I am nominating this article for FA status because I feel it has sincerely achieved it. This article has been nominated twice before, the first time because the article was poorly written and unstable, the second because Pope Benedict had only just been elected and it was felt time needed to be given for him to deal with the issues thought to be important to his papacy. Both issues have now been dealt with. The article is well written with a good lead section and concentric levels of detail, and suitable images. Pope Benedict has been in office for a year now and the editors on this have added his views and actions with an objective and exhaustive eye. I feel the time has come to elevate Pope Benedict XVI to FA status. Dev920 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment too many paras close to each other start with "On xyz date". Footnotes go at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.Rlevse 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to replace those paragraph starts, but 1)it's difficult to know what to replace them with, see my current efforts here, and 2) they being added on a regular basis by a changing IP. Where are these footnotes you refer to? Dev920 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the footnotes your have. The footnote number should be immediately after the period or comma without spaces. For example, footnotes 10,11,32,33 need fixing. Look over the others too.Rlevse 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Footnotes go after punctuation per WP:FN, usually without a space. (Some editors prefer a space, but if so they are consistent throughout the article.) See notably this section and this section needing work. I haven't read the whole article at once because it is 100k; something would needs to be broken off or cut. A good candidate for a sub-article is section 5, and the trivia section could be deleted. For an article this long it is somewhat under-referenced. Gimmetrow 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken care of this minor stuff myslef.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have both made extremely valid and helpful criticisms. It is currently 5:24 am in England, and I have been unable to sleep because I want to include your recommendations so much (dreaming about editing; what a wikiholic). However, I MUST attempt it, so if I could ask for your patience for 24 hours, and I will be on it asap (assuming another editor doesn't do it in the meantime, which would be great). Thankyou. Dev920 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Article would benefit from the use of summary style. In particular, the Dialogue with Islam section is a bit tedious. Kaldari 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - There are entire sections of this article on one of the most controversial figures of our time that have no in-line citations. In the lead section, I immediately saw one bald assertion: "When he was younger, he was considered a liberal". I have never heard this in my life (I live in Italy!!). And it is not attributed. I also agree with the criticims formulated above. Most of the references are just links with no further information. Date of publication? Access date? Author? WP:CITE requires full bibliographic information. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, 1a (or 2a) Brilliant prose is important:

Ratzinger came increasingly to see these and associated developments (such as decreasing respect for authority among his students, the rise of the German gay rights movement as related to a departure from traditional Catholic teachings. Increasingly, his views, despite his reformist bent, contrasted with those liberal ideas gaining currency in theological circles.

What is that?

Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI maintains the traditional Catholic doctrines on artificial birth control, abortion, and homosexuality while promoting Catholic social teaching.

Is this a good paragraph? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out prose objection. I've read through it more thorougly and made some minor corrections. It seems alright, except perhaps that repetitive "in 1926, in 1927..." thing. More citations and more "NPOV", I think, are the main issues.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. - article lacks in referencing criticism. There is no criticism section (see the Tony Blair featured article for a good example). - article doesn't mention the 1990 ratinger-galileo controversy: at that time he supported the process against Galileo saying that it "was reasonable and just" [1] [2] [3] [4] --BMF81 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just split off the section the event you refer to would go in. Dev920 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise for not addressing these concerns quickly. However, I have been working hard on both Wikiquote and Jake Gyllenhaal, so have not been able to give this article my full attention. I have, however, moved all footnotes to after the sentence's full stop, and have split off the information on Benedict as Prefect into a separate article.

Tomorrow I will conduct a thorough copyedit of Benedict's article, and tidy up those rather turgid paragraphs you referred to. The information is there, but you're right, it needs a little touching up.

Regarding a criticism section, I was under the impression that criticisms were raised and dealt with in the relevant sections on this article, rather than in one block. Is this not enough?

I have reviewed the the article and it seems to me that the people who wrote it did so using the books listed in the References section (I know because I've read most of them!); they simply haven't been footnoted. The article therefore seems under referenced when in fact it is not. WP:CITE does not seem to require the entire article to be footnoted: am I reading it wrong? Dev920 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the whole article, but this is pretty strong:

This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.

I interpret this, and I know there are many other editors who agree with me, as basically saying "if it's a claim, source it." Accodring to this rule, I could go in and put a verify tag on the vast majory of the the sentences in the article (I won't do that). It's a good idea to add in-line cites to prevent people from coming in and saying "where did this come from" and having to point to the reference section every time. I would prefer an in-line cite a paragraph and/or for all non-obvious claims. But I could be satisfied with just some progess on this front. Thanks. I will help with some of the copyedit myself today, sicne I have some time. The other editors object is more serious, however. There does seem to be a lack of substantial criticism, IMO. Criticism sections are not required. But--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC) there should be mention of controversy that has taken place in Italy, for example, about the Church's interference in the politics of artifical insemination. To mention just two names: Umberto Eco has criticized the Pope's talk about relativism. I'll see if I can find a source. Umberto Veronese, former minister of health and famous doctor over here in Italy, has criticized the poistion on stem-cells and other resrach issue. Eugenio Scalfari has critizied the Church's general "politicization" under the new Pope. These are obviously controverisal poistions even within the Catholic community. But there's not much discussion.[reply]

• Comment. Since being the pope, he has also been extensively satirized, and I think the most prominent examples should be mentioned. I have one book to reference on this (Bollito misto con mostarda by Daniele Luttazzi), unfortunly that is in italian.--BMF81 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Rid of the trivia section. Either incorporate the info elsewhere, or rid of it - trivia sections aren't recommended for FA's but only for a stub/start class articles so an editor with more time on their hands can incorporate the info into an appropriate section. LuciferMorgan 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that section.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have become unwell, brought on by working too hard on Wikipedia and it's sister projects. I therefore have to take a break to recover. I will definitely be back within two weeks, but more likely one. I hope you all understand, I just need some time off to get over this and devote my full attention to Pope Benedict. I ask that that the FA director bear this in mind when deciding when to close the nomination. I'm sorry to have to delay this, but I promise I will return. If any other editor from the article can take up the cause in my unwilling absence, that would be great. Thankyou. Dev920 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hey, look here!! Take care of yourself and your health before ANYTHING else on this earth. Don't worry about the FAC. I hope it is not this, in particular, that is troubling you. Let me know and I will withdraw my object before you can sneeze. But if it's general overwork or other matters, then I will try to do what I can but I cannot really address the objection about balance and so on that even some others have lodged. Just try to get well and stop thinking about Wikipedia if it is a more serious problem, of course. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. It is a great article and a really intersting read. HOWEVER:

• The sections on his travels. Too listy. They need to be summarised into a few paragraphs with a main article link to List of Apostolic journeys by Pope Benedict XVI or something similar.
• The sections on his Encyclicals and Pastorial Activities are just 2 lines long. Same as above. Maybe a paragraph on each, stating why he has had so few (is this out of the ordinary or what) and having a main article link to List of Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI and List of Pastorial Activities of Pope Benedict XVI. If a paragraph can not be written, put them in the See Also section.

Todd661 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object This is a well organized article on a world leader, but one can read all the way through it without encountering much evidence of the fact that many both within and without the Catholic Church object to some of his policies or have criticisms of him. This makes it too POV for a featured article. At the end are a list of a few "Criticism" references which are not cited in the body of the article. One of these is from Andrew Greeley: "He is an intellectual opposed to questioning doctrine. He is a shepherd with scant pastoral experience. He is a creature of the 20th century deeply opposed to the modern world. In these seeming contradictions, you can begin to see the contours of one of the most unusual, gifted men to become Pope." Liberals within the church have criticized his forceful orthodoxy. There are over 600,000 Google hits under '"Pope Benedict XVI " criticism'so there should not be a shortage of verifiable sources that there has been thoughtful criticism of his policies and his tactics in his career in Rome before becoming Pope. I do not advocate editors simply using the article as a forum for their own criticism of the man or the church or his policies as Pope, but there certainly should be a listing of the criticism many have of him. The article leaves the impression everyone in the world loves him and approves everything he has done. Edison 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn. Edison 20:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there is a criticism section...to put criticisms. For all the biographies I have seen, the critics are not allowed free reign throughout the article page but are kept to that section. Judgesurreal777 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is no "Criticism" section in the body of the article. I have re-read the article, and despite much criticism of the Pope's orthodoxy and conservatism among many liberal Catholics worldwide and especially among liberal American Catholics, the only whiff of criticism in the body of the article is that gay Catholics complained about his position towards homosexuality, and Eastern Orthodox Catholics complained about his dropping the part of the papal title which said the Pope was head of the Western church. A reader only hears the Pope's side of issues facing the church. On August 22, a section criticizing his handling of the sexual abuse of minors was deleted. Apparently there have been editors at work for quite some time to immediately delete criticism in the body of the article, even though the criticisms cited verifiable sources. It is thus unbalanced and too POV to be a featured article. A "puff piece" should not be a featured article, but a balanced treatment of the subject might well be. Edison 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a diff? I don't see that a section was deleted. Gimmetrow 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no section of text called "Criticism." There is a section of websites, which is not at all the same. See the article "George W. Bush" for an example, which is "Criticism and public perception ". This should be a well edited section of the main article, presenting what I described above. Apparently any such section inserted in the past was edited out. Edison 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "On August 22, a section criticisizing... was deleted." I couldn't find this; I would work it back in if it could. Gimmetrow 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section I described as deleted was in fact move by Dev920 to a separate article on his time as CDF at 00:24 on 26 Aug. Looking back over the edit history for the past couple of years I see lots of revert wars over various issues, (sush as his title, his picture, his car registration, and his war service) but not the repeated deletion of a general "Criticism" section. So I have removed my objection to this being a featured article. However, I would hope that the numerous editors working on this article might yet introduce a "Criticism" or "Criticism and public perception" section, such as one may see for Pope John Paul II (745 words, 6 basic criticisms) or about Pope Paul IV ( 2 separate criticisms) or about Pope John XXIII (a 230 word criticism section) or even George W. Bush, whose article is pretty carefully vetted by his supporters, yet which has a lengthy criticism section. I am the wrong person to write such a section, and I suppose it is unfair to require the admirers of the Pope to write it, so please leave a mental spot for it if a thoughtful critic of the Pope wishes to take the time to list the main criticisms properly sourced to liberal Catholics, nonCatholics, or other groups who disagree with his actions or teachings. The peril of requiring his supporters to write a critism section is that the criticisms might turn into yet more praise: "Some say he is too honest and pure hearted." Bettter to wait for a critic to write the criticsm, because there certainly is some, but the lack thereof should not be a bar to the article being featured. Edison 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway you, as me, recognize that the article lacks in reporting the wide criticism on B16. Therefore the 2(b) criteria "Comprehensive", is not met by current revision.--BMF81 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate archive from history at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Devils, incorrectly archived

Well, I've worked my butt off for this article. I think it looks pretty nice at this point. It's got good content, a lot of references and nice graphics too. So I figured why not, I'll give this article a chance at FA-status.

• Support. Per nom. --Sportskido8 13:52 EST, 25 August 2006
• Object. As someone who's done work on this page, it pains me to say this, but it's not FA status yet. There hasn't even been a peer review, which is typically one of the first steps towards FA status. I have a feeling it's only going to be shot down quickly at this point, but I can't support this page for FA as it currently stands. Anthony Hit me up... 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That was extremely vague, but alright...--Sportskido8 14:00 EST, 25 August 2006

• Anthony, would you please give some specific and actionable objections? Mak (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Having undergone a large number of revisions just within the last week, this article does not meet the stability requirement. Additionally, there are a number of images that are not tagged/sourced appropriately. Neutrality is an issue, with statements such as "The move appeared to make little sense." There are gaps in the formatting, leaving excess white space. The lead is entirely too short for an article of this length. This really should have undergone a peer review first. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it really need a peer review that badly? I have to disagree. Anyway, white space is probably an issue, you're right. The reason I put it in articles is to make it look more pleasing to the eye. I know we're supposed to save KB and whatever but I hate to see clutter. The lead should be longer, I'll work on that. Stability? It was just me making 500 edits a day to clean it up, what's wrong with that? And Chlomes...you uploaded the picture of the 1982-1983 team. Now you're objecting yourself? Which other pictures are a problem? --Sportskido8 14:47 EST, 25 August 2006

• Object. Sorry, but I feel that this article is not even close to being ready for FA-status. I've started working on it some, but it will most likely be weeks or months before this should be considered for FA-status. The article needs some better-quality writing (it's certainly not bad, but not compelling or brilliant, as Wikipedia:What is a featured article? requests), needs sources, and needs to be stable. --Muéro 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I think it would be nice if people could actually give some points of where to improve the article instead of simply opposing because "it's not FA status yet." Now, for some input:
  • I feel the article has some work to be done on prose. I strongly suggest you look at Chicago Bears very closely (it's actually a featured article candidate right now, looks like it'll pass). In particular, the introduction paragraphs need to be rewritten.
  • Get rid of those titles for each section (ie. not "Early struggles," just "1982–1991;" not "The early years," just "Kansas City and Colorado").
  • Shift the sections around and rename them. Again, look at the Bears article. "Team jersey" could be expanded like that article ("Team colors and mascots"), "Retired numbers" is a subsection of "Famous players," maybe "Individual records" could be split off into "Famous players" or as a subsection of "Statistics and records" (you'd have to rename "Season-by-season record"), there looks to be enough information to warrant a subsection.
  • Try using the main template instead of further. And don't put a tag like that in the introduction. You're introducing readers to the NJ Devils article, not to a separate article.
  • Look at the Bears' "Retired numbers" section. Simple, elegant. The Devils' version looks rather erratic.
• I know I'm being rather general with my points, but they should be enough to get the article in the right direction. I'm sure with more input from others on FAC, you'll be able to get this article better than ever. ♠ SG →Talk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of good points and I'll start to work on them. The only thing I disagree with is the simple, elegance of "retired numbers." The Bears article is very nice, no doubt about it. But I'm not a fan of having 4 pink tables in a row thrown at me, and that's why I kept it to 2 in a row for this article and moved a lot of stuff to the sister article "notable players and award winners." Maybe that was good, maybe not. I like to be creative with the retired numbers, like I was with the Yankees ones. Granted, there are more numbers to work with there, but I hate to follow that up with a table. I'll change this one though, somehow. --Sportskido8 16:51 EST, 25 August 2006

Request. Can the above posters please cross out anything that was scrutinized which now appears fixed with the recent changes to the article? --Sportskido8 3:30 EST, 27 August 2006

• Object currently. The prose is still a bit disorganized. (I am working on that.) My main issue is that there is still some unsourced editorial commentary (e.g. "The next season, they were expected to be contenders once again"), which violates NPOV. I am doing my best to improve the article, but sourcing opinions is a difficult task. – flamurai (t) 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An excellent point was brought up on the article talk page. There is no information regarding the team's role as an NHL scapegoat in making the league more "boring" in the 1990s through their successful use of the neutral zone trap. This is a major theme in recent team history, and without at least a paragraph on it the article cannot be considered thorough in its scope. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be considered thorough by who?...You? --Sportskido8 14:59 CST, 29 August 2006

Yes, me. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should personally be a featured article of all the voice actor articles I believe this one might be the best written.--Jack Cox 04:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Lead is only one sentence long (three paragraphs is recommended), and the article contains no references or citations aside from one YouTube video. Teemu08 04:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object only one ref, some sections could be expanded. Note: lead recommendation is 2-3 paras, depending on the length; not a hard and fast 3.Rlevse 10:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - I'm afraid I have to agree, this article needs far more referencing. The expanded lead is a nice improvement, and from a purely stylistic point of view, use of bold text needs to be uniform throughout the article, or eliminated for all but the very start of the article, where the actor is named. Suggestion: If someone can get a hold of the recent Animaniacs Season One and/or Pinky and the Brain Season One DVD sets, he's interviewed on both, which would provide viable, verifiable references. --JohnDBuell 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Needs citations. Career info is basically a laundry list; needs specific information on roles. Stilgar135 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting and novel piece. One feels that we need an FAC that is short, precise and informative for once. BjF 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Even short, precise, and informative articles need references to meet the Featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. It's a stub...

• Object, Here we go again using FAC instead of Peer Review: no refs, no body, trivia has to go or be in main body of article, a stub, etc.Rlevse 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Article is a stub. Also, the footballer has not become world famous, let alone well known in Europe. For me, the standard will be Ronaldinho --Ageo020 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superbly referenced and structured. The high level of discussion and debate on the article has resulted in an article of high integrity and qualityBjF 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Surely it would be best to resolve the merge question before a nomination. Jkelly 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object ref formatting needs work. One displays only the external jump number. Some footnotes are not at the end of punctuation where they should be (not in the sentence and no space after the punctuation), solo years should not be wikilinked-only full dates, the bigblock quotes with blue marks are distracting, the merge should be settled before nominating, and the footnote with the citation tag needs fixed.Rlevse 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The article is not stable and nowhere near ready for FAC. Rhion 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While assuming good faith, I wonder if BjF has enough experience to nominate the several articles for FAC that he or she has- contributions page here [5]. MAG1 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Poorly structured and appalling standard of writing --Khendon 09:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed by numerous other users, and has already been selected as a Good Article. The article is pretty stable, with the latest edits being minor additions of new information or slight restructuring. The material is quite neutral, and quite comprehensive, with room left for more more specific details in main pages. The article appears to meet all the Featured Article Criteria. Rmcsamson 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. No inline cititions. --Howard the Duck 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Needs better lead section and images, and a student life section too. -- Mithril Cloud 11:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. (1) Not enough images, considering the article's length. (2) There should be Inline citations to help readers verify info. (3) The "Notable alumni and professors" section should be more than a link. (4) Very short sections should be merged into larger sections. (5) The history section is too long... I think it could be cut to 1/2 or 1/3 its current length. Try to emulate the example of Featured Articles like Cornell University, Duke University, and the University of Michigan. Coffee 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Object This article clearly fails to fulfill point number 1c of WP:FA. Allow me to quote it here; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. Get the necessary references and add more free license images. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object.non neutral....most of the references and citations came from sources within the University or by people affiliated with the university...this is already tainted with bias...203.36.224.71 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a very complete article with every one of the most important events in the life of the band. User:Matmetal 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Matmetal[reply]

• Object - no references Judgesurreal777 06:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - not properly cited, no decent lead. violet/riga (t) 08:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Not enough images, and the ones that are there are both fair use. Also not well referenced. Michael Billington (talk •contribs) 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- there's one freely licensed one in the article now. Jkelly 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - as per above Wisdom89 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Poorly referenced, weasel words, not at all brilliant prose imho. --kingboyk 12:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Biased, unreferenced and no inline citations. LuciferMorgan 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object- Few and poor references and not enough pictures. Felixboy 13:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly enjoyed this article, its neat chronological structure, comprehensive referencing and conciseness make it an ideal candidate for FAC in my view.BjF 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the instructions above: "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." Sandy 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, citation tags need fixed, refs come after punctuation, not before.Rlevse 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object at the very least the article has a copyedit tag on it with part of a summary "lots of typos" - and there has been little done sense it appears... RN 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Simply not there yet. Moncrief 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very factual article. This article is very good and talks about the life about one of the most sucessful TV Producers of all time. This article has been rewritten and is really looking good. It may not be that long but it is a really good read and very informational. --Zonerocks 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Unreferenced. You might want to review other recently-promoted featured articles, visit WP:PR, and read WP:WIAFA. Sandy 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Lead is way too short, refs/ext links need fixed.Rlevse 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well photographed, well structured and well referenced. Concise and not unnecessarily elongated. An ideal FAC BjF 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see you have nominated quite a few articles now within these last days. All of them have nothing but objections. I suggest you read the guidelines once more, so we can focus on those articles that actually got a chance. And no, this article is not one of them. --Maitch 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Object - Article ostensibly lacks depth and comprehensiveness. The lead is far too excessive for the brevity of the rest of the text. Fact lists are undesirable and should be avoided, especially for subjects such as this. Please rethink and convert all noteworthy information into prose and place somewhere within the body of the text. Eliminate trivia section completely and concentrate on expanding subsections. Increase the number of references accordingly. Wisdom89 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong object, agree with Wisdom89. You might want to review some recently-promoted featured articles and visit WP:PR and WP:WIAFA to get the article ready for FAC. Sandy 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not well referenced, several numbers and statements show no reference. Wandalstouring 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How could the information I added just yesterday (about which side was hit on 9-11, and once I found that, something I hadn't even planned to look for--why the attack could have had worse results) been have been missing for more than eight years? I'm not even sure it's that good. But it was information I was curious about and needed to be there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A great article that absoulutely meets the criteria for a featured article.0111 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Did you see the instructions at the top of the page? "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." Sandy 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It wasn't technically at the same time 0111 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means "concurrently" in this case. In any event, it's just a suggestion, not a rule. If you feel comfortable handling multiple FACs, give it a shot. Ryu Kaze 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support a great article but may need some more refrences/sources.

