Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are ((collapse top)) and ((collapse bottom)), used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as ((green)) that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as ((done)), ((not done)), ((tq)), ((tq2)), and ((xt)), may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the ((@FAC)) notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the ((FAC)) template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates ((Article history)).

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place ((subst:FAC)) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: ((Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber)) (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut

Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE

To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Self-Nomination --Jayzel68 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Minor Object~~ Would support next time - ~~only one note (which isn't even a note), way too many embedded external links, list-weighty.~~ AndyZ 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "note" header to "See also." Removed most of the embedded links and replaced them with inline citations. Removed "List of uncooperative witnesses. --Jayzel68 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the newspaper references in the contreversy be converted to footnotes? Another thing - see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked - all full dates should be linked. I believe the quotes should also be referenced, though I'm not absolutely positive about that. AndyZ 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this- I should've been clearer earlier- according to the Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked, only full dates should be linked- that is month and day. On the section above it, what not should be linked is only the year or a month and a year. AndyZ 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your issues have been addressed. Note: there are a few mentions of newspapers just for flavor, but I still put in the citations. --Jayzel68 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Date links have been fixed. --Jayzel68 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this sentence trying to get out- The controversy surrounding whether or not to appoint an independent counsel aside, the Justice Department's internal investigation was fruitful in of itself. it seems as if the grammar is slightly off here. AndyZ 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other small issues- James Riady is mentioned in the begining of the section as "son"- I'm assuming of Mochtar. He later is mentioned as having gone to the White House 20 times, but I can't draw any clear connection between Riady and Huang, since every other sentence only mentions Huang as doing everything. Is the temple a major figure? Is the lead sentence true (and NPOV), considering that some of the donators denied that they had contact with the chinese government? Another thing, "who donated illegal money" I believe should be "who donated money illegally" since the money itself isn't illegal/counterfeit. Also, watch out for weasel words, I'm not sure if there are many occurrences of weasel words, but "it was reported . . ." is a weasel word- by whom was it reported? Another thing- "The most notable convictions were against" the sentence only mentions one conviction, so it probably should be notable conviction was. AndyZ 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it would be helpful it you would give me your complaints altogether rather than piecemeal. With that said, I have a addressed your issues regarding "son", "figure", "who donated illegal money", "weasel word", and "notable convictions". As for your issues re: the huang/riady connection and the lead sentence: 1) I have a picture of riady with huang together and I mention huang worked for riady for years and that they were both convicted of donating foreign funds. Huang, specifically through his former employer riady; 2) just because someone denies someone doesn't mean it didn't happen. The FBI, CIA, and Congress came to the conclusion that they did. --Jayzel68 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about this article not making FA status- however after this FAC this article looks great and you could probably get it to FA status the next time around. I have to admit: you put a lot of effort into this. As for the second thing about the denials, leaning towards the American view of the scandal would be POV, since you are inferring that something did happen when somebody denies it. Of course given the sitatution that the FBI, CIA, Congress came to the conclusion that they were involved, it seems to be that this statement is true- however to be not WP:POV, it would be best to add into the introduction a short quick viewpoint from the Chinese government. AndyZ 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ Support - For the reasons above. "List of uncooperative witnesses" for instance... seems extraneous. If it's really encyclopedic, move it to a seperate article and link it. The section has no description of what "Uncooperative" means, or why the list is important. Is it just to show there were a lot of "uncooperative" witnesses (again, what does "uncooperative" mean anyway?)? If so, you could just write, in prose, that there were a lot of them, and then discuss the topic some more. Fix that section, fix the referencing style (move all those links to a "References" section using inline citations) and then we'll talk about additional problems. Fieari 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above comment. You may have overlooked the text directly above the former "List of witnesses." I did specify how they were uncooperative. Thanks all for the comments. --Jayzel68 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like what you've done so far... good job on that. Now there's just a little more work to be done. I'd like to see something of an introductory section in the main body of the article, not just in the header, which goes into a little bit more detail with regards to the surrounding circumstances for the scandal, political climate, and that sort of thing. Think of this article from a "far future" point of view, in that in the year 2087, some high-school history student is looking up information on our time period, but has no clue about what was going on in the big picture now. Maybe the structure of campaign finance or whatever is so fundamentally different then that the entire concept of the scandal is incomprehensible. What if we become friends with China in the future, so that you can't just assume that readers will know that dealings with china is a bad thing. Forgetting the future, what if someone who is simply ignorant of these facts (say a forigner) tries reading this? You need to tell them. Fieari 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like your recent edits. I Support now. Fieari 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new section that I believe address your concerns --Jayzel68 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~. Lead is poorly written, with several questionable phrases, and also contains a quote from a person not directly involved and does not use a proper citation for the quote. The rest of the article also needs significant improvements, including formatting issues. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless you specify what the alleged "questionable phrases" are, or why you think the lead is "poorly written," I will not be able to do anything to change it to your satisfaction. I feel the quote I used is pertinent and useful in that is distills the issue in such a short and clear way. Mr. Lund may not have been directly involved in laudering funds from the Chinese government, but he was a China analyst for the Canadian government. I personally feels this give him weight on the subject. I guess this issue is just a matter of opinion. Lastly, your comment that "the rest article also needs significant improvements" leaves me helpless without any specific criticism ("formatting" is too vague). Thanks. --Jayzel68 17:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as "popular term" and "(some alleged, some proven)" need to be rewritten and cited. The lead places undue emphasis on that quote, which I feel is only nominally important to the topic. The lead should summarize the article, not be a place for a quote by an uninvolved party. (In other words, I don't think that the lead is the appropriate spot for that particular quote.) It should be cited using the ((ref)) format you've used below, unless I'm mistaken. Some specific improvements: the article keeps on mentioning "See list of convictions", with a link to a section below. A self-ref is bad style. Also, in the "Congressional investigations" section, you begin with two external links, which shouldn't be there. (They should be moved to either a reference or external link section). The "List of convictions stemming from affair" section can also be either moved to a seperate article and then summarized in prose form, or rewritten with more links and more prose rather than bulleted list. The "See also" section has a huge wikilink at the top followed by prose; a see also section is for other wikilinks with minimal prose. I hope this helps! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All issues have been addressed. I look forward to your support. :) --Jayzel68 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, but I've still got a few issues. :-) First, in the last paragraph of the "Yah Lin 'Charlie' Trie and Wang Jun" section, there's an unlinked ref - you must have missed it. Second, I would like to see some more refs on the quotes you give. For example, in the "Maria Hsia and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple" section there's three quotes, no refs. You provided the speaker, but no ref or source. Finally, the "convictions" section still needs some work - it stil reads like a list, and many of the people are not mentioned beforehand. (For example, it's the first time "Robert S. Lee" is mentioned. Who is he? Is he important enough to be mentioned?) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've incorporated your suggestions. Hope you like. Thanks --Jayzel68 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting article, good writing, relevant photos (although Janet Reno always makes my skin crawl). Kafziel 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments in the peer review. Proto||type 11:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (Actually, I'm not, but it's a really good thing to do.[reply]
- While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required.
- That's quite a standard. Funny, I don't recall that being mentioned in the FAC list of requirements. If it was required, 95% of all FAs would have to be removed. Heck, many of the featured articles don't have references of any kind. Tell me, before I go through the headache of indulging in your request, do you have any other objections to the article? --Jayzel68 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; reference formatting is specifically left up to personal taste by the style guide, and isn't a valid objection (as long as the references, however they are formatted, are comprehensive). Kafziel 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now you tell me. :) I just changed the citations to agree with the new format. --Jayzel68 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the new format so obviously better? No more ibids, and if you move something around, the reference follows. And I gave you a barnstar! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Reads like a tabloid, example: calling the Army's international arms trade corp "a front company for the Chinese military-industrial complex" Also doesn't mention China joining the WTO. Focuses too much on the hype to be a featured article.--Colle||Talk-- 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry, but your opinion that you feel reality is somehow "tabloid" isn't a reasonable objection. Every period and comma in the article is backed up by reputable sources. Specifically, the quote you mention comes from the non-partisian Nuclear Threat Initiative organization that is co-chaired by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn. Also, your comment about hype is a falsehood and I dare you to cite an example. The article is very constrained. Lastly, regarding your criticism about the article not mentioning China's entry into the WTO: So what? The article also does not mention sugar causes tooth decay . They are both completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Something tells me it is the subject matter alone that makes you uncomfortable. Regards, --Jayzel 07:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I like your metaphor, because the WTO situation is somewhat like the sugar that caused the tooth decay. 'Tabloid' may not be the right word, I ment it in the sense of focusing on the sensational; such as focus on the individual actors, and using phrases such as "military industrial complex." One other comment: There shouldn't be US political jargon or abbreviations such as (D-OH). Also, although its not essential, it would be nice for there was a section that outlined the outcome/long term effects of the scandal. I will look into this more tommorow.--Colle||Talk-- 07:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Well, if you are really disturbed by the term I can always shorten the quote "military industrial complex" to just "military". You can do it yourself too if you want. I'm going to sleep now. As for dealing with the characters Wang, Huang, Hsia, Trie, Chung, et al.: I wouldn't have an article without them. The article is about the "1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal" not "campaign finance" issues in general. Re: (D-OH), I'll change it tomorrow when I wake up. Lastly, someone else mentioned adding something about the outcome or effects of the scandal, but I felt that would be getting more into the area of opinion and would risk violating the NPOV policy here. If you think you could handle it without doing so, help yourself. Ciao, --Jayzel 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the "american jargon" and cut the quote to remove the offending "military industrial complex." The focus on the scandal players remains. To remove them would be like discussing Iran-Contra without mention Ollie North and John Poindexter or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict without mentioning Yasser Arafat or Yitzak Rabin. Regards, --Jayzel 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Same-sex marriage in Canada Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Rock, Arkansas Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush[reply]

Thrasybulus

Self-nom. I've been working on this for a while, and I think it presents a balanced and comprehensive picture of a man who has been nearly forgotten today despite being quite prominent at his time. The one thing I wish it had is more pictures, but one of the downsides of being nearly forgotten is that no one really bothers to draw many pictures of you. Robth^Talk 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm suporting this. It's well referenced, and hence reliable. I'd prefer Greek transliterations than Latinizations of the names, but that's a wikipedia policy thing. Decent article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well referenced, well written, good lead, sections well laid out... I don't know the subject well enough myself to know for certain that it's comprehensive, but it looks that way to me. One thing that could be improved is the use of images, though that's not an FA requirement. Image:Cyzicus.JPG is a nice informative picture, but alas, it... isn't pretty. If someone could whip up something that looks nicer while having the same content, that would be awesome. Other images might be nice, simply to break up the text and make it prettier, but I understand the difficulty in just comming up with new images, and as I said, it isn't an FA requirement. Good work on the article. Fieari 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to second that comment about the Cyzicus picture. The current one is the best that me and MS Paint could whip up, but that's obviously pretty far down the totem pole as far as drawing programs go, and I never have been known for my "skills of an artist." Anyone with more talent or better software who has the time to improve it will earn my undying gratitude. Robth^Talk 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see more specific page references in the footnotes. Durova 02:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good lead grabs the attention immediately and the article is up to the standard of any features I've read recently. The writing and layout are excellent, references and footnotes fine, content and links interesting - all adding up to a comprehensive treatment of a subject that as the submitter says was once prominent, now forgotten. No quibbles really, but agree images would enhance. Thamyris 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Translated texts (e.g., note 30) don't identify edition or translator within article. Also agree with Durova concerning footnotes. Monicasdude 20:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed translators for the works that I could find the information for (I couldn't find it for the Thucydides or Xenophon). As far as editions, all the editions used are the online versions linked to (I made a point of taking any quotes, line numbering etc. from those editions). I won't be able to add page numbers till Sunday afternoon at the earliest, since the copy of the R.J. Buck book that I used is in a non-circulating library that's closed most of the weekend, but I'll put them up as I get a chance. Robth^Talk 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to list the translator unless you're quoting an actual translation; so just simply list the place you got the translation after the passage reference. The others all you need is, for instance, citations of the type Thuc. x.12. . For your secondary texts, you do indeed need to do the page references, and use citations such as ibid., passim, op. cit. and loc. cit. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Page numbers have now been added to all citations of modern sources. I didn't use ibid. etc, since I recall reading somewhere that those have been deprecated by the MLA. Robth^Talk 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct: the MLA style book has been opposed to "ibid" since about 1982 or thereabouts. Few style sheets use it anymore, and I think Chicago ("Turabian") is against it as well. Geogre 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of such organizations as authorities. Certainly made little impact on the journals and books I've been reading lately. What do they suggest one uses in their place? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, quite good. Everyking 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made a few copy edits after seeing this one in Peer Review, but other than that, I haven't touched it. Anville 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very well-written. Some of the sections are a little bit long, though; perhaps breaking up into sub-sections? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great. Gflores ^Talk 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great article. S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 09:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Another outstanding article on an obscure general of classical antiquity. This one especially so, I've only ever seen Thrasybulus mentioned in reference to the more infamous Alcibiades. So I not only enjoyed this article but learned from it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the criteria as far as I can see, though I don't know squat about ancient Greece. I did check all the references to Thrasybulus in Plutarch, and they seem to agree with the article: Thrasybulus had great physical courage and supported democracy. Plutarch is either neutral or favorable in his references, which contradicts Buck's theory that ancient writers were down on Thrasybulus because of an anti-democratic bias. But the article should take note of all theories about its subject. Casey Abell 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good article. Aldux 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Badr

