• Crowe's article's well written, comprehensive, has a concise lead section, proper headings, and images where appropriate. RomeoVoid 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely needs a lot more sources and a lot more details. I.e. one sentence on Elizabethtown - there was a lot written at the time about the film's reception by critics, etc. Same thing for Vanilla Sky or any other film that just has one sentence or so on it. Mad Jack 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be able to get a GA (Good Article) status, though :) Mad Jack 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object images need fair use rationales Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose images need fair use rationales, articles needs refereces, those references need to be inline, there needs to be some piece of criticism that is mentioned, and the lead really needs a NPOV overlook ("Crowe has made his mark with character-driven, personal films that have been generally hailed as refreshingly original and void of cynicism.") Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Any article that reaches FA status is going to need a lot more than 8 sources. --PresN 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough and well written article on a very popular game. I believe it fufills all the requirements of a featured article. No major problems as far as I can tell, but then again I've never nominated an article before so I may be wrong. RyGuy17 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Contains a number of one-sentence paragraphs, and has many section without inline references. Some sections are not written in an encyclopedic tone. Should be sent to Peer review, and then re-nominated. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object this articles has some issues that needs to be fixed

1. images need fair use rationale
2. Very little on criticism of the game
3. Several sections, especially the Major world events part reads very uncyclopedic
4. Needs much more refs, and several of the refs come from the World of Warcraft Community Site page, which is not an valid source
5. Many one sentence paragraphs

Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is long enough and well written Deananoby2 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Please fix the following:

1. Subjective statement in lead: "Featuring a low learning curve, easy level advancement,"
2. Unsourced weasel words in lead: "The game is widely regarded as a success"
3. The first paragraphy of the body does not need to include detailed contents of the collector's box (e.g. "A cloth map of Azeroth.")
4. Cite sources for statistics like "The game sold more than 240,000 copies in its first 24 hours on the market, more than any other PC game in history" and "As of March 2006, World of Warcraft has more than 6,000,000 players worldwide."
5. Avoid unencylopedic tone as in statements like "As is common with the launch of an MMORPG, World of Warcraft had its share of problems at first," and "And, as with any game, it has its own language or terminology." Starting a sentence with a conjunction is not ideal either.
6. Statements like"Due to World of Warcrafts high sales it has been described as a "runaway success" with "overwhelming popularity"", even if footnoted, should tell us who is saying these things in the body of the text.

That should be enough for a little while. MarkBuckles 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: Good information present, but its presentation is lacking in many ways:

1. The tone is simply not conducive to an encyclopedic presentation throughout
2. Critical analysis is a bit lacking (I realize that there's a daughter article specifically for that, but it's an important aspect of an article, so you should include more of it)
3. Far too few references, especially where important sales figures are concerned
4. Don't bold things like "Blizzard also stated that at any given time at least 500,000 subscribers are online". The objective is to provide readers information about the subject, not to suggest to them some parts are more important than others with things that the eye can't help but be drawn to. Usually only the primary term in an article requires bolding
5. The lead-in to the Major world events section is good, but I'm not so sure that going into that much detail on every one of them is. Perhaps a daughter article could be made on the subject and then you could just provide a brief overview of them here if you felt it necessary to offer some details on them (but do it in a single paragraph, if possible). I just think this section is going a bit far beyond what an uninitiated reader would be interested in, and would, in fact, be a little daunting to them. I do applaud the way the sections above transition the reader into the terms being used (such as "professions" and "realms"), but the inclusion of all this detail is a bit sudden and probably would leave most people feeling a bit out of their element
6. Images definitely need to be summarized better and need some fair-use rationale. For some examples of an effective way to include that, see Final Fantasy X's images
7. Do we have any development info? Information from the creators on how they got the idea, how they went about implementing it, why they chose to do things a certain way? The closest the article comes to really offering any is in the Deviation from the MMORPG archetype and Major world events sections. As far as it goes, the latter only presents the impression — but not the declaration with reference — that fans who felt Warcraft was too static prompted Blizzard to try giving it a more dynamic angle. Development info is really valuable, so if you can get some of that, it would be great
8. Overall, try to remember that the target audience for an article like this is the people who are entirely unfamiliar with Warcraft