Object - I'd like to see a section dedicated to information regarding the band's impact and influence on the grunge scene, as well as criticisms to even things out. The lead also makes several claims which require citations - especially when mentioning what emotions are evoked from a particular song, or sales figures. Wisdom89 03:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, for now. As a primary editor of this article, I know there's some things that still need to be addressed, primarily the musical impact/influence and citations of sales figures, as Wisdom89 points out. I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Although, given Wisdom89's other points, I also want to point out that there's an entire paragraph dedicated to criticism already in the Mainstream success section. WesleyDodds 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object and suggest delisting since the primary editor doesn't support. Without meaning to be unkind, 0111 is perhaps a little overenthusiastic in his nominations... --kingboyk 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support a great article0111 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of belately stamping your nomination/support on the article in question, perhaps you should be actively improving the article and addressing those concerns listed above. Wisdom89 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Commentwhy don't you do it.I personally think it's featured article material.

I'm not sure that you understand: by nominating the article, you take responsibility for it, and are expected to address concerns if you want it to become FA. You're supposed to be pro-active about it. A bunch of us are actually chipping away at this article, but we know it is far from where it needs to be. - Phorque 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the way the headings are layed out, the way its all divided up, could use some improvement. I think, for instance, that the "mainstream success" part should be broken up, at least with smaller subheadings (its too huge a mass of text as it is which kind of makes it uninviting), and the "post breakup" part should perhaps be given its own section (and have some of the loose sentences bound together in more continuous prose). --Clngre 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Reads pretty well, but needs a better photo of the band for the inofbox and needs a seperate "Sound Samples" section. Otherwise, we're looking at FA material here! Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑ 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to let you know, it's actually more acceptable to have the samples in boxes alongside text. When the samples are put next to relevant text for the purposes of illustrating or enhancing that section, that's fair use. If you just dump 10 samples at the bottom of the article, it doesn't serve much purpose. That being said, I think we need to make sure that all the samples have an adequate description justifying their presence. - Phorque 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This page has improved since I last visited and is definitely Featured Article material. Good work.

• Support This has page gone through a lot of improvement and I would support its candidacy -- UKPhoenix79 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object The image of D'Arcy in the "Post-breakup" section is dubious, I tried asking the uploader to prove they owned the rights to release it into the public domain, but no response. And as I once stated before, that entire section has less to do with the band and more to do with the individuals, it could be boiled down to a short paragraph or removed entirely and put into the individuals' articles. - Phorque 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I like what WesleyDodds did with section, but I still feel the other objections are valid, and I myself plan to continue improving this article. - Phorque 12:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to meet all Featured Article criteria. Currently at Good Article status and is stable and well referenced. Has undergone peer review, GA review and such (see talk page for links). Relevant, pretty pictures and relevant bluelinks aplenty! Well formatted, NPOV, all that good stuff. This is a "self-nom", so to speak, as I've put in a good deal of work to this one and a bunch of related articles. Thanks for feedback, comments, etc... Wickethewok 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good article. Ran the auto peer review script and left the results on the articles talk page. The articles title is 'Alexander Coe' and his name is presented as Alexander "Sasha" Coe which is easly skimmed over, but the whole article refers to him as "sasha". Maybe it could follow the way Madonna (entertainer) does it and say "better known as ...". With these few fixes I will change to support. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: WP:AWB stats: 4276 words, 289 wikilinks, 6 images, 7 categories. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't see much left to fix. Not sure why there aren't more supports. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed a bunch of the stuff listed. There were a couple of the generated suggestions I couldn't find what generated them (date linking and footnotes). Wickethewok 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Prose. The article has a lot of NME style jargon/slang - could it be re-written encyclopedically so that someone over 40 can understand it? eg.

1. Spinning acid house.
2. and the two created mix albums together (what are mix albums?)
3. helped spread progressive trance and house in the 1990s (spread the popularity of progressive trance and house?)
4. gig (performance)
5. Later in 2002, Sasha began collaborations with big beat artist Junkie XL, whose work he heavily influenced Junkie XL's work - ?
6. .[22]. - remove second full stop.
7. mix album and production record - both terms need definition or wikilinking (as above)
8. Sasha lives New York City with a personal studio in Florida (Sasha lives in New York City?)

This is a sample - please have another really good go through the article so that someone unconnected with the subject can understand it. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the above stuff (about half of that stuff above was from my small fixes last night! 0_o). Anyways, I'm taking another couple runs through the article to find any words that wouldn't be obvious to people who don't know electronic music. Wickethewok 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry guys it's still got problems - Sasha has been one of the most consistently popular among dance music fans, as he has been voted into the top five DJs in the world by readers of DJMag every year since 1997, including finishing #1 in 2000 and #2 only to partner John Digweed in 2001. Also the preceding paragraph or so refers to how he 'connects to the dance floor' (with his feet? - if it's a quote then fine, put it into quotation marks, if not - reword). --Mcginnly | Natter 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I split that sentence into two separate ones to keep it from being so long and awkward. For the second thing, I changed it to the original quote. Wickethewok 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is still far from compelling - Starting out in the late 1980s playing acid house, he rose as a central figure in the popularization of electronic dance music.

After meeting John Digweed, Sasha toured internationally with Digweed and created a series of mix albums (repetition of Digweed)

There is no mention of his personal life at all - where does he live? does he have a partner? kids?--Mcginnly | Natter 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That info is at the end of the "Post Digweed" section - he is married, currently lives in NYC, and doesn't have kids. I would like to be able to get more info about his personal life though. Wickethewok 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the article name needs to be reconsidered. "Sasha" is very famous in electronic music circles. "Alexander Coe" I have never heard of. --kingboyk 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "Sasha (DJ)" be more appropriate? Or maybe "Sasha (disc jockey)" - should the abbreviation be used? Either of these would be more consistent with examples such as Ravedave's Madonna example. Wickethewok 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think Sasha (DJ) or Sasha (musician). Which is more accurate? --kingboyk 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, I think "musician" would be debateable. Are DJs musicians? I think "Sasha (DJ)" would be best. Wickethewok 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --kingboyk 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you use Template:Infobox musical artist instead of Template:Infobox band? And could you add some music samples which might help understand the style of the DJ. CG 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the infobox type per your suggestion. Tonight I will try to figure out some good music samples to add. Wickethewok 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You could read the related guideline Wikipedia:Music samples. CG 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Aye, I've looked at it and picked out a few tracks to sample. I'm planning to add 6-8 music samples tonight. Thanks for fixing up the infobox as well. Wickethewok 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No please, add only relevant tracks, the ones you find they offer a lot to the understanding of the article and the style of the DJ. Don't fill the page with unnecessary samples. 2-3 is often enough. I recommend you to Read the guideline. CG 20:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I did read the guidelines and it says nothing regarding the number of samples, other than it shouldn't interfere with the quality of the article. Looking at a bunch of musical artist FAs I see quite a spread of number of samples ranging from none to double digits. Anyways, I'll keep it to a few of the most important tracks/those that typify the styles Sasha has gone through. How about four? I was thinking of Sasha's remix of Gus Gus - Purple (1997), Xpander (1999), Junkie XL and Sasha - Breezer (2002), and Felix Da Housecat - Watching Cars Go By (Sasha Remix) (2004). I think these would adequately portray the various genres/time periods. The additional samples I was thinking of before would've been from earlier in his career, and are probably less relevant to his notoriety. Wickethewok 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not arguing about the number of samples. You can put 10 if they are relevant. What I'm saying is that editors, especillay fans of the artist spend often fill the page with samples of every work mentioned. As for me, music samples should be carefully chosen so they are encyclopedic, helping the reader to understand the article, the style of the article or the evolution of his music, and fulfilling fair use criteria. CG 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, I understand quite well that more isn't always better. I've seen more than enough bad video game articles to know that. Btw, I think I should point out that I'm trying to use tracks that Sasha helped create, rather than just tracks he played, as I think they're both more relevant and easier to claim fair-use for. I plan on digging through my CDs later tonight. Cheers! Wickethewok 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, if you read the guideline, it says that it's preferable that samples are included in boxes and not inlined with text. See Selena for an example. CG 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK - I added in four boxed samples into the article. Any additional suggestions/comments/feedback regarding the samples or anything else? Wickethewok 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs a thorough going over by someone (preferably who doesn't listen to sasha's music):-

• Sasha described the release of the album as "received with a lot of head scratching" due to the styles of music of Airdrawndagger being generally more laid back and not featuring the heavier "club sound" of his previous mix albums and productions. (non punctuation so too long - laid back=relaxed?
• With regards to mix albums, Sasha states that going in he only has a vague idea of the tracklist for the album. (going in)
• Over his next mix albums, Sasha popularized progressive trance by artists such as
• #2 to only partner John Digweed in 2001 (what's the only doing here?)

--Mcginnly | Natter 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing out those sentences - the prose was quite awkward. I went ahead and fixed those. As Mcginnly says above, the articles still needs a thorough going-over by someone who knows very little about Sasha/electronic music in general. Wickethewok 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- two images in this article are tagged with ((promotional)) without any indication that they are from a press kit and lack authorship and licensing information. We have a freely licensed image of the subject to replace one of them. Jkelly 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another user has added in a different picture for first picture from a specific press kit. I don't think there are any freely licensed images where you can clearly see Sasha's face. Alternatively, we could replace the top picture with the clearly promotional photo featured [here http://www.redlightmanagement.com/artists/sasha/] <-- This one is undoubtably promotional as the management company has included a large, hi-quality image especially for download. I'm currently trying to track down either some copyright-free or promotional photos from the Delta Heavy Tour to use as a photo of Sasha & Digweed. Wickethewok 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object There's no section discussing the critical reaction from music critics towards Sasha's music, utilized by other artist FA's. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of the music artist FAs I've surveyed randomly, none of them have a separate section for criticisms. Most of them seem to integrate critics remarks into the articles. Could you provide an example of what you speak? Thanks! Wickethewok 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding images: I have obtained some awesome Sasha photos from the kind public relations people over at Ableton.com. I am going to integrate them once a license is decided on. Wickethewok 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, lots of references to other articles for deeper analysis, good form, the right amount of pictures, and stable. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I'd like to withdraw this nomination and save people time. Above it says only the FA Director should archive, so I didn't want to just remove the section... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The second half of the article seems to be more a list than an article. In addition, references/footnotes should be included in the article not in the articles that Sword article wikilinks. It would be hard to verified the information and not "scholarly" way to reference materials. As of the August 24th version of this article, I wouldn't trust the information in it because there are no references. --65.139.18.98 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. I expected there to be information about the earliest kind of sword, which was made from copper. Bronze swords were actually made later on. --Sbluen 08:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The article needs a copyedit. One of the first sentences I noticed was "Symbol for bravery for fighting a juste cause, Lady Justice sword symbolize bravery of witnesses to stay neutral even against own kin." Rhion 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. No in-line citations. Too may lists, make some of those paragraphs. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article, a brief review of the history would fit well in the lead for example. --enano ^(Talk) 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object A random collection of a little history and a bunch of lists and bullets. Thanatosimii 03:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very complete and accurate. the pictures are beautiful and relevent to the text.

PYMontpetit 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article seems to have a fairly low number of citations, especially given its length. WilyD 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Too many short stubby sections, some of which are only a sentence long; these need to be expanded or merged into neighbouring sections (I'd lean toward the latter because the table of contents is very long). Inline external links should be converted to footnotes (article is tagged with ((cleanup-references))). Extraordinary Machine 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per Ext. Machine. Too few refs, ref format needs fixed, external jumps need fixed, stubby, too many lists, etc.Rlevse 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The massive lead, info box, and table of contents alone almost killed this one for me. There are also many lists and many paragraphs that are too short. --Danaman5 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Needs more citations and fewer short paragraphs. The strip club section seems a bit fishy; it definitely needs to be cited. The article could also use a short section about dumbass American kids who take up buses up there to take advantage of the drinking age; to my knowledge, that's one of the city's primary methods of making money. Stilgar135 02:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little something I've been working on on-and-off for about a year now. One of the best resources on the web on the battle. Raul654 19:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, just for using Hell in a Very Small Place as a ref ^_^. — Deckiller 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor object; this is a good article, but hasn't had sufficient copyediting, and is sprinkled with errors in spelling ("painfull evident"), grammar ("Castries seclusion in his bunker"), and word choice ("four months later when the conflicted war"). I'll be happy to support once somebody goes over it with a fine-toothed comb. Incidentally, might it be possible for you to switch the article over to cite.php? The extensive parenthetical notes are somewhat offputting, particularly in the "Prisoners" section. Kirill Lokshin 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with cite.php is that I can think of no way to use it without generating a seperate reference for each page (at which point, the referneces section would become obscene) If someone knows of an alternative, I'd be happy to consider it. Raul654 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, fair enough; personally, I don't consider obscenely long sections of footnotes to be a problem, but to each his own, I suppose. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor object per Kirill; I've started a light copyedit, and I see numerous typos and other issues :) Very informative and all, but the prose needs work. — Deckiller 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've run it through a spellchecker (I wrote most of the article on a single shot last night, so typos are not unexpected). The typos should all be gone now. Raul654 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think cite.php would be a good idea, but Raul is the primary author, and I believe that it's author's choice as to what referencing style to use. — Deckiller 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent piece of information on little-known subject. PHG 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Its good, but there are very easily fixable problems. You really need to use cite.php, listing page numbers is no problem in other articles so it shouldn't be a problem here. The references need to be properly formatted. You should not link single days and not italicize quotes. There are also a few too many 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs and they should be merged. Medvedenko 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against my better judgement, I've switched ot the cite.php. About the dates, however, you are dead wrong - If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Raul654 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it also says There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article.... (see whole para), so I can see why people get confused on this and there is disagreement.Rlevse 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says that only in reference to something like just "April" or just "Tuesday" (the examples used there). As long as they look at the examples, I don't think anyone should be confused by "bare month and day". The preceding subsection, which talks about dates containing a month and a day, says that they should always be linked, except in the case of quotes, section headers and on disambiguation pages where only the disambiguated articles should be linked. Ryu Kaze 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't particularly care about traditional numbering, you could use named ref tags; there are a lot of repeated page numbers that would collapse that way. Other than that, maybe three columns would be better than two here? Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the references section is fine. Raul654 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I've not read the whole thing yet, but Medvenko is quite right about the matter of italics. Italics should only appear in quotes when they would appear normally. I'll give some better feedback soon. Ryu Kaze 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the italics. Raul654 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Ryu Kaze 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - About this fac... Why is the first support by deckiller crossed out? Why does the nom states raul worked on it for a year and later he states he wrote most of it last night...? - Tutmosis 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the background sections over a year ago. The section on combat is new as of last night. Raul654 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine Deckiller put up that first "support" as a joke. It appears to be a joke. I find it funny anyway. Ryu Kaze 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object — For much the same reasons as Kirill, but also because of a lack of fair-use rationle for most of the images, or very brief arguments. As for the wording of the article, it seems to lack both encyclopedic tone and distance from the subject matter. As an example, look at the Defense of Laos section. The wording has a tendency to more describe than to detail, if that makes sense.

For instance, the opening sentence of this section (currently: "One issue plagued Navarre - did his mission as High Commissioner of Vietnam require him to defend the colony of Laos as well?") sounds a little flowery and involved editorially. Something like "Navarre was concerned with whether the obligations of his mission required him to also defend the colony of Laos" would be more appropriate. There's also a tendency for the wording to use adjectives where it shouldn't (ex: "...defending it would require taking on the grave risk..." or "...meeting produced a great misunderstanding..."), and some things are just worded awkardly (ex: "...operating his army at great distance from its home..." or "...the most disputed fact of the controversy surrounding the battle...").