According to the WikiProphet, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. However, I have tried and rewritten the article from scratch, so any errors in it are mine and mine alone. It covers a decisive battle fought by Muhammad against his Quraish opponents in 624, which has an extremely important place in Islamic history, roughly equivalent to the Jews' escape from Pharoah in the Torah. The article has had a thorough Peer Review, is listed as a Good Article, and has been copy-edited at least once. I hope you will see fit to support this nomination. If not I would very much appreciate detailed responses so I can keep improving this page. Palm_Dogg 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pre-emptive strike: There are two complaints that I will address before they are made. First, the maps: I need new ones: though I received permission to use the ones displayed, I was not granted a GDFL license. This is not my forte, so anyone who is willing and able should contact me. ~~Second, Amr ibn Hisham... or is it Hashim? Put simply, I don't know and I've found ample evidence for both spellings.~~ Palm_Dogg 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination comment cracked me up. I've decided you give you a rare honor - you own entry on Raul's laws Raul654 02:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Comment[reply]
  - Thanks, but technically it's the WikiProphet's law, not mine. :) Palm_Dogg 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Library of Congress Name Authorities (control number: no2005041288) gives: "Abū Jahl, Amr ibn Hishām" as the preferred form. This suggests that it would be best to say "Abū Jahl, Amr ibn Hishām" for the first entry and either "Abū Jahl" or "Amr ibn Hishām" (as you like) in subsequent entries. They don't have any examples of "Amr ibn Hashim". Pinkville 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WOW! Thank you!. Palm_Dogg 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Minor objection~~ - well-written, but a few comments. First, the lead is a tad bit long. Although it's acceptable, it would be great if it could be slightly condensed. In addition, the "Cultural implications" section needs some work, and "The Message" sub-section could also be expanded and made into prose instead of a list. Overall, though, great job! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged "cultural references" section with "implications", slimmed down lead, and rewrote "The Message" as prose. Palm_Dogg 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work! Gflores ^Talk 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job buddy. --Karimi 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missingno.

I think this article is well developed and should be recognized as a featured article. it contains everything down from the origins of the infamous glitch, to the very sequnces of code that cause it.
--User:malomeat 13:55, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Object. No inline references, infact, no references at all. Deskana (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: No references. I wonder about this nomination, since six of the seven edits by this user concern Missingno being a good or featured article. --Pagrashtak 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object to add, I think Missingno.#Details should be turned from a list into prose. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - No references, Missingno.#Details needs prosification, in need of major restructure, to a certain extent, a general wikify. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The article lacks clearly identified references and proper attribution of material to them. Just including the sources among the external links is not enough. Please see WP:CITE. The issue of the lack of references also was raised at the peer review and never addressed, and also has been cited as the reason for removal from the "list of good articles". See the article talk page for the history of the above. --BACbKA 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object obviously. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Adolfo Farsari

An informative, very readable, and excellently illustrated survey of a nineteenth-century photographer that I believe meets all the FAC criteria with panache.

The huge majority (ninety-eight percent?) of the work on this article was done, and I think all the content was inserted, by a single editor, and I'm not that editor. However, I did goad him along to some extent; I'm not unrelated to the editing process.

(The article was nominated for FA on 9 February 06. Here is the debate; in my opinion, some objections were valid at the time but are valid no longer, at least one was not valid even then. The latest draft of the article before it was first nominated is here; the latest before its failure was announced is here.)

-- Hoary 07:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for the dates of birth and death? Proto::► 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs dealing with his origins and his death cite "Dobson, 27". Pinkville 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT OBJECT. Well referenced, however, the references need to use one format or another. Can't use Harvard referencing in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of Harvard Referencing, or make the footnotes full citations, per WP:CITE and something like MLA or Chicago. Given wikipedia's inline citations rules, that would eliminate harvard referencing. I don't even know why we still let people use Harvard Referencing, academia largely walked away from it 20 years ago because of its deficiencies and aesthetics. Right now, you're using <ref> tags for harvard referencing, and that's just wrong given how HR is meant to work. Example on how it has to be done, from "Early Years" section:
- - He married an American, but the marriage failed and in 1873 he left his wife and two children and moved to Japan.(Bennett, 44–45; Dobson, 27.) or
  - He married an American, but the marriage failed and in 1873 he left his wife and two children and moved to Japan.<ref>Bennett, Terry. Early Japanese Images. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle, 1996, 44-45. ISBN 0-8048-2033-3 (paper), ISBN 0-8048-2029-5 (hard).</ref><ref>Dobson, Sebastian. "Yokohama Shashin". In Art and Artifice. 27</ref>

As you can guess, I'd prefer the second style, but I can't hold that against you for using HR. Now, to pre-empt one response, MLA and Chicago formats require a full citation before you can start using ibid. and op. cit. For the section entitled Selected photographs and other works, I'd much rather see a gallery (implying uploading them to wikipedia, as they all seem to be public domain because of age) within this section of the article than a list of external jumps. 6 months from now, it would look bad if they were all dead links. Also, the lead needs to be expanded to summaries each section just a little bit more, per WP:LEAD. The article is well-written on the other hand, and I'll gladly support this article once the above are remedied. —ExplorerCDT 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've seen this format used quite often for Featured Articles that rely heavily on books. It's cumbersome to cite the full book each time it's used. Since the full citations are given in the References, I think it's perfectly fine to just list last name, page # in the notes. Gzkn 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it's not. Right now they're using a hybrid of different citation methods and must choose one or the other, because they're using one method quite heavily, but incorrectly (see WP:CITE n.b. the section on Harvard Referencing) Also considering that several older FAs don't meet today's criteria (and as such deserve to be subjected to FA review), comparisons to other FAs are not often valid. Your comment doesn't take into account WP:CITE's policy, and will mislead the article nominator. They'll hit themselves later if it's my objection that fails this candidacy, only because they listened to you instead of doing the revisions demanded.—ExplorerCDT 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, it is. See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations: "Avoid using Ibid in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems." (Emphasis added.) A fuller citation is required the first time a particular work is cited, though, and that hasn't been done in this article at present. Shimeru 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean ibid in that context. I should have marked my words more carefully. I was equating their last name, page number style with ibid. and that was just wrong of me. But that doesn't negate my above comments regarding citations, and thank you for agreeing with me on that point. —ExplorerCDT 05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand the objection here. After markup stripping: the references need to use one format or another. Can't use Harvard referencing in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of Harvard Referencing, or make the footnotes full citations, per WP:CITE and something like MLA or Chicago. I have in front of me the 13th edition (1982) of The Chicago Manual of Style. Chapter 17 is devoted to "note forms", i.e. the forms that foot/endnotes should take. Section 17.2 (p.486) is within this context (it's most certainly about the use of notes), and it starts: A source should be given a full reference the first time it is cited in a book or article, unless it appears in an alphabetical bibliography at the end of the work (see 15.82). Section 15.82, in turn, is very simple; though taking up slightly more than two pages (pp.423–5), the great majority of it is taken up by a lengthy example of each of two layouts of alphabetically ordered bibliographies; it says The bibliography arranged in a single alphabetical list is the most common and usually the best form for a work with, or without, notes to the text (p.423). Thus although "Chicago" certainly does allow for a system of full bibliographical (etc.) details in a note the first time the given source is referenced, it (or anyway its rather old 13th edition) asks for an alphabetically ordered list for this, and it does not require full details in the footnotes if they are in an alphabetically ordered list. ¶ What we have in this article is the alphabetical list but not the first full citation in the footnote, a system that appealed to the creator of the article, appealed to me as editor, avoids a lot of clutter, seems to do little or nothing to make the sources harder to identify, and was fully approved of by "Chicago" in 1982, even if it's not approved of by the latest (2003) "Chicago". (I really don't know about the 2003 edition. I'm not buying a copy because I see nothing wrong with the old copy that I already possess, because the new one includes a stupid new section, because it's rather expensive, and, well, because every day is Buy Nothing Day.) ¶ I now turn from Chicago to what WP says. WP:FOOT tells us: Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Wikipedia:Citing sources (tsk tsk, comma splice). That seems to allow for the sourcing system used in this article, though admittedly it's not entirely clear. As for WP:SOURCE, [cough], no offense intended to the good people who have no doubt labored over it, but it strikes me as an awful mess. A footnote dump (via <references />) gives us:

footnote examples

1. Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005

2. Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 46(78):46

3. example footnote abc

4. example footnote xyz

The very first of these strikes me as grotesque. (Something like

1. E. Miller, The Sun (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23.

would be okay; let's put aside quibbles about whether the page number should be preceded by "p." and suchlike stylemanualcruft.) I'm willing to follow the main thrust of what this "guideline" says, but the details are so shoddy that I have difficulty summoning the enthusiasm needed to follow its every minor pronouncement. Still, I'm open to persuasion. -- Hoary 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, go the extra mile. I think the policy is clear. But if you want to doubt, so be it. —ExplorerCDT 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to go the extra mile, or two, or three, if I thought that doing so would either add to the article or result in the article adhering to a coherent guideline. But I don't see how fleshing out notes in this way would add to the article (other than in simple bulk), and WP:FOOT appears to approve of and Chicago (13th ed.) definitely does approve of the system now used. Again, I'm open to reasoning -- and the reason can be pretty weak. Yes, given even a weak reason, I'll certainly make the changes, and with good grace. -- Hoary 07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning: What if someone comes by and divorces the reference section from the article and no one notices it for several weeks, months, years? Heck, the false accusation that John Seigenthaler, Sr. was involved in the JFK and RFK assassinations was around for several months before someone noticed it and complained. —ExplorerCDT 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted biblio stuff in the notes, you got it! -- Hoary 09:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, this article has my support. Though, I'd still like to see the "Selected photographs" section in the form of a Gallery, I won't hold it against ya. —ExplorerCDT 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but unfortunately all six images are hosted elsewhere. -- Hoary 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are public domain by now> Open page with picture. Right click. Save as. Open wikipedia. Log in. Click upload file, etc. Hint, hint... —ExplorerCDT 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images whose rephotographs (or perhaps scans) we're looking at are indeed in the public domain. Offhand I'm not at all sure about those rephotographs (scans). I suspect that a scan or recent rephotograph of a public-domain image is itself copyright; I had a quick look for this issue in vaguely relevant-looking WP pages but didn't turn up anything. (I suggest that we continue this discussion on Talk:Adolfo Farsari in order not to clutter up this FAC page.) -- Hoary 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those photograph scans are covered under ((PD-art)) and the relevant case law attached to that tag. —ExplorerCDT 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do with the lead a bit later today. I'll also look constructing an image gallery, if indeed the consensus is to go ahead with that idea. Pinkville 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aside from the potential reference-format issue (which is a minor detail), this looks to me like a well-written and comprehensive article. Shimeru 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a remarkable article on a very little known subject. PHG 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a gallery using the photographs and other items formerly listed in the "selected photographs" section. I'll deal with expanding the lead tomorrow. Pinkville 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't know enough on the subject to have a clear opinion about the nomination. I did however thoroughly enjoy reading the article and found it to be of high quality. I did a bit of copyediting and some more is probably needed to reach brilliant prose. For instance, you might want to rephrase As a further example of the studio's high reputation, by the 1890s it had exclusive rights to photograph the Imperial Gardens in Tokyo which sounds clumsy to me. I also think that it would be suitable to have at least a few notes (in the last section) on whether or not Farsari's work is still being exhibited. Have there been fairly recent Farsari exhibits? If so, where? If not, why? If not, have there ever been? Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll have a look again at that studio's high reputation sentence. And I'll see about mentioning something about recent exhibitions - the source I mainly used is actually an exhibition catalogue from 2004. Pinkville 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've resolved these two issues now. Pinkville 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Thanks. As I said, I know too little about photography or Japan for that matter so I don't think I can be a good judge of the article's overall value. Best of luck Pinkville. Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, improvements, and good wishes. Pinkville 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the intro somewhat to more comprehensively summarise the sections of the article. Pinkville 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, interesting, meets criteria. Giano 13:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the questions/issues raised here (and in the previous bid for FA status) have been answered. Any further comments, requests, etc.? Pinkville 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just one comment. While using a gallery is ok per WP:MoS, I've seen a few instances in the past where use of gallery wes rather discouraged. However, since some experienced wikipedians have already reviewed the article and supported it, I believe this is not a major issue. Nice article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great article. I think the gallery is entirely appropriate for an article on a photographer. Johntex\^talk 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image gallery wraps off my screen - please resize. The first footnote is incomplete - please add biblio info including publisher and last access date. Also, the end of the third paragraph in the section "Farsari and Yokohama shashin" has uncited commentary which appears as opinion or original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how to help you with the gallery size issue - it's fine in the three browsers I use on two computers and though I've looked through the relevant pages in Wikipedia on Gallery mark-up I haven't found out how to resize. Maybe someone who understands this technical issue better than I can help...? The first footnote has been expanded to include access date - it is a webpage, so there isn't any further publication data to add. The missing citation (accidentally left off at some point in the editing) has been added. Pinkville 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help with the gallery resizing request from SandyGeorgia? Thanks. Pinkville 16:03, 30 January 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.