I think that you should try to address all of these issues we've brought up here, then take it to Peer Review to iron out any other major-to-minor issues that might be present, and then give it another shot at FA. You've got some good information here in a lot of places, but a lot of it's not presented properly, not properly sourced or just doesn't consider the uninitiated reader as well as it should. Good luck with the future of the article. Ryu Kaze 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about my home town and has been peer reviewed (thanks User:Yomangani), as I'm not a native English speaker, it is already a featured article in Portuguese language wikipedia, and it is expected to be so in the Spanish. It is not one of those huge cities, but it has its own personality and regional "importance", and will be a different article in the FA list. People, from the city and beyond also liked it, and even the City hall has used information from the WK:PT article. I was not to put it as a candidate for FA, but... I liked the peer review. It gave me a lot of work, so be nice judging it. Remember you can edit it ;)--Pedro 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Object- citations not numbered correctly, and pictures are too large. Everything else looks all right though. QuizQuick 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • citations are correct, that's a wikipedia script, not an issue of the article, you see the same citations being used more than once, as these are citations to books, not websites. As for the pics, I think these are ok, but if you ppl think it is too large I don't mind reducing them. hugs. images reduced from 250 -> 220px and 200->165px. the saame for other images with different sizes. --Pedro 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. `'mikka (t) 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. This needs severe copy-editing. And why are the simple years and centuries in blue? Even the autoformatted dates aren't all done correctly. Tony 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been done. If you find an error, the best is to edit. The issue over the dates, that's a common practice in wikipedia. If you want to see the article without "blue things" click on "Printable Version". --Pedro 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd like to see the proper links. What I don't want to see is a whole lot of useless links, like "20th century" (Gee, that leads to valuable information related to this topic) and dictionary words. Why dilute the high-value links with these? Tony 09:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC) And BTW, reviewers here are under no obligation to edit. It's your job to find collaborators; if you're not willing to do that, withdraw it now. Tony 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• you should read "Supporting and objecting", and reviewers should also read the article instead of objecting because of links to dates that every article has.--Pedro 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Image:Autoestradas Póvoa de Varzim.jpg and Image:Siglaspoveirasbase.png should be converted to SVG. It would be nice if Image:Mapa da Póvoa de Varzim.png and Image:Freguesiaspvz.png are in SVG too. Good to see that Image:LocalPovoaDeVarzim.svg is in SVG. WP 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object This article needs copy editing, not only for language but for technical details. For instance, ref marks should be placed after punctuation with no space between the punctuation and the ref mark. Gimmetrow 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is 64kb long, but is concurrently listed as a GA candidate. A lot of the phrasing reads as translation. Very long articles should have near-perfect prose or they are difficult to read all at once. Gimmetrow 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • done: refs placed after punctuation with no space. thx, I was not aware of that rule.--Pedro 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still quite a few not matching WP:FN. Extra spaces here and there, at least one extra period after a footnote, and at least one note before a period. Hint: search for ". [", "]." and "] [" ok? A few other easy-to-fix details that jump out:

• History: arrows to list evolution of word Euracini: is this common style? "...many aristocrats" or just "aristocrats"?
• Sports: why is "Long." given after a lat/lon cite? Should "Marina" be capitalized?
• Culture/traditions: Personal pref, but I tend to dislike parentheticals at the end of sentences (as in Brittany and Denmark). Same thing in History (most notably in garum).
• Writing system: "Coat of Arms" capitalized or not? "The siglas" or just "Siglas"? Is "Siglas" capitalized when not the first word of a sentence?
• Festivals: Is there a way to avoid saying "These days"? "They still believe that this saint..." shorten or combine with previous sentence? Why is understood in single quotes?
• Famous Poveiros: spacing for date after Saint Peter

