is Snooker in India or Pakistan, two rather notable Commonwealth countries? Find a source that says what you want, write what your source actually says, or both.
    • and the Far East,[3] - Aiee! your source doesn't say "the Far East", it says one country, China. Yes, China is rather important within the Far East, but hardly synonymous.
    • 1874 [6], televised.[12] [2] - remove space before ref
    • (of which most were due to it being a new game) - rephrase, or (better) just remove
    • new sponsors have been sourced - found?
    • A pretty important bit of history, that Joe Davis popularized the sport, is cited to a list by an unknown author on a fan website? Yikes!
    • "The game quickly became a mainstream sport[13] in the UK, Ireland and much of the Commonwealth and has enjoyed much success in the last 30 years" - again, that ref doesn't say what you think it says, it actually says "snooker reached its peak of popularity in 1985 when 18.6m people tuned in to watch Dennis Taylor and his upside-down glasses beat Steve Davis to the World Championship. That match turned out to be the end of a glorious honeymoon". Your source article also goes on a bit about hairstyles - is that important? Say. I'm afraid to even look at the rest of your sources now, for fear that they differ quite a bit from what your articles says.
    • it is returned to its correct position on the table - what is returned to what position? If there is a fixed position for balls say that - or is that what the starting positions graphic is for? Please be more explicit
    • define or link "pot", as above, "rest"
    • a table a set of snooker balls and a cue - a comma or two, please
    • 12x6 foot... - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement
    • The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA, also known as World Snooker), founded in 1968 as the Professional Billiard Players' Association,[21] is the governing body for the professional game. Its subsidiary, World Snooker, organises the professional tour. - so is World Snooker the whole assoc, or its subsidiary?
    • Currently the Pontin’s International Open Series[38] is organised as one of these additional tournament series by World Snooker. - First, the ref should be at the end of the sentence if possible. Second, is the PIOS particularly important? If so, say so, if not, why concentrate on it? (It would be different if you mentioned several.)
    • 888.com [30]. - ref after period, no space
    • have succeeded at the top level... perform at the highest level. - redundant
    • Reaching and maintaining a place amongst the snooker elite is a tough task, with the standards of the game being such that it requires many years of dedication and effort as well as natural ability - meaningless puffery. Couldn't the sentence apply to basically any game or sport?
    • Certain players have tended to dominate the game through the decades. Ray Reardon is generally regarded as the principal player... -- need more than one person's opinion for a strong statement like "generally regarded". Especially if that person is Reardon himself - would you really think he was an unbiased opinion? Yikes!
    • Reardon, R. "Where does Ronnie rank?", BBC Sport, 21 February 2005, (Retrieved February 25, 2007) - actually that article seems to be at least co-authored by Saj Chowdhury, his byline.
    • Ronnie O'Sullivan has at times shown dominance but has been unable to show a consistency through tournaments or across multiple seasons - need more than one citation for a strong critical statement as general as that. The cite you give mentions something about consistency, but doesn't say "unable".
    • Due to the fact that tobacco companies are no longer allowed to sponsor sporting events in the United Kingdom after 2005, the World Snooker Championship had to find a new sponsor. - that would be a good fact to explain and cite. It was a specific law, wasn't it? Was it specifically targetting snooker, or all cue sports, or all televised sports, or what? Say so.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive criticisms. WRT sources I accept some are half and half and improvements can certainly be made - however I am reluctant to build an article on the basis that any statements within it (on the basis that for FA's everything should be sourced) is nothing but a line up of carbon copies of what the original source said. The problems with sourcing something you know to be true - but for which the exacting words of what you want to say are not in exactly that form in a respected source - leads to nothing but "source hunts" which is what I spent a weekend doing. I will attempt to deal with each point you make later in the week - hopefully the majority are relatively straight forward to correct. SFC9394 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Oakland Raiders

edit

I have made a large number of improvements to this article, and feel it is at least on the same level as 2 other FAs for the NFL (Chicago Bears and New England Patriots). I feel there is comprehensive coverage of the team, including off-the-field topics. I regret that I wasn't able to find some free-use pics, but if enough of you think some fair-use ones would be OK then I'm cool with that. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good. Just a few minor things that need doing and I'm sure this will pass.

  • Legal battles and Rivals sections look like triva sections in disguise.
  • Logos shouldn't be in a gallery
  • Remove notable fan from Raider Nation section. Could also be exspanded a bit, just add some more from the Raider Nation article.
  • The Autumn Wind should be in a Sound sample box
  • Remove Recent first-round draft picks
  • Maybe too many sections
  • Could do with some images to, for want of a better word, air it out. The Early years and Move to Los Angeles setion look a bit overwellming to read.
  • Could maybe remove the Head Coaches list since they are linked at the bottem. At the very least remove the exact date they joined and left the team.
  • Not sure if Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame is really notable enough.

Buc 09:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

  • I can see that some may view the Rivals section as trivia for too fan-ish, but I would argue that the Legal Battles section is valid. The Raiders (and in particular Al Davis) are well-known for being involved in some very public legal disputes with the league.
  • Any particular reason you think the list of notable fans should go? As for expanding that section, I can do that.
    • Too trivial
  • If I don't use a gallery for the logos, there is not really a way to make them fit in that section. So my question to others is - would it just be better to include one of the two old logos in that section and get rid of the other two?
    • It's just a basic rule. You can't link to galleries is articles. Also you don't really need the current logo since it's in the lead infobox.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by a sound sample box. Can you provide an example?
    • Here and here should tell you everything.
  • I removed the list of recent first-round picks and placed a link in See also.
  • As for too many sections - do you have suggestions on sections to remove or merge?
  • I would be happy to add some images, but they would have to be Fair Use. If the feeling here is that it would be good to do, I will do so.
  • The head coaches list provides information not found in the Navbox, just as in the Bears article. As for the dates, that seems like perfectly encyclopedic information to me.
  • I agree about the Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame section, and have removed it.

