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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2015 [1].

That We Can Play

[edit]
Nominator(s): 和DITOREtails 02:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about electropop duo Ford & Lopatin's (at the time known as Games) critically-acclaimed extended play That We Can Play. I've been into Daniel Lopatin's synth music for a while now, and I've enjoy working on this article and trying to get it to FA status. For the limited amount of reliable sources that I could find about this album, every necessary bit of information important to the EP is present, and the writing also meets FA standards. I want to strongly thank Miniapolis and SojoQ for their copyedits of the article. Any suggestions for improvement are welcomed! 和DITOREtails 02:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review seems to be a non-starter; because there were no comments you can re-nominate without waiting the usual two-week period following an unsuccessful nomination, but I'd suggest waiting a week or so given Xmas/NY holidays. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2015 [2].

Konstantin Päts

[edit]
Nominator(s): H2ppyme H2ppyme (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most prominent Estonian politician of the interwar period. Päts was the nation's leader during its three most crucial moments, the Estonian War of Independence, his own self-coup in 1934 and the Soviet occupation. He is seen by Estonians either as the Father of the Nation, destructor of democracy or even a Soviet collaborator or an agent. H2ppyme (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note Hi, welcome to FAC. Have you added ((subst:FAC)) to the article's Talk Page according to the FAC instructions? Also, it would be wise to ensure there are no unsourced statements. As a general rule, all paragraphs should have a citation at the end.Graham Beards (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I added some references and restructured the rest as they were often included in the previous reference.H2ppyme (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Oppose pending resolution of image licensing issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would benefit from going through WP:PR and from a copy edit. I see images places on opposite sides of the page, squeezing text. I see collapsible navboxes or similar in the middle of the article. Etc. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2015 [3].

Agar.io

[edit]
Nominator(s): Esquivalience t 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agar.io (currently a GA) is currently one of the most popular browser/mobile games. Despite its simplicity, it has managed to garner over 10 million downloads on the first week of release of the mobile version, and the browser version is one of the 1,000 most visited websites (according to Alexa Internet).

This article is very short for a featured article candidacy; however there is not too much information to cover because of its developmental and gameplay simplicity. Nonetheless, I have squeezed every last piece of useful information from 21 reliable sources, and I believe it meets the featured article criteria after some small improvements. Esquivalience t 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

JerrySa1 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

Overall, I cannot find any other problems with the article. But if I can make it to the top of the leaderboard, it'd be nice. ;) In the meantime, if there is any other stuff that needs to be fixed, I will let you know. epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from JM

Please don't hate me for saying this, but my gut instinct is that we should not be promoting short articles on such recent topics (the game was released less than 8 months ago!) to FA status. It is not yet clear what kind of lasting significance that this game will have, and this surely belongs as part of the article. Maybe in a couple of years, when the game is more established, and we're clear on whether it has won awards or featured in "best game"-type lists, and the developer has gone on to other things and all the rest- but, for now, I think it is better left as a GA.

Even if I ignore this instinct, I do not think that the article is of the quality expected for FAs. Here are some more specific comments:

I think this article belongs as a GA at this time; until the topic is a little older (and, preferably, there's a bit more coverage from reliable sources) I don't think it's ready for FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2015 [4].

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a 2007 song by Barbadian singer Rihanna. It is one of her most successful and signature singles of her career. I believe the article should be featured because it's pretty well written, well illustrated and sourced, the sources are well formatted and it's also quite cohesive (maybe the Music video section is kind of not-that-rich, however that's the only reliable source I could find). Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates please take into consideration that the above Support is not even remotely credible checking the user's contribution and the fact that it passed an article as GA without even reviewing it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line "It was written by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson with its producers StarGate." is rather odd, considering the situation of Jackson at that time. It reads like he was there, writing the song with the team. This should be treated clearly. Same with the line in the first section. --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the writing of the article I haven't find a reliable source, he was absent from the writing sessions of the song, so putting just that he got his credit because of the line would be WP:OR. At the end of the day, he might be included there somehow, (the song was written circa late 2006-early 2007)
  • Hey, I changed it to: Jackson received a writing credit as a result of using the line "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa", which can also be heard on his 1983 single "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'". It's more consistent with the reference. — Tom(T2ME) 12:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting if an information about how they came to sampling that line could be extracted from somewhere. The first paragraph in the first section is just a prose version of the album liner notes. --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't find info about that. However, the lawsuit takes the spotlight in the section, so IMO it looks pretty good.

  • MOS requires uniformity, therefore I suggest that all references in release history be put on the first column, just like all other tables (certifications, weekly charts, etc). --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rihanna's vocal range spans from the low note of F♯3 to the high note of A4." This is subjective and should be generally avoided. An A4 might just be normal (or a bit low) for Mariah. --Efe (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not comparing vocal notes of particular singers, I am just saying which is the highest and which is the lowest song that Rihanna sings in the song. All my other featured articles have it and no-other reviewer seem to have problem with it. — Tom(T2ME) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just stating both notes is enough, IMO. The word spans will tell the reader that she reached such notes in both extremes. By assigning "low note", its like telling that F#3 is already low. --Efe (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "His lawyers brought the case in front of a Parisian court, demanding €500,000 in damages that Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music should have paid until the issue was resolved." Per source, it says that the lawyers of Dibango demanded such amount AND barred the labels from profiting off the song until all issues are resolved. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had approved the demand without contacting Dibango beforehand". Demand? probably a request from Rihanna's team? Also, the source says "allegedly" as in "allegedly without contacting the Cameroonian". --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - I'm not convinced the prose is up to scratch. Sorry, I don't want to sound patronising, but I know you can write better than this. I think proseline is a problem; it ruins the flow by producing an unpleasant staccato to the text. I made a few edits to remove some redundant "also"s, which you might want to check. I suggest getting a copy edit from an editor new to the article who is not a fan. This should create more of an encyclopedic tone. Sorry again, and please don't shoot the messenger. Graham Beards (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2015 [6].