General points: be consistent with capitalizations, reduce uses of "many". Gimmetrow 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point about "many" is to generally avoid weasel terms such as "some", "many", "most", or the similar word "also". This doesn't mean completely eliminate them, but the process of rewriting required will make the text more crisp. Gimmetrow 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your input, all your ideas where used in the article. The article has improved. More ideas are welcome. Feel free to edit it. ;) --Pedro 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. There are some flaws, but overall it's an alrihgt article. Hezzy 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on other reviewers' comments, but: if there are flaws, and you think the article is only "alrihgt" (sic), why do you think it should be promoted to FA status? Tony 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Clearly fails 2a. A couple of simple fixes: remove contractions, and changing also to furthermore looks even worse. Just delete it. If the content is so different that it feels as though you need to say "also", it's likely there's not sufficient context for the statement. Choose links more wisely (don't link dates, do link subjects of the topic sentence of a paragraph). Please have this thoroughly copyedited by a native speaker-- MarkBuckles 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed links to dates.--Pedro 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Connie Mack Stadium is a great article. --South Philly 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Is not comprehensive, is not fully sourced, and suffers from an overlong infobox. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Whoa. Waaaay too short. Not specifically sourced - just contains a bibliography. Prose is a little un-Wiki-ish in places. Not really FA material at all just now. Seb Patrick 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Objectditto Rlevse 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was put up for peer review on July 3rd, in hopes that it might be a Main Page FA by July 21, when Who Killed the Electric Car? opens in theatres, but getting up to FA quality and incorporating all the peer review recommendations took longer than the several editors who have since been trying to improve it to FA status expected. Anyway, it's pretty much there now, and the movie opens tomorrow, so at least there's that. LossIsNotMore 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written and comprehensive article. My one concern is that the puts the Horsepower of the Venturi Fetish at 300hp, but the article for that automobile states that its output is 245hp.--Thud495 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 300 hp is correct.[1] AnAccount2 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although the article appears well referenced, there are large sections with no references, and there are some prose problems (Most people do not require fast recharging because they have enough time (6 to 8 hours) during the work day or overnight to refuel. ) Can someone check the images? I suggest a second look after the article has been thoroughly copy edited by a fresh set of eyes, and completely referenced. Good start !Sandy 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all of the images have been checked, and it has had a copyedit of every single section over the past three weeks (compare to pre-peer review version.) AnAccount2 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: 2a. Striking object; well done. Tony 06:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Thud495, have you read the article? Let's take a look at the opening.[reply]

A battery electric vehicle (BEV) is an electric vehicle storing chemical energy in rechargeable battery packs to power one or more electric motors.

BEVs were among the earliest automobiles, and are more energy efficient than common internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. They produce no pollution while being driven, and almost none at all if charged from most forms of renewable energy.

• Single-sentence paragraph undesirable.

Fixed; thanks.

• "Storing" should be "that stores".

fixed; thanks

• "Energy efficient" should probably be hyphenated, even in AmEng (pipe it if the link requires).

fixed; thanks.

• Isn't "common" redundant?

No, ICEs are common now but there was a time in the past when they were not and they might not be in the future.

• "internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles" is an ungainly quadruple group, worsened by the abbreviation in the middle.

fixed; thanks.

• Tell me, do they produce pollution when they're not being driven?

Yes, if the batteries leak or are disposed of improberly (as mentioned in the environmental impact section)

• "at all" is redundant.

fixed; thanks.

• "Most" - so there are some forms of renewable energy that do pollute?