Thanks for the feedback, let me know if you have more! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very reluctant support but only because I'm a Broncos fan... but there are some spelling errors and the transition between Gruden being the Raider coach and tampa coach in the intro has to be cleaned up... if you weren't familiar with the situation you'd think there was a mistake.Balloonman 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Tempest Prognosticator

edit

I feel that while this article is quite odd, it is of a sufficiently high quality to be featured. Bensmith53 07:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the best sourced out of any of them.--Rmky87 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one had more votes than K foundation, so I thought I'd give it a try. Exploding frog isn't nearly ready. Bensmith53 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Hurricane Danny (1997)

edit

After improving this article, I am wondering if the community believes it meets featured status. Thank you for your comments. Hello32020 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Here's some random things I'd like to see. "Danny brought about the end of a busy early start of the season" - could be worded better. Perhaps the first sentence in the storm history and this sentence could be merged, as the first sentence in the storm history is a bit of place. Per the standards of the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, the first paragraph should be a summary of the storm history, with the second for the impact. The other info should either be in the first paragraph or later in the body of the article. Disaster emergencies aren't important enough, IMO, to be mentioned in the lede. The first sentence in the second paragraph sounds like all of the damage was from the rainfall, though it wasn't - should be reworded. Calling the system Danny in the first paragraph before it became a tropical storm should be avoided. Avoid redundancies, such as calling it Danny every single sentence or "hurricane force winds in the hurricane". "This is quite rare for a tropical cyclone, but occurred due to having good inflow into the circulation, and the right barometric conditions to develop." Self references should be avoided, and in general the statement could use better explanation. Is there a reason it stalled near Massachusetts? Overall, more wikilinks are needed, such as tropical cyclone warnings and watches in the preparations section. Try to avoid excessive usage of passive voice (was issued, for example). Try rewording the first paragraph of the preparations section by avoiding self-referencing and passive voice, and possibly changing the order of sentences. I copyedited the preps. Were any evacuated other than Grand Isle, and were there any preparations for Massachusetts? The impact section, in general, needs a copyedit for better flow. With some work, I'll support, but not quite yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I addressed your comments in the article. Hello32020 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, here's some more. First, I'd like to see some more statistics. How many homes were destroyed in each state? Damaged? Overall? Due to flooding/due to tornado/winds? That would be much better and more appropriate for the lede. The lede should also mention the rainfall total and the number of tornadoes spawned. "Most of the damage further northeast " is that further northeast in Alabama, or in the Mid-Atlantic/New England? In general, the lead could use a rewrite with new and different information on a larger scale. The impact section is messy. The Louisiana paragraph, for example, goes from rain, to rains and winds, to erosion, to rain, to power loss and boats damaged, to winds and surge, etc. It's not very well-organized. You mention damage in a two counties in separate places, but it doesn't have a state-wide damage. Some parts seem a bit too lengthy, specifically the Gulf Coast of the impact section. It might be easier if individual states have their own sections, so there could be one paragraph on just meteorological statistics and one for damage. I can't support yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't been able to find state by state damage statistics, but fixed it as much as I could. Hello32020 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It could still be better organized. The Louisiana section is a little better, but why is the damage total from Plaquemines Parish randomly inserted in the first paragraph when the rest of it is about meteorological aspects. Also, the fact that damage was minimal in southeastern Louisiana due to its small size should be mentioned (right in the NCDC link). The overall writing doesn't seem very professional either. Examples include "This occurred after waters surged over 4 feet in a matter of minutes" (awkward), the usage of the extremely vague word "some" (8 times, far too many), and the over usage of being verbs (22 times) or phrases in the passive voice (22 times). Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could use some explanation (or wikilink) for the word "baroclinically". Also, I agree with pretty much all of Hink's comments. -RunningOnBrains 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; prose needs serious work. Some examples:
  • "Danny... brought about the end of a busy early start of the season." Something more clear and precise please (what constitutes the "early start of the season"?)
  • "a rare occurrence in the middle of July due to two high pressure systems." Doesn't make sense. Was it rare for that time of the month? Or rare because it traveled into the gulf despite the high pressure? Or were the high pressure systems the reason it did the rare thing of entering the Gulf in July?
  • "The storm dropped a record for Alabama, 36.71 inches (932 mm) on Dauphin Island." Specify that this is a rainfall total.
  • "Most of the damage on the East Coast was from various tornadoes and waterspouts that caused damage on the ground." Typically the vast majority of damage done "on the East Coast" is damage on the ground, and typically (actually, by definition), tornadoes touch the ground and thus do damage on it. I'm not sure how waterspouts can cause damage on the ground. Essentially, this sentence is incomprehensible fluff.
That's just the lead. Please fix these problems and examine the rest of the text for similar ones. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Moscow

edit

My reason for nominating this article is:

  • a. I believe it meets the FA criteria.
  • b. It has been included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection.
  • c. WikiProject Echo has identified Moscow as a foreign language featured article.
  • d. WikiProject Russia has rated it A Class on the Assessment scale.
  • e. It has gone through a peer review. --Hirakawacho 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing  Done --Hirakawacho 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the following reasons...
  • There uncited statements that need to be resolved in the "Sports" and "Leisure and entertainment" sections.
"Sports" section there are citations. "Leisure & Entertainment" can't find citations. --Hirakawacho 12:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording and found a suitable citation for the last {{cn}} tag (regarding Tretyakovsky Proyezd)  Done. Caknuck 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Caknuck for finding citation for Leisure and entertainment section. --Hirakawacho 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Real Estate and Neighborhoods" section has a number of unnecessary <br /> tags. The opening sentence in this section reads "The Moscow real estate has been increasing a lot the latest years.", which seems awkward, even when you interject "market" in there.
Removed <br /> tags & removed intro sentence (can't think of another one).  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Moscow tourist attractions" section is a bit of a mess. There's already a link to List of Moscow tourist attractions, so another, similar and barely-formatted list is redundant here.
Replaced with: see List of Moscow tourist attractions  Done. --Hirakawacho 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)--Caknuck 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is now Support Caknuck 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Big mess in the tourist attractions section, image gallery should be at the end of the article, if included at all. Still needs some work to get to FA Class. --[|K.Z|] T • V •