Uma Thurman

previous FAC

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

An excellent article on this infamous hoax, that includes both a great history as well as in-depth discussion of the document's origins and uses. Lots of references, images, and good sectioning make it both easy to read and easily verifiable (it has also been through a peer review). I have already seen the Wikipedia article cited several times online as a good account of the history of the Protocols (for example: LA City Beat and Engage, etc) and it definitely deserves FAC status as one of the best overviews anywhere of this tragically important document. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object. Good work, but shorten up the intro (if it weren't an FA candidate, I'd slap the ((intro length)) template on it. Also, two problems re the images (which I haven't even checked for licensing yet (Update: oops, they're book covers and can be used): 1)The Times exposé of the forgery should be down in that section of the text, and 2) is it really necessary to have all those images? At times I thought it should be retitled Gallery of images of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Daniel Case 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:And can you give us a link to the peer review to see what issues were raised? Daniel Case 15:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Peer review linked. I should also clarify, I haven't worked on this article (except in the last day or so), user:humus sapiens, among others, deserves credit. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is rewritten, are you happier now? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::::It's a little bit better, but the last two grafs could be combined somehow. Maybe by taking out the sentence "The Protocols are widely considered the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature, such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Conspirators Hierarchy: The Committee of 300" if it isn't properly sourced. Daniel Case 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I have the chance to read the article in depth and make minor edits for clarity and style:

~~:::::"For further information, see INRI, Jewish Messiah, Jewish view of Jesus." Can that go in See Also? I see what you're trying to do, but we usually don't put that sort of thing in sections.~~

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::::Also, get rid of the year links unless they're necessary, as we've been trying to do everywhere.~~

"After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, various warring factions used the Protocols to perpetrate hatred and violence against the Jews." Which warring factions? In Russia? Outside? It should be clearer.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Shouldn't the Mein Kampf citation be a footnote?~~

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He was brought to court, in what has come to be known as the Berne Trial, by Dr. J. Dreyfus-Brodsky, Dr. Marcus Cohen and Dr. Marcus Ehrenpreis." Are these the prosecutors? Judges? Is this referring to a book? If so, it should be named as a reference.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also clarified that it was a civil suit now. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many Arab governments fund the publication of new printings of the Protocols, and teach them in their schools as historical fact." Which ones? We need sources; otherwise this will doubtless spark vicious edit wars.

The article mentions quite a few, and more dreadful examples can be easily sourced. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Protocols have been accepted as fact by many Islamic extremist organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda." There's good evidence for the first two, we know, so it could use a citation. Is there anything extant that suggests that about al-Qaeda, however?

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I checked footnote 14 and the source is a summary of Horseman Without a Horse, which says nothing about whether the Arab leaders in question had made the attributed statements. It seems from the source text that you may have mixed up a reference? Daniel Case 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs to be fixed.

The refs were fixed long ago. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do I still read "Past endorsements of The Protocols from Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, one of the President Arifs of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, among other political and intellectual leaders of the Arab world, are echoed by 21st Century endorsements from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hamas, and the education ministry of Saudi Arabia," without any sourcing or citations of the named individuals in the first half of the sentence? That's what I've been asking about. Take it out, soften it or do something with it. Daniel Case 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you there. It was not my passage but I think now I found a pertinent ref. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Translations of the Protocols are extremely popular in Iran." Source?~~

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Consistent dating and quote-mark style throughout the article (some use single, English-style; others use double American quotes)~~

Source: 'Hadith and Islamic Culture', Grade 10, (2001) pp. 103–104" This should be in the bottom footnotes.

Fixed.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the references to Palestinian use of the Protocols necessary? They're encylopedic and verifiable, but that section sort of reads like it was written by MEMRI or something. We get the point with just one or two.

~~What up with all the whitespace after "Egypt?"~~

"On February 20, 2005, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (appointed by Yasser Arafat)" Is that necessary? Some of these can really be put in other articles with links back here.

I do feel it is important. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why? Did someone ever confront Arafat over this? How did he react? That should be in there. 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Still would like something on this. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arafat is gone. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some more material on their contemporary use and dissemination among neo-Nazis in Europe and North America?

Daniel Case 06:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we've got what we're going to get. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see what you fixed but some issues I have remain.

I added some stuff at the head of the Arab section to give it a little context I think it needed.

In the intro, it occurs to me, we should say more clearly that this revolutionized conspiracy theorizing by being the first popular CT to assert that a single group secretly controlled the world and/or was bent on doing so, it strikes me that this was also the beginning of purely secular antisemitism (in that the Protocols turned the supposed motivation for opposition to the Jews from "They killed Christ" to "they're running the banks" ... do the references support this? (And the intro is much improved, BTW)

Finally, what the whole article has a crying need for is a single section explaining in detail why the Protocols are a fabrication. As it is we have the evidence of plagiarism of earlier work which faulted other groups in one section, Nilus's changed story and contradiction of himself in another, and the use of terms Jews were not likely to use in yet another. Given the discussions on the talk page by various people who assert "bias," we need one section where it is made ringingly clear why all credible historians have concluded this document is a forgery.

We also learn, near the end, about Kerry Bolton and his book trying to refute that conclusion. It might be interesting to know what he would base such a refutation on and have something about it in the article (it would help avoid the claim made by some of the antisemites on the talk page that WE'RE PART OF THE PLOT because "we" sweep Mr. Bolton under the rug). Not that those people will really respond to rational argument anyway, but why help them out?

Or maybe this can all be taken care of in some hypothetical daughter article. We'll see. Daniel Case 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, it is difficult to imagine how we could express in more detail why they are a fabrication. If they were not the secret transcripts of a bunch of elderly Jews in a graveyard, then they are a fabrication, and the article explains where they actually came from. Can you give me a clearer idea of how you would want this explained differently? As for Bolton, there are lots of anti-Semites who say that the Protocols are true, the arguments basically are "the Jews/Zionists made up the story of the forgery" -- trying to answer these sorts of silly assertions point-by-point give fringe views much more room than is needed in a main article. If you want to create a new subarticle about this, I am happy to help. Any chance you can change your vote now? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wanted more detail, just that the detail you have should probably be centralized in some way. Maybe some bulleted list? (It's a shame the formatting doesn't allow for sidebars, which would be the perfect place for it)

I think if you get that done, then I can support this. Daniel Case 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just went through it again myself, looked at Graves' article, and put some things in the article to clearly indicate why fact X shows the Protocols are fake.

I also like that you put the Islam and Anti-Semitism link at the head of the Middle East section. That gives it more context.

I'm getting a lot closer to supporting this. Let me look over the whole thing again tonight. There might be just a few more things to do (As for the daughter-article idea on the continuing claims for their authenticity, I think it's a great idea but it is not necessary for featured-article status, so that could be done later). Daniel Case 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now changing my vote to provisional support if, between now and whenever this goes on the Main Page, the remaining issues above are taken care of. Plus, the Nora Levin quote needs a footnote. Daniel Case 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find her book. For now I added atertiary source that includes that quote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object the lead needs a substantial rewrite. (1) it is too long, (2) it needs to be a summary of the rest of the article (per WP:LEAD), (3) I don't think wikipedia should be using Britannica as a source, (4) having refs in the intro is very distracting (besides, some reference-able statements are refed, others are not). Also, "Subject matter" needs to be referenced; so do "The forger" and much of the rest of "History". Contains weasel: "Some scholars compare..." etc. Mikkerpikker ... 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, to address (1) and (2) the lead is rewritten and now summarizes the content; I also removed the "some scholars compare" language. As for the other points, I have to disagree: (3) I moved the Britannica reference to a footnote, but there is no reason to eliminate other encyclopedias, we quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia and others all the time in Wikipedia; (4) references are critical in the introduction because (as you can see in the talk page) the factuality of the article is sometimes challenged, and the references are useful in discouraging this; and (5) I tried adding footnotes to the forger and history section, but exact footnotes aren't really needed here, since this is the commonly accepted history, and every book in the reference section states the same material, thus it doesn't really demand footnotes. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the lead! Big improvement... I relent on (1) (fixed), (2) (fixed), (3) (it's my personal taste so I'll let it be) and (4) (forgot for a moment how controversial this is, you're right refs are needed in the intro). However, my objection stands on the issue of references. WP:V states

Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible.

And, as WP:CITE points out "The main point [of refs] is to help the reader and other editors". That is why you still need to cite your sources in the "Subject matter" and "History" sections - even if the material is in most (or all) sources consulted, you need to say where in the those sources and which particular sources you're using so we can check it up for ourselves. Mikker ^... 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Fixed, I believe, I added a number of footnotes, and the restructuring addressed some of the other issues.

~~Weak object~~, expect to support once this is addressed. "One example is the semi-messianic idea that constantly appears in the text, of establishing a 'King of the Jews'. This was never a Jewish term, and was referenced only on the cross of Jesus." At best, this last sentence is vague; can we cite for the origin of the term? - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay with it now? Otherwise, the sentence can be cut. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support haven't re-read whole article, but as I said I was close to support already. Certainly the new wording is much improved on this point. Glad to be rid of the dubious claim that "this was never a Jewish term." - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object ems 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that the article has improved a lot today and the points above have been addressed. In order to improve further, please give comments/suggestions. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any reason? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object This is a very good article, however it does need more citations. Some of the claims border on OR. If this can be fixed I the it is an approve from me. --Scaife 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you say which claims need to be sourced? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... I guess when I read it the first time the Overview and the section immediately following it seemed like they were missing some citations. Like I said, though, this is a great article, and I may be in error. --Scaife 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approve --Scaife 00:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~ - while the lead's length has been reduced, I still think it's a tad too long, but acceptable. However, the "Overview" section is not. It reads like it's from the lead. Finally, some formatting issues need to be addressed, especially the placement of the images. Perhaps cut down on the book covers? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Book covers trimmed a bit, the overview has been reorganized and reconfigured. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent Article. However, in the following section The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Used by the Nazis, 1930s-1940s, these is a "blockquoted" section that is not footnoted. Is that a quote from Nora Levin or is that actual article text that should not be blockquoted? My other picayune remark is that under The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Other contemporary appearances, the placement of the UK cover leads to a significant amount of dead space. Other than that, excellent work. -- Avi 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find her book. For now I added atertiary source that includes that quote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An excellent factual account of this complex and controversial topic. Giano | talk 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: very interesting article, but not there yet IMHO.
- The text has to be proofread against unnecessary rhetoric. Preferrably by an editor who has not seen the article recently; and who can do it calmly. (I myself feel very strongly about the subject and have to restrain myself so as not to use pretty strong words about the "protocols", so I'll pass :-) ) For an example look at the end of the lead: still has currency in the arsenal of contemporary anti-Semitism.)
- Should be more detached (explicitly invoking the cited sources, as in "according to..."), rather than stating things matter-of-factly in some cases, e.g.: The text is generally accepted as truthful in large parts of South America and Asia, especially in Japan where variations on the Protocols have frequently made the bestseller lists. BTW, speaking of which, I believe I have read a different opinion once, perhaps in the earlier version of this very article, about the contemporary usage in Japan --- that they study it in schools etc. as an explicit example of a forgery? Sorry I'm lazy to look it up myself...)
- Becomes too sketchy towards the end, feels a bit cut in the middle. (Some restructuring needed?) this one is probably more of a comment than an objection, as I don't have a suggestion what exactly to do.