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman

[edit]
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier who is considered one of the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War"; he was among a group of more than one hundred documented Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation. In recent years, he has become one of the many central figures of interest in a revival of interest of this period of Hawaiian history. This article was nominated as a good article and has been peer reviewed. Basically, everything known in the sources directly about this individual is already in the article itself, so there are some questions that I won't be able to answer because no known knowledge exist about it. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What exactly do you mean "explicitly account for the licensing status of the works"? I have no knowledge of anything related to the monument beyond what it says and that it is in Mount Auburn Cemetery. It might be easier to remove it because there no further knowledge I can provide about its licensing status.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creators and dates of creation are not known. I don't think information such as creators/dates of creation are known for most personal markers like these. In light of this, should they all be removed from the article? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. For most gravestones we actually do know the date of creation - in most cases they were created around the time of the subject's death. Is that true here, as far as we know? If so, the gravestone would be PD due to age (pre-1923 display in the US). The Civil War memorial may be more of an issue, depending on what we know about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is the family marker dates to 1951 or after (after Christiana S. Pitman's death). I have no knowledge of the gravestone with the shield, although I am guessing that it may be a later addition, a posthumously petitioned gravestone in the 20th century since it has the shield emblem on it. The plaque was created around 2010 but the creator is not known to me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay...is there any possibility of finding out more information? Something 20th-century could still be PD, and the plaque could also be PD if it were a federal government work, but without details it's hard to know. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think there is anyway to find any more information besides the stuff I already presented, so I was thinking of just removing the problematic images to save all the trouble. The plaque to my knowledge was sponsored by Oahu Cemetery Association and Hawaii Civil War Round Table, a Civil War interest group in Hawaii, and they paid someone or a company to make the plaque for around $3500. The copyright would probably be in the hand of the unnamed/unknown maker or unnamed/unknown plaque company, so it isn't a federal government work. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've changed it to an image of the mausoleum instead which is as a building is exempt under 17 USC 120(a).
Okay, looks good on images now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question on the main image. Why is the link to the source...not actually showing the full image that is being used on Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source link supports that the portrait is held by the museum. It would be nice to link to the full portrait on the museum website, if it includes a digital gallery, but not all museums provide that - haven't checked if this one does. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to have a link in this manner, simply demonstrating the museum when the other works from the museum do not have such a link and there is actually a proper template for that. Links in the summary for "source" should be the actual source the digital image was taken. If the author of the image itself was the uploader it should indicate that. If it came from a digital repository, it should indicate that. Source is not the museum, it is where the digital version comes from unless they are the same (such as the Museum's digital library). This makes verification very difficult if not impossible. All of the images appear to be in the public domain, but the images themselves do not appear to have any explanation to the actual source of the image itself. I have many images of works from Crocker Art Museum here in Sacramento, that makes the source for the image the uploader or "own work" not the museum. But if the digital image is taken from, let us say Flickr" then the source will show the link to the page on Flickr the image was uploaded from. This is a part of the FA criteria for image use policy. I believe this needs to be cleared on all the images so we know the actual source.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using the "proper template" would be nice, though it's not a requirement. But I can't agree that "own work" would be an appropriate notation. Wikipedia policy is that faithful reproductions of 2D works do not warrant their own copyright. The original source of this image is a portrait held by the Peabody Museum - whether the uploader went there to snap a picture or just downloaded an image from Flickr. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "proper template' is just the institution template. It isn't required in anyway, but will likely be added by another editor or myself at Commons for convenience. The requirement here is the source of the digital image which is "essential information". It is required for uploading to know the original publication date of the image...not the painting. The source is required as to where the image came from, whether that is "own work" (as is indicated by guidelines) or from an online source. The source is the person, group or entity that scanned, digitized or photographed the image.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Own Work" is indeed the source if...and only if the uploader actually took the photo. We already know that an image that is under the license of "public domain" can be used in the US without a "sweat of the brow" law, however, attribution must never be substituted. The source is proper attribution to the person, group or entity that created the digital work. "Own work" is used if the image was photographed or scanned by an user. It does not indicate authorship. That remains with the original author, but Wikipedia insists that image files have proper ways to verify date of publication and source...as to how we (Wikipedia) have acquired the digital image.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, though perhaps it's a matter of terminology. If I take a photo of a photo, that doesn't make the resulting photo my own work, under either US law (which for a US photo of a US painting for a US website is all that matters) or Wikipedia policy - I just reproduced it. By the same token, if I directly upload a photo taken by someone else, I've still reproduced it, and it's still not my work. And no, we don't need to know the publication date of the image, since the creation of the image doesn't generate a new copyright. It's the date of the original painting that matters. If you want to add a template or more details that's great, but it seems very silly to nominate for deletion a painting that you agree is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe part of this is terminology. "Own Work" is only the source and is mentioned in the guidelines as to who the originating image comes from. Yes...I took this image:
and am the "Source/photographer". I must attribute myself for the digital image. But this is NOT the case here. The image was provided in a manner that, for some reason, seems to be outside the norm and is not being attributed to a proper source yet. Hopefully it will. It isn't that hard and I don't see there being any reason for the information to be held back.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. That was easy, and an enjoyable read. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further review of the first claim appears to also be original research and based off the editor's own analysis [edit for clarification] of the image of the marker [primary sources] and does not come from any source itself. When I went to the single secondary source used for the claim, it is merely a listing of the name rank etc. and makes none of the claims being made. Primary sources should only be used for the content that can be specifically seen to be in the source and nothing else, such as the following line: In the 1860 United States Census, his name is recorded as "Henry Pitman".[7]. Straightforward and only contains the attribution and the exact content with no additional comment or analysis.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence before does the same. There is no additional comment or synthesis of the primary source. The inscription on gravestone itself is a primary source not my observations, and as I discussed with other user is a reliable alternative to using Find a Grave. The two sources to the enlistment records are the same and contains the the exact spelling in the records with no additional comment or analysis.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I am aware of the guideline. Thank you. But again, the opening sentence is not supported by the primary source references and has no secondary source. It is your analysis of the primary sources and is a misuse of primary sources to pile them on without a secondary source for the claim. And we have been through this as well as the above issue of "Freedom of panorama" using graves stones that cannot be dated. Only the specific descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. I do not find directional description an issue. My bad. I corrected that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, you need to lose the "His name is given in various ways in the sources" portion of the note.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wording is an issue. The way you have "In Hawaii..." is analysis. But just saying "Hawaiian publications.." is not, just specific to the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Hawaii is citing the publication place of the primary source, which can be found in the publication information at the front of these books or in the front pages of newspapers. I disagree that saying sources disagree is synthesis or original research, a point which I like to hear other users' opinion on. But anyway, the disagreement of spelling and age can be sourced to Vance's and Manning's biography of Pitman in the NPS book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In Hawaii" is analysis of the primary source and constitutes original research by telling the reader that only a specific location regards the subject in this manner. The primary sources do not state that. But if you feel an argument is required as a comeback to all who disagree (as does seem to be the indication so far) I will stop further discussion and review the article as a whole and leave a single post with all of the concerns that I feel hold this article back from Feature status. If you truly want this article to make FA status, try to heed some of the reviews as right now I am strictly for ...