C 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the gallary as it was not appropriate having an image gallery in the article.  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what you asked now change your vote to support. --Hirakawacho 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find citations.  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's done? I see no improvement, there is still a lot of unreferenced information.  Not done -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find references please contact the person who made those additions for a source. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is ment by "Also, I wonder if A-class status is appopriate if the article has skipped GA step?". The Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and Template:Grading scheme state explictly that "being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class." And the Good Article Critera suggests that for longer article trying for featured article criteria are more appropriate than the ones listed there. - Waza 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hirakawacho, canvassing and spamming other users with notice of an FAC is usually considered bad form. 125.229.98.248 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness FA really isn't a vote, or more people would be tempted. Remember folks, it doesn't matter how many supports you get, as long as there's a single object with a good reason, you're not getting featured. You're far better off fixing the complaints than trying to get people to support you. Fieari 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion; refusing summary style.  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection stands. Summary style is not optional, it's a wikipedia standard. I cannot support without it. Fieari 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide relevant rule. --Hirakawacho 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection: I put a good amount of work into this article during the summer of 2006, but the article is far from being featured. I had given up on trying to improve the article, for various reasons, and I don't think anyone has since put some effort into taking care of the rest. The prose is far from compelling in many locations – "Primary industries in Moscow include the chemical, metallurgy, food, textile, furniture, and machinery industries.", "1.73 million are employed by the state, 4.42 million are employed by private companies, and 1.99 million are employed by small businesses.", "It is now a more fashionable area than it was before and home to embassies and the Moscow Zoo." There are also large portions of the article without inline citations. Please think twice before adding the {{done}} template below my objection; it would take an act of nature to address the serious issues with this article in a short period of time. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which Paragraphs and I will add  Done wherever I want to! --Hirakawacho 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides I have not seen citations in Encyclopedia Brittanica? --Hirakawacho 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All paragraphs that have claims that could be challenged, which are not cited. Unlike Brittanica, it just happens to be Wikipedia's policy for articles to cite sources. Adding {{done}} templates under all oppose statements even if the issues raised have yet to be addressed is misleading.--Carabinieri 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is so strict. --Hirakawacho 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, such a policy is necessary. Otherwise anyone could just add false, but credible information to articles.--Carabinieri 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no necessity to add sources for trivial things that constitute common knowledge such as Moscow is the capital of Russia or that it is locates in East Europe. Anyway I think you can find the proof for most statements in the article simply following the existing links.--Dojarca 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Problems with the pictures used in the article. There's a remnant of one that was deleted. I just tagged three as replaceable copyrighted images. Several have watermarks in the images, which doesn't comply with WP:IUP. ShadowHalo 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Attribution is a core policy, and shouldn't be substituted with common knowledge, especially not for featured articles. In case you see that the existing references also verify other facts, please provide them there as well. Right now the article is filled with unreferenced paragraphs and sections (e.g. Real estate and neighborhoods, Government) and I don't see it getting near FA unless criteria 1c is met. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are several unreferenced sections in this article. For example, a reference (or two) needs to be provided for these statements:

Izmaylovskiy Park created in 1931 is one of the largest parks in the world. Its area of 15.34 km² is 6 times greater than that of Central Park in New York.

This statement is already sourced in the article.--Dojarca 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and prose is poor in some areas. Here's an example (both from the Parks and Landmarks section) :

Sokolniki Park, which got its name for famous falcon huntings occurred here in the past, is one of the oldest in Moscow and with area of 6 square kilometres four times greater than London's Hyde Park. From a central circle with a large fountain radiate birch, maple and elm alleys. Farther, after the Deer ponds, there is a labyrinth, composed of green paths.

I recommend a thorough copyedit and referencing. CloudNine 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Trojan War

edit

The article is well put together, portrays the information well, and in an understandable tone. I believe it would be a good featured article. Christophore 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - I'd like to see the Historicity section placed higher in the article, and it to be made more clear that we're dealing with analyzing mythology here, similar to how we deal with articles on fiction. Right now, if you skipped to the middle of the article, it seems to read that the gods really did come down and interfere in these events. More clarity on the usefulness of studying it should be made, whether people study it to get a better understanding of the culture, to analyze it as literature, whatever... I feel that there's a lot of focus on the work as a whole, without nearly enough context. Fieari 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really want to read it at 80K, I think that the article can be forked out further. I agree that the historical aspects of the war should get more emphasis- the notability of the myth can't be disputed, but in history this is a very important war as well even though details have been lost in the mist of time. Note also the article has a couple fact tags somewhere. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - This page should be about the Trojan War. There is another page that you link to about literary representations of the Trojan War. It seems to me that much of what is on this page should go there. This page should be about the history - or what scholars have been able to piece together (from literature and archaeology) - and the other page should be dominated by the Iliad, Odyssey, etc. (Please note that this is not to say that there isn't really interesting material here; I'm just not sure it's the appropriate page for it.) Awadewit 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there's also a seperate article for the history. For a comprehensive summary, this should be about both the history and the myth. The myth isn't a pop culture fad- it's of tremendous Western cultural importance. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tire of being lectured at on wikipedia. Sometimes I think that we should assume people have knowledge rather than that they do not. As a Ph.D. student in literature, I am quite aware of the impact of the classical epics. Anyway, I wonder if the forking is working well here. Some of the sections seem to contain too much information and some of the sections contain too little information. One does not have to explain all of the plot details of the epics to explain the significance of the Trojan War to Western culture. Moreover, as CanadianCaesar has so pithily pointed out, these myths have had an enormous impact on Western literature, in particular. If the page is an overview, the section describing how authors for centuries imitated these epics, etc. should be bigger. Awadewit 06:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The writing is quite prolax: "The Trojan War was waged, according to legend, against the city of Troy in Asia Minor, by the armies of the Achaeans (Mycenaean Greeks)" could be more concisely presented (e.g.) "In myth, the Trojan War was between Troy in Asia Minor and the Achaeans…". "The war is among the most important events in Greek mythology and was narrated in many works of Greek literature, of which the two most famous are the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer" could be trimmed to "The mythology around it was central within Greek literature, most famously in the Homeric epics, the Iliad and Odyssey." I'm guessing that of its 80k, 25-30k can be cut without loss. I suggest, then, a thorough rewrite. semper fictilis 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I worked on this article before, but I stopped, because it's so long that it took forever to load. I'm glad to see these comments. However, I wanted to note that almost nothing is known about a historical Trojan War--it's not even certain there was a historical Trojan War. For this topic, the mythology is primary, and I think the speculation about history should be forked into a separate article. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haven't read the article fully yet, but some initial observations:
  • The style of prose in areas seems overly antique, almost biblical. (Note: Modern translations of the Bible do not read like this! 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)) Examples:
  • "Zeus came to learn"
  • "that he himself"
  • "Another prophecy said of the sea-nymph Thet"
  • "Then she bathed him in the River Styx"
  • Obviously citation request tags would need need to be resolved.
  • Some sections are stubby, for example the sub headings under "The gathering of Achean forces and the first expedition". Could some of these be merged?
  • All the images are aligned right; this impedes flow and creates a lot of white space. Might be beneficial to alternate a few.
  • The level and variety of citations and sources is impressive, but can you include author name, publication and retrieval dates to refs 96-98.
  • There is an external jump in "Historicity of the Trojan War".
  • Article would need work, are the main editors aware of the nom? Ceoil 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - This is certainly good, but has issues left to be dealt with.