--BACbKA 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some change have been made, take a look again. And specific points of objections would be helpful. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly have to oppose. No doubt, a notable topic, but a featured article must look and read good. As of today, the article looks ugly (personal impression). Lots of small sections with long titles, with text often not matching titles. Sectioning countrywide with a single sentence per section is pointless. Further, as with any historical work, naturally, there are statements about possible motivations of the actions of persons involved, which are, naturally again, someone's POVs. The article must put more effort to make sure that these POVs are not wikipedia's POVs, but of certain experts. mikka (t) 07:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, it is customary to put potential FAC to wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. It seems to me that AID is hastely happening now. mikka (t) 07:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I would also suggest to put all numerous book covers into a wikipedia:gallery and move some huge captions into article body or into image pages. mikka (t) 07:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've reworded a little and consolidated some of the smaller sections. The small images are now a gallery. Not that I love the section titles, but I don't see anything wrong with them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - sorry, this is generally an excellent article on an important topic, but there are too many one-sentence paragraphs - even one sentence sections - and I don't think we need a gallery of 15 cover images, pretty though they are. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But the sections really help the organization of the article, what else would you suggest? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the images are important to prove and illustrate the distribution of the phenomenon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. It is amazing to see the effort in spreading this text. HOwever I'd restricted one pic per country: 4 Egyptian is just too much. mikka (t)
    - We already removed a few images, I think the rest are important: not so long ago, the talk page was full of "believers". Regarding Egyptian editions, post-1972 were published in various periods after the Camp David where Egypt committed to stop antisemitic incitement and during the Peace Process. Look at the graphics. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any statistics about Protocols: in how many countries printed, total circulation volume, etc.? mikka (t)
    - I didn't feel comfortable putting this into the article, but according to Radio Liberty [1], "In the last 100 years, the Protocols was published in tens of languages worldwide, and its cumulative print run most likely exceeded the works by Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The Protocols appear to be the largest contribution by Russia in the global so-called 'culture'." (The translation is mine) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why not add that, with citation? Regarding the images, I can understand the need to show some of the - rather striking - covers, but the number seems excesssive to me. The geographical spread is obvious from the text. Regarding short paragraphs/section, they should be expanded or consolidated. Much of section 3 ("Contemporary usage and popularity") consists of single-sentence paragraphs (the single sentence section, "Lebanon", has been expanded). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems there is a consensus, so I have removed a few more unimpressive images. The RFERL citation essentially is a guess, it has no hard numbers. Also, I love Russian literature (my POV). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll take another look. The citation may be a guess, but is verifiable as someone else's guess, so can go in, suitably qualified and cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd

The Pink Floyd article was subjected to a peer review (archived here) some time back and many considered it a candidate for a featured article at that time. Many of the concerns in the peer review were addressed, and I've addressed the rest in the last couple weeks. Many other editors have copyedited and tweaked the article in the months since the review to the point that I think it's worthy of featured status. - dharmabum 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe inline citations are required for the sales figures. Gflores ^Talk 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now provided in-line citations for sales figures in the article wherever possible, and removed uncited figures to the individual album pages. The one thing I'm stuck on is a citation for the RIAA's official 23x platinum certification for The Wall, as the RIAA's site doesn't seem to provide the ability to link directly to a single album. I'll work on finding another credible source - if anyone knows another repository for their figures it would be appreciated. - dharmabum 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This major Pink Floyd fan says yes, yes, yes. D e nni ☯
Oppose:
- A featured article should assume the reader knows nothing about its subject. If I had never heard a Pink Floyd song in my life, I could read this whole article and still not have any more than a slight hint about what they sounded like. Fair-use audio clips of a few representative tracks may be helpful (general consensus is that fair-use clips of copyright songs should not exceed 30 seconds, should be noticeably less than CD-quality audio and should be in OGG Vorbis format). However, description of PF's "sound" is also a must.
- The external links sprinkled throughout the article should be converted to proper inline citations.
- The article almost entirely leaves out the reception of the band by professional music critics. Given the body of writing that has been published about Pink Floyd, this should be easy to find.
- "noted for their ... thoughtful lyrics" What does "thoughtful" mean here? If it means that PF's lyrics are more poignant/intelligent/poetic than typical rock lyrics, this is a POV assertion unless it is backed with good citations. Again, it should not be a hard task to find support from some noted rock critics.
- "a significant intake of psychedelic drugs took its toll on Barrett. In January 1968, guitarist David Gilmour joined the band to carry out the playing and singing duties of Syd, whose mental health had been deteriorating for several months." Obviously Barrett's issues back then have become part of rock lore and are factual; nevertheless, whenever you make claims about a person's illegal drug use, mental illness, etc., it's best to cite them directly.
- "The album contained hints of things to come..." Like?
- "The album was a transitional piece for the group, hinting at future musical territory." And again.
- "The title is schoolboy slang for sexual procreation" Source?
- There are a lot of other statments that need to be cited. This article has a lot of information but will need going-over with a fine-tooth comb (preferably by someone without much familiarity with the band, as it seems to me that non-fans may be the ones most puzzled by this article) before it can become Featured. Andrew Levine 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed many of the direct critiques presented. I have changed "thoughtful" (which I never liked) to the more apt "philosophic", as a brief glance at their lyrics indicates their philosophic intentions, but the word does not carry a POV implication of whether such philosophic lyrics are well-written or insightful. Citations and external links have been formatted correctly, sources for Barrett's drug use, the "Ummagumma" slang provided, and the specific questions about "things to come" have been addressed. I have also provided more detail on the band's sound, describing it more fully in the Barrett years and providing an overview of each era's changing sound at the top of their subsections. ~~There are still no audio clips (I have some technical issues that will delay providing any), and~~ someone unfamiliar with the article going over it with a fine-tooth comb would be terrific, but I just wanted to let you know what had been addressed. - dharmabum 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good article. Cedars 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good article, should be featured. --Myles Long/cDc 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support ~~Weak Oppose~~ - The article is well-written, fairly intriguing. ~~However, as per Andrew Levine's comments, I'll have to oppose. I'm willing to change to a (weak) support if some of those issues are corrected. ♠ SG →Talk 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Alright, it seems like some of it was corrected, but I still don't see much describing their sound (which was very unique compared to the other bands during their years). However, even if it gets FA status, this article will never reach the front page without having at least one sample (Comfortably Numb would be good). Nevertheless, you have my support. ♠ SG →Talk 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has an extensive series of sound clips which are cross-referenced to their applicable eras in the article, which can be viewed here. This is the first time I've encoded OGG files, uploaded them and added them to an article, so please let me know right away if you find any problems with them. - dharmabum 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Battersea Power Station provides this link to support the bit of lore that not only was the inflatable pig difficult to control in the high winds, it actually broke away. This should be in the article IMO. Other than that, since it's an FA on the Hebrew, Polish and Russian wikis, it's high time to get this together and make it an FA here. Daniel Case 05:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the link you provided, thanks! - dharmabum 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Strong Support. It's hard to imagine not knowing what Pink Floyd sounds like, so descriptions like "progressive compositions" and "sonic experimentation" seem perfectly suitable to me. I'm not sure how many samples fair use allows, and it would be impossible to give an adequate example with just one clip. Sure, Comfortably Numb is a great song, but it has almost nothing to do with their more experimental sounds on songs like Echoes or Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun or Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict. The clip doesn't seem all that important to me because it would be a tiny drop in a vast bucket of wildly different sounds. Fair use only goes so far. Kafziel 06:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that fair use prohibits the number of clips, just the length and quality of them and the context they are put in. The Beatles, which is a featured article, provides 27 clips, for instance. I've prepared a bunch of 15-25 second 64kbps OGG clips showcasing the different styles of the Floyd eras, ~~they just need to be uploaded and inserted, should have them in the article by tomorrow~~ (unless someone demonstrates that there is a restriction on the number of clips). - dharmabum 06:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - 27, huh? Well, your additions sound good. If I could enter another "support" vote, I would. I'll just go ahead and change my vote to "strong support"... not that that counts for anything, but what the heck. Kafziel 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's hard to imagine not knowing what Pink Floyd sounds like..." Guess what? Some people don't. And some people have trouble playing our sound files, or can't for technical reasons. Phrases like "progressive compositions" and "sonic experimentation" mean nothing to most people who aren't heavily into music, and even for audiophiles they can imply a wide variety of very different sounds (The could apply equally to Yes, or Merzbow, or Cecil Taylor or, or, or...). There simply needs to be more prose description of what Pink Floyd sounded like. Andrew Levine 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good job! Gflores ^Talk 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article seems clean of fan bias and is well-written. More description of their sound might be welcome, but that could be difficult considering the several eras the band's history is split through meant a constant change in their sound; such as the psychedelia of Barrett, the post-Barrett/pre-Dark Side period which was very experimental, the somewhat jazz-influenced and deliberately paced Dark Side period, and the Roger Waters period which often leaned more into hard rock. Medico Dimamico ^Talk

I've done my best describing their sound, but I lack the prose. I find trying to describe music with words difficult, at best - I could write 10,000 words on J.S. Bach's music without giving the sense of it that 5 minutes of listening would. I selected the sound clips very carefully, trying to showcase their sounds without just providing clips of their most prominent singles, and while I acknowledge the problem some people have playing OGG files (me included), it's the best I can offer until someone with better prose abilities decides to give it a shot. - dharmabum 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be beside the point, but in my book if someone comes to Wikipedia to learn about what Pink Floyd (or any band) sounds like, then they don't deserve to know. ;) Kafziel 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Are you serious? An encyclopedia article about a musical group shouldn't make an effort to describe what they sound like? Do you think that that this article should only be intended for people who are already Floyd fans? Andrew Levine 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support An unbiased article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}10:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - the lead is a tad bit long, several sections could be broken up into seperate articles (the whole article runs quite long), several of those sections lack any references or inline notes (for example, the section "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" contains no notes or refs), and I agree with the above that more description of the sound would be nice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to put some thought into how to address this exactly, but it's worth pointing out that the lead was actually expanded recently in order to meet the Featured Music Project criteria after its evaluation. - dharmabum 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment and the one at Phil Collins's FA candidacy from Flcelloguy has changed the Featured Music Project criteria regarding intro sections. I've trimmed the introduction in accord with the new criteria. - dharmabum 10:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I'll need to have some time to re-review the article, but another minor objection first: it appears that all the refs at the end of the sentence are placed before the period in the article, while the standard (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) suggests that they be moved after the period. Could this be fixed? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - dharmabum 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the section about bootlegs to the discography; if you have any other suggestions for info that should be moved elsewhere to streamline the article, I'd love to hear them. - dharmabum 08:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your ideas further and removed a large volume of information about Pink Floyd's live shows, reducing the article by around 20k and moving it to the new article, Pink Floyd live performances. The "Live Performances" subsection has a link to the new page using the ((main)) template. - dharmabum 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You only put links in the refs. Actually using the bibliography for refs is good (see Salsa music for an example). Also, maybe remove name attributes when you make only one note with the reference. Circeus 16:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip; I'm a newcomer to the ref system and didn't even know not putting a name attribute was an option. I've done as you suggested. ~~I plan to put some references to Schaffner's biography into the article, but it's the only one in the bibliography I own and I haven't had time to sit down with it yet.~~ (Done) - dharmabum 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support. my prior comments that references not complete enough for the extent of material. written with bad grammar and in too much slang and colloquial have been addressed. lots of good material and cover art . Anlace 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the language somewhat and tried to clean up any slanginess I could see, but if you have any direct examples I'd be happy to address them. I've also added over 20 references. - dharmabum 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, I could only find 2 instances out of nearly 100 uses of the word "band" which incorrectly used a reference to a plural noun. If you spot any others, please let me know. - dharmabum 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and changed a few more plural references to "band". InTheFlesh? 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also addressed the inconsistencies in paragraph length. - dharmabum 23:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- an excellent article worthy of recognition. - Longhair 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/President of the United States Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gregorian calendar

Western Front (World War I)

World War I has significantly shaped the modern world, and the Western Front proved the decisive theater of this war. This article now covers the entire history of the front at a high level, with all the notable offensives as well as commentary on the strategies, tactics and technologies involved. It concludes with a discussion of the consequences. — RJH 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article. Two questions, though:

Do we really need two huge see-also templates at the bottom?

I would have no problem with a single template. But it's a cross-page issue, so if the bottom template gets removed then somebody will probably slap it back in again. — RJH

Could you perhaps add an ((Infobox Military Conflict)) and/or the appropriate campaignboxes? —Kirill Lok s hin 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it's added, but I haven't been able to find western-front-specific numbers for some of the boxes. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided that because the other operations-level pages lacked a similar template. *shrug* — RJH

Second template was commented out. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with Comment - The leads is perhaps too long. I know usually we encourage longer leads, but this one seems a bit excessive. Of course, that's just my opinion. Other than that, though, it looks great, so I'll give it my support. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I tried to thin the introduction down without losing the specifics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work! I think the lead is just right. However, can you add some wikilinks to the image captions (where applicable). Gflores ^Talk 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It might be better to replace the huge see also template with a portal of ww1 on a later date
Support. --Myles Long/cDc 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Some objections Take care of the following:

Sudden introduction of "The French offensive plan, Plan XVII ..." in a section that tells us it's about the German invasion of France and Belgium. Huh? Give it some context, preferably from the linked article.
- ~~Unfortunately a number of new entries have been added since the FA nomination. This was one such. I think it's being addressed. RJH~~
  - Doesn't look like it yet. We don't know, from this article, what we know in the Plan XVII article, why the French wanted to capture Alsace back, and how that set them up for the initial success of the Schlieffen Plan. I think right there at the start we could use some explanation of what both sides' ultimate strategic objectives, their plans for winning the war, were. Right now this Plan XVII stuff feels like it's looking for somewhere to go.
    - I fixed it, I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Consistent date format and metric/English. It has "March 10" (my birthday, but so what?) at the beginning of the second graf of "1915 — Stalemate" and then "By 15 May ..." later. It should have the continental style throughout as per the subject matter. Ditto with metric: how many tonnes is "168 tons" equal to? (or 450 tonnes?) Also, "35-4500 yards" without a metric equivalent? The examples are too numerous to list.