Thank you for you assessment. I don't agree but that isn't odd.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is odd is your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policy (especially in regards to images, primary sources and use of secondary sourcing....and that is vital), which is why I was surprised to see you nominate an article. Hold your thanks until I actually give a full review. Since you seem firm on not making any changes suggested and seem to argue and question all posts, I am not sure you are even ready to nominate an article to FA yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your suggestions are in anyway legitimate which is why I won't make the changes I see as unnecessary. I am not sure you are event qualified to make legitimate reviews based on the qualities of articles you have written or heavily edited, although if the points are legitimate I will make the change. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you fail the most important part of FAC. Respect the opinion of the reviewing editors. All you want to do is argue your opinion or your OR. Fine, then write a blog or create your own Wiki. I at least have one FA article. Whether or not you see that as qualifications for review only goes to demonstrate the manner in which you try to discredit both sources and editors outside policy and guidelines. Frankly, your scores of articles based on your original research disturbs me greatly, as it should all editors that review your articles for fact based content but you continue to improve and, as I have stated before, you are still a net plus for Wikipedia in general....but maybe not for FA at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a few issues that do not appear to have been addressed during the October GA review. This might have something to do with the lack of discussion with the original FA nomination. Before the article can listed as FA, it first must meet all the standards and criteria that were not address in the last review and the criteria for Featured Article status.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead editing the article, please suggested the changes below like all the reviewers have done. I saw problems with your changes.
1. The Pitman house image has potential copyright issues as addressed before by Nikkimaria. It was printed in a 1931 book by Almira Pitman but is undated so can potentially still have copyright problems if made after 1923. The Pitman had their third son in Hilo; his brother's gravestone at Mount Auburn, and Pitman's stepmother died in Hilo as well, and primary sources discussed in Merry's book state Pitman didn't sell his Hilo house to Spencer until he left for Boston.
2. There is no rationale for using Hawaiian language term titles with Ke Aliʻi (The Noble). This is clearly your mode of translating the title across Wikipedia in articles you've edit which no historians or other wiki editors even have adopted at all; the sources I used for this article that speaks about Pitman's life use the term high chiefess or high chief to refer to his Hawaiian ancestors so it should reflect what the sources say. Included among these is "After fifty years: an appreciation, and a record of a unique incident" written by Henry's sister-in-law and the recent publications by Manning and Vance, Hawaiian historians in this period of history. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be accurate with accusations, especially when discussing what other reviewers have done. I have reverted some of your edits as the talk page makes it clear you are not supported by the deprecated use of "chief" and "High Chief", which is not the proper titles of Hawaiian nobility. Translations by missionaries almost two hundred years ago have since been updated. Basically you are calling the subject an Indian. That is not appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Translations by missionaries almost two hundred years ago" & "Basically you are calling the subject an Indian" - by whom? You are establishing a link between the word chief and Indian which is racist and sourceless to say the least. You are claiming the missionary translation has been updated, yet you do not demonstrate the sources to back thisot up. The scholarship in the Hawaiian community still commonly uses the English translation "chief" or "chiefess" to translate the term Ali'i; show me one person/scholar/source who translates it as "the noble" word for word. The talk page discussion was regarding the English spelling "chiefess" which is not found in certain dictionaries not the Hawaiian translation. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You are establishing a link between the word chief and Indian which is racist and sourceless to say the least." Excuse me...but did you accuse me of racism through my text because you don't understand the Hawaiian term "ali'i" translates as "Noble". I don't need a source to use the term that has been established as accurate for nearly as long as the mistranslation to "chief" because of the misunderstanding of what an "Indian" is to missionaries of two hundred years ago. And yes...it is a term that can be referenced. Ke Ali'i is a formal term of position or title. The word "Ke" is used instead of "Ka" in formal titles. Hawaii didn't have a "king" until David Kalakaua because he was the first to use the only Hawaiian (Mauai) term for King...Moi. So, if you are trying to create an FA article, yes, I actually object to the term "Chief" and 'Chiefess" as inaccurate and one other editor on the talk page agrees. You should probably strike that out. it certainly "irritates" me and seems to be a personel attack.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your making a controversial claim of mistranslation and connotations which have no sources. Your claiming chief and chiefess are mistranslations and confused/link Hawaiians to American Indians without any sources. Please, provide sources that this (mistranslation and connotation) is the majority scholarly consensus in Hawaiian historiography and that there is any rationale (in the majority scholarship and historiography) to reject chief/chiefess and use Ke Alii (The Noble) instead because of your expressed reasons. Also find me a list of scholarly sources that translates Ke Ali'i as "The Noble" (word for word) and also simultaneously rejects the translation chief/chiefess as well because of connotation with American Indians. You are making claims and interpretations ("Hawaii didn't have a "king" until David Kalakaua because he was the first to use the only Hawaiian (Mauai) term for King...Moi") without sources; this last point about Kalakaua is also irrelevant here so I won't discuss it. Wikipedia should reflect what the academic sources state and has no room for opinions or interpretations.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't have to do any of that. If you feel there has been racism than you need to contact an administrator or file a complaint at ANI. I am not making a controversial claim. This is a talk page. I made no such claim in the article and if I should ever need to do such...yeah, it can be sourced but this is a very simple matter. You used the term chief and high chiefess and someone else reverted you and I said that the best route was to use the proper term: Ali'i wahine, that the other editor already mentioned. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. You simply have two editors that disagreed with you some time ago but never made any attempt to change the content. I did based on that discussion and the public thank you I received when I weighed in on the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I just thought it was a bigoted comment to make. And I don't believe it can be sourced properly in the majority scholarship (although I am sure you would manage to find one or two fringe sources to use to support that). Then your only rationale for reverting me is just the concerns raised by User:Corinne. Yes, if that was the editor's viewpoint which I still am not sure of. The editor's concern high chief or chief but chiefess as an English word in the English dictionary and to explain it (which can be accomplished by a footnote). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...so that's supposed to be better?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the Pitman House image is a copyright issue and you have hidden it instead of requesting deletion, that is an MOS issue because hidden messages are to be used sparingly and hiding a copyright issue is not that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I am in the middle of exams, currently right now, and will be out of the country doing a field course later, so I may be slow to respond unless the edits/comments irritate me enough to respond at the detriment of my semester's grade (which for the past few days has).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You'll only respond if irritated enough. That's very collaborative of you in an FA nomination that was archived due to lack of interest.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to my knowledge, this is an active nomination not an archive. All FA nominations are titled "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TITLE/archive#"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my lack of knowledge. Not yours. Seriously. I saw that and since I have the FA nom page watchlisted and didn't see this come up I just assumed (incorrectly) that the Nov 26 nom date made it an older nom. Nope. Still in the main nom section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to clarify. "Sorry" wasn't an apology it was an expression of surprise (Sorry, what?). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You actually didn't need to clarify that... but it does say more than you might have been attempting to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please do what the other reviewers have been doing and suggest edits instead of unilaterally changing the article. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the very question since Dank edited the article and reviewed the article for prose. At any rate, editors are welcome to edit the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm sorry that I haven't had time to investigate the whys and wherefores of the dispute between nominator and reviewer above but in any case this has been open quite some time and is not approaching consensus to promote. KAVEBEAR, can I suggest you consider nominating for MilHist A-Class Review, which might be a useful preparation for a subsequent run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2015 [7].