The first line is awkward. Perhaps if you switched the "against" clause with the "by" clause it would flow better, but it's still rather awkward.
"There remains no certain evidence that Homer's Troy ever existed" - by this I assume you mean that there is no proof that Troy ever existed in the way it was described by Homer, i.e. no proof the story wasn't all made up, however the layperson might read that and get the picture that there is no proof that any city of Troy ever existed, which I am fairly sure would be wrong.
"The following summary of the Trojan War follows the order of events as given in Proclus' summary along with the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid, supplemented with details drawn from other authors" - I'm not sure if there's a better way to phrase this, but it sort of sounds like the kind of self reference (or metacommuniation- the article making mention of itself) that is generally good to avoid.
"he came up along with either Momos or Themis with the idea..." - It sounds like you're compounding two narritives. If this is so, it might be better to seperate them, or at least add some note "(depending on which sources used)" to it.
You have a lot of red links. It would be better to either de-link them or create them.
There's a citation needed in the "The Judgment of Arms: Achilles' armour and the death of Ajax" section, the "The Oddessy" section, and the historicity section.

These, especially the last one, need to be adressed before this can be a FA. Thanatosimii 06:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (unfortunately). This article looks to me unbalanced. I'll speak just about the citations: Some sections are overcited, while others have no citations. And there are far too many [citation needed] for a FA. I'm sorry, but I cannot support it as it is now.--Yannismarou 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Ghost Dance

edit
former fac

This article has come a long way. Everything prior to this is from an older nomination. It is currently a GA, has undergone peer review, and deserves another look.

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

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Coca-Cola

edit

previous FAC, note on closing—former featured article

I have worked hard at bring this article to GA status and then to its current status. I believe the article meets all FA criteria including length and references.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have retrieval dates because I formatted them after they were added and I do not know the day they were retrieved--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they're web references (and it sounds like they are), just double-check them to make sure they say what the article is claiming they do. Then list the retrieval date as the day you checked. — Brian (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have added retrieval dates to all sources which need one.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - for now,
  • there is a picture of the World of Coca-Cola museum in 2000, in the 'early years' section talking about the 1800's - pictures should relate to the section (no mention of this in early years)
  • References are missing publisher (the site you got it from)
  • Don't wikilink solo years like 1888.
  • New Coke - has 0 references
  • unreferenced paragraphs
  • One sentence paragraphs
  • the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), external jump
  • There is a template (which is the wrong place) with the types of coke in it, and right under there's a list of cokes with exactly the same information.
  • Coca-Cola (also known as Coke) - a few sentences down, the exact same thing - which is often referred to as simply Coca-Cola or Coke
  • The first one is talking about what the drink is called and the second one is about what The Coca-Cola Company is called.
  • See also section comes before notes.

Needs more references overall. M3tal H3ad 11:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think someone should take a trip to the library or plunder Google Books. There is no reason an article on something as widely written about as Coca-Cola should rely solely on web sources. — Brian (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Nature paper about the new coke should be in!L. E. Wyborny, I. L. Shannon (1986). "Is Classic Coca-Cola the real thing?". Nature. 322 (6074): 21. doi:10.1038/322021a0.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Monaco Grand Prix