This continues throughout the article. It needs to be extensively copyedited by some outside editors. Ryu Kaze 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu, this is a historical article, so it's going to be worded differently. I do agree that historical writing tends to be a bit...awkward, but the issue doesn't lie in the tone of the article, but wording and redundancies. — Deckiller 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that section does read like an essay. — Deckiller 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that's exactly the word that sprung to mind, but I was trying to avoid using it. Coming from me, it might not carry the meaning it should have. Some might say everything sounds like an essay to those in my fraternity. Ryu Kaze 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The use of long quotes in the midst of the text, with no suitable introduction, is jarring to me. --Danaman5 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object While this article is well on the way to FA status, it isn't there yet. Aside from the wording issues as noted above, some of the articles assertions appear to be questionable. For instance, it starts with the statement that the battle was "the final battle in the First Indochina War" yet at the end of the para the battle only "effectively ended the war" which implies that some further fighting took place (which it did). In the second para it is stated that the French "occasionally air-droppp[ed] reinforcements", when this was actually a constant practice during the battle. --Nick Dowling 10:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Mostly because I want to see more variety in the citations. Right now there is an overwhelming reliance on the Davidson book. I also think the subsections under Combat operations could be rearranged so there are less of them (for example, you can divide them chronologically...March x to March xx then March xx to April y etc; that's just a suggestion...but I do really think you should axe off some of those subsections).UberCryxic 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, absolutely not. The whole point of hte article is to say what happened at the battle, which is what the subsections do (and for the record - except for Isabelle, are in exact chronological order) Raul654 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay fair enough. I don't want to press this as I don't consider it that important. I would still like, however, some greater variety in the citations. You have several works listed under references, but for all intents and purposes only one has been used.UberCryxic 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd greatly appreciate cite.php, per Kirill.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Citations go always after the punctuation without any gap between the punctuation and the citation. An article which wants to be FA should have these issues already fixed.--Yannismarou 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like this entry is very thorough, and it best explains Wikipedia's work at it's best. Although I may be afraid that it may fail the test because a lot kids come here and the first page will most likely be seen, on the other hand Wikipedia isn't rated G, nor it's R, it's NR [Not Rated] and deserves a front page attention. Falconleaf 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: all those inline external links need to be converted into a proper reference format. Some sections are too, umm, stubby, and need filling out or merging (e.g., by Region, Economics). In general, this topic needs pretty thorough referencing (e.g., in the "legal status" section) if it is to gain (and maintain) featured status! Outriggr 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you withdraw the FAC. You seem to have nominated it because it is sensational rather than because it is well written. I am a regular editor there and I'd like to say that this article is nowhere near ready. Peer review would be a better idea, but it needs a lot of work before it will even be ready for that. Please don't waste people's time on FAC, It is so far from meeting FA standards that it would be better to let people work on it for a while longer first. Just because it is long doesn't mean its ready to be a FA. Although I think this can be a FA at some time in the future, right now it is not wikipedia's best. pschemp | talk 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above sentiments, minus the comment on Peer Review. Any time in an article's life is a good time for Peer Review (provided you're actually getting feedback over there, of course, which is hit or miss these days). Ryu Kaze 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest nomination withdrawal. The talk page shows that this has yet to be peer reviewed. While it's better than the run-of-the-mill article, it has too many shortcomings to merit serious consideration here. The featured article whose history I know best, Joan of Arc, went through three separate peer reviews over the course of a year before coming to FAC. Best wishes - come back in a few months. Durova 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Whatever the outcome of this FAC, it will be a heatedly debated one. I personally do not think it should be placed on the main page. Children come to this site for reference, not to have smut thrown in their face. Yes, wikipedia is not monitored for youngsters, but once a seed is planted, it has disasterous results. In any case, we should have at least have a moral agenda? As per above, I think the article should be withdrawn from nomination. Thanks, Spawn Man 10:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a FA does not mean it should be featured on the Main page. This is not an actionable object. Sometimes wikipedians have agreed that a particular article should not be in the main page. Wikipedia got the same issue because of self-reference. CG 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I did not object, I made a comment of my own opinions. Thnx. Spawn Man 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ups, sorry. I didn't notice that :-) CG 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think this article should be in the main page if it ever reaches FA. It's a highly notable subject, and I'm opposed to operating the encyclopedia on the basis of concerns for morality (an inherently POV subject). Ryu Kaze 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral agenda?!?!?! Whose morals? That's really one of the most shocking statements I've heard on wiki for a long time. We're here to share knowledge, no more no less. Also, could I please ask that people bear in mind that FACs have nothing to do with putting an article on the front page. That's a seperate decision. (I say this because not only does my current FAC have "bad language" in it, so does my probable next nomination :), and it's a bit tiresome having to repeat over and over that this process is about getting a star, not about front page exposure). --kingboyk 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm being absolutely serious when I say that this article needs more images. Also, "Legal status of pornography" section needs to be converted to prose, with the listy stuff split off into another article. Too many external links (I suspect many of those are meant to be references). Too many short sections. Coffee 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I got rid of that long list and made a List of pornography laws by region article as you suggested.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Needs a total reorganisation. Anti-pornography movemement material is several times the size of the history section. Entirely too focused on the twentieth century. Image in lead is a very weird choice. There is just an enormous amount of work to be done. Jkelly 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Object Being a huge fan of porn myself, this is difficult for me to object. But as of right now the article is pretty crappy. It needs a lot more work to become FA. Stubby sections, bad categorization, and the prose stinks.UberCryxic 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This article has huge holes (no pun intended). For example, the section on Porn by Women doesn't even mention Annie Sprinkle! Kaldari 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. The article has some great info but most of it is woefully disorgainzed, meandering, spammy and sometimes incoherent. The prose and stucture of the article need to be much tighter.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Several problems:
  • Subsections are far too short. (Yes, size does matter.) If a topic is important enough to merit its own subsection, you should have more to say than just one or two paragraphs.
  • Whole sections lack citations - the "Pornographic stereotypes" section stands out in this regard.
  • Speaking of which, per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the name of the article; please rename the section headers without using any form of the word "pornography." ("Anti-pornography movement" might be okay, but I think there are ways you can rename this as well and still fully comply with the Manual of Style.)
  • I'd like to see some discussion of aesthetics: what consistutes good porn as opposed to mediocre or bad? (I'm a bit surprised not to see a reference to the famous dictum "I know it when I see it. Maybe I just overlooked it.)
  • The lede should summarize the important points of the article, but there are several important sections of the article that get no mention in the lede. If a topic is important enough to merit its own section in the article, it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede. Peirigill 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. This article has gone from zero to hero. I've used all material available at Klepacki's website to create the biography and have contacted him to clear up cloudy points on his history. There are only a handful of fair-use images, and I've made a significant effort to write encyclopedic prose. Two of his solo albums are still stubs, as I'm totally exhausted. This is my third FA nomination, and I'm eager to improve my skills by responding to comments. As usual, any objections will be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for reviewing. --Zeality 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — It seems to cover the subject well and the image licensing is sufficient, but the prose could use some tightening up throughout. I don't think it's quite to the "brilliant" stage yet. You might need to get an outside editor to perform a copyedit for you. There seems to be a tendency to use more complex wording when more simple wording would suffice. Ex: "To define the style of the soundtrack, Klepacki listened to a multitude of bands at the meeting". "Multitude" is just a little too "out there", if that makes sense. "A number" would sound a little more down to earth. Another one that seemed a little rough to me was "While laboring on the soundtrack,...".

There's also several other random issues, such as the overuse of the word "moody", and some awkward wording like "...Klepacki composed songs in waves...", "...and noted he had seemingly spent his entire life grooming his abilities for that moment" ("felt" would work better than "noted"), and "On average, it takes a few days for Frank Klepacki to compose master a single a song." I think there was a typo in that last one, but even without the extra "a", it seems a little awkward still.

Also, I think this sentence would sound better using "his personal favorite" instead: "Klepacki then composed Fogger and the personal favorite Mud before...". By the way, did you intend for an "and" to appear in this one?: "He received his first drumset at age 8 began performing professionally by age 11."

By the way, the Command and Conquer series section shouldn't necessarily assume that the reader has already read the previous section. The reference to the meeting there is unnecessary.

Anyway, the information in here is good, and the wording isn't awful. It just needs to be tightened up a little and it will be ready. By the way, the second sentence of the lead would work best as "He is best known...". Ryu Kaze 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terrible at soliciting help, so tomorrow I'm going to possibly do a round of hardcopy editing. --Zeality 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Well, I'd copyedit it myself if I had time to at the moment. Sorry about that. I hope you'll be able to find some people who can give you a hand. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 02:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, again, it is really well done. It just needs that final process of tightening it up. Ryu Kaze 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent out some invitations; thanks. I'll fix those and try importing the article (without references) into word to change my perspective. Hopefully this will be the first CVG game developer featured article (already first A-class!) --Zeality 15:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've spent about two and a half hours copyediting. Deckiller helped out a little too. Can't underestimate the value of taking that sucker out of the Wikipedia context for review. If the prose is still not up to snuff, it's up to my compadres or my a Rock Lee work ethic to fix it this time. On an unrelated note, I had to fight adding a fourth sample. A clip of his work with Mo Friction is hot. Carry on. --Zeality 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm satifised. Well done. Ryu Kaze 02:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — As noted above, the subject is covered well and image licensing is sufficient. The prose now satisfies my concerns, and I can support. Ryu Kaze 02:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can only improve with constructive criticism. I can't wait to help with Final Fantasy IV. --Zeality 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the lead doesn't do the article justice, I suggest another paragraph or two. - Tutmosis 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note about his affiliation with Westwood and Red Alert. I also wrote another paragraph to highlight his solo / band work. --Zeality 01:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The only thing I can think of is to change the "Command & Conquer series" header to a sub header of "Early Life/Career" and perhaps do something about the "Later Games" header. As Ryu mentioned above, each section should read independant of one another. Right now the prose for each section "Early Life/Career","Command & Conquer series", and "Later Games" flow into each other. I'd say, think about how to divide his career up(Westwood Games, After Westwood, Solo Works, Band Collaborations) into independant sections and make sure each section keeps only that part of his career in mind.

I assessed this article an A-class article and I would support this article for FA, but I'm a fan who knows a lot about his work. Before this hits FA status, we need editors who don't know anything about him to review it to make sure there isn't anything overlooked or unexplained. Mitaphane _talk 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the first sentence of each section to break the flow from the preceding one. The paragraphs should be self-sufficient. I also moved C&C to a subheader. Thanks for the commentary --Zeality 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Object (Referencing concern now diminished.) Comment. Too many references are to the subject's own web site (I'm going to estimate over 50%). Additionally, those references all point to the home page of that web site. I don't care if that's because of a Flash interface. The referencing issue is actionable, unless references are not sufficiently available, which suggests notability and verifiability issues which indirectly would make featured status difficult for this article. References 26 and 27 are blank. Outriggr 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took a look at the website in question. It does appear to be a flash interface. However, Zeality has provided the section name for where the information may be found on the website in each reference. Given the circumstances, that's really the best he could do. Honestly, I don't see why such a set up is worse than citing a magazine as a reference and saying what page to find the cited information on. These web references are still infinitely more accessible, unless there are web copies of the magazine article.

As for notability, I think I'll field this one for Zeality. The notability of this guy really speaks for itself. He's the composer of the Command & Conquer series, which has shown up in the Guiness Book of World Records several times as the best-selling computer strategy game series of all time[6] and has sold more than 23 million copies[7] (some report as many as 35 million,[8] but I've not seen confirmation of this for myself). I've never even actually played a Command & Conquer title, but this sort of thing is well known among the video game community. Ryu Kaze 13:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those reference blanks have been fixed. Examine certain CVG articles, like Chrono Cross. Roughly half the references come from the topic (the game) itself. There's no way avoiding it; most of Frank Klepacki's information is hosted at his website. The percentage could be cut down if certain interviews were available at their original URLs, but a lot of them have disappeared, prompting Klepacki to archive them on his website. In the event something could not be found, I had to reference the "Press" portion of his site where these articles are stored. As for the flash interface issue, his website is mostly static—the layout hasn't changed in three years, and information stays put save for the news page. The only way to find individual articles with one click from WP would be to take .html files that pop up in my browser's cache and host them somewhere. But that's probably illegal and it's also unwarranted since Klepacki is an archivist.

If there's a POV problem concerning information imported from his website, it can be compared to other biography articles drawing information from autobiographies. In Klepacki's case, he hasn't done anything heinous or evil, and his occupation is not a controversial one. This leaves no real "criticism" of the man. The information taken from his website his mostly historical as well. We're only interested in things like a.) when he composed certain songs, b.) years active for his bands, c.) awards he won, d.) video games he's scored, etc. Aside from the work / beliefs section, which is included because he's speaking about his music (which is what makes him notable), I've omitted opinions on certain things found in his interviews—like the fact that he had a blast doing cameos, or had fun playing Renegade, or that he had to beg Joseph D. Kucan to come to a show. What IS included is all factual information, and Klepacki has little reason to lie to trump up his reputation. I don't believe this would be a POV problem. If there's a WP:POLICY on number of references from one source, perhaps the references to his video game composition list page could be changed to the video games themselves on a case by case basis. But that's sort of nitpicking. --Zeality 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the well-reasoned comments! I just have great difficulty with the notion of a biographical featured article that uses the person's web site heavily as a source. To me, whatever one's interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources on this matter (you'll have yours and I mine, of course!), it's not good precedent for the featured article standard. Outriggr 06:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's count. There are 38 references. There are 17 from Klepacki's site. Two of those are interviews originally hosted elsewhere, so I can link them in the ((citeweb)) and use the archive= tag to reference Klepacki's site or, if I can find a Wayback machine URL, I'll use that. Aboutme could be changed to the MobyGames rap sheet or reviews of Home Cookin' / The Bitters website to substantiate his involvement in video game music and outside projects. I AM has not website, but the Home Cookin' website on the internet archive / review of their CD can be used as a reference for that, and the Bitters do have a site, so down two more. Most of the rest is COMMENTARY:, which are of integral importance to the article. With no other information available on the development of Command & Conquer or Star Wars: Empire at War, his historical notes are the only source. But if we substitute the things above, it'll put the total count at 40 references with 12 coming from Klepacki's website. Sound better? I'll get on it. --Zeality 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled it off with two stipulations:

• There is no mention of the film "Unreel Invasion" anywhere on the internet or Cinevegas's archives, so I had to use the aboutme portion again down there.
• Klepacki does not cite the exact name of the local awards for Home Cookin', so I had to use the homecookin reference from his site there. Nonetheless, I hit a veritable goldmine with Las Vegas Weekly and was able to add over three new references for Home Cookin' across the article to mitigate the problem.

There are now 45 references, 14 13 of them coming from his website. --Zeality 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better Zeality so I shall withdraw my objection. As for supporting, I haven't got that far yet. :-) Good work, Outriggr 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll keep this in mind with other articles. --Zeality 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• self-nom. with the help of Yomangani. I am re-submitting this article for FA consideration. changes: a second peer-review. Subarticles (economy of... culture of... etc.) New people pictures. It now has sub-articles (namelly parishes and districts). Featured article in the Portuguese language wikipedia for some time. It is "complete" and already used as reference by some. I Hope you like it. --Pedro 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

• "In the coastal plain, a Roman villa was constructed, the property of a Roman family - the Euracini who mixed with the Castro people who returned to live on the plain - Villa Euracini probably developed in this way." Unclear meaning after the first hyphen (which should be a dash anyway).
• I question our ability to accept Image:Lota da Povoa de Varzim em 1960 3.jpg and Image:Lanchapoveira.jpg under free-use licenses. They both seem to be derivative works of illustrations made too recently to be public domain. Andrew Levine 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• thanks for your cleaning. As for illustrations:
• Those are azulejos, meaning they are street decorations and are seen as a craft. It is more or less like you painting your house's exterior walls. People instead of painting preferred to lay azulejos.
• In this case, I photographed a wall. In fact, that is the harbour's north wall. Those azulejos were placed in there by the City Council. Each square is an individual peace and most of these azulejos (there are many more in that wall) are old pictures that were "transformed" into azulejos. Some pieces are removed and painted again because they are too near the beach. As far as I know, those are not eligible to be copyrighted, like Portuguese pavement. Pictures that I took are not PD, but have a commons licence.
• But I would prefer a real picture of the boat that the city hall has to make the article more "alive". I'll see if I can get it and other old pictures to a commons licence, not PD.--Pedro 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said "made too recently to be public domain" I was referring to the illustrations, not the photographs. Portuguese pavement is not an artistic work. The wall illustrations are. It would be as if I took a faithful photo of a painting that was copyrighted (say The Persistence of Memory) and tried to release it under a commons license. Andrew Levine 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the same thing, Andrew. See the pictures of the pt:Azulejo article to understand what this kind of art/craft really are and for what they are for. Although I'm not a lawyer, I doubt that they have copyright throw a photo as there are no grounds to make a law about that, azulejos are tiles and can not be put on the net or in emule, but only on a wall, a house (in the kitchen, bathroom or outside). those pictures came from a wall like this: Image:Palacio_Queluz_Corredor_Mangas1.JPG --Pedro 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Pedro, why is this article a GA nominee and a FAC at the same time? --enano ^(Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • it is for weeks at GAC. There are no legal issues regarding that also. lol. let's discuss the article instead of that.-Pedro 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, no problem with me. --enano ^(Talk) 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is now a GA. And I've changed the pictures Andrew Levine talked about to better ones. BTW, noone has an opinion?! :S -Pedro 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • support per nom.--Pedro 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive1

This article was nominated for FA status before, and its concerns were addressed. --Ed^{talk c E} 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Firstly, there are a few references tagged with "Better Reference Needed". That should be taken care of. But secondly, I'm concerned about the level of prose in some section, primarily the criticism and development sections, which seem very "list oriented" in the way the information is organized. Instead, it should be written in prose format. Fieari 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response- First of all, if you want excellent prose, don't use "firstly" =). The "Better Reference Needed" tags were added to remind us that better citations were needed. As of now, we haven't found any yet, We're still looking. I will make the needed changes to the criticisms and development sections.--Ed^{talk c E} 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object — 2a, 2b, 3b.

2b and 3b issues

Improving the prose should come after my 3b concerns, which are that there are too many stubby sections, leading to poor organization. Sections like gameplay should have no subheadings (unless you merge some of those huge runescape lists, which will help for comprehensiveness). List of other organization concerns:

• The history section should be one section, not broken up into several version stubby paragraphs. Flow it into a complete work of prose.
• Graphics shouldn't need subheadings.
• In the gameplay section, each paragraph doesn't need a subheading. For example, the skills section can comprise a paragraph, quests a paragraph, and so on.
• The community and criticism sections should be converted to full prose without list format.
• I still see some citationneeded tags in the criticism section.
• Overall, if you organize correctly and add more/better citations, this will allow the article to meet 3b and the comprehensiveness standard all in one. The information is around, it just needs better organization to fit the FA style of "no bulleted lists and minisections".

2a issues

• The prose needs a lot of work, but this should come after organization, citing, and checks for comprehensiveness. Here are some examples:

"In order to succeed in RuneScape, a player must carry out some tasks." - perhaps reword, or remove completely (the critism section should not explain the gameplay; gameplay detains belong in the gameplay section). Thus, the paragraph should jump right into "Tasks in RuneScape..."

Watch an overuse of additive terms, such as "also", "furthermore", "moreover", and "additionally". These are worshipped in scholary works, but shunned on Wikipedia.

Watch out for redundancies, such as "in order to", "himself", "simply".

Automatic speculation alerts = "may be", "some/others" "perhaps".

Version 0.1: The first version began as a one-man project. Andrew Gower started working on the original game in 1998. This version was very different from the RuneScape of today. It had isometric graphics, and was originally titled 'DeviousMUD'. This version was never released to the public. - entire section here needs to be reworded so that the sentences aren't so simple.

This is a ramble, because the article still needs quite a lot of work. I'd be more than willing to help. — Deckiller 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! It really helps so we know what to do! J.J.Sagnella 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I gave you a few examples of what I was talking about (though the prose needs rewording, since I'm unfamiliar with RuneScape). I'd be willing to help out some more if you'd like. — Deckiller 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. But when I remove the bold text and the list format in the Criticisms section, it turned out like this:[9]. It just makes the section into a very long paragraph.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see what I can do with the criticism section. — Deckiller 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The criticism/reception section needs an overhaul. I recommend looking at Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy XI (probably the better choice, as an MMORPG) for a good example. — Deckiller 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Why don't we take all of the criticisms, and blend the comments with the whole article?? Like for the gameplay criticism, we blend it with the gameplay subsection.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most gaming FAs (if not all) have that in a seperate section, as the comments themselves shouldn't have to describe gameplay or anything (it should be along the lines of "Gamespot criticized the music, stating that it was "plain and unoriginal for an RPG developed so recently".) — Deckiller 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As the user who wanted to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, I regret to say I cannot support this. The article has not even reached Good Article status, and it has been unprotected and nominated for Featured Article. I just briefly looked through the article, and much of the work I have done for it has been undone. Where are the press reviews in the Criticism section? With my Wikilife in crisis, there's not much I can do for this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Needs press criticism or at least some kind of negative commentary from reviewers in the criticism section. Right now, it seems to be "official reviewers say it is great" versus "players say it is bad." And no, this isn't because of my rancorous hatred of MMOs, though RuneScape enlightened me on that. Just caught my eye. --Zeality 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Reasons stated here below:

1. History and Development: The first paragraph doesn't quote or cite any sources. Who's to say that picture is legit? On top of that, there is no citations backing the first three versions were ever created. They may have been, they may not have been. All I'd ask for here is proof.

2. History and Development, Advertising: Does this really need to be in H&D? I don't believe so. Maybe it *could* serve better under the community, as ads are commonplace now and they do affect the community's opinion of the game.

3. Gameplay, Combat and Skills: Enter the fancruft. Does anyone really need to know the max combat level of both versions and/or the calculations made of them? A fansite would be better suited to that knowledge, or even the RuneScape Knowledge Base. On top of that, if you are going to keep the skills listing, I'd believe Slayer would be better suited to Combat-related, as you must fight the NPCs in order to build experience in that field. In that sense, Construction would be seen as processing as well, due to the fact that you manufacture parts in order to build a house. Lack of citations here, as well.