Transport in Kollam

[edit]
Nominator(s): Arunvrparavur (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Transportation and mode of transports in the Indian city of Kollam. Kollam is the 49th most populated urban agglomeration in India with a total population of 18 million in the Metropolitan Area. Moreover, it is an ancient Portuguese-Dutch-British enclave and one of the oldest port cities in Asia ... Arunvrparavur (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Start-class article that's never been reviewed. The most obvious faults are an inadequate lead, many uncited statements, use of lists rather than text, substandard prose ("Kollam's transportation have that much of historic background"; "Kollam was the first city in South Kerala that got a rail connectivity", etc etc). Nominator perhaps needs further guidance on using the FAC nomination procedure; it is not a place where unprepared articles can be brought up to standard. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – Upon a quick glance of the article, it does not meet the FA criteria. I have found that many sentences lack references to reliable sources and the references are incorrectly formatted. Otherwise I concur with Brianboulton. Z105space (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2015 [8].

Bing Crosby

[edit]
Nominator(s): (Utzdman55 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

This article is about the American popular singer and icon Bing Crosby. As it turns out, the guy that comes out every year and sings "White Christmas" was a very complex, colorful, detailed and talented artist. The Wikipedia article covers his full life extensively and very very well. It meets all of the Featured article criteria and I believe it should be featured. (Utzdman55 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2015 [9].

Jonathan Mitchell

[edit]
Nominator(s): yleventalYlevental (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jonathan Mitchell, an autistic author and blogger who advocates for a cure for autism. He opposes the neurodiversity movement. He is one of the most controversial figures among autistic bloggers because of his hatred of autism, his view of autism as a disability, and his desire for a cure. He describes neurodiversity as a "tempting escape valve". He writes as a hobby, having written three novels, 25 short stories, and runs a blog called Autism's Gadfly. Ylevental (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr Mitchell may be a worthy subject, but this article is a stub of less than 200 words and has no place here in its current format. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal/close - a very short article that would need a major expansion content-wise (e.g. discussion of novels, more discussion of why he is controversial, formalization of language (e.g. not, "He has worked in the past, doing things like data entry"). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2015 [10].

Grey's Anatomy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Numerounovedant (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American medical drama television series that premiered on American Broadcasting Company (ABC) on March 27, 2005, and is currently in its 12th season.

Comments This may be this nominator's first FAC – I don't recognise the name. If so, welcome to the process. Please bear in mind that comments here are primarily aimed at improving the article so that it meets the FA criteria, not at criticising you or other editors who have contributed to the article.

  • Final sentences in last paragraph of Casting
  • Last half of last para of Main characters
  • The entire last paragraph of Recurring characters
  • Last sentence of third para of Critical response
  • Last parts of 2nd and 3rd paras of Broadcast host
  • Final part of Distribution section
  • Nothing at all cited in the short "International adaptations" section

I see from the article history that there was a project class-A review in June 2012; this is that whole review – hardly searching stuff! There was a decent peer review in May 2012 by Ruhrfisch, but that was the last meaningful scrutiny. At that time, incidentally, the wordcount was around 8,800, so the article has grown by around 30 per cent since its last review. You should seriously consider withdrawing this nomination with a view to resubmission after an up-to-date peer review and a concentrated effort to deal with the issues I've raised here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping and pointing at the issues that need to be addressed. Will withdraw the nomination and start working on the article as per the guidelines!Numerounovedant (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2015 [11].

Operation Sandwedge

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is less about a minor cog in the Watergate machine than about one which was never even set in motion—Operation Sandwedge was the proposed covert strategy eschewed by Nixon in favour of what ended up happening. This article is part of a continued fascination of mine with things that didn't happen (cf. Ronnie Rocket, Project A119) and I hope you find it as intriguing as I did. It received a GA review from Sp33dyphil in 2012, and a recent peer review from Nikkimaria which identified a potentially troublesome source which has since been removed. The text also benefitted greatly from a copy-edit by Relentlessly. Of note to anyone taking the time review this, I've also been wondering about possibly replacing the image used with File:Jack Caulfield, photo portrait, Nixon Administration, black and white.jpg instead, I'm not sure which one would work better, although personally I lean towards the hint of conspiracy given by the covered speech in the current one; an idea which, granted, may be a little more yellow-journalistic than it should be. Thanks in advance to anyone who has a look at this one. GRAPPLE X 09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed (including the proposed replacement). Personally I like the current image though. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Good, and interesting. I have a few comments.

Lede
  • "statuses" I think "status" would do.
  • "proposals for the proposed" can this be boiled down into one proposition?
Background
  • "Nixon and Haldeman had first worked together in 1956, during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidential nomination under Dwight D. Eisenhower." I don't think you are reading the source right. He first worked for Nixon in 1956, but it mentions the re-election of Nixon as vice president and does not mention the nomination. Saying "worked together" implies colleagues, whereas Haldeman was in 1956 relatively junior. In any event, I don't think it's fully supported by the source.
  • I had intended "worked together" to simply mean "working for the same purpose", but I've reworded it to directly relate that Haldeman worked for, not at the same level as, Nixon. And you're right about the goal, I had misread the source to refer to his bid for the vice-presidential ticket rather than his bid for the vice-presidency itself, that's also been reworded now. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nixon's re-election campaign for the 1972 presidential election" I would make this a bit less clunky "Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign" should be sufficient.
  • "Nixon's Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs." Nixon's domestic affairs assistant carries the same information at less cost.
  • assistant director of criminal enforcement" On the White House staff, or is this Justice Dept?
General comments: The prose is a little clunky and could benefit from slimming down phrases like the ones I've flagged above. I'd like to ask the nominator, have you checked other bios of Nixon and other books in the long shelf of books that keep getting written on Nixon and his administration for content? Because I'm a little uncomfortable about using Black's bio as the backbone. It's fine to use (I've used it myself) but it's a bit controversial, as is Black himself. I'd welcome your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a comb over the prose again myself, but I'll admit that I'm not the best at it. As for the use of Black as a book source, I could try to find something else if preferable, but the book is only used for the numerical facts of his 1968 election victory; the 0.7% popular vote margin in particular (I cribbed the source itself directly from the Richard Nixon article so didn't realise it may have been a biased one). A quick search on Google Books turns up this as a possible alternative, if you would prefer? It doesn't explicitly state what the margin of difference was but it should be safe to produce it from the two results being given. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. As you pointed out, we used him ourselves, and also for similar things. Sounds good to me. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- notwithstanding the calibre of the reviewers so far, this nom has unfortunately gone cold without receiving sufficient commentary to consider promotion, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 [12].

Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Iridescent

[edit]

Is there a better source for "The entrance to the station, which is a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station" than the current 'source', which is clearly just a reprinted press-release (even if it weren't obvious from the "sponsored content from discoveramerica.com" disclaimer) right down to the use of the Am-Eng "one-fourth scale" in a British newspaper? The actual King's Cross Station is a melange of Victorian plate-glass and post-modern spun-steel which looks like the Starship Enterprise has crashed into a Victorian crematorium, and assuming this photo is representative has no particular resemblance other than the colour of the bricks and the arched roof. (The "King's Cross" used in the films was actually the more photogenic St Pancras railway station, so there's no particular reason a ride based on the films would choose to replicate the actual King's Cross.) ‑ iridescent 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Hi Iridescent! The entrance to the station is a quarter-scale replica; not the interior.--Dom497 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question; is it, as stated in the article, an actual representation of Kings Cross Station (which in reality looks an upturned soapdish), or the unrelated building which represented "King's Cross Station" in the films? ‑ Iridescent 00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my own question—looking at this photo, it's a very loose representation of a small section of the Euston Road side of the real King's Cross, rather than of the actual entrance. If you're going to claim it as "a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station"—which is pushing it quite a bit, as it only reproduces a tiny part of the real station and has significant differences—you need a source more reliable than a press release from VisitUSA. ‑ Iridescent 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment

[edit]