edit

Has just had a PR and I've fixed all the notable problems that were pointed out. Seemed as a good time as any to make a bit. Buc 18:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that peer review. Warhol13 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are the last 2 refs not cited in the article, making them appear different from the first 36? Mr.Z-mantalk 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Buc 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm not keen on the "Triple Crown" section. Why is it similar to the Tennis' Grand Slam any more than any other sport's equivalent? Why do the races taking place in May make it more difficult? Isn't picking Montoya out specifically recentism, haven't others won two legs of the race? Trebor 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the tennis grand slam bit. Your second question is arnswered for you in the article. Montoya is picked out because he's the only active driver to do it. Buc 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but isn't that systemic bias towards recent times? How many others have achieved two-legs, if the number's low you could list them all. Trebor 17:43, 5 February 2007
  • The reference to a Grand Slam was included because other readers found it difficult to understand what the Triple Crown was - they were picturing an actual award, rather than a more conceptual achievement. Tennis was just because from my POV it seemed like probably the best known version for someone not familiar with sports. Golf would do equally well - I'm not sure how widely the term 'Grand Slam' is understood without a sporting reference.4u1e 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that being in May is more difficult is as follows: You have to qualify (set a competitive time in practice) for both races, which take place on opposite sides of the Atlantic, as well as actually competing. Provided the races are not on the same weekend it is do-able. But - For a good chance of qualifying well at Indy, you need to be present at each weekend in the month of May. One of those will normally clash with qualifying for and the race at Monaco, so you have to compromise your Indy qualification if you are going to appear at Monaco as well. This makes it difficult/impossible to compete at both in the same year, which makes it rather more difficult to fit both into one career. Le Mans is easier to squeeze into an F1 or IRL race schedule, and it is easier to be competitive there later into your career as experience tends to edge out pace over a 24 hour race. (Example - Martin Brundle was a front runner there long after his F1 career ended).
Perhaps add an abbreviated version of the above, to make it explicitly clear. Trebor 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I had done :D. I will revise. 4u1e 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - if Trebor is happy? 4u1e 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is mention only of Montoya systemic bias? Not really. Off the top of my head Mario Andretti and A. J. Foyt are the other two who have done two legs, so it is easy enough to mention them as well. However, I would suggest that the interest in Montoya is different in nature - Andretti and Foyt are interesting because they came close. Montoya is interesting because he may still do it. I believe that is a genuine difference, although it will be inherently 'recentist'. Am I being at all convincing? :D 4u1e 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's a good point which I didn't take into account. But is there any problem with mentioning the other two as well? Would help flesh out the section a bit. Trebor 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other reason is that neither Foyt or Andretti has actually won the Monaco Grand Prix, so we're getting a bit tangential to the point of the article! (I should also explain at this point, that there is another version of the Triple Crown which substitutes the F1 world championship for the Monaco GP. It's this alternative definition which Andretti meets, having won the F1 crown and the Indy 500. Foyt has won at Indy and Le Mans). 4u1e 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I'll leave it up to you then. Trebor 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I'm not good with 1a, but choppy stuff like this "Like many European races, the race predates the World Championships. The first race was organised by Antony Noghes through the "Automobile Club de Monaco". It was won by William Grover-Williams (a.k.a. "Williams") driving a Bugatti." in the lead isn't really good enough. There are also long convoluted sentences like "Like many European races, the Monaco Grand Prix predates the organised World Championships; the Principality's first Grand Prix race was organised in 1929 by Antony Noghes, under the auspices of Prince Louis II through the "Automobile Club de Monaco" (A.C.M.) of which Alexandre Noghes (Antony's father) was the founding president. " - and other stop-start things like "Brazil's Ayrton Senna has won the race the most, with six victories, five consecutive from 1989 to 1993, earning him the title "Master of Monaco".". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are also not filled out properly. Where applicable, the author and date of publication, and publisher, must also be filled out. And use pp34-35 not "Page...". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Notable races" appears to be original research. How do you determine which ones are interesting? I would say that the 2004 one was very interesting because of the pile-ups, especially JPM-MS and RS-FA tunnel incidents? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blnguyen - your points are fair and when I get time I will try and do something about them (but if anyone else wants to do it, that's also fine by me!) Re OR - is it really OR to come up with a list of notable races? We make decisions about whether articles are notable all the time, in deciding whether to write them or keep them. We could probably find a list of notable races and transfer that into this article, but would we not then be in danger of copyvio? I suppose I would be happier if the refs for each race included someone's view that the race was notable. Is the 2004 race going to be seen as notable in 10 years time or in 20, when probably no-one will remember RS and JPM in F1? 4u1e 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it is- If you say "races with safety car incident/disqualification", then you have a clear demarcation of what the inclusion criteria is. However, when the writer judges for himself what is good, what is better and what is not, then that is OR. OR refers to article content, not deletion debates. I'm not sure that people will remember RS but JPM I think so mainly of his flamboyant style - people still remember Alesi for some reason. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about renaming the section "Famous moments" and re-writing it so it's about single moment rarther than the whole race. 82.6.171.18 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Damon Hill is a FA and has a "Notable battles with Michael Schumacher" section. Surely this can be taken as a precedent? Readro 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In writing an article, we make decisions about what is notable and what is not all the time - in the history of a particular team or driver some races will be mentioned and most won't. The point is that any article on Damon Hill will mention, for example, the 1993 Hungarian Grand Prix (first win), the 1994 Australian Grand Prix (clash with Schumacher), the 1997 Hungarian Grand Prix (nearly winning in an Arrows-Yamaha) and the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix (Jordan's first win). The inclusion of those races as 'notable' is not OR, because it's non-controversial and reflected in many sources. Can I suggest that what the section needs is for us to look again at the sources and make sure that this is a robust list of 'notable races' which is solidly backed up by other sources. For example, the 1984 race is listed in the '10 most controversial races' in the 'Concise Encyclopedia of F1', and appears in most pieces on Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna. We could also consider what the section is called. The discussion would be better carried out on the talk page of the article, I think. I'm going to be out of contact for a few days, though. Sorry! 4u1e 07:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article for a great race.--Skully Collins Edits 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good to me. 195.99.247.27 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (for now) Three things: a) I do not agree with Blnguyen's point that a list of 'notable races' is OR (Comments from other reviewers?), but I do think we need to look at the list again, as I'm not sure some of those listed are truly notable ('65, '92, '93 and '06 are the weakest candidates). b) References. We're a bit too reliant on web references, including potted histories from ticket sales sites (at least one of which looks to be a copy of a previous version of this article!). I'd like better hardcopy sources, like the recent article in Motorsport, for example. c) Writing - I suspect can still be worked on to flow better. I will work on these in the next few days, and once fixed I will change to 'support'. Cheers. 4u1e 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think we're looking a lot better on the reference front now. I removed the sentence about frogmen being employed, because I didn't think that the F1 Happy Fun Club hosted on Geocities qualified as a reliable reference. There's still a little more that I think we can fix. Readro 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • :D Good move, but there's still work to do. In going through the early part I've already found one reference that didn't strictly say what was written, and there are still lots of ticket booking places. I'm having trouble finding time to work on this, but will plough on (slowly!) 4u1e 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • References cleared through again for redundancy, reliability or for not illustrating the point they were referencing! I'm happy-ish with the ones that are there now, but formatting needs sorting out - some are in cite.php format and others are not, and there are a number of 'citation needed' tags in the article now which need covering with good quality sources. 4u1e 22 February 2007 13:33
  • Object. There are still some unreferenced paragraphs. 'Triple Crown' and 'Glamour' sections should be merged, preferably under a more telling heading, such as 'Importance'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it will take time, i'm still working through my own snag list from above. 4u1e 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Deleted instead - it wasn't really adding much anyway. 4u1e 22 February 2007 13:33
Withdrawn then. ShadowHalo 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Nikki Grahame

edit

Nominated for quality and speed of article expansion. Dalejenkins 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Seems to need a picture of sorts in the infobox. The references should be fixed in proper citation form. The lead is too short. The prose could use some more work. I'm not too sure about the "allegations" in the "personal life" section, however sourced they may be. Honestly, this article should be sent to peer review first...it needs a LOT more work. Shrumster 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I know that a FA does not have to be about the most important subjects, I don't think that this person is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia in the first place. A few very minor roles and a role in two tv shows, which spurred a tabloid debate about her mental health? That's it? I'm tempted to put a deletion tag on the page, but I won't as long as this page is in the middle of a FA debate (because this could ne perceived as a violation of WP:POINT, which it isn't, but I won't start that discussion). Sijo Ripa 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The subject is the central character/figure of a TV series, and was a contestant on a second show. Considering the show is named after her, I think that satisfies the "name recognition" criterion, as does being named "the second Most Annoying Person Of 2006". Besides, the article passed an AfD in November with near unanimous consensus. Caknuck 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References need retrieval dates, name of author, publication, etc. I oppose based on this. This has been addressed, but I still oppose per 1a. LuciferMorgan 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Article needs a lot of work before it'll merit FA status.
  1. The prose is too chatty, for example: "She has since gone on to front her own reality television show..." and "...inspired by her stroppy turn as a PA in a Big Brother task..."
  2. The lead is waaaay too short. Two sentences doesn't cut it for a GA or FA.
  3. Since the article falls under the jurisdiction of two WikiProjects, those groups should review it prior to submitting it as a FAC. At least have someone grade it first. In this case "speed of article expansion" is working against you.
Caknuck 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per above. Informal and confusing prose ("From February 22, 2007 Grahame is to front a media campaign supporting the launch of Domino's Meateor Pizza.[15] It includes TV, online and direct activity." Huh?). Lead needs expansion. Fails 1b, too. Nothing at all about her life before Big Brother besides: "Grahame had numerous jobs before she became publicly known, including working as a dancer, a promotions girl and a glamour model." Where was she born/raised? What was her childhood like? Did she attend college? Etc. Gzkn 04:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Lou Gehrig