4. Gameplay, Interaction: This section could use a bit of polish. Why should the Encyclopedia list the hundredth quest for this game? I would understand if you could cite this part, "RuneScape features mini-games for its players, which are activities somewhat like quests but that can be done multiple times. Mini-games take place in certain areas and normally involve a specific skill. Many mini-games involve cooperative efforts or allow players to compete with each other. Popular mini-games include Castle Wars and Pest Control.", but until that happens I'd have to disagree. Citations, citations, citations.

5. Gameplay, Random Events: Could be merged with Interaction since a majority of these require you to perform tasks which require NPC interaction.

6. Community: Cite a few more refernces here. I could easily verify that there are a vast number of players that speak all sorts of languages, but to someone that glanced at this page not knowing that, they'd wonder how you found that out. Adding community criticisms would be best here, too.

7. Criticism: There is no critique here. I don't see much except a few opinions from GameFAQs. Not necessarily the best place to pull criticisms from. You could look around on various fansites, pull a huge list of angry opinions from there and come up with a much better section. Other than that, this section of the article needs a lot of work. Makoto 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The to do list is clear, and it looks like the objections from the first and second nominations have been dealt with. Therefore, I'm renominating this article. I think it's ready to be featured. --L33tminion (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Concerning the fair use criteria (criteria #3 and #8): Is it really necessary to add all 4 book covers? I think one is sufficient. Sijo Ripa 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (solved Sijo Ripa 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Concerning criteria #8, the extra covers do, in fact, "contribute significantly to the article." The section they reside in discusses them seperately, and thus the images serve to illustrate the section, instead of simply decorate it. Concerning criteria #3, one cover would be not be adequate, due to the fact that the section discusses all of the books. Having only one cover would not be comprehensive - a requirement of featured articles. JimmyBlackwing 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree. The covers by themselves add hardly anything in the first place (see criterium #8), let alone four of them. Furthermore "four" cannot be considered "as little as possible" and can be considered as "multiple images are used while one serves the purpose adequately" (see criterium #3). On the basis of this alone, I will object to FA status (even more because I don't feel really comfortable by the fact that besides these four, seven other possible-non-necessary images are used under the fair use rule cover.). Sijo Ripa 23:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the covers in the Books section. And on the subject of the other "possible-non-necessary" images, the first two are unquestionably necessary to detail the article. Not having an image in the lead's infobox would be failure to identify the subject of the article, and the image in the plot section details the comic's design, panel layout, and style - all necessary for the identification of the subject. The character images are needed to illustrate the comic's characters, which is necessary to comply with the standards set by other featured articles about comics - Calvin & Hobbes, and The Adventures of Tintin. JimmyBlackwing 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I didn't emphasize the rest up because it's more debatable and I give them the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think there was any doubt concerning the cover images so I'm glad that's solved now. By the way, note that older FA's (such as Calvin & Hobbes, and The Adventures of Tintin - two FA's of 2004) often violate some/many current FA standards, as the FA standards have risen over the years. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • (If that's really the case, they should be improved or defeatured. I'm pretty sure that all featured articles are supposed to meet current standards... --L33tminion (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
          • Note: I didn't object to one cover image. I did (strongly) object to four. Sijo Ripa 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to your previous comment: Yes, I have seen that on many occasions. The problem was that those articles are some of the only usable examples present on Wikipedia after which I could shape the article. However, regardless of the use of character images in older featured articles about comics, I believe that, as featured articles need to be "comprehensive", the images are necessary. JimmyBlackwing 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed. --L33tminion (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now contains only one cover image in that section, and I think it's safe to say that this concern has been addressed. --L33tminion (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Sijo Ripa 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment — The article's informative on the subject, mostly written well, and illustrated adequately. There's also a nice touch with the "Fan translations" box in the External links. However, there's a few issues I have with it, and some stylistic adjustments I have to suggest that I feel would improve the article:
  • Why the spoiler tag tornado? It's unnecessary — and aesthetically offensive — to add the "close" tag right before another "open" tag. Just remove the first "close" tag and the second "open" tag, place the first "open" tag before the table of contents", and leave the second "close" tag where it is
  • Navigation boxes generally should go at the bottom of an article
  • Discuss things in terms of what's already happened, as though the series is already over and done with. Don't treat it at as an on-going thing, even though it still is. Example: the sentence "However, this philosophy is starting to change, as he is spending more time with Kimiko and other women, and listening more to the advice of Seraphim, his 'conscience enforcement agent' and general friend" should be something like "However, this philosophy changes over time, as he spends more time with Kimiko and other women, and more frequently heeds the advice of Seraphim, his 'conscience enforcement agent' and general friend". "General friend" is kind of awkward wording, by the way. I'd suggest dropping that part
  • Some sentences are a mouthful, aren't correctly paced, are incorrectly punctuated or are just awkward. Examples:
    • "Piro finds work at a store called "Megagamers" that specializes in anime, manga and video games, while Largo takes on somewhat irregular jobs with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka, and teaching his students about L33t, games and hacking) for the duration of the early plot" ——— This sentence is mostly fine up to "... and teaching". From there, it becomes long-winded, awkward, and uses incorrect punctuation. Might I suggest this instead?: "Much of the early plot developments detail Piro beginning work at a store called 'Megagamers', which specializes in anime, manga and video games, while Largo takes on somewhat irregular jobs. Largo's work includes service with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he teaches his students about L33t, games and hacking"
    • "Other plot threads include the character Nanasawa Kimiko's rise to idol status, due to her outburst on Mumu-chan's Voicevoice Paradise, a radio talk show, where she came to the defense of fanboys after being angered by Mumu's derisive comments about them, and the trials and consequences of it, as well as the enigmatic Tohya Miho's involvement with Piro and Largo - before meeting them in Japan, she knew them from a massively multi-player online role-playing game called Endgames " ——— Simply long-winded
    • "Piro and Largo grow as individuals as the series progresses, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they represented at first, and begin shaky relationships with women in their lives" ——— This is just worded awkwardly. Perhaps something like "As the series progresses, Piro and Largo begin shaky relationships with women they meet and grow as individuals, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they first represented" would be better

If these issues can be addressed, I'll throw my support behind the article. Ryu Kaze 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I just took a shot at this. What do you think now? (and as a note, the navigation box is there to direct readers to the character articles, if they wish for more in-depth information) JimmyBlackwing 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered moving that earlier, to fit convention, but then I realized that it didn't make any sense if moved. I've just tried changing that again (replacing it with Template:Main and see also at the top of the section). That fits convention, and it might be clearer, but it might not be as pretty. I think that might be a good solution, but feel free to revert it if you think that makes it worse. --L33tminion (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks fine to me. It just makes more sense to the reader than Template:Megatokyo would, I think. JimmyBlackwing 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of which, should Alternate Universes and Omake Theatre in Megatokyo be moved to Alternate universes and omake theatre in Megatokyo (per title capitalization conventions)? (And does Gallagher spell it "theatre" or "theater"?) --L33tminion (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never considered that, but you're right. Also, Gallagher seems to spell it "theater," so I suppose the spelling should be changed there. JimmyBlackwing 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed it, and got all the article space links to point directly to the new title. --L33tminion (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, while I'm still a little concerned about the flow of one line ("...derisive comments about them; as well as the enigmatic..."), I'm satifised with the changes made. This article now has my support. Ryu Kaze 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I tweaked it a bit. It still feels mildly awkward, but then it's hard to be objective about something so small. Any good? --Masamage 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Works for me. Nicely done. Ryu Kaze 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Enormous amounts of time and work have gone into this article, and it's definately paid off. Very well-written and very clear; it's an excellent resource for those who want to learn about a significant internet phenomenon without necessarily reading the four books. --Masamage 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You guys have been cooperative after I've ridden you guys hard in the past months, and I think I might have earned some enmity in so doing, but I'm afraid I have to keep at it. I attempted to thoroughly read the article, the lead, "Plot and themes," and "Major characters" (long bones of contention) devoured all my efforts. The official objections are for criteria 1a (prose) and 2a (the lead). Try though I might, I could only get through the lead and "Major characters," spending far more time on this than I had planned.

• The lead section does not yet stand as an independent encyclopedic article, like it should. Plot and character descriptions are anemic at best, and there's no mention of the critical reception. (You've got the NYT, so flaunt it!)
• Strictly speaking, "Megatokyo" the term is not Japanese (just like "Indianapolis" is not Greek), so would it be possible to insert something like the following in the third paragraph? "For artistic and branding purposes, "Megatokyo" is also rendered as ~KANA~ on the website and some merchandise"?
• Would this be better for the second sentence: "The Megatokyo content is usually published for free online every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Such content consists principally of the comic strips, although "Shirt Guy Dom" and "Dead Piro Days" are often published when a proper strip cannot be completed in time."
• "Fantastical imagining of Tokyo" is somewhat redundant, and feels unencyclopedic. Perhaps "fictional version of Tokyo?"
• Second paragraph, second sentence: How about, "Starting in the gag-a-day format, Megatokyo soon developed a more complex and coherent plot, exploring its characters, while still including frequent, subtler gags and jokes."
• You mention that Caston's no longer with it, then that L33t has survived him, but you give no word of the tensions and controversy surrounding his departure. That's merits mention in the lead. The end of the second paragraph is ideal for mentioning why and when and with what results MT started changing.
• I would also reformulate mention of L33t into a broader, if brief, discussion of cultural and artistic citations and allusions in MT. I know Gallagher discusses this in his "rants," or perhaps just in the commentary to the first print edition of vol. 1.
• Comment."Plot and themes"/"Major characters": To be honest, I had so many problems with these sections that I merged them and gave them no small re-write, which I propose for your consideration. I think I retained the most important character details. I'm not married to this re-write, but I think it's suggestive of 1) the level of detail sufficient for a featured article, and 2) how plot and character details can be integrated. As it stands now, "Major characters" has too much detail (like Largo's working on computers in the nude, and it belabors Miho's gothiness). As I've stated before, it's my opinion that separate character and plot sections are difficult to achieve and allow extraneous detail to slip in.

• I hope you'll be willing to compromise on this one. I think that a little redundancy is worth it in exchange for the clarity and ease of use that a "characters" section provides. Is there a way we can improve the prose in those two sections without merging them? --L33tminion (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly willing to withdraw the objection if the prose improves, and I've noticed your edits in that direction. The prose and lead are what led to the objection; the separate sections was (is) a strong matter of taste that got caught up in dealing with the prose. Since it's not a part of the objection, I've demoted this bit to a comment. (Apologies to everyone for all the sound and fury.)--Monocrat 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! That is darned reasonable of you. :D I think you've raised some compelling points about the seperate sections, by the way. I have some ideas about the necessity of the character snapshots, but I need to mull them around a bit before using them. Anyway, thanks for being so clear and so supportive this whole time. It's a breath of fresh air. --Masamage 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:MOS-JA, Kimiko and Erika's names should be given in Western order.

• I think this has been addressed. --L33tminion (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's hoping it stays addressed this time. ;)--Monocrat 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The character image for Piro needs fuller copyright statements and sourcing to original image, and (am I right in thinking that) all images should explicitly name the copyright holder.

I stand by my talk-page statement that the article is ready for FAC. FA is another matter. I had hoped to wait a week or so to see if others picked up on these issues, but I got impatient. :) I hope to see the article bear a little star, but it's not quite there. I've been at this for several hours now; I just can't get to the other sections right now, but I fear they will need work.--Monocrat 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I believe the majority of the issues you commented on have been taken care of. Unfortunately, Megatokyo's site is moving so unbelievably slowly that I was unable to find the source for that Piro image, and referencing an expansion of the discussion on L33t would have been a nearly impossible task - I'll take care of them once the site gets back up to speed.

Now, on to the main point. As far as your suggested merge of the two sections goes, I do not see the reason to do so. I understand that you were able to get an article (Excel Saga) to featured status while using the system - that's great. However, there is an incredibly large difference between a Webcomic and an anime. The closest things I had to model the article after were The Adventures of TinTin and Calvin and Hobbes. I'm not sure if it's an official policy, guideline or whatever, but general practice is modeling your article after what other articles that have been featured have done. Though the featured articles I named were both from 2004, defeaturing is something that exists for a reason - if these articles didn't deserve their positions, they would probably not be featured right now.

I examined your rewriting of the article to include the supersection, and honestly must say that if I stumbled upon this article undergoing FAC with that section, I would oppose it. I must once again bring up the fact that having no dedicated "characters" section was cited as a flaw in Megatokyo's most recent peer review - suggesting that the way you put forth may not necessarily be the right way to go about this (although perhaps not the inherently wrong way, either). Though the system may have worked for your article, it may not necessarily work here. Also, though the discussion of plot elements in the characters section may be inappropriate (I have removed these, I might add), discussions of the characters in the plot section is not a particularly large problem - the characters are an integral part of the plot, and as such also require separate, dedicated discussions in their own sections to do their complexities justice. The character section contains what you considered to be "too much detail"; however, is not the point of a character-based story its characters? As such, I would assume that some increase in the normal amount of detail would be normal. Like I touched on before - what may have worked for Excel Saga may not work here. It's something similar to modeling Jabba the Hutt after Final Fantasy X, or vice versa. I hope I have made my reasoning clear. JimmyBlackwing 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of the smaller points. And I know how slow MT can be at times. On to the meat of the matter: Excel Saga is indeed an apt example because it was and still is a character-driven manga, if of a different genre, and the anime based on its was also character-driven. Not all suggestions from peer review are worthwhile in the long run. What matters is FAC. Regarding the level of detail in "Main characters," a proper understanding of Megatokyo can be conveyed without the following: "He is technically gifted, though he uses beer as a CPU coolant; and cannot pass up the opportunity to tamper with anything even remotely technological in nature, usually working on computer hardware in the nude, as an extreme measure to avoid electrostatic discharge." Why am I opposed to a separate (main) characters section?

• We agree that the characters are integral to the plot, so why the false separation? It leads to commingling of information anyway, and ghettoizes the characters' personalities, rather than letting them be shown at liberty in the plot.
• As it stands, you don't do the characters' complexities justice. Only a thorough reading and analysis can do them real justice. The purpose here is to give suggestions and overviews of their complexities.
• Of the whole "Largo" subsection, only the third paragraph gives us anything that is interesting and new to the article; the rest is excessive detail or little more than repetition of details in "Plot."
• The first paragraph of "Piro" is just a light expansion (really a rewording) of details in "Plot."
• Kimiko's section would be complete simply by adding to the end of its first paragraph something like the following: "Like Piro, Kimiko is kind, soft-spoken, and lacks self-confidence, but she is mildly impulsive and prone to mood-swings. Also like Piro, her shyness and self-doubt cause her to keep her feelings secret."
• Erika's could also be trimmed likewise.
• Miho's section is a little wordy, but tolerable.
• Notes about what language each character speaks isn't really necessary (also covered in "Plot").
• This leads to roughly 380 (42.2%) of 900 words that can be cut for repetitious or excessive detail. At this point, "Main characters" hardly warrants its own section, let alone five subsections. A dedicated section for characters encourages this kind of fluff so that section seems full.

That is why I am opposed to a separate section. You might lose cherised details in this--I know the feeling--but the objective is to succinctly and logically present the characters. And I contend that this cannot be done with separate sections. However, it seems neither of us will back down from our respective positions. My proposed Synopsis was meant more to be suggestive. I hope, however, that it shows that I'm just trying to improve the article. :) As time permits, I'll scan the second half of the article. --Monocrat 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I see where you're coming from, though it's difficult for me to just agree to doing it. The point is that your support of the article being featured is what is important - if making some sort of merge is necessary for that, then I will see what I can do. On one final note, I meant the peer review example as more of something to show that your viewpoint on characters sections is contested by more than just myself. JimmyBlackwing 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I'm being unreasonable, and I want very much to be reasonable. What's important is not a solitary oppose (which can often be disregarded in the final tally), but engaging in dialogue to improve the article. And I thank you for that. At the very least, I am a minority view--so I wouldn't rush to make the merger yet. I've asked for thoughts on my view, so we'll see. You've got a while left in the nom, so pending more discussion, I'll suspend this whole plot/character concern for the time being. But the prose still needs work. :)--Monocrat 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note on the combined plot/characters section: that's actually far more intimidating. When I'm presented with several small, discrete topics, I unconsciously find it friendly and intuitive. When I looked at your Synopsis section, it was so long that I didn't want to read it. I tend to imagine that someone who looks up MT in an encyclopedia rather than reading is someone who doesn't want to get involved in a long narrative, and wants quick facts. These seperate sections can be read individually without lack of understanding; your Synopsis requires reading the entire thing. --Masamage 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masamage. Well put. --L33tminion (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize about long sections. The proposal was mostly suggestive, but I've inserted some headings. Better? :)--Monocrat 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enormously! I think I still prefer the way it is currently (for reasons I'm unclear on), but that made a gigantic difference. --Masamage 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Eight "fair use" images in only 40k of text is about six or seven too many. User:Angr 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use is not a text/article ratio (Final Fantasy VI is 55kb with 14 fair use images), it is a matter of necessity and availability; all images are required for their various purposes, and by virtue of being a commercial work, no free images could ever be substituted. Nifboy 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's just a matter of necessity, then eight "fair use" images are eight too many. None of these images is necessary; but having one or two is tolerable. User:Angr 09:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going by this, it would be logical to de-feature nearly every single featured article on popular culture. The images are used for the identification of the subject matter, and the illustration of sections which discuss related elements. Though it may not be absolutely necessary to have them, it is far and away standard procedure when it comes to articles like these. I do not understand why this article, out of all the others, is so wrong in doing this. JimmyBlackwing 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've singled this article out. Indeed, it would be best to de-feature all articles containing unnecessary fair-use images, and not to promote any new ones. But since Wikipedia's fair-use policy is roundly ignored here at FAC, I'm trying to increase its visibility the only way I know how: by opposing any article that violates it. You cannot steal a bunch of images from someone who has worked hard and/or paid a lot of money for them, put them into a Wikipedia article, and then try to get that article called one of Wikipedia's best. It's simply immoral. User:Angr 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid I must bring up the fact that all you are doing is making a point. A far superior alternative to disrupting Wikipedia's business as usual to illustrate your point would be to discuss the guidelines in question on their respective talk pages. I am sorry if this came off as rude, but I just thought I should bring up the fact that you're trying to change a guideline by breaking another. JimmyBlackwing 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If Wikipedia's business as usual is promoting articles that violate policy to FA status, then include me out. I'm not objecting to these FACs to try to get policy changed, I'm objecting to them to try to get existing policy adhered to. That is not interrupting Wikipedia to make a point. User:Angr 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nowhere in the policy page you noted does it say that "fair use" images should not be used at all. The closest it comes is criterion #3, which you listed. However, "as little as possible" is completely subjective. While I might consider "as little as possible" to mean only using them to illustrate articles in significant ways, you might consider it to mean none at all, as you have shown. I do not see how it is particularly necessary of you to oppose every nomination made with images used under "fair use," in this case - it would be more productive to get the policy amended in order to make it clearer, so arguments over personal interpretations of the guidelines and policies would occur less often. JimmyBlackwing 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are we allowed to seek Fred Gallagher's permission? How would that work? --Masamage 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia can't use images "by permission" if that permission extends only to Wikipedia, but of course you can ask the artist to release some pictures under a free license such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA (or both simultaneously). User:Angr 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Angr has added this objection to pretty much every FAC with fair use images. Really, it's a subjective matter that's being argued as though it has specific boundaries in this case. Personally, I think all of these objections are going to be dismissed by Raul on the basis that they seem to be more an attempt at "making an example" for the sake of individual fair use wikiphilosophy than an actual constructive comment. As long as you provide an explanation for why the image is being used that meets sourcing and licensing requirements, you're doing all you're supposed to with images.