Yes, biomass for example is renewable put produces large amounts of CO₂. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text. Please find someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it thoroughly. Way below standard. Tony 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of these specific criticism are incorrect. Energy efficient does not need to be hyphenated, some forms of renewable energy do pollute, I would argue that commom is not redundant (redundant with what?, nothing else mentions popularity), that fact that it is an ungainly term is why an abbreviation is introduced although "internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE vehicles)" may be clearer. Rmhermen 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or simply internal combustion vehicles? Pedant 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right: thanks for the explanations. Tony 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all of these objections have been addressed; more similar are welcome, although more substantial problems are more welcome. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text." Fixing those specific examples isn't enough: the entire text needs a thorough copyedit, and thorough referencing. Sandy 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - controversy section should be all prose, claims should have cites, like this

The three major US automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company have been accused of deliberately sabotaging their own BEV efforts through several methods: failing to market, failing to produce appropriate vehicles, failing to satisfy demand, and using lease-only programs with prohibitions against end of lease purchase. By whom?

Production annonucements and prototypes is messy, should prototypes even be there since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Quotes should not be in italics, per MoS. There are also a couple of fair use images that don't add much, esp Image:DynastyEVSedan.jpg which causes a big white space above the table. The sentence on Replacing doesn't seem to warrant an entire section.

--Peta 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Image:New Vehicle Purchase Preference.gif should be a SVG. WP 06:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. I've got Inkscape but am having font troubles. Will you settle for a PNG? AnAccount2 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copy-edited the lead and history sections. While one or two changes related to personal preference, most did not. Can you find someone to spruce up the remainder? Tony 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try. I've already printed it and gone at it with a pencil per your suggestions, but, well, it clearly didn't get me enough strategic distance. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Potentially good article, needs attention.

1. Very underreferenced. min 1 per paragraph.

   Gasp! Is this really a crierion? This would take it from 20 to about 80 refs! Todays featured article only has 39 references for 52 paragraphs.

   Citations for contentious facts are a criterion as far as I'm aware. If you start using this style of referencing:- <ref name="reference source1> reference descriptions, dates, authors, etc. </ref> then you end up with a list at the end only as long as the number of sources you have used but with a b c d e f g h i j etc. next to them - much more space efficient. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Too many red links

   Would it be better to unlink them if they can't be created? I'm pretty sure this isn't an actual criterion, either; is it? But I will try to stub them.

   If they are notable stub them, if not, remove the link.--Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. I think Hybrid vehicles should be mentioned in the lead to disambiguate the article.

   I completely agree and will do so right away.

   Don't over do it - the lead should set out what is in this article, not what is in another article - It just needs to make sure the reader isn't led into reading this article, thinking it's about hybrid vehicles.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. I can't claim to know much about the subject matter, but the article general reads as a eulogy to BEV's without sufficient balance or counter arguments as to why these vehicles aren't on every road. eg. in the 'cost' comparison to internal combustion engines, the running costs are compared but not the initial costs of the vehicles. I am left none the wiser as to which type of vehicle costs the most other than a vague 'depends on the cost of the batteries' statement. Perhaps some comparative examples would help. so weak object on this point. I acknowledge that there is a section at the end of the article which attempts to deal with proponent and detractor issues, but my bias criticisms exist in the body of the rest of the article.

   The detractor issues are also summarized in the intro, but the exciting fact is that recent battery technology improvements (delveloped for laptops and cellphones, mostly) have completely changed the landscape in this respect. I suppose that should be in the intro, too, as well as the Batteries section if it isn't already.

   Sorry mate, but even your response sounds POV. If there's a source saying this technology will revolutionise mass transport then great, but even that will need to be noted as conjecture (regardless of how exciting the prospect might be). --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. The lead states:- Some models are still in limited production, but the most popular BEVs have been withdrawn and most of those have been destroyed by their manufacturers. I'm intrigued by this and want to know more and why. A brief look at the TOC doesn't immediately indicated where this information might be found, so I read the history, which ends in the 1960's. The next section is then about a number of models which are in production followed by a table which mentions the destruction, but not the reason. So I'm now really confused. I need these questions answering:- 1. Why was it that the most popular models were withdrawn. 2. Why were they detroyed by their manufacturers (artistic outburst? guilt? bribery by petroleum companies?). I finally find the answers in the controversy section at the bottom of the article after numerous references to the destruction of vehicles. Whilst suspense might be a good writing style for novels, I'm not sure an encylopedia is where you should be practising it.