edit

I've worked on this article and would like to nominate it for FA. A variety of sources including books, websites, and contemporary magazine articles have been used to give an understanding of the man and his accomplishments. JGHowes 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

ASCII art

edit

Second time round, this article has had major cleanup and sortout since last nomination. Still a few tiny areas for improvement, but most featured articles are like that. Davidpk212 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Insufficient citations. Existing citations need formatting. By the way, when an article still has {{fact}} in it, it isn't ready for FAC. Jay32183 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Somehow this article seems to have gotten worse since the last time I checked it out. Hardly anything is referenced, and at the same time, the article somehow manages to still not be comprehensive. The "Pre-ASCII-like art" needs trimmed of the ancient stuff. I'd first start out with re-sectioning everything. First section should be history. This should include the relevant stuff from "Pre-ASCII-like art" and "History of ASCII art" with appropriate subsections. "Uses for ASCII art" should be nuked and spread out among the other sections, or expanded. "Types and styles of ASCII art" should contain the bulk of the content — emoticons, Amiga style, Block ASCII, animated, non-fixed width. Last major section should be "Creating ASCII art" or something like that. As for ANSI/Shift_JIS — these articles are fairly small. Maybe merge them all into the main ASCII article? Also, all the images need major work. Some of them don't even have license tags on them. Many high quality images could be made for this article (rather than merely repositioning the current ones, which seems to have been done many times). Overall, there are tons of things that could be done to make this article better. --- RockMFR 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per Jay32183--very few statements have references cited --Miskwito 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I hate to pile on concerns but the writing is simply not good enough. Lots of one or two sentence sections, weird sentences appearing out of nowhere like "An ASCII comic is a form of webcomic which uses ASCII text to create images. In place of images in a regular comic, ASCII art is used, with the text usually placed underneath." I don't think this article is ready. Pascal.Tesson 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Jay's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

EastEnders

edit

Already a good article, vastly improved since last FA nomination, fully referenced, trivia section removed, I thiunk it deserves to be a featured article! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the setting section was too blah and it had WAY TOO MANY LISTS OF PEOPLE:
Arthur, Pauline, Mark and Michelle Fowler, Lou, Pete, Kathy and Ian Beale, Den, Angie and Sharon Watts, Ali and Sue Osman, Kelvin and Tony Carpenter, Saeed and Naima Jeffery, Lofty Holloway, Mary Smith, Ethel Skinner, Nick Cotton, Dr. Harold Legg, Andy O'Brien and Debbie Wilkins.
Liz Turner,[42] Megan Macer,[43] Stella Crawford,[44] Preeti Choraria,[45] Jay Brown, Dr. May Wright,[46] Li Chong,[47] Shirley Carter,[48] Evie Brown,[49] and a short return for Grant[50] and Courtney Mitchell,
Sam Mitchell,[16] Chrissie Watts,[17] Zoe Slater,[16] Nana,[18] Kat[19] and Alfie Moon,[20] Johnny Allen,[21] Sharon and Dennis Rickman[22] and Little Mo Mitchell,[23] the first half of 2006 saw many new long-term arrivals including Deano,[24] Carly[25] and Kevin Wicks,[26] Bradley,[27] Max,[28] Tanya,[29] Lauren and Abi Branning,[30] Bert Atkinson,[31] Denise,[25] Chelsea[32] and Squiggle Fox, Rob Minter,[33] and Sean Slater,[34] and shorter-term characters such as Dr. Oliver Cousins, Elaine Jarvis,[35] Sarah-Jane Fletcher,[36] Owen Turner,[37] Caroline Bishop,[38] and Jack Edwards,
Den Watts, James Wilmott-Brown, Steve Owen, Jack Dalton, Andy Hunter and Johnny Allen.
Jules Tavernier, Mo Butcher, Nellie Ellis, Jim Branning, Patrick Trueman and Mo Harris.
Lou Beale, Pauline Fowler, Mo Harris, Pat Evans and Peggy Mitchell.Balloonman 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For now but is almost there. As above something needs doing with the list of people in the Characters section. Add more the the History section from the History of EastEnders article. Don't see the point of the Online section, needs to be removed. The Viewership section has no references. The References in the Awards table don't really need to be in a seperate collum, the IMDb one is linked 21 times! External links should come before the template. Buc 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As television articles on Wikipedia go this is better than the majority, but I don't think it's quite up to featured standard yet. Basically the prose needs a considerable polish — in particular, there are quite a few one-sentence paragraphs, which interrupt the flow and just look ugly. Angmering 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Timber framing

edit

Nominating for Featured Status. --Paracit 08:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

California State Route 37

edit

Listed as a GA, would like to bring up to FA with ongoing standardization to the article. It is currently an A-class article, with a peer review. If this passes, it will become only the second USRD article to reach FA status. Meets What is a featured article? guidelines.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references for "In 2004 and 2005, following over fifty years of complications, the remaining non-freeway section in Vallejo was built to Interstate standards as well.", only for the fact that Caltrans was planning to do this.

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

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Geography Cup

edit

Although this article is short compared to many other feature articles, I believe it represents all of the necessary information about the topic. I find it to be well cited and developed. Mr.Z-mantalk 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Self-Nomination[reply]

  • Comment. At first glance:
  • When you have a month and a day, wikilink them together so date preferences can kick in.
  • First ref is looking a bit strange with the URL outside.
  • Can we have more information for the last 3 refs?