Angr's objections have been a matter of discussion for fair use in general, not something that should be targeted at individual FACs. It's inconsiderate of fellow editors and the work that's been performed on them. Ryu Kaze 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Blackwing. To call this "stealing" is absurd. I find it hard to imagine that use of this type is costing the creators of such works even marginally. Second of all, stealing is illegal, and fair use rights are legally protected. IMO, either Angr is greatly exaggerating or their problem is with the current state of copyright law. --L33tminion (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on images: Personally, I think most of the images are fine from a fair use perspective. The cover of vol. 4 seems to be decoration in general, although it might have more value if moved up to the discussion of the Seraphim subplot. I would still cut it. Nevertheless, the use of an entire page of the comic seems inappropriate, especially since there's no discussion of that page, its content, or its place in the story. I would remove it post haste.--Monocrat 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the editors could add a line or two describing the style of art and presentation used? I can see an example page as a relevant illustration of concept under the right circumstances. It'd be a shame to lose such a valuable piece of imagery. Ryu Kaze 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is used to illustrate the style in which the comic is put forth. If you just use single character images, then the layout could be like A Lesson is Learned but the Damage is Irreversible's or Penny Arcade's, for all the reader knows. It's definitely needed. I'll work on fixing that. JimmyBlackwing 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure, to be honest, that a few lines would be sufficient. First, can you easily discuss the page itself, which seems to me a requirement for fair use. Second, is it really necessary to have that image here: if someone is truly interested in seeing the layout and comparing it with manga or American comics, the MT website is just a scroll and click away. Plus, I find the image, as it is in the article and its own page, to be visually unappealing. On another note, and purely a matter of taste: have you considered using the image for the vol. 1 first edition in the infobox? It's a much nicer image, methinks, than the second edition. Anyway, I'm glad to see you're working on the images' copyright statements. :)--Monocrat 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a featured article's calling to be comprehensive - leaving out such an important detail as the layout of the comic would be a total failure to live up to this. Though the site may easily be accessed, the point is that it is something the article should cover itself. On the subject of the cover image, I had not considered it - I figured I would just leave the image as it was, since no one objected to it and I had no issue with it. Finally, I must say that yes, I should be able to find a way to discuss the image, though it may be difficult - I may need to replace it with a different strip for an easier time of it, on that note. JimmyBlackwing 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a strip, and you don't need to discuss a specific strip, to discuss the comic's layout. The actual comic is freely available if people have questions about it. By insisting on using an actual strip, I feel you make more work than necessary to achieve FA, and open yourself up to possible copyright violations. Your call. This is not an objection.--Monocrat 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I would object to the article being featured without an illustration of a strip (or at least an excerpt of a few panels). I would not consider the article to be well-illustrated without it. IMO, the current image doesn't even stray close to being a copyvio (it's one comic and it's clearly illustrative of the style of the work), and removing it would decrease the quality of the article. --L33tminion (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some basic fair use rationale to the picture, but since the section that it is placed in is currently not relevant to it at all, I am having difficulty explaining how the image contributes significantly to the article. Could someone add some information to "Plot and themes" that is relevant to both the image and the plot/themes? Hargle 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will get on that right away. JimmyBlackwing 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I added a more specific rationale for that image, will that be sufficient? Hargle 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, L33tminion, one can't please all the people all the time. I stand by my comment--though I seem to be overruled on this--that the strip is unattractive in the article, and unnecessary both per se and for a discussion of the comic's layout. We're not talking about an Action Comics that exists only in library archives and personal collections. There is a freely available alternative for readers, the MT website itself. As for copyright... yes, it is just one of hundreds of pages from MT. But it was published and hence copyrighted as a stand-alone work of art, and the article uses all of it. That stretches my interpretation of fair use: character images are small compared to the whole work; a full page is large. As I said before, this is just a comment.--Monocrat 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any article on something online is going to be mostly information that's "only a click away"; I don't see why that should be unacceptable for the illustrations. Necessity is not a prerequisite for illustrative fair use. As far as whether the strip is "unattractive in the article" I guess our aesthetic sensibilities differ on that point, but if you've got suggestions for an alternate excerpt that illustrates layout and artistic style, I'd be happy to hear them. --L33tminion (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Two questions for you, Monocrat. What did you have in mind when you said "I would also reformulate mention of L33t into a broader, if brief, discussion of cultural and artistic citations and allusions in MT. I know Gallagher discusses this in his "rants," or perhaps just in the commentary to the first print edition of vol. 1"? I would like confirmation before I make an attempt, in order to avoid serious error. Secondly, would you be opposed to the use of the first (1st edition) and fourth book covers in the Books section as an illustration of how Megatokyo's printed presentation has changed along with Gallagher's style, and the publishers he has gone with? I am curious about this before I completely cut the final cover. On one final note, it would be ever so kind of you to update your lists of issues you have with the article so the editors know what remains to be fixed - I myself have gotten kind of lost, at this point. JimmyBlackwing 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Good detailed article with ideal referencing. I was familiar with Megatokyo for a while and feel that this article is a good representation of it. The pictures are very well selected as well. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. This looks to be in good shape overall, and it does a good job explaining a comic which can itself can be tricky for the unaquainted to understand. I do have a couple of concerns, which I think shouldn't be too troublesome to fix:
  • First, the remark about "the infamous "Shirt Guy Dom" stick-figure strips" -- these are mentioned but not explained. Why are they infamous?
  • The use of Leet as a spoken language, I know, is a joke. But since the article refers to characters as "speaking" and "understanding" leet with various degrees of fluency, could you throw in a few sentences to make it a little more clear how Megatokyo uses leet? Are chracters speaking English leet, Japanese leet, or is leet considered a whole seperate language?
  • Lastly, I'm a bit concerned that some of the uses of Japanese terms, though commonly used in English-langauge anime and manga publications, do not need to be in Japanese. I'm fine with terms like shojo manga, which have no equal in english, but do we need to use the Japanese for terms like renai game ("dating sim"), seiyū ("voice actor"), dōjinshi ("self-published comics"), omake ("bonus"), and gosurori (redirects to "gothic lolita")? We're supposed to be writing for a general audience, and Megatokyo isn't even really Japanese, so I'm thinking these terms are likely to be a bit off-putting for non-specialists.

Other than that, really good work. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I have taken a shot at addressing this issues. [10] Will that be sufficient? JimmyBlackwing 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that works for me. Full support. Enjoyable article all around. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For the same reasons as GoOdCoNtEnT. ISD 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I made this same comment on the nom for Padme Amidala. There's no way you can have a large amount of CC/GDFL imagery for something that is a media property. --Kitch 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To closing admin. The discussion with User:Monocrat has continued on the Megatokyo article's talk page. Whether this information is necessary or not, I am unsure, but I thought I should clear up any possible confusion in advance. JimmyBlackwing 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Ive been working on this article and seen it grow and this article is worthy of featured article status. -Vcelloho 04:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, character descriptions don't adhere to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). At least, maybe they do superficially, but not enough to my liking. Ashibaka tock 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific, please? --Masamage 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashibaka, I attempted to clean up this problem. [11] <- Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? JimmyBlackwing 18:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty close to what I meant. Thanks. Ashibaka tock 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I recommend Googling Scholar and Print for more academic refs, currently most of them are from comic publisher, and the second largest group are newspaper reviews.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If at all possible, I would have already done so. The current references are used out of necessity - due to Megatokyo's webcomic nature, it's difficult to find refs that would be considered "academic." A search for "Megatokyo" in the sections of Google you suggested reveals nothing that would be useful as a reference. However, the sites used are all notable and reliable sources to some extent, even if not all on the level of reliability as, say, The New York Times or TIME. I do not believe there is a problem with using the current references, in this case. JimmyBlackwing 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A FA needs to have better sources, wether they're available or not. In a case where such sources are not available, such an article should not become a featured article. -- Ned Scott 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; I would like the name order dispute on the talk page to be resolved before this makes FA. Frankly, I would rather Western order (per WP:MOS-JA and WP:Manga), or some very compelling rationale why we should make things more confusing for English readers ("Megatokyo does it" isn't a good enough reason), particularly because the general audience may or may not even see the tiny little note stating that names are in reverse order. Nifboy 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note you are commenting on disputed naming conventions. "The fictional series in question uses that naming convention" seems like more than reasonable rational to use a naming convention to me (if the reader wishes to know about the naming convention, I believe Help:Japanese (the question mark) will help them... that and article phrasing should clue the reader in). Also: the italised comment at the top of the character section clearly spells out that japanese names are listed as Surname Givenname. -Aknorals 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. per the name order dispute. FA are supposed to be the best of the best, and follow applicable guidelines. A great deal of editors to Japanese related articles don't like changing name order, but we do. I can understand if the editors here don't want to, and their reasons are the same as those who didn't want to change the order for JP names. The point of the guideline for western naming order wasn't supposed to single out Japanese topics specifically, but to have consistency for naming order across all articles. It wouldn't make sense to include the western naming order guideline in any place but WP:MOS-JA, but that's only because they didn't think of bizarre situations like this. This is just a small technicality, and it does not exclude this article from following established naming conventions. -- Ned Scott 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You opposed based on your interpretation of a guideline? I do not believe that is allowed. Please keep this disruptive debate all in one place (the WP:MOS-JA talk page). Thanks. JimmyBlackwing 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is perfectly kosher to oppose based on an article's not meeting applicable guidelines. Consider FF6's old FAC that sprung up an equally large discussion on the use of the game's logo in the infobox, when WP:CVG says to use boxart; most of the FF6 editors said the logo was better. What's there now that it's FA? Boxart. Nifboy 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However this article is not applicable to MOS-JA. - See the discussion page. WhisperToMe 02:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, the ONLY reason it's in MOS-JA is because at the time it didn't make much sense to put it in a "general" naming convention. I don't think they thought about situations such as this. Not only that, but it's a work of fiction heavily using Japanese elements, saying it is totally excluded from MOS-JA is absurd. Again, can you tell me why other Japanese articles can't be excused for the same reasons you've provided for this article? -- Ned Scott 06:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm pulling out of this. I stand by what I said, in that something shouldn't be excluded from such naming conventions simply because it's not "Japanese" by technicality. Should it follow the western naming order? yes. Does it actually matter? no. For this article, I can't say it's a big deal. We have a label for the characters, and from that we can identify the characters. I really don't care what part of the name is the first or last, as long as I know who is being talked about. I got way too caught up in this, and I'm sorry for my knee-jerk reaction. While I'm not convinced enough to support, I do withdraw my oppose. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The MOS-Ja does not apply to this article. WhisperToMe 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—1a. This isn't so much ungrammatical or ambiguous as full of redundancies and awkward expressions. It's certainly not "compelling, even brilliant" prose as required. Please find good copy-editors to run through the whole text intensively: it needs to be tighter and stylish. I know several who are good at this kind of topic, and you probably do too. Let's look at just the opening paragraph, which is supposed to be a display.
  • "Megatokyo is a popular webcomic created by Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, though now written and illustrated solely by Gallagher."—Replace "though" with "and"?
    • I've replaced it with neither ("... created by Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, now written and illustrated solely by Gallagher"). I think that flows better without the "and", but either way it's an improvement over "though". Good suggestion, now fixed.
  • "Its writing and art styles"—bit ungainly; try "The styles of its writing and illustrations".
    • Fixed
  • "The contents and comic strip of Megatokyo"—category problem: the comic strip is part of the contents, isn't it?
    • Fixed
  • "with updates generally occurring every Monday, Wednesday and Friday"—Remove "occurring"; consider "generally on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays".
    • Fixed to "with regular updates on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday"
  • "are often published in their stead"—last three words archaic expression. ("in their place"? or just "instead"?)
    • Fixed
  • "Officially, Megatokyo is only available in English; unofficial translations into other languages are available elsewhere on the Internet, although the French and German translations are the only ones close to matching the original's update schedule." While not compulsory, it would be nicer as "is available only in English". Remove "into other languages". Remove "elsewhere". "Although" should only be used where the next clause is surprising or contradictory to what has just been said. Perhaps you need ", of which the French ...". Inset "that come" before "close". "The original's" is ungainly; try "the update schedule of the English version." Tony 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. It looks like Ryu Kaze has been doing some excellent work on the copyediting. Many thanks for your suggestions. --L33tminion (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. By the way, you mentioned knowing editors who are good at copyediting this kind of topic? Would you mind giving me their names? JimmyBlackwing 06:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on your talk page. Tony 08:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I'd just like to inject that I've performed an extensive copyedit of the article now, per JimmyBlackwing's request, and that a couple of other editors have been/are going over it as well. Hopefully this effort will resolve any concerns with the article's prose. Ryu Kaze 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporary oppose. The article is full of informal language ("hits on" and so on), and many large, substantial, significant, redundant redundancies appear throughout the work itself (redundancies intended). — Deckiller 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that "hits on" is perhaps too informal, I think the current wording is substantially less accurate. Look at the comic in question and judge for yourself. --L33tminion (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed it to "harasses". --L33tminion (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks much better after the threeway copyedit. — Deckiller 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom. This article is about British band Keane. I've worked for three months now on it. I think it contains the most information possible about the band (excepting private facts for reasons of the band). However this article will keep being improved as they are an active band. Fluence 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've just noticed a few things that should be addressed.

1. All the the promotional pictures used in the article should have fair use rationales written for them.
2. The lead has too many one sentence paragraphs. These should be blended together into two larger paragraphs.
3. A lot of fansites are listed under the External links section. Could this be cut down a bit?
4. I see that a lot of your main source of information is a Keane fansite (keaneshaped.co.uk). You should try to find a variety of sources instead of using just one.

-- Underneath-it-All 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to look another sources of information about Keane around the Internet and the very few magazines that talk about them (I live in Mexico) but almost every source contains information taken from Keaneshaped. I think that fansite contains more information than the official page. I can't delete the links to the FAQ page of that fansite because of Copyright. Chris Flynn (owner of site) let the information he has recovered to be included here but including the links to his fansite. However, I've included the links to the original articles and sources on the "References" section. Some articles are now only found on Keaneshaped (there have been removed from the main source) so that's why there are very few references. If I change the "Notes" section links from Keaneshaped, Chris Flynn would have to erase half the article. I've also retired fansites and blended the lead. About the fair uses I'm looking forward to them Fluence 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't the information within the trivia section be used elsewhere so the trivia section can be removed? Trivia sections aren't recommended in FA's. Also, there is no section citing their cultural influences and impact upon music. LuciferMorgan 13:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK I've removed the trivia and added a section. I don't like trivias either but as I've saw that many articles have them I included on this one Fluence 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references for the influences section and impact are from Keaneshaped and as Underneath-it-All said, there should be more references apart from the fansite but that information can't be found anywhere else but the link I've just included (Keane.at) Fluence 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page really is very imformative and no doubt it deserves 'featured status' Victoria Eleanor 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria are you referring to? Tony 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object 1a. There is good in this article, but it needs thorough massaging throughout to meet the criterion. Let's look at three sentences in the lead.

"They are recognized worldwide because unlike most rock artists, they do not use a guitar in their music and because of Tom Chaplin's soft voice and falsetto. Despite this "no guitar" stance, they use synthesizers which sound almost exactly like guitars.[1] Keane have a particular style of music (piano rock) that many have compared to Coldplay, members of whom they met when they were at school."

I'm going to be very fussy:

• • would it be easier to read with another comma, before "unlike"?
  • "They" (being a band) contrasted with individual "artists"; use "bands" instead?
  • "voice" and "falsetto" are a category problem.
  • We're hit with the assertion that having no guitars is a "stance", after just being told that this is a characteristic of their musical texture. Before meeting it in passing, I'd rather have that deliberate stance or policy or philosophy formally explained, either here or in the body of the article.
  • The "despite" sentence seems to undermine the logic of their worldwide recognisability on the basis of having no guitars. It seems to be a reversal.
  • The two "becauses" are awkward—maybe the comma will improve this, but one because is a negative and the other is a positive. Why not draw these attributes together:

"They are easily recognized for the distinctive softness of Tom Chaplin's voice, often used in falsetto, and their use of synthesized rather than acoustic guitars." I'm unsure because I'm foreign to the topic, but it's wrong at the moment—I can see that much.

• • Remove "of music" as redundant. Why not "have a piano rock style that has been compared to the band Coldplay, ...". Should Coldplay be linked? "British band, Coldplay"? Dunno. Reference required to support your assertion that many people have said ...?

This is not nearly good enough. Tony 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for Tony1's demands.Fluence 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination This article covers the subject matter extensively and addresses it neutrally from several different vantage points. It made it to GA status wihtout a hitch and every single statement is referenced as well as completely NPOV. Please note that this article's subject matter is income statistics so it might not be as entertaining as some other articles but it covers and important issue concerning US society. (Besides entertainment isn't on the criteria list) I did my best to make all facts user-friendly and interpret their meaning so that even someone is unfamiliar with the subject can statisfy his or her curiosity. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article is well done, but without some comparision to the rest of the world I don't think it is comprehensive, the United States doesn't exist on its own, and surely there are some interesting international comparisons that could be made within the OECD (at least). The lead should be broken into two paragraphs.--Peta 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, break the lead into two paragraph, okay I'll take a look. Also, you kind of have a point the US doesn't exsist alone, no. But unlike some measurements such as GDP per capita, Pucharsing power per capita, household income is not a universal measure. Many countries don't count the same way the US does and do not make the same numbers available. I'll take a look at the Canadian Census, perhaps I can find something the same as US data there. (International comparisions would certainly add to the article but are extremely difficult to find as definitions of household income and availability of data vary) Otherwise I guess I'm just assuming (considering the title) that the reader just kind of has an idea what $40,000 a year are worth-relatively speaking. Signature^brendel 04:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this useful (another link in case the first doesn't work). --Peta 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article name states clearly thats it deals with the United States and it is a statistical article similar to a list. What can you compare to the rest of the world without listing the same type of statistics for every country? That would make the article remarkably long. - Tutmosis 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still trying to figure something out but giving the same statistics for every country would not only make this article remarkably wrong but would also be impossible. Not every country uses "Household income" and even the definition of "household" varies. Signature^brendel 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I have looked at the article provided by Peta but none of the statistics there are comparable to the US. They would though be approriate if placed on the Poverty in the United States article as that article isn't as specific as this one. I have looked at the Candian Census-there is only one problem the statistics are Candian dollars ;-) So, I'll convert the amounts but will have to note that due to constant fluctuations on the currency market, conversion rates are always a bit of. Signature^brendel 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, were you replying to me or Peta? My comment above was towards Peta comment. I'm not suggesting you put statistics from all other countries. - Tutmosis 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was relpying to Peta. Sorry for the confusion. Signature^brendel 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would suggest that you start the lead with a description of what the article is talking about. Like define household income. Currently the article starts with a statistic and for that matter the article is a hell lot of statistics. I think the article is missing something. Aside from providing current statistics on the household income in the states I think the article should give an overview of previous stats and how they compare to the current ones. Reading the article I dont understand if each number is an improvement or a decrease from previous years. Also even though I have no idea, did the government make any efforts to improve any of this stats? or planning to. If they did then that would be a good thing to include. Also you might include the role household income plays on an economy or something of that sort. Ofcourse this subject matter is very new to me and my suggestions might be baseless so let me know what you think. The article looks great by the way. - Tutmosis 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have attempted to bring in a description of what household income is-add a couple of sentencea to the intro. These are the standard stats used by the Census Bureau-so yes a comparison to 1990 for example is possible in some areas. Until 1999 much Census Data wasn't published only so I cannot find "counter-figures" for everything here. I will try and include some comparative statistics and add a new intro sentence. Signature^brendel 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 1990 median household income figure and explained its value considering inflation. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Thanks for implementing my suggestions, your really did a good job on the article. You even made all the pictures and graphs yourself. The last thing is boldind the first mention of the title in the lead. It be really good if you could get "Household income in the United States" words together in the lead so it can be bolded. Good luck on your future projects. - Tutmosis 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the first sentence a bit in order to apply bold face to the title-term. Thank you for your suggestions and support. Signature^brendel 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's well researched, and seems well structured, but wow it needs some more copyediting. I saw a number of sentences I can't even tell what they really meant or had awkward phrasing, enough so that I couldn't fix them. Taxman