   Well, it has been something of a mystery, and there aren't many good references, because the big automakers have been caught lying about whether the cars were actually destroyed, so the actual answers are actually more complex. I agree this should be expanded and put in up front.

6. There's still quite a bit of prose that requires attention. The former group points, among other issues, to:-??? It does make sense after a thorough reading of the preceding paragraph (also not too hot), but I think a clearer prose style would help.

   I completely agree and will get right on that

--Mcginnly | Natter 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful comments. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mitigate Global warming. 2 problems here, firstly choice of the word mitigation - it has a sense which can mean "to lessen the severity" so this becomes ambiguous. secondly reading the global warming article it does caveat that the 'prevailing scientific opinion' is that xyz contributes to the warming. I'd skirt the controversy and focus on the low carbon emissions and imply the link to global warming rather than explicitly state it.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object images are either inaccurately tagged or poor candidates for fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains the entire list of VFL/AFL premiers, with scores of Grand Finals, Venues and attendences. It also has a tally of the Premiers and thier last Grand Final apperence and Premiership to show readers when the team last reached the grand stage of the AFL Grand Final.AFL45 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a list and not really suitable for consideration as a Featured Article. I would recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. --Allen3 ^talk 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Allen3. And why are the years and decades in blue? Please delink them, except for piped links that focus on the topic. Tony 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a move to Featured List Candidates. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't that be an object? Sandy 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The featured article candidates page is not an appropriate location for this nomination. Perhaps you wanted wikipedia:featured list candidates? Raul654 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few dedicated editors have vastly improved this article in recent months. There have been 2 peer reviews, and it is currently a GA. POV issues have been addressed, organization has been vastly improved, no major prose issues exist. The article is comprehensive and is structurally and graphically sound. Nomin schools 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. There are a number of issues with this article, including that fact that it has too many lists and that the timeline needs formatting. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Still has some POV issues, particularly in the recent activism section, and reads like a brochure throughout by quoting a fair number of statistics of questionable usefulness to an encyclopedia and using a style of prose that seems intended to attract potential students. Also, there was an editor who was looking to cleanup portions of the article not too long ago, so it may not be completely stable either. Indrian 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Support. Apart from perhaps the formatting of the timeline in the beginning , this is a great article. Froshowu 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Could someone check if this new editor isn't just a sock puppet of the nominator? Orane (talk • cont.) 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Major organizational issues. TOC is far too long and confusing. Article contains far too many lists. Sections are not appropriately covered. For example, "Internationalism" has three subsections consisting of six paragraphs, whereas "Student Organizations" has one short paragraph. "Notable Alumni" has a section to itself, but contains no content, except for a link to the main article. Use of summary technique and links to related articles is poor. Also, some POV issues. No criticisms of the university are evident. Main issue, however, is organization. 16 sections is absurd. See FA's University of Michigan (11 sections), Michigan State University (9 sections), and Cornell University (9 sections) for good organization. Also, order of sections is something to be desired. "Further reading" should be after "Alumni," and, in general, the flow of the article is poor. For example, after talking about "Traditions," the next section is "Wesleyan and Delaware, Ohio" and then after that "Athletics." Completely non-sensical. Lastly, reference format is not appropriate and 24 references is not nearly enough. Many unreferenced facts and figures are presented. General content is fine, but still needs thorough copyedit, major organizational restructuring, and better use of linking to related articles and summary techniques. Has a lot of potential and basic skeleton is there for future FA, but not seeing this pass anytime soon. -Bluedog423 05:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object All logos should be svg.WP 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. References need to be correctly formatted. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Many foreign langauge links incorrectly name the university as Wesleyan University. Change this. 24.2.244.245 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually they correctly insert Ohio everywhere or translate to Wesleyan University in Ohio...this is what OWU's original Latin seal still imprinted on all OWU docuemtns reads as well: 'Wesleiana Universitas Ohioensis Delawarensi'. The confusion that you state is not recent...it has been around for years. Rcct 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is great. It's well written and easy to read. Covers every aspect of Ralphs behaviour. Has references where needed. Very good article. Jimmmmmmmmm 11:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I'll have a proper look at this when I get home, but here's a couple of simple things I noticed:

• Needs references. I can only see two, and they are just external links.
• Images need fair use rational.
• The 'outcast', 'pixie' and 'paste' links go to dab pages.
• The 'Weirdo' link points to a magazine, which isn't correct in that context.
• Spelling mistakes: 'bizzare', 'reminicent', 'inadvertantly'.

Icey 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "rationale"? Spelling mistakes are easiest to fix if you fix 'em when you find 'em aren't they? Pedant

CommentOk fixed the spelling but couldn't for the life of me find 'inadvertantly' and I read it three times. If you know where it is fix it please. Fixed the two links to dab pages and unlinked weirdo and outcast. Might add links to wiktionary if you think needed. As for the picture, well I'm not to up on copyright law, especially US copyright law so to prevent me from having to read the whole history can you explain what needs doing, what could be done with the pic? Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"inadvertently" is found in the "Future" section (I found it by just doing a simple, two-second search). It is spelt correctly. --Oldak Quill 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I fixed it:I'm sorry I forgot to comment here that I found it with a simple search. The article needs a through copyedit and referencing. Sandy 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair on the referencing most of this will only be referencable from watching the show. Any episode which are singled out have the link to the Wikipedia article. Don;t really see how this can be reference alot more. There are some subject that won;t have book/internet reference adn will only be known from watching the show. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the Simpsons Archive, for example, here's a page all about Ralph. Icey 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well can that just be added to th e bottom of the page rather than referencing each bit? I'm no expert on this, so if I find pages that are references to whole the page I can stick it a t the bottom rather than reference just on section. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, you should add an in-line reference everywhere that someone is being quoted, vital information is being presented or info that is or might be disputed is present. Ideally, there should also be more than a single source for the entire article too, but you work with what you have. This is probably the most favored method of citing references, so review that page if you need some help with the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it's actually a great article as it is at this point, better than most Simpsons character articles Pedant 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object; no references, no inline citations (four inline external links is all, which is poor formatting anyway), poor prose quality, and little out-of-universe perspective. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Unreferenced, speculative, etc. Definitely does not represent the best of Wikipedia, IMO. Ori.livneh 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article plainly states everything that is needed to be a featured article. Kitia 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was created July 7th, but was never added to the list. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Object Lack references, too many lists, poorly written and formatted. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on then...--Kitia 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object Not referenced. Sandy 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object as per Med and Sandy. BTW, it's such a boring lead—full of fifth most populous, second biggest, fourth this, third that. Tony 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The first thing it says about Philadelphia, after giving its nicknames and etymology, is that it's the fifth most populous city in the United States. That shouldn't happen anywhere except articles on American Idol runners-up and the like. Also concur with Medvedenko and Sandy on the rest. --zenohockey 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a comprehensive article. --evrik 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be comprehensive, but does all of this information belong? This is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Several lists give names but no information or context. Does a list of names of adjacent counties enlighten me about Philly? If it belongs at all, it would be better converted to prose and given some context that explains why that information is important. ("Bucks County, to the northeast, is the home of many of Philadelphia's day laborers.") There are several sections in this article which are very short and not very informative. Surely there's more to say about public education than one sentence. If there isn't, why does it merit a whole section?
  • I don't agree with Tony and zenohockey that "fifth most populous" isn't important. However, I do agree that the lede should grab my attention, and "fifth best" doesn't do that. Surely, Philly is interesting and vibrant enough that you can find something better? As a general rule, the lede should summarize the article. If something is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. By the same token, if something isn't significant enough to put in the lede, it probably doesn't deserve its own section. I'd like to see more arresting information in the lede, fewer sections with more information, and in general less raw data and more context explaining the importance of the facts you do include. Peirigill 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object stubby, listy, multiple improperly formatted references. Rlevse 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A basic topic, complete and already listed as a "Good article". --ZeroOne 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. I haven't read the article, but there are some points I've immediately picked up on:

• Plenty of red links - these should all be stubs.
• At nearly 50KB the page is too large.
• There is a bit of a link farm at the bottom. The external links need to be trimmed.
• Some sections have inline references, others have nothing at all. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Overall size is 49KB, prose size is 40KB. I haven't yet read the article, but I don't believe that 40KB of prose is always a problem: I look for Summary style when prose size passes 50KB. Sandy 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In terms of looking for things to trim, we could start with the "Spiders in symbolism and culture" section. This is far too large and not especially relevant to an article on spiders (a few lines would do tbh). Also, I don't think it's necessary to list all these different species of spider. A bit too listy for my liking. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The article is too long. Several sections need to be spun out into child articles. See my edit on the last section (when I'm done). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started copyediting the article, but more needs to be done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The article is underreferenced, and it does appear there are areas that could benefit from Summary style. If you can thoroughly reference the article, shorten it, and mimimize the link farm to the most essential external links (per WP:EL), it looks like it could be a good candidate. Sandy 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - As above. Additionally, there is an inappropriate heading: "Do female spiders eat their mates?" - Wikipedia is not an FAQ, and should not be phrased as such. Fieari 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - I think it's pretty good now. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.149.133 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2006

• Object - I don't think that it's too long, but I do feel that there are nowhere near enough references. Also, in the "Taxonomy" section, there's a red link, Opisthothelae, that really needs some fixing, even if the 2 subsections of it are blue links. --PresN 03:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - not too long, but there are some issues. "For a guide to identifying spiders, see Spider finder (under construction)" - everything on Wikipedia is under construction, and this article should really be transferred to Wikibooks. Also, don't make wikilinks part of the heading, they should be incorporated into the section text. Apart from this, I think it's a very good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very good article, or at least I think so. It has several images, plenty of words, and lots of information. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am the nominator. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it has some ((fact)) templates as well as a ((in-universe)) and a ((Unreferenced)) at the bottom of the page. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are unreferenced and cleanup tags at the end of the article: aren't they supposed to be at the top? Kind of hard to support an article with tags. Sandy 14:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason I didn't see those... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Lacks references. The Wookieepedian 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object due to the lack of references. -- Underneath-it-All 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object due to an extensive amount of fancruft.Dan 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is not particularly helpful. Raul654 06:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire "Talents and powers" section is wholly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ever seen an article about Darth Vader in an encyclopedia? However, I quite agree and I have moved that section to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to lack of references and excess in-universe details that need to be compressed, trimmed, and reworded. — Deckiller 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Object. I concur with the above. Moreover, the article contains possible OR in such speculative lines as "Judging by the origin of the other Sith names, Vader may also possibly be a derivative of the word 'invader,'" and "Darth Vader also resembles an inverted King Arthur in relationship with Luke Skywalker as an inverted Mordred." I'm unsure if this is objectionable, but I also dislike the biography's structure: shouldn't the prequel and its developments precede discussion of the original triology?--Monocrat 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it isn't a biography; it's a plot summary. Putting the prequels first moves the emphasis away from how the character developed in real life (from fearsome blackguard to conflicted villain to fallen hero) to how the character developed in a fictional universe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the writing could be much cleaner, the references are lacking and are mostly cruftic in nature. Surely there have been numerous commentaries on Darth Vader from scholars which are independent of the Star Wars fan club and their work should be cited. The cultural figure section is not very good, focusing on a list of examples (some of which are shall we say... marginal...) rather than commentary. The talents and powers section is crufty beyond belief. No effort is made towards conciseness, especially in the plot sections (also crufty, e.g. "Vader turns on his master and throws him into a deep shaft, where he explodes in a fury of dark energies."). Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose misplaced spoiler warning disrupts flow of article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it misplaced? Where should it go? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((spoiler))