- ~~Interestingly the English-language histories from the war were primarily pre-metric. That's probably why you're seeing those units. RJH~~
  - ~~Not a problem, but both English and metric needs to be used.~~
    - Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, believed that although a breakthrough might no longer be possible, the French could be defeated if they suffered enough casualties". Well duh, kill them all or nearly all and they won't have an army anymore ... is that meant to be "would surrender"?
- Falkenhayn's stated goal was to "bleed France white". Yeah it's a no-brainer, but it still needed to be said. I could not definitively state whether a defeated France would have surrendered or resorted to guerilla warfare. RJH
  - I put in "capitulate," which is probably acceptably ambiguous here. But what does submarine warfare directly have to do with winning land battles, BTW? Falkenhayn was Chief of Staff, yes, but if his naval strategy was to complement his land game that should be explained.
    - Okay clarified slightly. I don't think it needs much coverage here. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More wikification. The article as a whole links mainly battles, dates and people. There's a lot more in there (aerial photography, for instance) that should and could be in blue. Three whole grafs in the middle of "1916" have nought but a single footnote.
- ~~Possibly. I've seen people complain about over-wikification of articles, so I focused on the linking the topics that seemed like logical drill-downs.~~
  - ~~It's always a judgement call. I just think there could be more ... it feels a little dry as is.~~
    - Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By grafs I assume you mean paragraphs?
  - Yes. Not zeppelins :-).
- Is there a footnote quota that needs to be met? RJH
  - Every reference that needs it, as always.
    Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Use Hindenburg and Ludendorff's full names on first reference (not at the bottom of "1918"). And spell Hindenburg properly and consistently.~~
- Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The new leaders soon recognized that the battles of Verdun and the Somme had depleted the offensive capabilities of the German army along the western front. They decided that the German army would go over to the strategic defensive for most of 1917 along the western front, while the Central powers would attack elsewhere." Clean this sentence up a bit, as well as most references to "along the western front" unless, as you are here, drawing a distinction between it and theatres elsewhere.
- Your statement seems ambiguous, so I am unclear about what actually needs cleaning up. This paragraph regards the situation on the Western Front in the context of the Central powers' war strategy. So the distinction is needed IMO. RJH
  - ~~Yeah, but can you do the two sentences without repeating "along the western front"? It's a pretty heavy phrase to have to repeat in back-to-back sentences unless you can't avoid it.~~
    - Okay. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The battle had also seen the first massed use of German stosstruppen on the western front ..." I shouldn't have to click on the link to find out what Strostruppen are.~~
- Note added about infiltration tactics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~"By summer 300,000 American soldiers were arriving each month and would reach 2.1 million by November." Bad grammar, clean up.~~
- Fixed I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~As a whole the article is a bit wordy in some places.~~
- Some places? The same could be said of the Gettysburg Address. ;-) What do you consider too wordy? Again it seems like a matter of personal taste and style. RJH
  - I mean it could get phrased more efficiently. I'll try to work on that.
~~Link to the film versions of All Quiet on the Western Front as well.~~
- The linked page covers both. Is that not sufficient? RJH
  - My fault ... didn't scroll down enough and assumed. Still, there should be separate articles.
And why is the second of the huge templates under "External Links?" This is confusing. Would it be possible to put all the links in one big box, or put the second one up near the top? Daniel Case 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be more than happy to see the second big template removed, or "smerged" with the first template. But that's a cross-article issue. A removed template might just get slapped back in at a later date. Thanks for the feedback. :) — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I understand. Daniel Case 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I commented the second template out with a hidden note. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Support. I think it's ready now. Sorry to take such a long time to get back on it. Daniel Case 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Daniel Case raises some good point. The lead is also a bit long, as is the sections (perhaps having a main article for each of them?) In addition, the "External link" section seems badly placed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm leaning a little toward oppose myself now. This semi-chaotic edit/review process is a tad discouraging. :-/

As for the length of the introduction, well I believe the peer review said the old intro was too short. It figures. I'm reasonably satisfied that the introduction is proportionate to the comparable size of this pretty-lengthy article. Thanks. — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issues have been addressed now, I hope. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see some kind of war/battlebox, tweaked of course to be a 'theatrebox' :) And surely more pictures can be added?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but the numbers will remain incomplete unless somebody can find a data source. Most sources cover the entire war, rather than the western front in particular — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fix the length of sections. 1916 and 1917 in particular are a bit too long. --The1exile 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I broke up the sections to make it a little more palatable. But people keep on adding to the article. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caravaggio Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lastovo

Thomas Pynchon

"Smell'd that Smoak, figur'd you'd be needing something to nibble on," the doughty Mrs. W. greets them. (Mason & Dixon, chapter 28)

Partial self-nomination. I wrote big chunks of this, though many of them have been chopped up, rearranged and generally improved since then. (If I listed all the users who made good and important contributions, I'd be sure to slight somebody and forget their name, so I'll just make a blanket acknowledgement here.) I posted this to peer review and got one comment, which I addressed. It is as comprehensive and NPOV as we could make it, and it has enough parenthetical documentation to satisfy even the footnote fetish of a Wikipediphile like myself. Anville 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very good article that I hope to support. I'd like to see the literary-style citations converted to the Cite.php style (see Dixie (song) or Krazy Kat for ideas on how to do this, with the footnotes in one section and the list of references in another). I would also like to see a citation for this sentence: "However, the full Pulitzer panel vetoed their decision, describing the novel as 'unreadable', 'turgid', 'overwritten', and in parts 'obscene'." Andrew Levine 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence is now cited. (I didn't do it, but I should note that it got done.) Anville 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object only for failure to mention the Irwin Corey incident, one of the very few early occasions when Pynchon received mass media attention. Monicasdude 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Support Monicasdude 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I think. Anville 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I didn't realize those were footnotes at first-I never have seem them done like that before, but it works perfectly fine. AndyZ 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) *Object per Andrew Levine's comment - no inline citations, 2(c) of FA criteria. AndyZ 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Harvard referencing is listed as an appropriate style of in-line citation at Wikipedia:Cite sources. It is much "cleaner" than the footnote style, though I agree that there could be some internal and/or external hyperlinking (to online sources) within the body of the text (if that is allowable under Wikipedia conventions). Abaca 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll poke in to agree that the Harvard style references are totally okay. It's a perfectly fine way to meet the requirement for inline citation. Monicadude's objection should be addressed though. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I still prefer the Cite.php and would rather see it used here. Maybe I will add it later. Andrew Levine 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - I would like to see footnotes and inline citations; also, some sections are a bit lengthy. Perhaps breaking them down into sub-section or "main articles"? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I transitioned the article over to the Cite.php methodology, using Krazy Kat as my model. I also expanded the bit about "hypertext fiction", since the article on that topic doesn't really explain why Pynchon matters in that context. (To do it right, we'd need a new article somewhere about "hypertextual literary criticism" or some such, and wading through the lit-crit chaff to find the wheat for that is a little intimidating even for me.) The "Recurring themes" section is now subdivided. I couldn't think of a good way to split any of the others, though since the whole page is only now 34 Kb (including references and notes), I don't think we're at the point where we need sub-articles. Call me when it hits 45 Kb, and we'll talk! :) Anville 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, disregard all that. I really don't want to get into an edit war over what content to include and which reference style to use. When I am less irritated, I will try to work on this in a sensible fashion; for now, I'll just fume quietly. Anville 15:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I'm done fuming; as I expected, after a good night's sleep it all matters less. Feel free to read my rough draft to see how my own stylistic quirks play out. Anville 07:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent article about a major literary figure. I'm not fussed about the citation style issue, just so long as its clear where the information comes from. Lisiate 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The mediawiki citation style, while nice, is not the only acceptable style. This objection is flatly invalid and future objections for this reason will also be flatly ignored. Raul654 07:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Anville 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdrawn, I caught article in middle of bad timing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, though it's close.
- There should be a summary under "Biography" and "Media scrutiny"
- While I have no problem with the idea of using that style of citation, there should be consistency in format and tone (remove stuff like "see, for example"), and I think the external links ought to be moved to the references section
- If the see alsos are linked to elsewhere, they should be removed. If not, they should be.
Tuf-Kat 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a summary paragraph to "Media scrutiny". If anyone else cares to write one for "Biography", they're welcome, although I think that such a paragraph would basically amount to repeating the lead immediately after the lead (not so helpful). I went through the parenthetical citations and adapted them to <span> tags, so that clicking the citation automagically transfers the reader to the appropriate place in the "References" section. (This has the advantage that external links only need to be checked and fixed in one place; it also makes the citations look more uniform.) I removed a few extraneous "see" and "see also" particles and generally tried to make the referencing consistent. However, I think the "for example" with regard to the Nobel Prize comment should stay, since in that case, the comment being referenced is one repeated by many, many sources. The article provides three sources, marginally more distinguished than the rest, out of the great mass all saying the same thing.

According to the Citations style guide, it is appropriate to keep external links and whatnot which pertain to the topic and may be of interest but which have not been used as specific sources in a section entitled "Further reading" or "External links".

Finally, I worked the bullet points in the "See also" section into the text, and removed the section. Anville 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Technical question re. referencing. Is there a way to create a "[back]" command at the end of each footnote which returns you to the point in the text you were at, instead of having to scroll down again from the top? Abaca 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not aware of a way to do this; at least, I haven't seen it done on any other article. I suppose one could the same system in reverse: put <span> tags in the article text and use wikilinks like [[#note_1|back to note 1]] in the References section. The trouble is that we use some sources (like Royster 2005) more than once. Cite.php has facilities for handling this, but I don't know how to work it out in Harvard style. Hitting the "back" button in one's browser is probably simpler, and as far as I know it works for everybody. Anville 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persian Empire Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago, Illinois

Wayne Gretzky

This is one of the finest articles produced by WP:HOCKEY. It is a solid, stable piece of work with good references and NPOV and I think it would be a great example of Wikipedia's work in sports. edit: I suppose it's a self-nom; I've edited it a few times in the past. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! For starters, though, the introduction should probably be closer to three paragraphs, given the length of the article. The first para is good; you might follow it with something like "Seen as a hockey prodigy at an early age, Gretzky made his professional debut in X and went on to win an unprecedented number of etc.," then in the last paragraph, "After retiring from pro hockey in YEAR, G went on to a career as a WHATEVER." That kind of thing. Kaisershatner 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a longer intro. Thanks for the suggestions! RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I think it is a good article, but it needs some work to bring it up to FA status.

The sections need to be made more even in length. Perhaps some of the very short sections could be merged? Likewise, the "NHL career" paragraph could do with another sentence or two in the introduction explaining how he found himself in the NHL after the WHA. The WHA and early years sections could probably be merged.
It needs thorough copyediting. Some sentences are awkward, and although you can usually extract what they mean, it doesn't feel like the most lucid prose. For example, in the WHA section, the sentence with "...liquidated..." is unclear. You'd assume his "greatest asset" is Gretzky, but you don't know until the next sentence. The remainder of the article seems to have similar problems. Perhaps you could rope an outside editor into doing some copyediting?
Needs more thorough referencing.
Some of the list information could maybe be incorporated in a better way. I don't really think the "stats and facts" or "quotations" trivia sections belong in an encyclopedia article, especially one that is already quite long – maybe this information can be incorporated into the main stream of the text? As for the career statistics and awards section, I don't know. They interrupt the flow of the text, but they are important. The stats sections is too big to be in a sidebar, but perhaps the awards section? Can't it be merged with honours and accolades? In fact, can't NHL records, awards, honours and accolades all go in one big section?

Again, I think this is a good article about an important subject, but it needs a little more work to make it to FA status. –Joke 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I've done a pile of copyediting and added referencing with a Notes section as Coffeeboy suggested below. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved. I still have some lingering concerns.

Some statements in the off the ice section need to be referenced, as does the assertion that his presence on the Kings was partly responsible for the expansion of hockey in the US sun belt.
The post-retirement section needs something after the header, and some of the little sections seem a little short to me. Maybe this section could be reorganized to help the prose flow better, without the aid of so many headers? Maybe one long(er) section could cover the Winter Olympics, starting with the disappointment as a player in '98, '02 and now '06.