Alright, I'll run a spell and grammar check and proof read it. Signature^brendel 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, for the most part it just needs a copyedit (some of which I've done myself). In some places you are missing commas. Other things to note:
  • "In order measure household income the pre-tax earnings of all persons in a household that are over the age of 15 are combined." This sentence either is missing a word or has too many words. I can't tell for sure.
  • "had mean of only one income" Should this be "had a mean"? I'm not sure enough of your meaning to change it myself.
  • Likewise, "below national median" or "below the national median"?
  • The states in the "income by state" chart should all be linked. Andrew Levine 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am personally not done with the copyedit, but will be today-I will also suggest linking all the states. Signature^brendel 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. It certainly is impressive, especially the referencing, but there are some issues that I'd like to address. 1) and most serious - I fear the article is not comprehensive: I would like to see a section on history of that phenomena. And even more, important needed missing section are those about who analyzes this data and what is it used for. 2) lead could use a picture - even a graph would be nice 3) lead also needs many interlinks (per WP:BTW): in the very first sentence there are important unlinked concepts like wealth, government, institution, in the second household and resident, and the list could go on. 4) footnotes 8 and 9 are broken.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay as for history-there is not that much to say-though I'll see what I can do. I may add another mention of the Census Bureau-as this is the institution that measures households income. I'll add a graph and more wiki links. Links 8 and 8 will be fixed. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr brings up a good point. History of household income would be very important to be comprhensive. What trends have there been, real vs. nominal, purchasing power, etc. Also the census bureau is one of the main collectors of that data, but the IRS also collects data on taxable income of course. Discussing the vagaries of that data and what differences it has to the census data would be valuable. In other words more discussion of the meaning of the data, less regurgitation of it. I'll look for more on the language improvement too. - Taxman ^Talk 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In addition to what Piotr and Taxman have just mentioned, I think it is vital to include some information on how the household income data is actually put into application. The first sentence says the data is "commonly used by the United States government as well as private institutions." But the article never gets around to giving examples of what they use it for. Andrew Levine 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm currently traveling so I only check my watchlist briefly. But addressing your concerns: I'll add a paragraph for the application of the data and for how the economic survey works. Also, Household income is only real if you will. There is no pucharsing power or nominal household income. The census bureua simply counts the gross income of all income earners in a given household and since 2000 has been publishing this data in detail, for free online. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. 1a (prose) and 1c (facts). Economics articles can and should make an effort to explain things in a crystal-clear way to non-economists. This article is full of ambiguities and wordings that lack clarity. Many questions are begged, just in the lead that I looked at intensively. This needs a thorough audit. Here are my queries about the lead:
  • Right at the top, the logic of this sentence is unclear: "The use of household income is often seen as the most dependable measure of personal wealth, as people tend to live in households that include other wage earners besides themselves."
  • "In 2003, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $43,389,[2] nearly identical to that of Canada which was roughly $41,510 (USD) in the year 2000." Remove "determined to be" (there's another one of these lower down). I can see that you've included Canadian info in response to comments that it was all too US-centric, but this is very odd here. Why just Canada? It's info from three years previously (and a whopping six years ago, anyway), so the "nearly identical" claim is a little wobbly.
  • Get rid of "in the year"—there are a number of them. We know that 2003 was a year.
  • Consider abbreviating after first spelling out "the United States". Make it concise and easy for our readers.
  • "The 2005 economic survey also found that"—Every extra sentence is "also"; it's stronger without.
  • A mean of "two income earners" and then "one income earner"? Surely to one decimal place.
  • "Among those in-between the relative extremes of the income strata a large and quite powerful section of households with moderately high middle class incomes[7] and an even larger number of households with moderately low incomes.[5]". Here and in numerous other sentences, a comma would help the readers. I know that many commas are a matter of personal preferences, but when you bump up multiword nominal groups, it's hard to read. I read it and wondered whether the comma should be after "between" or "strata". In any case, the sentence is ungrammatical.
  • Here, I can safely say that you must have a comma after either "44%" or "1990"—which is it? "While the median household income has increased 44% since 1990 it has decreased very slightly when considering inflation." Make it explicit in the first clause that you're comparing dollar values with inflation-equivalent values. Otherwise, the punters will be totally lost. It took me a few reads to realise what you meant. Insert "by" before "44%", I think.
  • "was determined to be $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars." Are you giving us a choice: either of those two amounts? No, so write "$30,056 ($44,603 in 2003 dollars)".
  • "In 2003, the median household income was, however, only $43,389, showing a slight decrease." Decrease since 1990, or when? And since the values here arise from a number of factors, you might make that point, to put in perspective this "slight decrease". Is this point suitable in the lead, anyway? Without supporting detail, it's kind of misleading. Tony 05:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unfinished work (2) violet/riga (t) 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article explains the primary reasons behind creative works remaining unfinished, giving (prominent) examples for each in different media. May not be the longest article, but it doesn't really need to be as it covers the topic to a good enough degree. Any further detail and lists of works can be placed in subarticles. violet/riga (t) 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support How ironic that something on unfinished work can be so complete. --Kitch 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Literature: No mention of Kafka? No Proust? No Stephen Hero? Nothing at all on sculpture (the Kouros on Naxos only survived because it was unfinished)? These are some of the very first things I think of when I think of an unfinished work. What is our criteria for including a mention here? The "See also" section could be incorporated into the text or removed. Jkelly 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kafka is worthy of inclusion in a similar way to the mention of Orson Welles, so I'll get to that one soon. Proust and Stephen Hero don't seem to add anything different to the article that isn't covered by other examples already. There is mention of sculpture, but I hadn't noticed that there weren't any examples; the Kouros on Naxos aren't detailed in any Wikipedia article, but I will look into some sources. The criteria for inclusion are a) it adds an example to illustrate something different, b) it is a very famous example of incomplete work. I want to avoid having too many examples and turning this into a list (categories or a list article can do that). Thanks for your comments and suggestions - I'll hopefully address the two mentioned soon. violet/riga (t) 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kafka has been added. I can't find many scholarly sources about the unfinished Kouros, only tourists mentioning them from their travels, but I haven't looked too in depth yet. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a little unsure about this whole approach, to be honest. Does it make sense for us, as Wikipedia editors, to be saying "This is an important example of an unfinished work / That is not an important example of an unfinished work."? Looking at the notes, I don't see a single one that is a discussion of unfinished works as a whole. Jkelly 20:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying here. The article gives examples that illustrate the point being made. The most important examples found that illustrate those points are presented. It is not an article that should give a list of all the unfinished works that exist. violet/riga (t) 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I think more could be added. Classical works such as the Aeneid was never finished. There is some discussion regarding whether or not The Tale of Genji was unfinished as well. Nietzsche was also known for not finishing many of his planned philosophical works. I'll list more if I can think of them. Lemegeton 11:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do they add anything different to the article? I would think they should be in a category or list. violet/riga (t) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Where's Hemingway? --Neutrality^talk 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should he be mentioned? violet/riga (t) 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ernest Hemingway#Posthumous publications...--Neutrality^talk 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it has fleshed out one section of the article. Please take a look. violet/riga (t) 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutrality has been asked to review this vote but has so far not returned. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Are you going to start keeping lists of other unfinished, yet published works? P.G. Wodehouse's Sunset at Blandings and Douglas Adams's Salmon of Doubt both come to mind. --JohnDBuell 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They will be in the relevant category (Category:Unfinished books) or, if more detail is required, a list. This unfinished work article should not contain a massive list of unfinished work. violet/riga (t) 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I agree with that completely. I just wondered if you had a page or sandbox or 'holding area' to add works to for later list inclusion. --JohnDBuell 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a bit of something on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No mention of Architecture whatsoever. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think of it, the Laws section could also explore the legal situation of unfinished works in other countries. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not supposed to have architecture - that comes under unfinished building. As for the laws, well I've never seen any explicit unfinished copyright laws outside of the one given. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the value at this point of having a separate article for unfinished buildings. Given that at this point the article is only a stub you could fit it here, and if the section ever grows too large it could go back to its own. As for the laws, you should probably move the paragraph to the lead or a footnote. The section is too short and seems out of place after the discussion of unfinished works in different areas. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry but I disagree about the buildings section. That is going to undergo a large expansion soon and doesn't really come under the criteria of "creative works" that this article is about. The laws section could be demoted into just a note, but nothing should appear in the lead that doesn't appear in the article itself, and I think it is relevant enough to have its own section. I will write a note about it being unusual. violet/riga (t) 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you telling me that architecture, long considered one of the fine arts, has no element of creativity of its own? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Why not a compromise here: An "Architecture" sub-heading, followed by ((main|Unfinished building)), a paragraph or two about unfinished buildings and structures (would you include things for which plans were laid, but barely started - if so, a heck of a lot of Speer's designs for Berlin could be included), and then let the Unfinished building article do the rest (and remove it from the See also heading). --JohnDBuell 17:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that architecture is a creative art, but that building isn't necessarily. It would be good therefore to have an architecture subheading and that can indeed be {main}ed to unfinished building. I might have time to work on it tonight. violet/riga (t) 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've played around at something slightly different and added a "Construction and engineering" section. Please take a look and see what you think of that. violet/riga (t) 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've expanded the section quite significantly now - please take a look. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (reindenting) Support. Good compromise. I still feel a bit uneasy about the Laws section, though. Overall this is a very nice article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I feel foolish, I forgot I hadn't actually voted before :) --JohnDBuell 17:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Interesting subject, but I don't think this article is very well-written. In my opinion, there are three areas in particular that need work:

1. Overuse of qualifiers: In the lead alone we find (in order) "most commonly," "sometimes," "can be," "sometimes," "may refer," "many examples," "many people," "various reasons," "some," "many," "some," "may be," and "some." Obviously, it's difficult to cover such a broad and disparate subject without making blanket statements or using work-around words like these. In the rest of the article, the word "often" is used nine times. Many readers often find that the overuse of qualifiers can be annoying.
2. Lack of focus: The article tends to jump abruptly from one unfinished work to another. The two paragraphs in the "Science and philosophy" section seem to have nothing to do with one another. Another example: "One of the earliest and most prominent examples is Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, which breaks off in mid-sentence. D.H. Lawrence drafted and abandoned Mr Noon in 1921, the first part of which was then published posthumously in 1934 as part of the A Modern Lover collection."
3. Redundancy: Certain themes are hammered away at throughout the article to the point of excess. Examples:

Some projects are simply too grandiose and would never be likely to be finished... The size of the project can be such that a story is never finished.

If the work involves other people, such as a cast of actors or the subject of a portrait, the work may be stopped because of their unavailability... A piece of work may not be completed if the subject becomes unavailable, such as part of the landscape changing or even the person being painted dying.

--Alex S 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry but I have to disagree on most of your points there...
    1. To me the lead reads fine, and "often" is not overused given the fact that the we simply can't use too many other ways of writing it.
    2. You mention only one part that is not written verbosely, and one which I intend to fix (incidentally added by someone else).
    3. Sorry but the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article, and thus some things are obviously going to be repeated.
  • violet/riga (t) 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't get me wrong, this is a very good article -- it's interesting, well-referenced, covers a wide range of examples, and uses images well. However, as per your request on my talk page to respond to your comment, I'm going to have to maintain my opposition to FA status. Point #1 seems to be simply a difference of taste. In #2 you recast my objection as if I wanted the writing to be more verbose. This is false -- I think it should be less verbose, with fewer repeted phrases and words (see #3 and #1). To re-explain my objection: parts of the article read like a "List of unfinished works" with the entries listed horizontally, in sentences. Transitions might help fix this problem. As for #3, I understand your point. Still, part of the beauty of English is that you can say the same thing twice without repeating a single word. Nonetheless, one of our language's most admirable qualities is its ability to communicate identical ideas in completely different fashions. You get the idea. --Alex S 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still disagree with what you are saying and think it's more of a style thing, which I can't really see as a reason to object. Your call though. violet/riga (t) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alex S has copyedited the article, and I hope he will now be happy enough to change his vote. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - for reasons given by Rune Welsh. Construction and engineering are not intrinsically architecture although they can be. To elucidate - here's Le Corbusier on the subject "You employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: "This is beautiful. That is Architecture. Art enters in......" Architecture does not necessarily have to be a building either - it can be a paper project. Also I think you need to disambiguate certain Follies which are designed to look like romantic ruins (but are 'finished' in the sense that that is how the designer intended them.--Mcginnly | Natter 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that there are many architectural projects that have been started on paper but scrapped, but how many of these are notable? Have famous architects made unfinished plans that are famous? If so, then it could be worthy of mention. Sure, I know very little about that subject but I've searched around and not found any unfinished architectural plans that merit inclusion. violet/riga (t) 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a passing mention of follies. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture has been incorporated to a much greater deal now. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is now quite a bit about this area of unfinished work, but the main article is unfinished building and I would rather not overload this article with one artform. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, seeing this blink on and off the FAC list is somewhat bizarre; but that's between you and the director ;-) As for the article, object:
  1. The biggest problem is the architecture section, which focuses on banal trivia (bridges in Wisconsin and so forth) rather than notable unfinished buildings. The coverage of unfinished monumental architecture is entirely missing: no Nazi architecture, no Sagrada Familia, no Cologne Cathedral or Strasbourg Cathedral, no Palace of Soviets, and so forth. I understand that space here is somewhat limited (although the article is still quite short, for such a major topic), but even so, the examples used should be the more notable ones.
  2. The lead should be made significantly longer; at the very least, a general overview of different types of unfinished works (works never finished, works finished by others, works finished much later, works only designed/proposed but never started, etc.) is needed.
  3. Some strange omissions in the literature section (no mention of Honoré de Balzac!), but this is more minor. I'm surprised there's almost nothing about unfinished series and sequels written by other authors here, though.
  4. There seems to be some confusion about the definition of "creative works": if engineering is included (e.g. ships, software), why is there no detailed discussion of unfinished designs outside of civil engineering. Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind here.
  5. While I don't advocate a full "In fiction" section or anything of the sort, not mentioning the Tower of Babel is a critical omission, in my view.
  6. The mention of photographs in the "Unfinished work and the law" section is very jarring, given that there has been no discussion of that particular artform earlier (and it's not at all clear, to the casual reader, how a photograph can be unfinished).
  7. Finally, I'm a bit concerned about the level of referencing. The article is fairly sparsely cited; and, where citations are given, they are mostly to online sources. Given the nature of the topic, I would have expected a much heftier use of traditional scholarly works as sources. Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to comment. I've rebulleted your list into numeric form so that I can more easily reply - I hope that's ok.
    1. I don't agree that the given examples are "banal trivia". Yes, the bridge example isn't amazing, but it was to illustrate a construction that wasn't simply a building. The ones you list: Nazi architecture (no more relevant than others and not mentioned in that article); Sagrada Familia (will be added as an example of ongoing work) [added]; Cologne Cathedral [added] or Strasbourg Cathedral (could be mentioned because of the duration, but not strictly "unfinished" now); Palace of Soviets (could be mentioned but not massively important. I don't want to overpopulate with examples, and we could argue all day about which ones merit inclusion.
    2. The lead was shrunk by another editor, and I have restored it to its more appropriate size.
    3. Honoré de Balzac has the most unfinished works I've seen, but I'm not willing to assert that it is the most in the article. [I've added mention of this, but I've not found a reference for it anywhere, including fr:wiki] Other than that, I could use him as an example of plenty of unfinished pieces. As for unfinished series of books, there is The Canterbury Tales but if there is another good example it could be added.
    4. There could be mention of other non civil engineering works, but again I don't wish to overload the article (nor do I wish to mention Da Vinci all the time, though he is a great example).
    5. I agree that we should be wary of "in fiction" sections, and I couldn't decide whether to go with Tower of Babel or not. It probably is worthy of a mention somewhere. [I've added it to the See also section, which I think is the best compromise]
    6. Personally I don't think that it is too unclear about the photograph.
    7. I can't agree with you here. There are 39 different external references used and virtually all parts of the article are referenced. I don't think that printed works are necessary either.
  • violet/riga (t) 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated using this colour after a few changes to the article. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, focusing on the more salient points.

1. The reason I mentioned Nazi architecture (here thinking primarily of Speer's various Berlin designs) and the Palace of Soviets is because they are good examples of a type of unfinished work that is almost entirely glossed over in the article, but which is very common when dealing with monumental architecture: work left unfinished because of the collapse of the state or social order for which the work was to be a monument. If you don't like the modern examples, you could go with something like the Olympeion instead; but I think it's wrong to omit this facet entirely.

3. The Dune series comes to mind; but that might be too trivial here.

4. I think some examples of pure engineering might be appropriate. A non-Da Vinci example that comes to mind is Project Babylon; but that might be too obscure.

6. It's not clear to me, anyways. Are they talking about things like multiple exposure photographs? Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've added the Palace of Soviets

3. Not too trivial - it works well as an example

4. Project Babylon certainly isn't too obscure (at least to me), and has been incorporated into the article

6. I've slightly reworded it, so I hope that helps.

violet/riga (t) 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now; nice work! Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After engaging in a few weeks of heavy editing through several parties, I feel that this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article. It contains all pertinant, factual information and is free of filler and is "tight". The pictures included well represent the university. The article is strictly NPOV.