I don't quite understand the difference between the grading of featured vs. good articles, but I would be more behind getting this article featured if it correctly used the infobox. Currently, it is using multi-park version vs. the single park version, even though it's only in one park. Elisfkc (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Elisfkc (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: Hi Elisfkc, where is the infobox using the multi-park version. It appears to be using the single park parameters.--Dom497 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it from what I saw as the problem. It's all good now. Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by: Why does this article use day month year for an attraction in the United States, which does not use that style of dating?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Very good question tbh. I don't even know. I've tried to understand why we user dd/mm/yy in many american articles but people never give me a proper explanation so I just gave up trying and just do it now. I'm all for using mm/dd/yy.--Dom497 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is the practice in the theme park rides area to do month day year, I'd switch it to American style.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments


Lede
  • Diagon Alley and Hogsmere probably need links, as you do below.
History
  • "visible between one another." visible from each other.
  • "rumours began" should be rumors (change throughout as is American style), sounds vague, as does "speculation arose". Such things do not arise of their own accord, can anything more definite be stated?
  • "Almost a year later" given that eleven months pass between June 2013 and the announcement in May 2014, can something more definite be stated?
  • "suggesting the rumours were true." I would cut this as it really adds nothing but if you leave it, a semicolon is not appropriate as this phrase could not stand as a sentence on its own.
  • The events of the final paragraph are not in chronological order.
  • "spotted" may be overused. I take it to mean seen by chance from a public area, but that does not seem to be the case with the magazine.
Ride experience
  • The final sentence of the lead-in suggests that both destinations are four minutes long, rather than the ride.
  • "a shop selling food" real or mockup shop? Store might be better in AmEng than shop.
  • you state twice in relatively short proximity that there are twenty-one (which I would make 21) compartments. I would leave the three carriages, which is a useful reminder.
  • "motorbike" is this the word used for the conveyance in American editions of Harry Potter books? Because otherwise it sounds British.
Characteristics
  • English measurements, not metric, I would think should come first unless there is a consensus in attraction ride circles otherwise. Also, the word "tonne" is less frequently used in AmEng than "ton". Ditto "millimeters" for millimetres
  • Trains image caption: Possibly "pass each other" might be better than "transit".
  • "a replica of steam-locomotive" some issue here, also in AmEng we probably would not include the hyphen.
  • "instead of only as a" maybe ", not just as a"
  • "setup" set up?
  • "forwards" not a word in this context in AmEng.
  • "look as faithful as possible" I would suggest deleting "look"
  • "Frey AG was responsible for wiring the trains; specifically for the video and sounds components. The company also installed other technical equipment that allow the trains to be controlled by a computer system" This could probably be shortened and included in the previous paragraph.(unsigned: Wehwalt)
@Wehwalt, in this particular case I can see that there might be legitimate reasons to standardize it on BrEng rather than AmEng (although I agree it should be standardized to one or the other). I suspect the core readership for this particular page is people looking for information on Harry Potter related material, rather than people researching visitor attractions in Florida, and a valid case could be made to have it in en-gb for consistency with the articles on the books and films. ‑ Iridescent 00:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do other Disney/Universal rides based on British literature follow the same practice?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over List of Magic Kingdom attractions and List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions, the only non-Harry Potter ones based on British literature are Peter Pan's Flight and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, so the issue has probably never come up as those are tangentially British at best whereas HP is explicitly set in London. I'm not saying it would be right to standardize on en-gb for something in Florida, just that in the case of Harry Potter I can see a valid case for doing so to the extent that I wouldn't use it as grounds for opposition. ‑ Iridescent 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said I'm going to oppose. But we should have a standard practice on these thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- After remaining open around seven weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be arching it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2015 [13].

Freida Pinto

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian actress who shot to fame with Slumdog Millionaire. I had to withdraw the candidate last time as there were reservations about prose. I went for another peer review and the article has really benefited from it. Thanks to Jaguar for copy-editing the article and the ones who took part in the PR. I believe the article now meets the FA crtieria. Look forward to constructive criticism and feedback. —Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great article on a topic (Indian cinema/stars) that has huge popular appeal both in India and around the world. I would love to see it as a featured article. I'm also voting for it because having it on the main page would bring some much needed diversity to the page (which appears to be dominated by articles about white men and their sport and history!). Great work. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary[reply]
And there is nothing wrong with many FA articles about white men getting featured on the main page. It isn't "domination" when it isn't exclusive to biographies, everything has its fair share. What matters more is the quality of the article, not race and gender. You will need a better reason. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an IP

[edit]

*The filmography is barely supported with citations.

Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks for that! —Vensatry (Talk) 06:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3

[edit]

Lead:

Early life: *"Pinto studied at the Carmel of St. Joseph School in the neighborhood, where she played sports and performed in the school choir." Source?

Acting career:

2008-10: * I wasn't aware that Elite sends their models to film castings (also, this is confusing since you state in the previous section that she was an Elite model for only two and a half years?) — is this normal practice or did the director specifically want a model for the role?

* "emerged as a sleeper hit" – I'd add how much the film made in the box office, perhaps contrasted against its budget.

* I'd move this: "The film helped launch Pinto's career in Hollywood" to the beginning of the next section (you need to restate its title if you do so though)

2011:

* I'd replace 'part' with something like 'film role'; also, since she appeared in several films released in 2011, you might consider mentioning this at the beginning of this section, so the readers know what to expect.

Personal life

*"Before her appearance in Slumdog Millionaire" – I'd reword this. Perhaps "Before beginning her film career, Pinto was in a relationship with... She ended the relationship in January 2009, and began dating her SM co-star Dev Patel."

Media image * I'd reword the first sentence to say something like " After her breakthrough role in Slumdog Millionaire (2008), Pinto has been frequently included in magazine polls." There's no need to state that she was an unknown model before that.

But you don't need to state that even if there are famous models who've branched out to acting... All you need to state is that after SM, she was named in all of these polls, you don't need to state she wasn't popular in polls before, it's implied in that sentence. Just like you don't need to say "She's Indian, therefore she is not Canadian, or American, or British..." It's already been established in this article that she wasn't well known in any field before SM. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Separated both sentences. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm unable to support the FA nomination at the moment (therefore, oppose). The main reasons for this:

I definitely think this article has potential, and agree with the above user that Wikipedia sorely needs more diversity. I hope you are not discouraged by my review — all the article needs is just some more work. I'd use FA-level articles of actors like Angelina Jolie, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc. as examples. Also, please don't hesitate to ask if you'd like me to further clarify any of the points I've made. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