If these things are cleared up, I will support. –Joke 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the post-retirement stuff and referenced what I could from the off the ice section. I removed the Tim Horton's reference as (on further research) I couldn't find anything to support it. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably people with nits to pick could polish the grammar and improve the referencing, but I'm happy. (Who puts so much sugar and cream in their coffee, anyways?) –Joke 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose overall agree with the above, and a distinct lack of inline citations.Coffeeboy 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I performed a major overhaul on the article, including merging most of the sections into chronological order, removing information that was duplicated in the Wayne Gretzky's records article. I also added inline citations, but looking at several other FAs I found that many of them don't use inline citations. That said, I prefer the citations inline anyway, so they're there. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 19:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it looks significantly better, but the inline citations go to the web, I think it would be better if they worked like this article: Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Coffeeboy 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made them all ref/note templates. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there is some minor room for improvement, but overall I think its good enough for featured article status. Croat Canuck 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
- This sentence needs two improvements: "'The Trade,' as it came to be known, upset Canadians to the extent that one lawmaker demanded the government block it, and Pocklington was burned in effigy." First, why is the "lawmaker" not named? Are we talking about a member of the Canadian Parliament? If so, who? And was this politician joking? Second, there is no citation for the "burning Pocklington in effigy," and no indication of who did this (Hundreds of hockey fans across Canada? Or just one?)
- ~~All the fair-use images need fair-use rationales.~~
- "He hosted Saturday Night Live in 1989, though this re-enforced the notion among the public that he had better not quit his day job to pursue an acting career." POV uncited assessment of his acting skills.
- ~~The last three entries in the "Quotations" sections are uncited.~~
- Andrew Levine 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as the "Quotations" section needs to go. That's what Wikiquote is for. Tuf-Kat 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed quotations, made "The Trade" sentence clearer, added citations, removed the POV stuff about his acting. I'm working on fair-use rationales. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Sort of oppose for now. First, this is a great chronological over-view and is certainly close. But I think it needs a paragraph describing his playing style. "The greatest play-maker that ever was or ever will be (Hallelujah!)" comes to mind ;). More seriously, you could have a topic sentence on "skill set": puck handling, speed, behind the net play, angles and maybe work in other players (Kurri as finisher, McSorley as enforcer) etc. This might actually go after NHL career as a kind of summative thing.

~~Also, "...is still ruefully and vividly remembered by many Canadian fans" and anything else that makes reference to an "unqualified present" should go or be reformulated.~~

~~Marskell 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Assembled a "skills" section, removed that sentence, and added refs for all. Oh, and fair-use rationales are added as well. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The skills were actually removed and I restored them. Also did a copyedit. It's around 50k but much of it is taken up with records and what not. No other outstanding objections. Good job! Marskell 08:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my objections have been adressed. Andrew Levine 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hope you can keep the article to FA standards with the recent events. Gflores ^Talk 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1/2*Support. Though I support featuring this article, I think it should wait, there is currently new information being inputted into the article. When FBI investigation into the gambling scandal is over, then we can feature it. Pseudoanonymous 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's actually the New Jersey State Police. It's been all over the local news in Jersey lately :) RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor objections - the note at the bottom for the infobox could be formatted a bit clearer; it took me a while to figure out where that note was pointing to. Also, agree with above that we could wait until he and his wife are out of the news. Finally, I don't like the listing of his entire career statistics - perhaps moving those to another article? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great article, --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We should keep it off the main-page until the business with the gambling is done, but I see no reason not to feature it in the meantime. Marskell 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Previously submitted, not a self-nom. Archived here, nice front page article --PopUpPirate 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Mac Davis ☢ ญƛ. 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the internet sites used as references need to be cited correctly. AndyZ 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Will nosey when I've had some kip, cheers --PopUpPirate 00:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- References fixed. --PopUpPirate 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ingoolemo, article can still be improved. But much better than last nom; new media section w/video, reworked references, arrangement is better, some new writing... --Duk 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed) ~~article needs some work, some rough spots. For example see the Design section, almost nothing there, AND SINCE WHEN DO WE WRITE ARTICLES IN ALL CAPS? Some of the references are dead links.~~ --Duk 11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Capitals fixed, references fixed. --PopUpPirate 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Design section reworked, must say it looks better now! --PopUpPirate 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phew, I thought I had missed the page on FAC again. Thankfully, this is not the case. It looks good, I like the reformatting and the page content. Good job! TomStar81 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I submitted it last time, glad to see more supports this time around. I will also point out this FAC on WP:Air, may as well advertise it. --The1exile 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Australian controversy receives too much undue attention—which was noted in the last FAC. Also, this article still needs a bit of polishing, though those details aren't sufficient to make or break the promotion. Nevertheless, it's a very impressive article. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, fixed --PopUpPirate 08:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article still needs some polishing, but not enough to stop its promotion to Featured status. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - the design section begins with a list, which is unacceptable. Also, that section consists of a big chunk of text and then one relatively short subsection; couldn't this be fixed? In addition, I'd like to see more in-line notes for the specifications you provide for the plane. Finally, the "Armament" section could also be changed to prose, instead of using a bulleted list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All your base are belong to us Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narcissistic personality disorder

2003 UB313

A comprehensive article on a complex subject. It is not easy to write such thorough article on an astronomical object but editors of this article have done reasonably well, in my opinion. --BorgQueen 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this page since a few hours after 2003UB313 was discovered, and was thinking of nominating it here myself soon - however, I don't think it's quite ready yet. It has been subject to a lot of edits in the last few days following an announcement about HST observations, and I think it needs a thorough working over to ensure that the style is uniform, particularly with regard to citations (something I was planning to do myself some day very soon). The lead is also too long at the moment and there are also some display issues with images covering text on my screen. Worldtraveller 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but may be one or several inline citations are needed. Brandmeister 10:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pros:
extremely informative (complete that is). Really useful article.
I loved the comparative picture with UB313 with objects from Ceres to the moon, which is fairly informative on the object's size. A picture is more valuable than a thousand words.

But:

I would like a picture with the orbit of UB 313; it should have the year and distance in AU in the perihelion and the aphelion of the orbit, for information purposes; the current position would also be nice. The current picture is not that informative, it just presents the current position of the object in relation to the orbit of the other planets, it is rather cool, but not great. One like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pluto_system.jpg (I'm talking about the style of the pic, not about the moon).
Subsections would be nice, not in the external links, but isolating the article's information more properly.
For what I've read it (currently) does not have the serious issues of the Pluto article, with excessive discussion on the object status and little focus on the object itself.

The bad of this article (The UB 313 one) is its style. It is currently an excellent warehouse full information. It has very good and useful references, so it does not need more inline citations or any other things like that. But I think that the information should be kept in one piece. So, I'm neutral for now. --Pedro 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - no inline citations, too many external links embedded in article hampering readability. Lead is too long per WP:LEAD. Other than that, it is okay- I especially like the animation. AndyZ 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - lead is way too long, distracting image at left, and cites (external links) need to be done better. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

This is a comprehensive article about an excellent reference source (check any Star Trek-related page and you'll get a link to it). It's been worked on by many people, and I suppose it's a partial self-nom since I've put some work into it. It had a peer review; the only suggestion not acted upon was that of a "criticisms" or "controversy" section, because there haven't really been any significant issues for the website. There is coverage of the fact that people don't always agree about FAs and what to include, however. It's also up-to-date with current developments on the website without sounding fannish. Jibbajabba 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose:

- "Because this license does not allow commercial reuse, it is incompatible with the GFDL, and material from the site cannot be copied into projects that use the GFDL. [...] Also, because Wikicities (the Wikia project which hosts Memory Alpha) is based on the GFDL license, Memory Alpha is officially considered a "sister project." This appears to be self-contradictory.
- "While the integrity of articles on Memory Alpha is generally high..." POV statement.
- Picture of Avery Brooks needs a fair use rationale. One might even argue that it does not significantly add to the article and can be removed.
- "However, please do not spam or solicit Mr. Sussman. He is a part of Memory Alpha because of his love for Star Trek, so his presence should be considered unofficial." This sort of language does not belong in a Wikipedia article.
- Andrew Levine 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the integrity statement and Sussman language, but I'm not sure about the other things you brought up. When I read the bit about Wikicities, it makes sense: CC and GFDL are incompatible, and therefore it's a sister project. The picture's fair use rationale is that it adds to the article(?) and is only one picture so is used for review purposes. Sorry, I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia practices in this matter, but I guess it can be removed if need be. Jibbajabba 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified that sentence by changing a few words around. Andrew Levine 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. Pending any possible questions about the Sisko image, it's great. Narco 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment - various language and phrasing concerns:
- however, the project moved forward undaunted - sounds like a fan review rather than an encyclopaedia article.
- has gained considerable notoriety - the example given here is very far from showing how the site could be considered notorious.
- The following month, it was the "Featured Wiki" on the Wikicities site - is that really notable enough to be included?
- The launch schedule of Memory Alpha's international versions is as follows - list should be converted to prose.
- Several aspects of Memory Alpha set it apart from other wikis, one of which is its method of citing sources - seems an odd way of putting it as most wikis have no method of citing sources at all. This paragraph seems like a very lengthy way of saying what could be said in just a couple of sentences.
- In place of a "Today's Featured Article" section, the site has an "Article of the Week", as there are a limited number of topics on which to write. - this sentence seems superfluous. Why should whether it's weekly, hourly, monthly or whatever be worth remarking on?
- A peer review process was the most significant - the internal processes do not seem that significant to me.
- In this way, Memory Alpha remains all-inclusive while clearly distinguishing canon from apocrypha - looks POV, and contradicts earlier statements about grey areas.
- First paragraph of current issues seems like a very inconcise description of limited interest to people who aren't users of the site. I think it should be shortened drastically.
- Are there any mentions of this site in printed media? Without referring to them the article doesn't really establish the notability of the site. I don't think that entirely citing the article from articles on a single wiki is up to the standards required by WP:V.
- For comprehensiveness, some sort of indication of how widely used the site is, how reviewers have compared it to previous reference works, whether it's seen as authoritative etc is needed, as at the moment all the article is is a detailed description of the site itself. Worldtraveller 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your feedback, as I too am relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia compared to the people who regularly vote here. I wish we'd had that kind of feedback for the peer review, but c'est la vie. FACs understandably receive more attention and scrutiny. I will try to work on it within the next few hours. For the record, it cites multiple sources (the SciFi Channel newsletter and Ex Astris Scientia links are provided in the Notes section), but more such things would be nice I suppose. Narco 02:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some tweaking, which addressed some of the concerns raised. Not sure if I trimmed the FA criteria paragraph in the "current issues" section too much though. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. I added Alexa information, the other stuff looks like its fixed cuz I don't se it. Darkildor 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Darkildor. --Jelligraze 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it has everything it needs now. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --MatthewFenton 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Majorthomme 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great job guys, I didn't think there was that much to write about MA. --Schrei 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is really very good. Carioca 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a very good summary of a site I often frequent and administrate. Of course this support is heavily-POV.--Tim Thomason 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor objections - good article, but I get the impression that the lead seems to focus on Wikipedia, something that is reinforced by the note in the refs section. (Of course all web pages can change, but we don't put a note like that on every website ref we have.) In addition, the infobox and the lead says that it is an encyclopedia, with no citation provided. Can a cite be provided for that? (A site saying that it is an encyclopedia doesn't make it so.) Otherwise, I'd be happy to support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I took out the reference to Wikipedia in both the lead and note, but I must disagree with the comment about normal websites. Wikis are unique in that one can hypothetically put anything one wants to, so if it happens that a page has been vandalized when the user views it, that reflects poorly on Wikipedia unless we warn them. As for the encyclopedia claim, i think any citation I add would be based on MA's claim that it's an encyclopedia, so to match the language used in the article, I changed encyclopedia to reference. Hopefully that takes care of everything. :) --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I'd like to see some more images in the article, but that is a minor observation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue given the earlier objection about image copyright status. The site is devoted to Star Trek, a copyrighted franchise, so I don't think there's much we can do. The same goes for the below observation about the length of the article: Can I think of anything to add? Sure. Would any of you care to read it (someone mentioned minutiae of the site's inner workings not being significant to the average reader)? Probably not. --Schrei 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor object. Online references should list 'last accessed on'. More inline references would be nice, and the article seems kind of short - but those are not objections, just comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phil Collins Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Special relativity Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cantinflas

Sydney Newman

Self-nomination. This article has existed on Wikipedia since 2003, but in November last year I rebuilt it from the ground up and have been refining it since then. I'm pretty pleased with it (but then, that's what they all say). I put it on peer review on Monday, but it just sat there receiving no replies, so after enquiring on the FAC talk page I decided to move it here rather than keep it hanging around on PR. Despite the lack of response at peer review, I did specifically ask a couple of users, User:Bodnotbod and User:Josiah Rowe, to look at it for me, and they both seemed to think it was pretty good, so I thought it was probably good enough to nominate it now. Angmering 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-constructed article. Essexmutant 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks comprehensive and pretty well-written. I will, however, note that ending the entire article with a quote is bad form, IMO. Tuf-Kat 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments to Angmering on his talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SupportMild object. I changed the references to notes with numbers since the footnotes in the text create numbers. This will make it easier on the reader. My only other concern is that there are several red wiki links in the article (at least 8). Can these be removed or can articles be created for them? Rlevse 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that featuring redlinks was a factor against FAs, but I can certainly create decent stubs for most of them and remove any that seem less likely to deserve or ever get articles. Angmering 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are now no redlinks in the article. Angmering 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's acutally buried in a sublink off the FA criteria page about linking. A few are okay, but too many don't look good. Thanks for fixing it, I changed my vote. Rlevse 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - comprehensive and well-referenced. —Whouk (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Whouk. Ardenn 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good. A few of the sections are a bit long, though: perhaps sub-sections or main article? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just browsing through some of the already featured biographies, and I can't say it looks to me as though the section lengths here are wildly out of preportion? Angmering 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn

Self-nom: An interesting and significant subject, IMO. I've done a bit of work on this; after a very productive peer review, I think this is about ready for FAC. All comments welcome. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comments -- climate? why have you used a non existing category? The image sizes can be increased to about 250px. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Good idea about a climate section; added one. Fixed the non-existant cat (minor typo). Thumbnail sizes should not be specified in an article, as doing this overrides user preferences, and if the user has set a preferred thumbnail size then we have no right to override it. (I made an exception here for the lead pic; comments on this are welcome.) If you want larger thumbnails, see your prefs under "Files". — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realise that it was thumbed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just found some more info and expanded "Climate" further. — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support – 1. metric equivalent of 400 miles needed 2. Strait of Le Maire is the only red link. Creating the article would give a more professional touch to the page. 3. Anything on demographics (if possible)? population/density etc. 4. Pamir was the last commercial sailing ship to round Cape Horn laden with cargo. When? 5. A brief sentence on the etymology should be present in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments:

Done.
Done (Le Maire Strait).
Clarified this: "... the navy supports a lighthouse keeper and his family (the only residents of the island)".
Fixed.
I've added that quite briefly in the first sentence; thought about adding more, but this seems to cover it — what do you think?