Note: Self-nomination Plm209 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Plm209 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just by browsing through the article, it needs the most important thing to be a "featured article." Where are the references? This nomination will be voted down automatically because of that. In addition, "Engineering highlights" section destracts from the article's main focus which is probably should devoted mostly to the school not its alumni. See past American-centric University featured articles: Wikipedia:Featured articles#Education. --4.253.37.16 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment The "trivia" section probably shouldn't exist to become a featured article and if it did then should be in paragraph form instead of a list.--4.253.37.16 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Needs a few more pictures. I would like to see at least one modern picture of the campus, a picture or two in the sports section (two would be nice, one of the team playing and perhaps their sports complex if they have one), and I would rather see a picture of a Ford Mustang as it was designed, not a current model one. PPGMD 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I didnt know if you noticed the photo gallery on the bottom of the page. This includes photos of many buildings on campus. Will be working on the sports photos and mustang photo soon.
• Oppose per the anon editor.Rlevse 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definitely a good article, but, along with PPGMD's comments: way too many red links, too many short sections (coed. should be either expanded or put into academics, for example), too many one-sentence paragraphs. The trivia section isn't bad in and out of itself, but it seems too long in comparison the rest of the article. Stilgar135 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose lack of references, stubby sections, overwhelming Table of Contents, trivia section. Sandy 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too listy, too many red links, too many one sentence paragraphs, and the infamous non-encyclopaedic trivia section rears its head - if the information in the trivia section is noteworthy, then it should be integrated into the rest of the article and be made to blend in, but if the trivia info is insignificant then it should be removed. LuciferMorgan 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Sandy, sorry. Terri G 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this as it is a splendid, interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced and photographed article that meets all the criteria that we seek to convey.BjF 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- Insufficient lead and inconsistant referencing. Sometimes the article uses the footnote style, sometimes it links directly to another website. Fieari 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Entire swaths of the article are unreferenced, and there are stubby sections, some consisting of only a single (very short) paragraph. Fieari 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Skimpy lead, and not enough references. Her father committed suicide when she was 12? Needs a direct in-line reference. Many other such examples through the article. Also agree with Fieari: ref style needs to be consistent. EuroSong ^talk 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have hoped to make this a featured article, but I had not nominated it because I knew it needed some improvement. To address objections, I restructured the lead, made the reference style consistent, and referenced the suicide of Fonda's mother. I will work on adding other references when I have more time. I think the article also needs a bit of copyediting and possibly, more information on Fonda's early life. Andrea Parton 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object agree with Fieari. Sandy 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self nomination

Yeah, it's my favorite band, but it was also one of the most important bands in Christian rock from their beginnings (1972) up to their retirement (2005), which IMO, makes it a relevant article. I'm not the only one who's been working with the article, but I can say that I've worked the gross of it (especially the band history and the discography). The band has been nominated (and won) several Grammys and was a constant seller. Thief12 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - no references or citations. Also, the discography section should probably be its own article: it takes up too much space on the page Teemu08 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - It's a nice article, but there are no references at all. How do I know you didn't just make all that up? :) EuroSong ^talk 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added references to lots of things said in the Biography. Let me know how it is now. Most of the stuff said in the biography and the whole article can also be verified at all the sites posted in the "External Links" section. Thanks. Thief12 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good article, no complaints ST47 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This article just documents the history of the band, without discussing the band's cultural contributions and critical receptance (needed). Also, the trivia section rears its head - if the information is noteworthy integrate it into the rest of the article, otherwise rid of it. LuciferMorgan 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very few references. Some P. Erson 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You may want to look at other WP:FAs about musical groups to get a sense of what is needed here. Jkelly 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellently done.HappyBoy 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy[reply]
• Support Well, putting things in perspective, opposing this due to a lack of reference is a weak stand to take. The reason? For a musical group, this article is well referenced compared to the vast majority of other music articles. On top of this, the article is well written with good use of images. It also did not neglect major facts and details and views the subject in question fairly and without bias. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Article is shallow and doesn't seem very comprehensive. This can be easily remedied, however. It consists mainly of a history section with little discussion about the band's criticisms, reputations, influences, or impact. Also, expunge the Trivia section as it is unnecessary. Wisdom89 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems very comprehensive - it is a good starting point for all things Texas. Really well done if you ask me. Staypuftman 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two fairly minor points:
  • It doesn't seem necessary to list the ships named Texas, since it doesn't really have much to do with the state, and doesn't really have a significant impact on people's perceptions of the state. That should go on the Texas (disambiguation) page.
  • Do we really need a list of all of the state's various designations? I feel we should pull out the more significant ones (e.g., flower, motto, bird, etc.) and find a new home for the other ones (e.g., dinosaur, molecule, gemstone cut), as they don't seem like data that are going to be relevant for most people looking up Texas. People going to an article with a name like List of official symbols of Texas (following the precedent of List of official symbols of Massachusetts), on the other hand, should expect to see all that stuff. Jun-Dai 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please take a look at the nomination procedure on this page; simply adding a new section to this page is not the correct procedure. Regarding the article itself, I object based on the following FA criteria:

2b - I don't think the history section can be considered comprehensive when two eras (Reconstruction and New South and Texas modernizes) spanning 100 years are summed up in a total of five sentences.

2c - I am uneasy about the references all being web sources, but the real problem here is the fact that someone used another Wikipedia page as a reference. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) Also, the enormous "further reading" section doesn't seem necessary, considering that none of the mentioned print sources were actually used as references.

3a - Based on other geographical FAs, the lead for Texas could be significantly expanded; try adding such things as the state's boundaries (and if they are defined by geological formations), bordering states, a little bit more information on the region's history (not just as a US territory), and anything (government, cities, economy, culture) that makes Texas unique. Most of this will be repeated later in the respective sections, but in more detail. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuck (talk • contribs)

• Object. Large sections of the article are entirely unreferenced, e.g. all of the "History" section (one reference is hinted at the end, Blanton 2005, but the full citation turns out to be missing. I checked if there were any "general references" that might be supporting the history section, but there aren't. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object per above. The History section needs to be much stronger than this. Also Image:HCPA Houston.jpg needs to be replaced, and the sports team logo removed. Jkelly 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object.
  • The History section could be much better:
    • It lists the native american tribes who once lived in the area, but gives no information regarding the time period when they lived there or what happened to them.
    • European and American Settlement is rather short - there is one sentence about 1528 then the text jumps to four sentences about 1821-1833.
    • The text in Annexation and Statehood is unclear in places, for example, "Great Britain tried to maintain Texas independence (as a counterweight to the United States), maintained a Texas Embassy in London, and tried to convince Mexico to stop threatening war."
    • Reconstruction and the New South and Texas Modernises are rather short.
  • The article also lacks inline citations to support many of its statements. For example:
    • Law enforcement: "Texas leads the nation in executions by far, with 366 executions from 1976 to 2006."
    • Economics: "In 1926, San Antonio had over 120,000 people, the largest population of any city in Texas."
    • Economics: "As of 2006, Texas, for the first time, has more Fortune 500 company headquarters (56) than any other state..."
    • Demographics: "As of 2004, the state has 3.5 million foreign-born residents (15.6 percent of the state population), of which an estimated 1.2 million are illegal aliens..."
    • Race and ethnic origins: "The largest reported ancestry groups in Texas include: Mexican (24.3%), African American (11.5%), German-American (9.9%), Anglo American (7.2%), and Scots-Irish American (7.2%)."
  • Good luck with the article - Jazriel 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Precious little about Indigenous peoples of the Americas, considering that their descendants (whether you call them Cherokee, Mexican, half-breed, or whatever) are something like 1/4 of the state's population. --M@rēino 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets all of Wikipedia's standards and that it is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. --A2raya07 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object lead too short, not one single footnote.Rlevse 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object -- verifiability concerns, and I'm also worried about the images. For example Image:Mar Yosip Khnanisho.jpg reads "I am the owner of this image". What does that mean? Was the uploader the photographer or does this just mean that they have a copy of the photo? Jkelly 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. A quick skim leaves me confused: there are two articles, Nochiya Tribe and Nochiyayeh, with no clear indication of how their lemmata differ. I assume that one is meant to be about one specific aspect of the larger topic, but what is the defining factor here? Ethnicity or religion? Are they synonymous? If the cap (head garment) is important to their identity, there should be a colour photograph showing it. My advice is to put this article through peer review, and in that process specifically invite editors of related articles to comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see previous failed nomination in the archive.

Renomination of this good, peer-reviewed article. After much work, I think the article currently is as high if not higher quality than most featured articles. In my opinion, the controversy with User:Iantresman in particular has cooled off to the point now where the article is neutral and comprehensive. --ScienceApologist 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object While the article is adequate in representing redshift from an astronomical viewpoint, it marginalises (a) the Wolf Effect, the only redshift (in additional to the Doppler redshift), that sources tell us has been demonstrated in the laboratory (b) supresses nearly all "criticism" of the interpretation of redshift, amd discussion of "alternative" redshift mechanisms/interpretations (c) Won't even link to (See also) some other articles on redshift (presumably because they are too "controversial"), eg. Redshift quantization, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. --Iantresman 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Several problems here - if appropriately dealt with, I will vote support. First, the introductory paragraph is too short and does not talk about things like history, gravitational red shift etc. It thus does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. Other problems include the presence of one sentence paragraphs and sentences which don't seem to fit - blue shift in the intro is confusing (especially in context of the preceding sentence), the line about white noise, the information about the Einstein effect, etc. I think that more explanation is needed to understand these concepts and they are otherwise confusing. Whole sections are without references - the observations in astronomy section only has four references total, three coming in the same line! To end, the entire article needs a thorough copyediting after the rest has been fixed. I will avoid getting into the discussion mentioned above because I honestly don't know the subject matter well enough. But, if this page is improved, we will have to delve into that, as well! InvictaHOG 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Introductory section now includes information from overview which, in my opinion, was inappropriately split. I'm hesitant to include too much of the history of redshifts more than what is already stated because this is an article on a phenomena not a historical event. Let me know if you think something should be in the lead.

  I'm going to need more information about what specificallly you find confusing about blueshift, white noise, and the Einstein effect in order to more adequately explain it. Please let me know.

  If you could indicate precisely where you require references, that would be best. Most of the descriptions are summary in nature and don't lend themselves to single references.

--ScienceApologist 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick survey of the article revealed several sentences and sections which should be referenced. The information came from some place (your head?) and if it isn't a reference then it could be mistaken!

• In 1977, the CfA Redshift Survey was begun in an attempt to map the large-scale structure of the universe, with the first release of data completed in 1982. (See Redshift survey section below.)
• The entire section on measurement, characterization, interpretation - this encompasses three paragraphs and a table! It might just be common knowledge to someone in the field, but how would we know?
• The entire redshift summary table
• The expansion of space section has two different referencing styles. Please standardize the references in the entire article
• Under Observations in astronomy - the section starting with "Spectroscopy" is unreferenced as is the entire subheading local observations. For instance, how do we know that Huggins first used this method in 1868? It's certainly not something which everyone knows.
• Under extragalactic observations, there are five paragraphs (beginning with "For galaxies") which do not have a single reference.

The entire section on redshift surveys is unreferenced, as is the section on Effects due to physical optics or radiative transfer.

Overall, I'd say that a good half of the article is unreferenced. As for the other concerns, the article still needs to get rid of single sentence paragraphs, single paragraph sections, and needs to be copyedited. InvictaHOG 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing can improve, but it would be better if you inserted the ((fact)) tag in the article where you see problems rather than writing section names in general. That would really be appreciated. The specific instances you cited, I inserted the reference. Remember, this is a scientific article, not a history article, so keep in mind that some of the things which you balk at may be simply because you aren't familiar with the material. That's why we have external sources -- because many of the facts are verifiable by literally hundreds of sources and there are issues of NPOV if we preferentially cite common knowledge facts to single sources. I'm also going to have to dispute that single sentence paragraphs and single paragraph sections are a problem. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Style guide to indicate this is the case and sometimes, especially with technical and scientific writing this is de rigeur. As per the suggestion at the top of the style guide, where two styles are equally acceptable from an editorial standpoint, it isn't right to marginalize one in terms of another. I'm always willing to have a general copyedit, but I'm probably not the best person to do this as I'm not a copyeditor. If you would like to do this be my guest. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a scientific article, rather it is an encyclopedia article talking about a scientific concept. It's an important difference (and one I've had to adopt to while editing here as a scientist). It's not NPOV, IMHO, to cite a single reference for a fact that is "common knowledge." If it is found in any introductory textbook, then by all means just put down the textbook and the page. As for single sentence paragraphs - they are not well-received in the scientific world I am familiar with (physics, biology, medicine). As for the MoS, under the Wikipedia:Guide to layout it asks that we limit them. InvictaHOG 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored to Wikipedia Talk:Featured article candidates/Redshift --ScienceApologist 18:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Please unclutter the TOC. You should only be using more than two hierarchical levels if you have very good reasons for it. As it stands, you have two "header orphans" at the third hierarchical level. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article seems to accurately represent the views of the scientific community to the best of my ability to determine. While additional citations would make it clearer that this is the case, at least half of the items tagged as needing citations really _are_ common knowledge that would be found in any recent textbook that covers the subject. While I'd be happy to see more citations added, I think that the article in its present form is about as close to optimal as it's going to get. --Christopher Thomas 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As per Christopher Thomas' support, I believe that the areas lacking citations are mostly common knowledge in the field, and can be found in any reasonably comprehensive textbook. Citing only one of hundreds of textbooks in these cases would essentially result in an advertisement for that textbook. --Constantine Evans 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they're only common knowledge if you already know the subject. If you don't, then surely you'd expect Wikipedia to be the source of the citations. --Iantresman 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample textbooks are included in the reference section. We shouldn't include specific endorsements as this may, in fact, be a violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with endorsements, but providing reliable, verifiable citations. For example, the sentence introducing mechanisms suggests that there are only three, due to transformation of frames of reference. This requires a citation.
• I can provide several reliable, peer reviewed citations suggestion that there is a forth redshift mechanism, the Wolf Effect --Iantresman 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We've been over this before. It is not right to hold the article accountable to your demonstrated ignorance. Citations rightly occur when there is an easily discernable discoverer who deserves credit or where the prose interpretation can be traced to an individual. Otherwise, including citations constitutes a textbook preference that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of promoting. This is actually a legal issue. There are plenty of textbook publishers who would prefer their text be cited over others. It's best, therefore, to let sleeping dogs lie. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are three redshift mechanisms, which are due to frame transformations, then this MUST be verifiable... somewhere. If it is common knowledge, then there must be dozens of sources, and citing one of these sources both verifies the statement, AND, allows the reader to find out more information. It has nothing to do with promoting any specific text.
• I can provide reliable verifiable citations to all my statements. Surely so can you? --Iantresman 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: chosing a single source absolutely promotes a specific text unfairly. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've misunderstood. I didn't realise we were talking about a single source. As far as I am concerning, multiple citations implies multiple reference sources. This should not be a problem of some of the statements are common knowledge. --Iantresman 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now believe all previous complaints to have been satisfied, and feel the article is sufficiently comprehensive and well-written. If, by some iverlooked failing, POV is still a concern, please - rather than complain here - simply tone down what you believe to be offending.

If you want sound clips, the same applies - they are available here and on several of the relevant album pages. I do not knowe how to add them so if you want them ,could you please do it yourself or advise me as to what is needed and where.

Ta very much--Crestville 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I hope the rest of it is better than the first two sentences: "Noel Thomas David Gallagher (born 29 May 1967) is the lead songwriter, guitarist and sometime lead-singer with the English rock band Oasis. He is the older brother of Oasis front man Liam Gallagher and the two are often pigeon-holed as squabbling siblings."
  • "Lead songwriter isn't hyphenated, but "lead-singer" is?
  • Perhaps "elder" rather than "older", but the latter is acceptable.
  • "Front man" should be one word.
  • The two ideas in the second sentence are not closely enough related to be jammed together with an "and". Good example for my tutorial article on this.

Can you get someone to audit the whole text, please? Tony 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment adressesd, though in England I'm pretty sure we use older as opposed to elder.--Crestville 09:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crestville, just a note: it's best to wait for other editors to strike comments themselves. Tony's comments typically provide examples only. Sandy 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Soory, I get imaptient with stuff like that. Tony, feel free to unstrike them.--Crestville 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it's a great article. I do have a coupla small things to bitch about, though:
  • Bit of a gripe about the Controversy section. To me, there's a definite ring of "Oh my God, and then he said he'd shoot Robbie Williams' dog, zomg" about it. I accept that it's hard to maintain complete neutrality when you're talking about NOEL GALLAGHER. Still...
  • Have found that it's dangerous to provide links to YouTube here — user accounts are transient, and videos are frequently deleted.
  • Ugh, what's with the wikilinking to things like "car" and "radio" in the early years section?
  • Need to do some en-dashing, too many hyphens, and some minor punctuation stuff.

I can take care of my last two complaints... but the first two would require someone who actually knows something about the man. Maybe *cough* you *cough* — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also wondering about the part where it is implied that Johnny Depp is one of Gallagher's idols. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... one more tiny thing... the article keeps stating "lead singer with", as opposed to "lead singer of", which I feel is probably more common. Any thoughts? — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I'm disorganised, but my final comment: the references dry up towards the end of the article, and they don't stick to a uniform format. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Right, ta very much, I'll look into these, though the youtube links are not essential. That the information was included in, say, Behind the Music is the relevant factor, the clip is just a novelty really.

Also, I'm not too sure what you're saying about the controversy section. How do you feel the tone should be so as to improve it?--Crestville 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking... less of a sort of list of what he did and when he did it? But I can't think there's any other way you can go about it. Perhaps leave that hanging until other people apart from myself say something about it... it might be just my opinion. Also, one more silly complaint – I think all the dates need to be in the same (British) format. OK, I'll come back in a couple of hours and try to do something about the little things, but don't sweat too much about the controversy section, I guess. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - well written article, but could definitely be better. The writing is a little too choppy for my liking. For instance, there are far too many "also"s in the body. I think it needs a copyedit. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Way too many unreferenced and poorly referenced comments, especially derogotory ones. Youtube is not good to reference to because copyright-violating clips (like many used for this article) often disappear. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: "Relationship with Liam Gallagher" needs citations. Several of them at least, and high-quality ones (preferably newspapers and books). "Changing band dynamic" needs more citations as well, especially that argument. Citations should immediately follow punctuation,^[1] with no spaces.^[2] "At some point in the early 1980s (sources vary)" but no sources are mentioned. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has reached FA quality. In the words of the GA reviewer, "This article is a nice one to read and is fully detailed with a bit of math here and there, well-balanced and has a nice prose." Since then, we've continued to work on it getting it ready for FA and I think it is there. The article has had several peer reviews and has been in work for 2 years. Morphh 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - quotes should not be in italics, per the MoS. --Peta 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected - Thanks, Morphh 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please provide inline citations. The first paragraph I glanced upon was:

In the period before the FairTax is implemented, it would create a strong incentive for individuals to buy goods without the sales tax using credit. After the FairTax is in effect, the credit could be paid off using untaxed payroll. Opponents of the FairTax worry it could exacerbate an existing consumer debt problem. On the other hand, proponents of the FairTax note that this effect will also allow individuals to pay off all their existing (post-FairTax) debt quicker.