EDIT: I checked the previous FA review as well as the peer review; I think you should follow Cirt's advice in the peer review, if you haven't already. Instead of immediately trying to fix the problems with this article, I would advise you to take a break to compare it to FA-level actor articles. Note the language they employ, how much weight they give to different aspects, how they group information, and the types of sources they use. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I'm afraid, the article has had two PRs, and copy-edits by a number of native users including the ones at the guild. As for 'Pinto's thoughts about her work', she is too young to have a say about it. Until now, she's played minor supporting roles in most of her films. Comparing her (article) with that of a highly accomplished actress like Moore is not the right way to deal with; Emma Watson (I know this was promoted long ago) and Josh Hutcherson would be the right ones. Give me sometime, I'll try to polish the article. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware it's already been through several reviews, but that does not change my view that this article is not ready for FA status. I understand that it can be frustrating to hear someone say these things when you've worked for a long time on an article, so don't be discouraged. I just really feel you need to spend some time reading through recent actor FAs and comparing them to this article, as the article has problems and quite frankly, I don't think many of the changes you've made following my review are improvements, or rather, they've introduced new issues, or it appears that you didn't understand the problem to begin with even when the problem should be quite obvious (e.g. you've replaced the Us Weekly article about the Pinto–Patel split with a Daily Telegraph article. That's a step to the right direction, but you have overlooked the fact that the DT article quotes the Us Weekly article, which doesn't give any source but uses tabloid terms like "sources close to Pinto claim...". Gossip mags and tabloids often use terminology like that to mask the fact that they don't necessarily even have any sources, but just needed to come up with something to sell that week's magazine. To establish that this couple have split, you need a RS article with a statement from them; this is basic source criticism, and anyone taking an article to FAC should be aware of it already.)
I am fully aware that Pinto has been an active actor for only seven years, and hence her career cannot be compared to someone as established as Julianne Moore. But that wasn't even my point; my point was that all FAs need to adhere to certain common standards, as you know — they need to use only reliable sources, be broad in scope but not give undue weight to things that don't matter, and be written in professional-level prose. Therefore, when aiming to edit an article to FA standard, you can and should use current FAs as models. Naturally, Moore's article will be longer and more comprehensive than Pinto's as she's older and has had a longer career; however, the FA standards are the same for both articles. I offered those three as examples off the top of my head — you're of course free to use any FAs as examples. As for what I meant with Pinto's own thoughts about her work — actors usually get asked questions like "what made you choose this role/film?"; "what was it like working with [famous co-star, director]?"; "how did you prepare to play this character?" when promoting their films, I'm sure Pinto is no exception. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I never said I'm fully done with your concerns. This is after all a work-in-progress. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely don't understand why you're in a hurry. May be you want to see the nomination archived soon? And, please properly sign-in your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. For now, it looks like you're affixing your username. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I haven't implied that, I know you aren't done yet, I'm just replying to your comments? I'm getting really confused...? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm not meaning you opposed in a bad faith. But yes, your last reply implies so. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What do you mean? I've spotted problems with the article, which are not just cosmetic ones; hence I don't think it's FA standard yet. The changes you've made and your comments to my review imply that you're not seeing these problems, even when some of them seem quite obvious, which makes me think that you would benefit from comparing the article to existing FAs. And what's this supposed to mean: "And, please properly sign-in your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. For now, it looks like you're affixing your username." I've added four tildes every time before adding my username? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Well, at least could you strike out the concerns which you think are properly addressed? I'm finding it difficult to follow. As for the signature, yes, it does look like you're inserting your username after typing the four tildes. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)r[reply]
The list is not comprehensive, as new issues have appeared with your edits and I've also spotted things that I missed the first time. As I said already when I first reviewed this article, I'm sorry but you need to do more work on this article for me to support its FA nomination, as its issues are not just cosmetic — it's simply not ready to be nominated, it does not meet Featured article criteria. If I were you, I'd withdraw and submit for peer review, or to the guild of copyeditors. Your directing the discussion to my use of tildes (which is sufficient according to WP guidelines and has not been brought up by anyone else during my three years here), combined with the comments you've made in the previous FA review, make me think that you're taking this far too personally. That doesn't make me motivated to continue this discussion, on which I have already spent several hours. I've already given you a lot of tips on how to improve the article, including that your first step should be to compare the article to other actor FAs. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm sure you're aware this isn't an FLC. The article was agreed upon as being fairly comprehensive (by many users who had commented on the PR and this FAC) as there is hardly anything more to be said for the actress who has had a relatively-short career. It was copy-edited by a number of users who are highly experienced and professional level copy-editors. Agree, some issues with prose have come up. But that's mainly because of the changes which were suggested by you. Nevertheless, those are minor ones and I'm sure the article be polished in quick time. I'm not taking things personally, it's rather a few bad-faith editors like you who come up with trivial issues at the last minute and oppose for no reason. —Vensatry (Talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you so adamant in striking out the concerns which have been addressed? Because, I disagreed with you on a couple of instances? —Vensatry (Talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to review this article, and I don't think it meets FA criteria; this doesn't mean it's a lousy article, merely that it's not one of the best yet. Yes, I'm really puzzled by some of your actions. I started by assuming good faith, that you genuinely just need to compare this article to other actors FAs, and maybe give FA criteria and MoS another read. Depending on how much time you have, I think the changes that this article needs to reach FA level could've been done in a week or so. But the more I interact with you, the more negative my opinion is becoming, unfortunately. I've spent several hours on this review and trying to think of ways to help you, but you don't seem to appreciate that. Instead of actually thinking why I've said the things I did and taking my advice, you resort to off-topic discussion and claiming that the review was done entirely in bad faith. If we start conferring FA status without making sure that the article meets FA criteria, then there's no point in even having these classifications. Reaching FA level takes hard work, and you should expect your reviewers to be thorough. If this was just a question of changing a couple of words, I would've said so. Furthermore, if you think the article cannot be majorly improved due to Pinto's short career, then why are you so determined on getting it named one of the best articles on Wikipedia? Why not concentrate on other Indian actors with more substantial careers, as I believe Dr. Blofeld suggested in one of the earlier reviews? Anyway, I'm sorry, but I think I'm done here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm seriously puzzled at your behaviour. You said the article is not yet FA ready, asked me to take a break, go for another PR, and comeback. And, now you say "Depending on how much time you have, I think the changes that this article needs to reach FA level could've been done in a week or so." If you look at my responses (to individual concerns that has been pointed out by you), none of them were negative. On every instance, I either "agreed" or was seeking for your clarification. It's you who is responding in bad faith. That said, I'm very well aware of the FA criteria and MOS guidelines. Regarding your last point, I totally disagree with you. As I said earlier, we have Emma Watson and Josh Hutcherson. It's okay if you don't wish to review further, but at least strike/collapse the concerns which you think are addressed. Thanks, —Vensatry (Talk) 12:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments from TrueHeartSusie3

[edit]

(I'm beginning a new section for the sake of clarity) Vensatry and I had a discussion about the article on my talk page after the comments left on 30 Nov, and I have since spent several hours editing the article to demonstrate the types of changes I would like to see, as per our discussion. I also wanted to do this to demonstrate that my not supporting the FA nom is not due to some malicious intent, but because I genuinely feel it's simply not there yet. While Vensatry has made real progress with the article, my core concern remains the same and hence I still oppose it being named a FA. In the following paras, I'll try to explain the best I can why I don't think it meets FA criteria. I want to clarify that at this stage, I consider this article to be a good GA-level article; however, for FA, it needs to be close to perfection.