— Johan the Ghost _seance 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object (Criterion 2a) The lead doesn't fill me with confidence.

It has improved. Tony 13:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn (Dutch: Kaap Hoorn; Spanish: Cabo de Hornos; named for the Dutch city of Hoorn) is a headland at the southern tip of the South American continental shelf, and, as part of the territory of Chile, is widely considered to be the southernmost point of land in South America. The cape is the southernmost of the great capes, and marks the northern boundary of the Drake Passage; it was for many years a major milestone on the clipper route, by which sailing ships carried trade around the world. However, Cape Horn is notorious for particularly hazardous conditions, due to strong winds, large waves, and icebergs, and became notorious as a sailors' graveyard.

- 'as part of'—sounds as though because it's part of Chile, it's the southernmost point.
- 'point of land in'—why not 'tip of'?
- 'southernmost' twice in two phrases.
- 'it was for many years'—awkward word order.
- 'and became'—awkward as the final item in that 'listing' sentence. It's because of the strong winds, etc, that it became a graveyard—make the causal connection clear; a chronological item would be good here, too (during the 17th and 19th centuries?).

The whole article needs serious word-work. Tony 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed all the above, and tried to better present the cape's slightly ambiguous status. I've also gone over the whole thing to work on the language. Funny how you can't see those awkward word formations when you've worked on an article — I re-read it like 20 times before FAC, but someone else points them out and they look horrible. — Johan the Ghost _seance 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've pointed out a critical phenomenon for writers and editors. Put away a text for a week and read it afresh; print it out instead of editing on the monitor; or get someone else to look at it—these are all ways of achieving distance from the original writing process. This distance (I call it 'functional ignorance') promotes good writing. See if you can invoke the third method here, by having someone else highlight the bits that need work. Tony 03:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had a peer review... do you have further comments on the article? — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... sorry, but peer reviews are irrelevant here. Tony 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't have a clue what you're saying. Peer reviews are part of the FAC process. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess that's not true any more, since "Path to a Featured Article" has gone. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're "object", but I think I've addressed all your comments. Do you have any further comments? — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ (Leaning toward support; a pretty ship-shape article by and large):
- The sentence "The Horn (as it is commonly known to sailors) is widely considered to be the southernmost point of South America; as such it is not a true cape, however, as it is actually situated on a small island, Hoorn Island (Isla Hornos), which is the southernmost of the Hermite Islands" needs help in a bad way.
  - Morphine and amputation administered. — Johan the Ghost _seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I still can't quite make heads or tails out of "The cape is widely considered to be the southernmost point of South America; as such it is not a true cape, however, as it is actually situated on a small island, Hoorn Island (Isla Hornos), which is the most southerly of the Hermite Islands." The "as such" makes it sound like it's not a "true cape" because it is widely considered to be the southernmost point; it might also help if I was told what a "true cape" is: I have no idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry about that, I think it's clearer now. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The "Shipping hazards" section would benefit from an explanation to the layman of which direction a westerly wind blows.~~
  - Already done (as you were typing this ;-). — Johan the Ghost _seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Reading the article almost made me believe no east-to-west passages of the Horn were ever made, but I don't think that's true, even for sailboats...~~
  - I've added an explanatory comment to the hazards bit. See clipper route#Variations for a story about that, if you're interested. — Johan the Ghost _seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Would it be worth having a separate discussion of sailing vessels vs. motorized vessels, as far as the navigational challenges of the passage go?~~
  - I've no real info on that; many of the issues are common, however. Big waves is the core issue (caused by the combination of the basic waves of the south, winds, shoaling, narrowing, and currents), and no ships like big waves. — Johan the Ghost _seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm - but if the winds blew true from the west for a sustained period, a sailing vessel (at least an old square-rigger) could make no real progress, or so I gather from too much Patrick O'Brian. But this isn't a big deal; my objection isn't going to stand on this.
      - I've expanded Hazards to talk about this (ie. a major problem for sail), and added a ref. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~A couple sections peter out with one-sentence paragraphs.~~
  - Fixed, I think. — Johan the Ghost _seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes to web pages should list authors and dates where possible; listing the date the page was last retrieved is also customary (in case the site goes down or changes significantly, having the date helps with looking it up on internet archives sites).
  - I've added authors and dates where I could find them. As for "the date the page was last retrieved", I've not seen this requirement anywhere, and I've never seen it done, so I have no idea what format that would be in. Where is this requirement documented? Got any examples? — Johan the Ghost _seance 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess it's not a requirement. Examples at Butter, say. ((Web reference)) does this as well.
      - Well, I checked them all this morning, so it's an easy copy-paste. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I notice you put the ESPN show in. I originally had this, then deleted it, because as far as I can see it has no relevance — "around the horn" in basketball seems to refer to going around the goal-post, or something. Do you have a reference that makes it relevant to Cape Horn, or shall I delete it? — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, I thought it was obvious that the term was derived eventually from Cape Horn, but if you find that to be unsupportable, by all means remove it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could well be that it is derived that way, but without some info about how that worked, it just didn't seem to add much. Basically if someone asked me what it was about, I wouldn't know what to say. — Johan the Ghost _seance 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objections fixed; Support. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Johan the Ghost _seance 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets all criteria. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}10:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like a solid article to me, although I don't know enough about the topic to fully vet it. Object Sorry for being later in the process on this. Overall, I found the article good: informative, easy to read. ~~But, the Literature and Culture section raised flags. Here, the coverage seems extremely superficial and arbitrary. A choice was made to include the section, so it should be done well.~~

Discussion of literature incomplete Things like Mutiny on the Bounty, Two Years Before the Mast, Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle and other interesting old and contemporary literature are not mentioned. Also, movies and the like. This doesn't have to get out of control, just some of the most notable titles would suffice (IMO).

Thanks for the comments, which I found constructive and helpful. However, I can only put in what I have information on; I've added a note on Two Years Before the Mast, but I have no idea about the relevance of the others — OK, the Bounty went around the Horn, but does the book have anything significant to say about it? If anyone has any info on these books, please feel free to add it. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The specifics were just suggestions, but I think the section is better filled out now and can be added to. For Bounty, I believe a significant part of the trip/story was failure to get around the Horn. I'll add it if I ever confirm. I added a Darwin paragraph, which may seem long, and represents only a tiny part of the book, but it is a great description and in the context of sailing at that time, and seems to fit nicely overall... --Tsavage 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that really helps. Inspired, I've done the same with Dana. I'll look for something good in Moitessier, which I have at home. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence is trivial and unsupported - Closing on that was kind of a letdown. This stuff belongs in a trivia section, and must be supported, else practically anything with "horn" in it could be attributed to Cape Horn. For all it contributes, even with support, it should probably be deleted unless/until a comprehensive Trivia section is constructed. In an FA, it is a negative. (I leave it to the currently presiding editor to decide for now...)

Agreed, it's toast. (What's a "presiding editor"?) — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made that up just for you... --Tsavage 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two smaller points:

"Contemporary weather records for Ushuaia show" - location needs clarification In climate, after reading a para about conditions as recorded in the 1800s, Ushuaia suddenly comes up. This interrupted the flow, because presumably from the use of ancient recrods, getting true conditions for Cape Horn is difficult, so I immediately wanted to know how closely or not Ushuaia related...

Clarified the locations of the other weather stations. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~In literature, single-handed sailing is mentioned - the first to succeed should be mentioned~~ ~~Having introduced the idea of small craft doing this on their own, more info seems missing when it's not there.~~

I've added the first single-handed circumnavigation under Recreational — what else? — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: The first sailor who really conquered the great Cape Horn was Connor O'Brien, who rounded it with three friends on board the 42 footer "Saoirse", during the circumnavigation between 1923 and 1925 becoming the first cap hornier in the history of sailing.[2] You may want to include it if sources check out. --Tsavage 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks — I knew about O'Brien but had lost the reference (and it was in the article all along!). I've added that. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'd make the changes, even to literature, if I had more than passing knowledge. Thanks. --Tsavage 11:46, 12 February 2006(UTC)

Thanks again for your contribution. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor objection - great read, but I, too, would also like to see the literature section expanded. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above; feel free to chip in. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does it look now (see new comments above)? — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With the Moitessier text, I think it's now rounded off rather nicely. What do you think? — Johan the Ghost _seance 18:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great! It still could be improved, but I'll support. Flcelloguy (A note?)

weak oppose the references are weirds. there are footnotes in a "Reference" sections, but no "Sources" section collating all the paper references. Also, books that are used as sources need not be in "Further readings". Circeus 19:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style (headings) says that the section for sources is titled "References", not "Sources", and that's what I've done. The "footnotes" in the "References" section are all the sources for the article; these are formatted in "footnote" style, which seems to be the preferred style, as per WP:CITE. Why would the paper references be collated separately? Several of the references (eg. The Circumnavigators, by Don Holm) are both paper and electronic. As for the "Further reading" section, the books in there were not used as sources, or else they would have been in the "References" section. They are listed for further reading for anyone who's interested. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

says that the section for sources is titled "References", not "Sources", still, many current FA uses "sources", though that doesn' make much difference, I admit. It does allow a separation between "major", and "other" sources, though.

Why would the paper references be collated separately? What I see is a "references" section containing footnotes, no "references" or "sources" section and a "further reading" section that i expect to contain books that were not used to write the article. I expect that if a book is mentionned in the footnotes, it should amongst the references too. the main sources of my confusion is that the Dallas book is in both sections. (Oh god I'm making absolutely no sense -_-;;;;)

Extra comment: Would you mind much a conversion to <ref>s? (I can do it myself). It'd allow for easy concatenation of the multiple identical references.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) (due to format typo)

Hi, thanks for the response.

Not sure what you mean by "major" and "other" sources; I've simply cited every source I used. Anyhow, the fact that other articles use "Sources" isn't a reason for me to break MoS.

See Scotland in the High Middle Ages for an (extreme, I admit, it's the first that come my mind) exampleof what I meant. Circeus 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your second comment. You're quite right about the Dallas book being in both sections; that was my mistake, and it's now fixed — sorry for the confusion. The "References" section right now does not contain footnotes. It contains references, formatted in "footnote" style, which is in line with the WP:CITE part of the Manual of Style. The "Further reading" section contains exactly what you said; books that were not used to write the article.
As for <ref>, I've only just found out about it — I guess it's new. I'll get to work on the conversion when time allows, since it's obviously the best way to do this.

It's not necessarily the best way to do it. Though it has it's advantage over the template-based methods,it has disadvantages of its own, notably in how you must hunt down the note within the article to change it (having been doing conversions today and yesterday, I assure you it can be a real pain). The easy concatenation is a prime advantage, though. Circeus 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it to <ref> references. (The template method was a right frig, because it relied on two independent numbering systems coincidentally producing the same numbers; so it was very fragile. I therefore really like ref; at least all the information is in one place, which is where it is used.) — Johan the Ghost _seance 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks great. Circeus 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noel Gallagher

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers is a controversial science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about powered armor warfare from an infantryman's perspective. The book has always been a personal favorite of mine, so this is a self-nom. I unsuccessfully nominated this article for FA status at the beginning of February. Since then, the article has been extensively rewritten and received a thorough Peer Review. Several other editors and I have spent a lot of time copyediting and cleaning up this article. To be perfectly honest, there isn't much more we can do on our own. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it. Thanks again.