On questions of taxation, readers need to be certain the article is neutral. Inline citations backing up statements are essential. Sandy 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found one of the few that don't have sources. :-) Much of this paragraph is from information gained through the article. It just points out the use of credit in the situation. I'll add a ref to this one and check for any others that could use one. Morphh 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you hate it when that happens? :) I'll look again tomorrow. Sandy 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Dispassionate attention should be given to the proposal's reception in Congress - the advocates for this emphasize how many sponsors it has, but what about its reception in the tax-writings committees(I note that there is citation to a rebuttal to a Joint Committee on Taxation report but not a citation to or discussion of the report itself) and on the floor of the House (has the bill gotten there? what were the votes?). There are a number of weak citations to advocates and to web sites (including some of the opposing viewpoints - is a website for "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" really the best place to find economic policy expertise?), and attention is needed to making sure the best citations for the discussion are used. Similarly, the tendancy to lead with the supporter's positions and treat objections as secondary or to insert objections only with rebuttal lends a very one-sided tone to the page; pro and con should be more clearly balanced. Relegating discussion of talk show host Boortz to the last paragraph leaves earlier references to him, including the book cover used as the main image, hanging. I think this page needs a careful and thorough review by an impartial editor with some knowledge of tax law or economics; it is going to be difficult for editors who are clearly supporters to neutralize the tone. Sam 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bill has not made it to the floor for a vote, so it is not known what the overall reception in congress is. The statements on cosponsorship are easy to see, compare, and are factual - I'm not sure where the POV is in that regard. The reviews by the JCT were not the FairTax legislation but could be added in the legislative section as a comparative NRST plan. The article tends to lead with supporter claims as the article is mainly based on the legislation. It is best to outline what the legislation states or predicted benefits and then describe challenges to the claim. I think it is also important that both sides be allowed to express their POV and this may be in the form of a rebuttal to the criticism. There are at least 4 sections that lead with criticism and most lead with a neutral description based on the legislation - such as defining the rate as 23%. Many times a critism is not based on the legislation as written but considerations if things were changed. These discussions should be treated after what the plan actually is based on in the legislation. It is the most well balanced piece on the topic that I have ever seen. Perhaps the "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" doesn't sound like a great source but they wrote a good critique paper. I'll try to find something better for that section. I'll also try to add a bit more on Boortz earlier in the article. The book is co-authored by John Linder (the author of the legislation). I'm not sure discussing Boortz in detail earlier will add much value to the article. It is not his plan, he just wrote about it. Morphh 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's analysis delves into some of the concerns I have. I will be hesitant to support until I am thoroughly convinced this article is impartial. One thing that might help is to inline cite extensively, so it is possible for reviewers to better understand sourcing behind every statement. I haven't opposed FA, but I will really need to be convinced to support, considering the potential for POV. I'll be looking for very strong, impartial sources, or a good balance if sources are less than impartial. Sandy 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to find impartial sources. The Wikipedia article has become the impartial source on the topic (I've heard this from both sides). Most sources are either for or against it and rarely describe the other POV. Like many topics, there is also a lot of incorrect information out there on both sides. It should be noted that many of what some would state as the "proponent" view and then a criticism is really stating the legislation and then an opposing view and in some cases a rebuttal. Many of the statements are just outlining the facts of the bill. We could easily add more references though it may look a bit messy. We've tried to add them after anything that someone may question or if it provides additional details / information. Morphh 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty of finding impartial sources is one reason why it is hard to write articles on developing policy issues, but I think it's one of those problems that all we can do is acknowledge it and then tackle it. I will mark up a couple of paragraphs to show you how I think tone could be changed to be more impartial. It will likely require a shift in emphasis (for example, gaining sponsors is quite exciting to an organization trying to get a bill moving, but in looking at the level of support this has at this point in time, I don't think that point quite compares to the point that the bill hasn't gotten out of committee in 6 years). I will warn you that while I know quite a bit about taxes and tax policies, including different consumption tax programs, I know absolutely nothing about this particular proposal, so please forgive any inaccuracies - I am doing it more for a demonstration than for the substance of the changes. Sam 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look, and note I have no investment in any particular language, so if you think anything is not neutral or something important was eliminated, please restore it. As I edited, one of the things that seemed to give this the greatest "advocacy" tone was the presence of lists of not terribly notable supporters (e.g., truly minor Presidential candidates, Libertarian party) without noting opponents; since this is a Legislative History section, I focused on the current legislative leadership. Has any of the Senate leadership taken a position on the bill? I also found some redundancy, and tried to pare for length and readability. But I think what I just did to one section needs to be done to the entire article. Sam 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the example. On the presence of the lists, I'll have to rethink this aspect. Since the FairTax is such a major change to the tax system, the "status quo" is the norm. Since this is an article about the FairTax, it seemed to make sense to show the different areas that it has gained support. It would seem odd to state those that prefer the current system or have not made any supporting statements. It also showed some of the multi-party support - Rep, Dem, Lib. I guess this could be a proponent view but it seems applicable. I'd like to here other's thoughts in regard to this. Thank you again for the assistance. I'll work on this along with adding more cites. Morphh 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added many more inline cites after this reveiw for reviewers to better understand sourcing behind statements. I've tried to use more neutral language in recent copyedits. Morphh 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. This is poorly written, and it really matters here, because this is a subject that needs to be explained to non-experts in crystal-clear, easy-to-comprehend prose. Some economics journalists are very good at this. I have serious quibbles with almost every sentence. Let's look at the lead.
  • "While the FairTax replaces taxes like FICA, it does not remove or change any government funded programs such as Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid." Please remove "any". "Or" is probably better as "and".

"Any" was used as emphasis as some think the plan will alter social programs. I don't have a problem with removing it but it was intentional. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The legislation would apply a 23% federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of new retail goods and services purchases; consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent (sometimes called tax inclusive)." Remove "total". What does "new" mean here? Remove as unnecessary? Most readers won't understand the term "tax inclusive", and I think that even US editors, who aren't so hot on hyphens, would insist on hyphenating it and the opposite term. You need "in other words, " after the semicoon, and I'd introduce tax-inclusive and -exclusive in a new sentence. Not well organised here.

The word "total" is important to the definition. "New" as in not "used". A good must be "new" for it to be taxed - this is described in the article. I didn't want use the intro as a place for defining all terms. There is not enough room to do it and explain the rest of the article. Some find the inclusive/exclusive terms more familiar so we included them. They are further defined in the article. I've seen both a dash used and without - I'll add it in if it is preferred. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The assessed tax rate is 30% if the FairTax is added ..."—Perhaps "The assessed tax rate would be 30% if the FairTax were added ...". And since this, as far as I can see, is the revenue-neutral option, it should be made clear further up that the 23% is not the real rate proposed, or would be "in addition to current sales taxes". But try to keep it simple.

They are the same rate and both are revenue neutral. It is just a mater of math and what is used for the base. The 23% is what is written in the legislation. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "However, this is a matter of dispute as some disagree as to the tax rate required for the FairTax to be revenue-neutral." This is not a good sentence. Try: "however, the tax-exclusive rate required for revenue-neutrality is disputed." Avoid "some", meaning "some people/economists/who?". Please consider using em dashes rather than hyphens as punctuation.

Sounds good - minus the exclusive term. More details are provided in the article. We were trying to make summary sentences and they could have been worded better. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Economists state goods and services contain embedded taxes from the current tax structure and compliance costs associated. Prices are expected to decrease prices after these costs are removed." Not all economists, surely (perhaps "many"?). "Believe that" or "contend that" would be better than "state". But hang on, aren't you stating the obvious here? I don't think you need to bring economists into it explicitly—just retain the reference. "In", not "from". The second sentence is garbled.

I don't know of any economists that state otherwise - I would say all but I get your point. Thanks for pointing out the second sentence - a sufficient length intro was just added and it seems we had a few copyedits to do. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The effective tax rate for any household is variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebate checks"—Keep it in the conditional mood ("would be"), so the readers will understand the sense. It is, after all, a proposal, not current fact. Does "checks" refer to what non-US speakers call "cheques", i.e., slips of paper that say "pay this person this much"? If so, please reword, because it's ambiguous. Better to just remove it and retain "rebates".

Yes - though it can be electronic. I agree. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The checks, paid in advance each month, would be meant to eliminate the taxation of each household’s purchase of necessities and can lower a household's effective rate to zero or a negative rate." Better: "Monthly payments in advance would compensate for the taxation on the purchase of necessities and would reduce the effective rate to ..." Is this the effective overall rate, or just the effective rate for necessities?

The effective rate is overall. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "distribution of taxation"—this is unclear. Do you mean "the allocation of the tax burden"?

Yes - this is the terminology that the economists use. Morphh 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The FairTax has predicted effects in the areas of tax burden visibility,..."—Better: "The FairTax would have ramifications for tax burden visibility,..."—I don't think you need to hedge here: no serious economist would say that it would have no effect on the items you list. "International business appeal" is vague. Rather than "black markets", which is narrower than what I think you mean, use "the cash economy". The reference to "the 16th amendment" will mean nothing to non-Americans, and probably to many Americans, too. A phrase or two explaining it?

Thanks - I'll work on this, however, I expect we'll need assistance. The intro is probably the best example. A month ago, it was only two paragraphs but did not summarize the article. So we expanded it and then it was too long. I removed two paragraphs during FA nom. We ended up with trying to summarize a long article in a few paragraphs and some pieces just didn't click. Thanks again for your help in making this a better article. I'm reading your "How to" guide now and will work on copyedits this week. Morphh 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs intensive collaboration that includes copy-editors who are unfamiliar with the text—even with the topic. Please don't just address the examples I've provided. Tony 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made large copyedits after Tony1's review to improve the writting. Morphh 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment graphics should be in SVG. eg Image:Effectiverate.jpg, Image:Fairtax-dollars.png, Image:Fairtax-percentile.png, Image:Stability.jpg and Image:Prebatechart.jpg. I would also consider whether the last graphic is necessary or would a summary do. WP 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geezz - An oppose over graphic format.. how about a Comment? For one, the graphics are not vector based images so SVG is not applicable unless the images were completely recreated from scratch using a vector based image editor. Second, the JPG files that could be in PNG format should only be converted if it reduces the file size without causing artifacts which PNG does not in these images. I can convert them but it will produce an increase in file size and offer no improvement in quality. Third, is this even a criteria for FA? Morphh 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a criteria, see Procellariidae above for an explanation of where the push for SVG came from. It would be useful to replace the images with SVG's, but work on the rest of the article first, I think. --16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've made many changes to the article per the discussions above. Morphh 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom.This is a song by English band Keane. I think it contains all the possible information that can be found around the Internet about the song. It includes information about its b-sides and the musical structure of the single, as well as cover versions--Fluence 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... it was missing a references section for the notes in the article, so I added the section. It still seems awfully short on inline citations, but I havn't took an in-depth look. RN 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object choppy lead, stubby sections, too many lists, only a few refs.Rlevse 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object not enough prose, not enough references. Lincher 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - so that's who sings this song! Excellent. Haven't read the article, but I've wanted to know who sung it for quite a while now. Yes, I know. I've been living under a rock. So sue me. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find information in another place but Keaneshaped and Keane.at fansites. That's why there are only two references. All information is taken from that sites and the Official forum (exact link can't be given for reasons of the band. Link to official website where the forum can be found)Fluence 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the references, last time I forgot to write the notes section at the bottom but there were there before. Thanks to RN for writing it Fluence 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- As far as I have gone into Keane research since two years, I find each and everything on this page and so I think it should go for featured status. Considering all the pics, the data, sheet music and what not, this article deserves the post. Victoria Eleanor 14:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Next to inline citations are within the article, the paragraphs are way too stubby, and there seems to be tons of listy parts. Also, no reference is made to how this track was critically recieved by noteworthy critics of the genre the song falls under which is necessary. LuciferMorgan 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment- That only shows you've never researched information about the song. Its Wikipedia article contains itself more information about the song than on every other place in the planet. Fluence 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - The fact that a WP article has more information than any other resource on the planet is not a reason for it to be featured. FA's show the best of Wikipedia, not the best article of a subject. Alexj2002 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I've seen several Featured articles even worse than this one so they cannot be called "the best of Wikipedia". Oh, and also, there are no piano rock critics. The song was treated as alternative, a wrong given genre.Fluence 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Slight Support. I support it because it took a lot of effort to get all that info on just one song. Maybe if you can add the meaning of the lyrics and some history behind it, it'll get more support, I am sure. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finish'. The article has officially failed now. For Jayant412, Keane hadn't wanted to give a meaning for the lyrics of none. I'll post the article in again :)Fluence 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been worked on for some time. It is about a skyscraper in the city of Belgrade. The tower has a lot of history – not something usual for a skyscraper. In the history section all the aspects of the history of this building are listed and thorougly talked through. There is also information about the future complex and the office tower. As a new tower "Ušće Tower 2" will start construction soon even more quality information will be added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaP (talk • contribs)

• Oppose: Poor spelling, poor grammar, no references or citations, the infobox takes up nearly a quarter of the page at 1280x1024, image tags seem dubious (one of the sources given did not have the image - at least I couldn't find it), Et cetera. darkliight^[πalk] 09:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no references or citations, Gnangarra 14:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All but perhaps the first main image have rather dubious copyright status. I've tagged two really bad ones and put them up on WP:PUI. Kevin_b_er 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No references. Dodgy English ("The foundations and the skeleton of the building was so strong..." etc). Sorry, but Featured Articles on the English-language Wikipedia really need a native English speaker to copy-edit them. Other minor points: for example the heading "Destruction" implies that the tower was destroyed by the air strikes; but actually it was only damaged and repairable. Mix of BrE and AmE ("centre" in one place, "center" in another).. should all be BrE IMHO since Serbia is in Europe, but whichever variety is used it should at least be consistent. The whole thing has good potential, but needs to be looked at carefully in its current state. EuroSong ^talk 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on it over the weekend. It's a short article, and I've researched on the internet to gain as much information as possible on this subject. It's sufficiently referenced, has appropriately licenced images, and a nice SVG map. This marks my return to FAC after almost a year. I'm open to suggestions if I can get credible references. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• "In 1802, John Goldingham, nominated as the first official astronomer of the Company in India, established the longitude of Madras (13°5′24″N, 80°18′30″E) being 5 hours and 30 minutes ahead of Greenwich Mean Time as the Standard Time, the first instance of such use." First instance of such use in India, right? Or in the world?
• "He managed to stall proceedings in the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a few days by arguing that the government did not take the people into confidence." The exact connection between people's stance against Tilak's trial and convertion of Bombay Time to IST did not become clear. Was it just a case of using people's emotions to one cause to manipulate another cause?
• "However Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948." We have a reason why Bombay time was maintained. Was there any specific reason in case of Calcutta?
• "a error"->an error.
• "INSAT satellite-based standard time and frequency broadcast service which offers IST correct to ±10 microsecond and frequency calibration up to ±10−10." More wikilinks? frequency calibration, frequency broadcast service etc? Difficult to understand for non-technical people. Similar problems with frequency counters, phase recorders, mirror time servers. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Replying:

• It does not make a difference if it were to be India or the world as a difference of +5:30 wrt GMT would make it unique to India. I've copyedited it to read "first ever instance of such use in" to make it less ambigious
• Yes, he used public sentiment to garner support for his cause. I've edited it to make it clearer
• Calcutta time --> Nope, sadly my references do not mention why it was changed so late.
• "An error" --> corrected
• I've edited the relavent terms, though I don't think all are necessary for wikification. Please check.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this sentence in history need to be firmed up though Calcutta and Bombay continued to maintain their own local time for the next couple of years. The second question from this same sentence is the use of City names in India, Mumbai and Kolkata are the preferred names for Bombay and Calcutta, from other Indian articles I thought the preferred names were to be used. Gnangarra 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—any reason to include the trivia related to Linux? Seems irrelevant to me. Other than that, it looks good. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed trivia and image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments/Suggestions: A well-written article in a short span of time, commendable work by Nichalp. I have a few suggestions. Is it posisble to include details of Jantar Mantar as a means of keeping time in pre-British era? I found that the history section talk very vaguely about "mathematical models", and details of Jantar Mantar would be quite relevant. Secondly, I am a bit concerned with over-use of "although", "however", etc. In the last sentence of the lead, it is mentioned "...that lies between the two towns". Is Allahabad mentioned here as between Greenwich and Mirzapur. I find it quite odd to get mention, as its location is quite irrelevant and there is no direct route between the two cities so that the use of "between" can be qualified. There were a few more prose related issues, that I have myself fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the suggestions. I've fixed the text and added a sentence on Jantar Mantar. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Its difficult for me to judge this article properly, but it appears incomprehensive. A "References and futher reading" section is necessary - there needs to be a clear set of books prescribed for reference and more information. The "History" section is not good - it is important, IMO to have some information on how the Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, Mughal Empire and other larger political entitites of ancient and medieval India callibrate and maintain time standards. I'd like to see more data on how IST was callibrated, test and how it is maintained. For example, what are the scientific details, economic impact of the proposal to split IST into 3 zones? The "Problems" section is good, but I'd like to see more scientific information than just political and historical stuff. Perhaps there is also information on the implementation of IST - how do far-flung areas, isolated areas keep time properly? What is the economic relevance/impact of IST? I don't know how copious are the sources on this subject, so forgive me if my requests appear unreasonable. I think you can find a lot more data at the Asiatic library, Bombay University or Prince of Wales. Rama's arrow 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comments. Replying:

  1. I would like to keep it as close to the history of the current time zone as possible, that's why I started right away with the +5:30 timezone origins. I'll try and add some more information if I get the sources on ancient India. I've added Jantar Mantar for now.
  2. IST callibrated and maintained... – I'm not sure what you mean by this as IST is callibrated using atomic clocks for which the article on it should suffice.
  3. "Far flung areas keep the time – I've added information on the time being broadcast by AIR and Doordarshan.
  4. You're right there aren't too many published sources (just a handful on Google books mention it) on this subject so getting such info is difficult.
  5. Could you elaborate on what you want to see in the economic bit topic?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I feel its necessary to explain for national empires - how did ancient/medieval people deal with this widespread geographic difference? (2) I believe you should explain how standard times/IST works with respect to India's geography and climate - an account of how Indian/British scientists callibrated this time zone is necessary (as much as possible), and readers should be available to understand the purpose and process of deriving standard times from this article itself, with particular note to India's needs. What was done before atomic clocks and how are these clocks maintained? Its not much as such, I reckon 1-2 paras. And the "Problems" section will go nicely at the end of such a section. (3) The far-flung areas, the northeastern region, the disputed areas of Kashmir etc. - do people observe time as per their own traditions? As the article speaks of people asking for a separate timezone for Assam, what are the economic effects of the IST if 8 am is different for Assam from M.P.? How does it affect people's lives, economic routine? administration? (4) Fresh point I consider it necessary that the article examine the alternative proposals for 3 time zones, what happens for India's maritime territory, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and IST as compared to the alternate Nepal Standard Time, Pakistan Standard Time and Bangladesh Standard Time, as they are closely linked to India's geography. I know its hard to find some books on this, but I do want to push you a bit more to make sure this article is comprehensive. What I'm asking for is a bit Indo-centric scientific information, as well as some data on how daily life in India is affected by having IST. Rama's arrow 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was initially concerned with the lack of coverage of historical aspects of IST (as pointed by Rama's Arrow). For that, I have myself added whatever I found relevant. There is a fine line between what would be considered revlevant for IST article, and what would go to article about time-keeping in India, as this article should talk about the standard only. Hence, even some info added by me might be found irrelevant by other editors, and get deleted. For these reasons, I have specifically not added info about the details of Hindu calender beyond a certain point. Weighing the other concerns raised, I find that this article deals with them sufficiently in the scope set for it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This particular article has been extensively re-written over the last two months or so (largely by myself), with a lot of additions and illustrations added. I've had it peer reviewed by the folks at WikiProject Military History, and having taken all their suggestions on board and implemented them, I'd like to nominate this article for Featured Article status. Self-Nomination --Commander Zulu 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object WP:LEAD section is too small, and there's inconsistant inline referencing, sometimes using the footnote system, other times just linking directly to a web site. Additionally, lacks "brilliant prose" in that there's a heavy use of overly large paragraphs. Sections often consist of a single large paragraph, which hinders ease of reading. Other times, sections consist of a single SMALL paragraph, which looks stubby. Is there really no more to be said on these subjects? If so, why is a whole section dedicated to them? Fieari 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, but actually, AndyZ's PR script says the lead is too long. Agree with Fieari's other issues.Rlevse 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm basing the "too small" comment on the fact that it's just one paragraph, however big that paragraph might be. Which is too big, granted, but I mentioned that too. *shrug* Fieari 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment PLease get rid of the bolding. Sandy 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object There are entire sections with no inline citations (see, for example, paragraph beginning with "After the end of the World War I,"), bolding is overused, and please fix the footnote punctuation. On prose, this is one sentence in the lead:
    • The Webley service revolver was most notably used in World War I (as the Webley Mk VI), although it had actually been adopted in 1887 (as the Webley Mk I) and risen to prominence during the Boer War of 1899-1902 (as the Webley Mk IV), and were of the "top-break" variety (breaking open much like a double-barrel shotgun to be reloaded), with the advantage of also being self-extracting—the act of breaking the revolver open also operated the extractor, removing the spent cartridges from the cylinder. Sandy 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you pointed out DOES have an inline citation (no 17)... how would you re-write the introduction? Help me out here, instead of just objecting. --Commander Zulu 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]