The foundation of a FA is extensive research, and its main contributor(s) have to be able to demonstrate that they are experts on the subject. Pinto's career has lasted for less than ten years, and hence I would expect the main contributors to have read the majority of her interviews and profiles published in reliable sources. In other words, while I believe that Vensatry has done a lot of research, for FA level he needs to do even more research. By the time that an article is nominated for a FA, there should not be any major issues with sources or the scope of the article; the changes made in FA review should be merely 'cosmetic', e.g. correcting typos, polishing the prose, further clarifying a fact or two. However, I've noticed the following issues:

In short, the article demonstrates GA-level knowledge of the subject, but not FA-level. Again, a FA review is not just a peer review that may result in the article being graded a FA; the article has to already be in excellent shape with no major issues when it is nominated. This article had major issues to begin with (with research, scope, prose, clarity), and even though progress has definitely been made, more work needs to be done. I hope my criticism and editing aids the main contributor with developing the article, and I'm sorry that I cannot support the FA nomination at this stage. Vensatry, you do not need to reply to this unless you really want to, as this is my final decision and I'm unlikely to change it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

While I certainly value TrueHeartSusie3's inputs, I don't think most of her claims, particularly about the usage of reliable sources in the article, are serious issues. To be very honest, I was not aware of non-reliability of the tabloid sources until the peer review; I missed out a few. In most cases, sources were apparently easy to find and replaceable. Agree with the lack of reviews (of her performances) though. But now that seems to be taken care of. As for the prose, the article was copy-edited by a number of native speakers, including the ones at GOCE. I must say it was after TrueHeartSusie3's recent copy-edits, some minor errors were introduced in the article, which I had to fix. Thanks to TrueHeartSusie3 for her time. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

Oppose While I disagree with TrueHeartSusie that an article has to be perfect or even close to it (I think that's one of the most off-putting things with editors and FAC, they think it has to be perfect and there's no such thing as perfection) I'm afraid I agree with her overall and know what she's trying to say. The prose and overall quality of information isn't even close to FA standard. The prose in places is clumsy and awkwardly structured. It badly needs rewriting or polishing up to improve the overall flow, as well as content on some of her roles and production which might improve the quality and make it seem a little more encyclopedic. It's not just a few minor prose issues, it should be blatantly obvious to any fluent English speaker reading it throughout the entire article. It's always going to be difficult on an actress with limited roles, but this isn't even close to the level needed for featured articles on actors. Sorry Vensatry, I know this isn't what you wanted to hear but I hope you respect that I have to be honest and review this fairly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be nice if some specific examples are given. I must say TrueHeartSusie's (of course made in good faith) edits introduced quite a number of glitches. If you feel still there is a chance for improvements (in prose) so that the article will be polished with in the 'allowed time', please let me know. Otherwise, there is no point in working. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The ones which you'd listed above are really minor ones. Except for a couple of ones (where I seek clarification) all of those have been resolved. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review has been open almost two months and we still don't have consensus to promote, so I'm going to archive and ask that any further work be undertaken outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2015 [14].

Skin Trade (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Metal121 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 action film Skin Trade, which co-stars Dolph Lundgren and Tony Jaa. The film's subject matter is human trafficking, while Lundgren portrays Nick Cassidy, a New Jersey police detective seeking to avenge his family's murder. I believe this article should be featured because, in my opinion, it meets all of the "featured article" criteria. I, Metal121, am responsible for getting the article promoted to "good article" status. Although I have made a lot of edits to the article since it was promoted to GA status - some of which may seem compulsive - I strongly believe that this article has been well written. The article has received a number of copy-edits by other Wikipedia editors, and I see no issues with the way it is written. I look forward to hearing back from any reviewers and will take any constructive criticism in a positive manner. Any suggestions by the reviewer will also be taken onboard to improve the article, if needed. All the best, Martin (aka Metal121). -- Metal121 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I found this article difficult to read and in need of some copyediting. Consider the lede; it starts by mixing information on the stars with comments about writing, then moves to the next para which starts talking about the writing before moving onto the shooting schedule, and finally onto the release details, which are at least a single topic. So here's some suggestions, but I think there's still some work before it can be readied for FA.

This should be the second sentence of the second para in the lede. It's completely out of place where it is.

Starting when? Development began in 2007, so did it sit on a shelf for 5 years?

If this is by his captain, it could be combined with the following statements to improve clarity.

Suggest this be the start of a new para.

By whom? I suspect by the traffickers? It could be the cops in the shootout?

I don't think that translates well outside the US. Suggest "after X paid his bail", where X is the person or group who did so.

So, (a) did he move from Cambodia to Thailand, and (b), how does Cassidy know he's there?

So... I'm guessing that he didn't see Reed kill his partner?

What? This makes no sense.

Attempts to kill him? No more arrests?

And how does this happen?

I'm worried about this statement. I read about human trafficking in Red Sea Sharks when I was a kid but I wouldn't call that "research". Do any of the sources tell us what this "research" consisted of?

I suspect this means "repeatedly changing the setting of the film"?

Why is two young daughters quoted? Generally this whole section has too many quote marks around things that don't appear to be quotes.

Suggest this whole section be re-arranged with a separate para about Uekrongtham.

This is the first mention of SC Films, which I think needs to be explained. How and when did they get involved? Is SC the "someone" quoted above? The rest generally works. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This nom seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly; I note a PR has been opened for it while the FAC was running, and we shouldn't have both running simultaneously anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2015 [15].

True Detective (season 1)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period.

Having achieved GA status last August, further improvements have been made since, and I believe this article meets the FA criteria. This is its second FAC; unfortunately the first one received minimal attention. Graham Beards has given me permission to renominate the article within the 2 week limit. Cheers! DAP388 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and done, I switched the order of the wording if that's enough. Thank you for your feedback. :) DAP388 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Unfortunately this article has again failed to attract reviewers so I'll archive the nomination shortly; because there's so little commentary, I'll waive the usual two-week waiting period for an further nomination, and perhaps it'll be third time lucky... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2015 [16].

First Tennessee Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. It has recently been peer reviewed and copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The modern design of the park incorporates Nashville's musical and baseball heritage - wary of the word "modern" - let facts speak for themselves.
Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, Greer was repaired and upgraded to preserve its functionality and keep it close to Triple-A standards - I'd argue that "preserve its functionality" is vague and redundant, and should be removed as it adds no meaning.
Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
link "approbations"
Linked to Wiktionary entry. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
During construction, the need for new water and electrical supply lines was realized. --> "During construction, the need for new water and electrical supply lines arose." (probably even better ways of saying this)
Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
high demand for tickets. - "for tickets" is redundant and repetitive
Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The financing plan involved a combination of public and private funding. --> "The financing plan involved public and private funding."
Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sounds ownership group spent $50 million on a new, mixed-use and retail development to anchor the facility - I am confused, what is "anchor" meaning here...?
As in the cornerstone or primary development of the facility. I changed this to "...development to serve as the cornerstone of the facility." NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say that it is just being built next to it...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium is being integrated with modern Nashville and will eventually be surrounded by new apartments, parking ramps, and restaurants - "being integrated with modern Nashville" sounds advertorial and can be cut I think.
Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ballpark has a modern design that is inspired by Nashville's heritage - that word "modern" again...
Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
cast ultra-high performance concrete planks - err, this an official classification?
Yes, see Types of concrete#Ultra-high-performance concrete. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wow, I did not know that - link please! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
link acrylic and berm
I linked the first instances of each. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
are the ground rules pretty standard or unusual in any way?
These are your standard ground rules. Should they be removed? NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - am not familiar with baseball park articles.....maybe see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at other baseball park articles shows a general absence of ground rules. For the three FA parks, two (one of which I also worked on) list ground rules. I'm going to go ahead and remove them as they don't apply specifically to any distinct features of this park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise quite an engaging read....@NatureBoyMD: over to you. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I don't see any prose-clangers outstanding. Will naturally depend on some other folks taking a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but after running a month this nom still hasn't attracted enough commentary for anything approaching consensus to proomote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2015 [17].