I'll look more later. Trebor 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the month/day links in the intro, used the {{citeweb}} template for ref 1 and added some more info for refs 6-8 (authors for 6 and 7, publisher for 8) Mr.Z-mantalk 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say, I'm not sure it's fair to oppose for length; it's not in the criteria. If there's no way to get a comprehensive but short article featured, then there's a problem with the process. Trebor 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't object. But ... if 600 words of prose can be featured, IMO that's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know you didn't object, and I don't really feel comfortable supporting either. But that does seem to create a problem for narrow articles with little information available... Trebor 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per 1b as the article isn't comprehensive. It doesn't discuss how other noted geographers and geographical bodies have reacted towards the cup, and the receptance from these people. Do they think its a good idea, or bad idea? Do they think its flawed? Furthermore, the article doesn't assess the impact and success / failure of the Cup's intentions of "raising awareness of the importance of world geography in the modern world". Has it worked? Has it failed? The article fails to come to any conclusion. LuciferMorgan 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LuciferMorgan still objects in a comment below. I struck this to avoid possible illusion of two votes Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know of any sources that could answer these questions? I was looking around the web and I didn't find any information that appeared to be worth adding. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unfamiliar with the subject, so don't know what notable geographers and geographical bodies have commented upon this, but I'm sure they would've. It's possible the group who organise the Cup may have press reports that answer such questions. If I was more familiar with the subject I'd know, but sadly don't - having said that though, I still think those questions are rather important and am still objecting per 1b. LuciferMorgan 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have found a source about support by the Geographic Alliance in Nevada. It also mentioned a press release I can't seem to find, so I e-mailed one of the creators (the same one who gave permission to use the logo) about it. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the article is in fine shape, quite frankly I find the subject to be really lame. I know this isn't part of the feature criteria per se, but really, nothing about this article "grabs" me in any way - perhaps this could be attributed to a lack of "brilliant prose?" -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still object per 1b. The article doesn't, IMO, assess the impact and success / failure of the Cup's intentions of "raising awareness of the importance of world geography in the modern world". Has it worked? Has it failed? The article fails to come to any conclusion. It has no section summarising the achievements and failures of the Cup as a whole. LuciferMorgan 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the main reference links to the main page of the official website which is an unstable page. Already the claims cited in the article are no longer on the main page. Try the Wayback Machine - if that doesn't work, you need a new source. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found that the CS monitor and Guardian refs were able to cover for the official website. I didn't use it (the official site) a a main source for much.Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cup's website main page still is cited 5 times though, and is an unstable source. LuciferMorgan 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No results with the Wayback Machine, I removed all refs to the main website except for the score, thats still available. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've found another wesite with the score, the main website is no longer used as a ref at all. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Karl Benz

edit

A very good article about an important man. What do you think? Tomer T 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Google

edit

Article was previously nominated in April, 2004 (failed). The reasons were 'no references' and the 'lack of substantial information on the cultural impact of Google'. The article is now well-referenced (43 references), and has far more details on it than before. A peer review was also done in May, 2006, and most of these suggestions have been incorporated into the article. So I believe that this article represents an excellent article now, and is worthy of featured status. Dr. Cash 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to these paragraphs now. Dr. Cash 23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1c: US patent 6285999 describing part of Google's ranking mechanism (PageRank) was granted on September 4, 2001. Why the external link for "US patent 6285999"? Keep referencing style consistent; just cite it as a footnote instead.
Done. Dr. Cash 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1b: History section doesn't mention anything about the company between 2001 and 2006. Nothing about its IPO either.
History section expanded and references added; IPO stuff added in. The history section once took up most of the article, and was moved to History of Google when it got big. I'd prefer to keep the history section in this article to major things that occurred, and leave most of the details in the linked article. Dr. Cash 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1a: Needs a copy-edit. Some random examples:
      • It was originally nicknamed "BackRub" Ambiguous "it".
Fixed. Replaced with, "Their search engine was originally nicknamed, "BackRub..." Dr. Cash 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Google search engine attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users. They were attracted to its simple, uncluttered, clean design — a competitive advantage to attract users who did not wish to enter searches on web pages filled with visual distractions. Second sentence is awkward and can be considerably shortened. Simple = uncluttered = clean; three words that mean the same thing. No need for all three adjectives. If users were attracted to its simple design, then it's obvious that they didn't like visual distractions. So I'd suggest just: "The Google search engine attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users, who liked its simple design." Says the same thing without the unneeded wordiness.
I've rephrased this based on your suggestion. There's also a citation here to back it up as well. Dr. Cash 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • which is based upon the number of hits users make upon ads Probably confusing to non-SEO/webmaster folks, especially since there are no links. Even still, does one "make hits upon" ads?
This is no longer in the article based on the edits to the previously mentioned suggestion. Dr. Cash 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Recently, Google entered into partnerships Avoid vague words like "recently". Give dates.
This section has been fixed, and two references have been added for the Google/AOL and Google/Fox deals. Dr. Cash 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gmail features improved spam filtering technology, combined with the capability to use Google search technology on individual email messages. "Improved?" Over what? "Combined with" is a wordy way of saying "and". Second part of the sentence ("on individual email messages") is an odd way of describing Gmail. Why not "use Google technology to search email"?
Rephrased sentance and incorporated your suggestions. Dr. Cash 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google AdWords allows Web advertisers to display adverts in Google's search results and the Google Content Network, through either a cost-per-click or cost-per-view scheme. Retrospectively, with Google AdSense Website owners can display adverts on their own site, and earn money every time it is clicked. Full of SEO-speak here. Also, "Retrospectively"??
Sentence rephrased. Dr. Cash 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weed out redundancy ("in order to", "various", "a variety of", etc.).
      • Nevertheless, Google's excellent stock performance following the IPO... First mention of the IPO, and no explanation. Just "the IPO".
      • In 2005, Google has implemented Tense doesn't work there.
These three issues have been fixed. Wording has been adjusted. Dr. Cash 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1c: Originally, typical salaries at Google were considered to be quite low by industry standards. For example, some system administrators earned no more than $33,000–$40,000 per year; at that time it was considered to be low for the Bay Area job market. Citations? When was this?
Two references have been added to this section, and the wording has been changed slightly.
    • Why are solo months/years linked?
Solo years are linked per guidelines found at WP:DATE. I just checked for solo months that are linked (which should not be, per WP:DATE, but did not find any. Other date links follow the guidelines. Dr. Cash 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    • 1b-History section does not adequately summarise the linked article History of Google stopping at 2001 for some reason. Instead is just seems to be part of the text from the Early history section of the history article. The same is true for the Growth section,
IPO information has been added to the subsection 'finances & initial public offering'. Not sure why mention of the IPO got deleted? With all subsections, the history section should be a good summary of the linked article. I'd like to keep things mentioned in the section to major items, since History of Google is quite long as it is. If you think anything should be mentioned in the section, please let me know. Dr. Cash 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2a, The lead does not summarise the article. The second and third paragraphs should really make way for a better summary of the article. The lead does not mention almost anything from the history section, IPO etc...
More details from the history section have been added to the LEAD, and the order of paragraphs was changed a bit. So it should now more accurately summarize the article. Dr. Cash 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1c, Much of the history section is unreferenced, making claims like they were attracted to its simple, uncluttered, clean design that need to be backed up. There is a paragraph in Corporate affairs and culture that is also uncited.
References have been added to the history section and corporate affairs and culture. An unreferenced paragraph that didn't contribute much to the article was removed. Dr. Cash 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned that a company getting over 1700 hits in Google books has no printed references - they all seem to be online. There are good books talking about googles corporate culture, the IPO etc..
You'll probably find that this is true of most articles on wikipedia, including many featured articles. While all the inline citations are from online sources, they are from repudable sources, such as major media outlets (that also publish in print), or from Google itself. There are also two books listed in the 'further reading' section as well. Dr. Cash 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Peripitus (Talk) 10:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really like the general layout of the article but things like " A complete list of corporate fundamentals is available on Google's website" send up red flags. Also,
    • I'm not sure if the wording about "relaxed" over casual; there is plenty of literature over that and googleplex etc..
    • The latest reference for the last culture part is a 1995 NYT article which kinds of leaves me hanging - would be nice to have something more recent; and as I mentioned I believe there is plenty of literature in that area.
    • A little more stock discussion would nice, especially since the stock of this company is so famous and current text doesnt go much past the IPO
    • "They have all declined recent offers of bonuses and increases in compensation by Google's board of directors" and....? Seems like an incomplete thought
    • In products, you'll probably want to mention the advertising stuff _first_, especially since you mention adwords in the current first section and leave the reader hanging a bit
    • "clicks on the bills " I think you'll need to expand a bit for the average reader
    • "Google was added to the S&P 500 index on March 30, 2006. Google replaced Burlington Resources, a major oil producer based in Houston which was acquired by ConocoPhillips." This info really verges on the trivial, and is unsourced to boot...
    • For an article that appears to mostly short overall, it seems to dwell quite a bit on "Easter eggs and April Fool's Day jokes"