Nominate and support. - Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are two objections which I anticipate, so here are my pre-emptive responses. First, copyediting: this article failed last time because it had not been properly edited. However, we have made a good-faith effort to make this article presentable and would appreciate a little slack. If there are any glaring errors, let us know and we'll fix them immediately. Second, the book covers: though several users have expressed some concern about the number used, no one has lodged any formal objections and we are confident that they capture the spirit of the novel. Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. As I brought up on the talk page, this article has WP:NOR problems. The entire "Comparisons to Heinlein's other works" section is basically literary analysis by a Wikipedian editor, as is the sentence Since Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans. We're arguing that certain critics are wrong, and "drawing conclusions" (in the words of a Talk page contributor) that are not only not verifiable, but, in fact, a creation of our own new analysis. We don't get to make judgement calls about whether reviewers and critics are right or wrong in their interpretations, and we don't get to originate our own. Jkelly 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Striking objection, but not supporting until examining image question in more detail. Jkelly 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

As I explained on the talk page, I disagree.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, this NOR policy needs to be handled a little bit more flexibly than many editors seems to want to contemplate. Is not the process of finding and including "reviewers and critics" comments original research of it's own type. I understand the policy aim, but we need to avoid being too "slavish" about it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very different thing to cite the opinions of named, reputed critics and to include such analysis in the article without attribution. Andrew Levine 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was quite what I was saying. All references to reviewers and critics shoudl be properly referenced. Quite agree. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it's not "original research" to gather such opinions. Andrew Levine 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page, it sounds like there is no source for the specific passage mentioned there. Unless a published source has promulgated this idea, it is original research that has to be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the passage in question. Palm_Dogg 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still miss anything about the various comic books based on the novel. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I threw in a line about the comics under Adaptations. Palm_Dogg 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a current comic book series based on the book, by a company called Markosia.[3] --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I have never actually read this selection, even though it has always been one of those i knew i should; but having said that, I found the article rather long winded and much too analytical to really be NPOV. Overall the article is very informative, but much too in-depth; if you want to have this sort of analysis, you could probably add an external link to another site that has done such a thing, but this isn't really the place; this article needs to be stripped down to the facts. (eg. Johnny then went to the river with his mother; and this represents his freudian blah blah blah. SHOULD be simply: Johnny went to the river with his mother.)
- Could you be a little more specific? You're not giving me much to work with :). Were there any particular areas that you think could/should be trimmed down? Palm_Dogg 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's good; however, shouldn't there be some sort of symbolism section? But it doesn't really matter becuase it explores far more themes thanthe symbolism. Hillhead15 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Too many fair-use images. Most of those book covers are being used for decorative purposes only, which isn't permitted under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Carnildo 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed two of the images and added detailed captions to the rest. Palm_Dogg 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've added captions describing the covers, not commenting on the covers. There's a difference between the two, and that is what determines if the images are being used to illustrate the article, or are merely being used to decorate it. --Carnildo 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Until some sort of consensus can be reached, I have removed all but three covers. This nomination is about the article, not the images. Palm_Dogg 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this article is pretty comprehensive about the subject. BlueShirts 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding article - Check-Six 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cautiously Support Although I love Heinlein and really think more people should be exposed to his work, I have a few reservations as to the suitability of this article for featured article status, given its at times technical/specific nature. Also, very very minor detail, the aliens are sometimes referred to as the Bugs and at other times as the Arachnids, with no statement that I saw saying these terms are synonymous. In the end, I support given how well reaserched and written the article is. Nicolasdz 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tossed in a line at the beginning of "Plot" about the terms being synonymous. Palm_Dogg 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Valley Lake

This is a renomination. The article has had a peer review. The previous nomination did not receive many comments & the minor issues raised have been dealt with . It has been listed as a good page. The lake is a site of Special scientific interest and also a centre for leisure activities and hopefully the article reflects the history, ecology and uses. I hope the article reflects the lake and feel it meets the criteria for Featured Article Status. Rod 19:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a great article from a ecology/geology perspective, but the history section could use some work. Good job on the references and external links, though, and in general I support the nomination. Ryan McDaniel 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. - If some of the single sentence sections in the ecology section are merged to create a longer, more unified section, I will support. Other than that, a very good article, with excellent pictures. RyanGerbil10 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why are there two spaces between "Ecology" and "Leisure use"? Also, the lead paragraph looks a bit too long- I would suggest breaking it into 2 separate paragraphs. AndyZ 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the two spaces there (as the edit notes) to force the "Leisure use" header to appear left-justified (otherwise it gets forced right by the picture). It's a kludge, I admit. Ryan McDaniel 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've broken up the over-long lead, and I would support FA status as the article stands. jimfbleak 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've read through the article, it seems to be well-written and informative. Good use of pictures, references, helpful external links. No obvious shortcomings. (That "Leisure use" heading is a bit annoying but it's not really a problem with the article content) – Gurch 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators response - I've made a few minor changes and additions to try to address some of the issues raised. Minor additions to history section (but not sure what else is wanted here), minor additions to ecology section to overcome the issue with the image & section break. Rod 09:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article has clearly benefitted from a lot of hard work. It reads well, is comprehensive, and is well supported by external references. It surely deserves to become a featured article, the Wikipedia community should be proud of it. Chris Jefferies 13:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - nicely written, seems to cover everything I could expect. Grinner 13:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good, well-written article, which, most importantly, taught me new and interesting things. — Grstain 18:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any reason why english units get precedence over metric units? Isn't this article about a place in a country that primarily uses the metric system? Maybe I'm just confused... --Spangineer (háblame) 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse. "Customary" units are not provided throughout. And in listing the size of the lake one sentence says "the largest artificial lake in south-west England (835,000 m²)." while further into the article, we get "When this artificial lake was built in the 1950s, its 1,200 acres (4.9 km²) were flooded". But 835,000 m² is only 206 acres or (0.8 km²). Rmhermen 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it shrunk over the years... who knows =). I object until this gets worked out. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators response - I think these errors of size/volume have crept in because I've taken stuff from various sources & one may relate to the area of water & another to the land that was purchased for the creation of the lake - I will go back to the source documents & try to resolve this. As far as units go I think acres are still the most common unit here, but I agree consistency is important & will try to resolve this. Rod 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators further response I have found several sources for the figure of 1,200 acres (4.9 km²) including the owners Bristol Water and can't find any source for the figure of (835,000 m²) therefore I have changed the lead paragraph. What "Customary" units should I be using? Rod 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 or 5 uses of km without miles. The other is the use of imperial gallons and cubic meters, neither of which are used in the U.S. (but who really wants to see acre-foot). Rmhermen 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acre-foot certainly makes no sense, this unit isn't used in the UK as far as I know. Water volumes here are conventionally quoted as so many million gallons (Imperial ones of course, not US gallons). Cubic metres (not meters :-) might be a good choice. What a fine muddle we get into over units! Chris Jefferies 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you see that you are giving British English readers two ways to understand the volume but giving American English readers zero. That doesn't seem right. Rmhermen 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators response I have found 4 occurances of km without miles & added miles to all in a consistent format ie X miles (X km) Rod 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support An article like this can always be expanded and improved, but I think it's of high enough quality for FA status. SP-KP 14:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Hugo Chávez Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Native Americans in the United States[reply]

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

While I have been working on other articles, the BRSM article has had a grammr, spelling and link check. There could be some links that could be dead, so I will use the way-back machine to see if I can get those back to life. I also wonder that, for this short article, if the photos are an overkill or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You are doing a great job, Z! You definitely deserve some Belarusian medal :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment- Lead needs to be expanded. AndyZ 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded. Is there anything that I am missing? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good- I'm used to seeing FAs with 2 paragraph leads per Wikipedia:Lead section, but since this article only contains about 11,000 characters, a 1 paragraph lead is sufficient. AndyZ 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do admit that this is a short article, but there was little I can find about the organization, either due to my lack of knowledge with Russian or due to most of the websites I found are being critical of the BRSM. There are still some figures I am missing, such as membership data, so perhap if some folks who can read the BRSM website and find out these details for me, that will be very helpful. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - What about "instill the group's moral values"? What moral values (especially since there is a lot about criticism of the group) were being instilled? AndyZ 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Another note, in the lead it says that some of the activities were "camping, sporting events and visiting memorials". Since the lead should be an overview, these (and others) should be explained in the Activities section. AndyZ 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The moral values, I did not expand on, since I have no clue what specific moral values the group instills, and what one considers "moral values" is different from the person to my front, to my rear, to my left and to my right. I expanded about the sporting events and memorial visits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 20:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I can see what you are trying to point out- still though, "moral values" must mean something to the group as a whole. We aren't talking about individual moral values but of the group, so there should be differences. AndyZ 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I changed it from group to individual, since I have no clue what the group moral values are, but I do think they instill some morals values, like honesty, hard work, family is important, duty to country, etc. But, since that is unknown, I left it at a general "individual moral values." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference formatting has to be all conformed into one type- probably <ref></ref> system. AndyZ 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finished. I got started, but I had some dinner to take care of. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the fact that this article is concise, there are too many bloated FAs around. Great work Z! Borisblue 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, comes very close, but it needs a copyedit. Some examples from the "Activities" section. I support. Tuf-Kat 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~" for their country. They accomplish this activity" "their"/"this" has no plural antecedent~~
- ~~" ribbon is worn on shirt or jacket and also might be tied into a bow" many problems, passive voice, missing an article in front of shirt, vagueness ("might"?)~~
- "Most of the activities the BRSM does are very similar to those that were performed by the Soviet Komsomol." With no link to Komsomol, this isn't a helpful sentence. Add a link, move it to the beginning of the paragraph and explain why this is true.
- ~~"signed a letter signed"~~
- ~~"At a meeting of the 39th Congress of the BRSM" not clear why this sentence is relevant~~
  - I think I hit them all in the Activities section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the grammar and sentence structure problems have been dealt with. Andrew Levine 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one raises an important issue. You say you lack knowledge of Russian; I don't know if that means you know a little or none at all, but I think clearly knowledge of Russian would be a huge help in getting info. Also, I think there's a question about the availability of information. Does this group publish a paper? The article does mention a radio station; can't we expand on that some? What I'm basically wondering is whether it's possible to write an FA quality article on this unless you have access to substantial Belarusian media and print sources. Obviously this article is short, and that's a big problem; the question arises: is the difficulty of finding information a valid excuse for the brevity, or should we expect that, if the information exists—albeit in circumstances that make it difficult for most of us to get to it and read it—the article should work off of that as reference material in order to be FA quality? I'm not voting, but I think those are some important issues there. Everyking 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your point, I have no clue about a paper (gazette is a common name I seen in Russian papers), i'll try to expand on the radio station, but I have classes this morning. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Rights Watch did not mention about a paper, but I did find out the English name of the radio station, and what frequency it is on in Belarus. I managed to find the official website of the radio station at http://www.pixelhead.by/local/style/, which gives a little bit of information (in Russian). Still looking for the paper, though. Everyking, do you think it will be appropriate to create a section in the article displaying the differences and the similiar things that are common with the BRSM and the Soviet-era Komsomol? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Everyking that difficulty of finding information is not a valid excuse for the short featured articles. However, I was satisfied that the article covered all the basics, though there is much room for expansion and detail. I also suspect, by the sound of them, many of their sources will be exagerrated to make them look good and sell themselves to the Belarus masses. Some concerns:
- "The Belarusian Youth Union was considered the "legal successor" of..." - the word "considered" and the quotes around "legal successor" make this statement ambiguous, does the article mean they actually are the leagal successors or that some people (members? critics?) believe they are the successors?
  - Lukashenko said in a speech that I cited that he says the BRSM is the "legal successor" (his words, not mine) to the Komsomol. While I do not believe this is in dispute, since the original Komsomol is no longer present in Belarus and the BRSM is headquarted in the old Komsomol building, I just need to see what sets the BRSM appart from the Komsomol. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement that are begging for references:
  - "President Lukashenko stated that while membership..." - controversial, could easily be disputed
    - [4] says "While President Lukashenka has stated publicly that membership in the BPSM would "never be" mandatory for appointment to government positions, it is clear that BPSM membership in this regard is advantageous." This statement is followed by a report from Interfax about how BRSM members get a leg-up in the employment food-chain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A person must also pay a one time fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD)..." - 65 cents for a year's membership? Fees and currency are always subject to change, please provide a year for which this particular fee applied or a reference to where they state their membership fees.
    - The official website of the BRSM (now down for some reason) has the frees, and that was cited at footnote 5. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "President Lukashenko has issued a decree that allows..."
  - "Belarusian political activists have also began to call the BRSM 'Lukamol'..." - provide at least one example of this happening
    - The political group "Zubr" (Bison) have an active campagin that says "Stop Lukamol" and Human Rights Watch also documents the use of Lukamol at http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/belarus/Belrus99-06.htm (footnote 39 at the link) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please format the Reference to be in line with Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style#Web sites and articles (not from periodicals) (& other related examples on that page). --maclean25 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I got everything. However, I probably want to send it through FAC again later, since some of the major things that this article needs have gone 404 during the course of the nomination, so I need to work with the above editors to get this article alright with them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A consice and excellent article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}10:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you concatenate identical footnotes? See my last edit for an example. Circeus 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. I think completed that little task. I still need to find out if the BRSM website is still down, and if it is, I still need to figure out how the website being down will affect this FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could have sworn there were more dupicates than that o.O. And if the site goes down definitely, you can always use Wayback Machinelinks. Circeus 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your right, the Internews website was used a few times. At my last count, 16 sources are used (three of them are used more than once). I was wondering if there is anything that I am missing still? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - BRSM website is back up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks okay for featuring. Circeus 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if Everyking has come back yet, but dispite him not voting, I just need some backing on adding a section about similarities between the BRSM and the Komsomol. But, I think that would be OR, except for the stated obvious (same activities, BRSM membership is not forced). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]