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): D'SuperHero (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 American film of the Spider-Man film franchise. As per the article has been edited and sources have been cited up. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why did you jump right past the WP:Good article process to the WP:Featured article process? Further, as stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account showed up at "11:50, 9 November 2015." You are not a WP:Newbie, but you also lack experience in other areas of Wikipedia editing. This article is not ready for WP:Featured status. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article had many other deadlinks and so much of grammatical errors. And not more, I've seen much links of blogs were used in it. I've been working on and i will work on it. D'SuperHero (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - I've added some info to the SPI for TekkenJinKazama as the recent behavior of this sock has strongly reinforced D'SuperHero as being a TJK sock, incluing some deceptive moves for their user and user talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnbod and Ravensfire. That comment by Dharmadhyaksha is obviously helpful. That D'SuperHero is a WP:Sock was certainly on my mind since new accounts do not start a WP:Featured article process so soon; they usually have to be told about the process. And they usually don't know certain other things that D'SuperHero knows. But to outright call D'SuperHero a WP:Sock can be considered a lack of assuming good faith, common sense be damned. And as my user page/talk page currently shows, I'm somewhat backing off from sock cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- regardless of any questions of socking or procedure raised above, this FAC is not progressing so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2015 [18].

Courtney Love

[edit]
Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about musician and actress Courtney Love. I have done a great deal of work on this over a period of years, and have refined the citations and bibliography immensely to bring it to standard (especially being such a contentious topic). I hope you will consider the article. Drown Soda (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not able to review, but I notice three uncited sentences occurring at paragraph ends. See 1998–2002 second paragraph, 2012–present third paragraph, and the final sentence of the Cultural Impact section. These should be fixed to conform with FAC standards. I hope you get a full review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input-- I just added appropriate citations to those statements. I appreciate it! —Drown Soda (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - taking a look now. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love debuted a new solo single in early 2014 - "released" ..."debuted" would mean a first one surely....
"moniker" for mine is a tad too informal for an encyclopedic article....but I am having trouble thinking of an alternative...

Source review - make sure all ref titles are in sentence case or title case..not a mix of the two.

Closing comment -- sorry but having remained open nearly a month the prospects of this achieving consensus to promote any time soon are very remote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take on board the comments above before considering a renomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2015 [19].

Tropical Storm Thelma

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would appear to be little more than a non-notable tropical storm at first glance, Thelma is in actuality one of the worst natural disasters in the history of the Philippines. In mere hours, flash floods produced by Thelma obliterated cities and killed at least 5,000 people—with Ormoc City sustaining the worst of its wrath—marking (at the time) the second-deadliest tropical cyclone in the nation's history. Although the true toll will never be known, Thelma soundly rests as a benchmark storm for the Philippines in terms of flash floods. In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan devastated similar areas and proved to be the worst disaster in the history of the Philippines.

It's been about 2.5 years since I wrote the article, but it should still be the most comprehensive account of this event available. Thelma is a reminder to all that just because a storm is "weak", doesn't mean it's not capable of catastrophic impact. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this nom is obviously a non-starter so I'll archive it shortly; given the lack of commentary I'm happy to waive the usual two-week waiting period before a re-nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2015 [20].

Craig Kieswetter

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Kieswetter was one of those England cricketers who bounced in and out of the team. He had a good run in one-day cricket early in his career, and was man of the match in the final when England won the World Twenty20, the first one-day trophy won by the team. He later lost his England place to one of his Somerset team-mates. At domestic level, he was one of Somerset's star players until he was struck in the eye by the ball, ending his career prematurely.

This article underwent a GA review by Sturmvogel 66, who helped to reduce the amount of jargon used, or at least reminded me to explain it or wikilink it. Relentlessly very kindly copy-edited the article, both improving the quality of the prose, and identifying a number of areas where the referencing fell short. Crisco 1492 took a quick look at the images. Harrias talk 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Comments from Dweller[reply]

More to come, perhaps --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Thanks for those comments; I've replied to a few and would be interested on your thoughts, while some others I need to spend more time on. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2015 [21].

Christ Church, Newton

[edit]
Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. It was originally nominated by User:JackTheVicar who has since been banned. I have picked up this nomination as a revival of the original nomination with Graham Beard's consent. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just to clarify as this is meant to be a continuation of the original submission, if this is successful User:JackTheVicar should be getting the FA credit for it NOT me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, mainly on sources:

I understand the particular history of this nomination, but I notice that you have made scarcely any edits to the article, and am concerned about how you will be able to steer this through the FAC process. Do you have access to the offline sources? A lot of work is necessary in this area if it is to meet the required standards. Brianboulton (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that I would have been able to keep the original nomination running rather than having to start a new one but I am going to try the best I can with it. I have started to fix the problems you have mentioned (ie. taken the external links out of the refs and replaced them) but this may take a little while as I am a bit busy in real life. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This FAC is making little progress, which might be because of the original nominators absence, and I will archive it in a few moments. Graham Beards (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards:, this nom only received its first comment yesterday and I started to work on fixing it but had to stop halfway through as I had work to do in the real world. It seems a bit rash to declare that it is making little progress when it has been less than 24 hours since I started. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination has been open for over a month and I was never comfortable with your taking over the FAC having made so few contributions. I think it's best not to continue until the Arbcom have come to their decision on the restrictions placed on the primary contributor. Graham Beards (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2015 [22].

Naïve realism (psychology)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mcooperwhite (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important theory in social psychology which helps lay the groundwork for many other concepts in the field. I worked hard to expand this article from a stub as part of the Wikiproject in Psychology. Mcooperwhite (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First, a warm welcome to FAC and thank you for engaging in our FA process. I am concerned about the originality of the text. The whole of the Tenets is taken from here [23] and it should be made clear that this is a quote if a re-written summary is not feasable. Other checks have revealed potential close-paraphrasing from other sources; for example this from the article, "For a study, pro-Israeli and pro-Arab students viewed actual news coverage of the massacre of civilians at two Palestinian refugee camps" and this [24] from the book Values and Knowledge by Terrance Brown. Also, the Lead does not fully summarise the article and does not provide an adequate introduction for the lay reader. The prose is not engaging and has an academic tone rather than an encyclopaedic one. I suggest a GA review followed by a Peer Review would be the best way to proceed. I think an FA nomination is premature. Graham Beards (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response to my concerns, I have tagged the article as a potential breach of copyright. Graham Beards (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More