Hopefully that gives the editors some ideas. Also, some passages are kind of a mouthful and maybe benefit from a rethink. RN 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Mark Chaussee

edit

It is developed and written basically personally by me. Containing absolutely all known information about Mark Chaussee - the fullest creative biography on all Internet. It is collected on particles from foreign sources. Analogues in the world are not present in no one language except Russian, which developed and written also by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UbZaR (talk • contribs) 15:21, February 25, 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Cthulhu

edit

Cthulhu is definitely within the featured article scope. It has tons of sources and no relinks, and is quite informative. The only shortcomings are that it is shorter than most FAs and has only one image, but the image coveys pretty much everything about Cthulhu, including his legendary city. Belgium EO 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Belgium EO 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Style mixes fiction with reality - refers to Lovercraft myths and characters as if they were real. No section on impact outside on myriad of popular culture and such (Cthulhu in popular culture, a see also, needs to be rewritten from a list into a proper article and summarized there). 'Other writers' section is a list. Most of the references are from Lovercraft himself, most of the rest from not properly formated sources - many seem to be fanzines? References should be upgraded to proper acdemic works covering Cthulu, I am sure there are many. Before FA, go for WP:PR and WP:GA first.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Article needs to address the subject from a 100% out of universe perspective. S. T. Joshi is usually the main academic on Lovecraft, if the FAC nominator fancies a library trip. LuciferMorgan 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I'd love to see Cthulhu as an FA but this needs alot of work - main issues are the writing style; too many short paragraphs, odd word usage such as 'debuted' instead of 'first appeared', and I am sure there are more works on lovecrafts ideas behind the creation. I would recommend a Peer Review first. cheers Cas Liber 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

Celebrity Apprentice

edit

Nominated for fast improval since creation and general quality of article. Dalejenkins 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object show hasn't even aired yet. Suggesting removal from page. The Placebo Effect 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object and speedy removal recommended. Dale, have you even read the featured article criteria? This is little more than a stub. Majorly (o rly?) 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object The article doesn't meet the featured article criteria. --Mardavich 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Per above. Dale, this is the second article you've nominated citing "speed of improvement" as a reasoning of why it should be featured, which is certainly not one of the criteria for feature articles. Please familiarize yourself with WP:WIAFA before nominating any more. If an article has been recently created or expanded but doesn't meet WP:WIAFA, perhaps you should head over to WP:DYK. Gzkn 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object I sence he may have ment to put this on the PR page. Buc 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Primal (video game)

edit

I've nominated the article because I think it have a lot of information about characters and the locations where the game takes place. And it is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable - which means, it meets the requirements of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.Cheat2win 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Please read the criteria page fully. No references, no fair use rationales, fair use galleries... This is not even close. --- RockMFR 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose well written, nope - "The richly developed demon realms give the scenery the effect of being important"
  • comprehensive, nope - Where's the reception section? Where's the gameplay section?
  • factually accurate, nope - there are 0 references
  • neutral, nope - "action scenes with dramatic and well timed background."
  • stable, I'll give you this one
Also a trivia section, no fair use rationales, insufficient lead sized lead, insufficient sized history section, a section with five words etc etc. M3tal H3ad 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a references section. Cheat2win 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: Severe fair use policy violations, both in terms of number of images and fair use rationale, contains a trivia section, contains a section for the sole purpose of stating the tagline, references are not formatted properly, does not contain enough out-of-universe information, most notably a Development or History section. Actually, looking at the references you added, almost the entire article was a copyright violation. Article is now a stub. Pagrashtak 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With the removal of the copy-vio material, the article is simply a stub. -- Pastordavid 17:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the WP:COPYVIO problems. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Duh.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2007&oldid=1002887176"