• • • "the Death Star is destroyed moments later," should be removed, a paragraph break and a spoiler tag should be inserted before "Vader then reveals his true identity...", all mentions of "father" should be excised from Return of the jedi, paragraph break and spoiler tag before "Unable to bear the sight of his son in pain," remove vast majority of "Prequel trilogy," as it is better explained in the Anakin Skywalker (seperate issue), except for stub describing the transition and reasons for, which requires no spoiler tags. Spoilers should only be provided for plot details that would severly detract from an individuals ability to enjoy the movie - only the father in empire and the ending of return do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's absurd enough that there's a seperate page for Anakin Skywalker (the same person) without creating a spoiler tag tornado of "begin/end" tags here. There's a single tag at the top of the page before the table of contents already. Organization and presentation on this character have already been infringed enough without further breaking down format through the use of several "begin/end" tags and the removal of vital information. For that matter, I really don't see how this qualifies as a spoiler in the eyes of any culture anyway. Prior to the release of the prequel trilogy, "Anakin Skywalker" was synonomous with "Darth Vader" (we'd never known him as anything but that), and when the prequel trilogy came along, the filmmakers themselves casually talked about the fact that Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader would be revealed. Even one of the posters advertising The Phantom Menace showed young Anakin standing beside a wall, with his shadow being the silhouette of Darth Vader. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Try and find a few more references :)... --Skully Collins 07:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: There's far too few references, too great an in-universe presentation, unencyclopedic and flowery wording (ex: "Vader still possesses his former persona's amazing engineering skills..."), a lot of cruft mixed with fan speculation, and it's just way too bloated. Quite simiply, there's a lot of unnecessary information that isn't vital to an understanding of the character (most of which is the aforementioned cruft, in sections like "Talents" and "Cultural", though "Behind", "Cultural" and even "Expanded Universe" have some too).

Overall, it needs a complete copy-edit, with the original trilogy info being condensed a bit more (though I'm pleased to see that it's as short as it is; Return of the Jedi is the only one that's excessive in terms of quantity; Hope and Empire aren't bad at all). Additionally, an out-of-universe perspective and encyclopedic tone needs to be assumed all throughout. This means lines like "However, he controls his anger..." through "...Jedi's funeral" could be condensed into something as simple as "However, he restrains himself and refuses to kill Vader. Due to this, Palpatine decides that Luke is unsuitable as an apprentice and attacks him with Force lightning. Unable to defend himself, Luke begs Vader for help, finally prompting him to betray and kill the Emperor by throwing him into a shaft leading to the Death Star's core. However, errant bolts of Palpatine's Force lightning destroy Vader's life support system, and he orders Luke to escape from the Death Star without him. Despite Luke's protests and attempt to save his father's life, Vader soon dies from his injuries, but is able to reconcile with Luke and pass away peacefully. Luke then escapes from the battle station, taking Vader's body with him, and later burning it in the manner of a Jedi's funeral". Basically, let the facts speak for themselves. The reader doesn't need to be blatantly told that Luke refuses to kill Vader while realizing that his anger was just sending him down the same path that his father had walked. An understanding of what happened to Vader will convey that well enough on its own.

There's good stuff here, but a lot of it needs to be reworded and seperated from the unencyclopedic material. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Behind the scenes" should be named something like "Character design". Ryu Kaze 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object far too many citation needed templates in use, the lead section is not a good summary of the main points of the article, "Expanded universe" needs to be rewritten (at the very least explain what an "expanded universe" means in Star Wars terms), there is a "Trivia" section (bad, bad, bad!!!) that should be merged into the main article. Very far from being ready, though I do see a lot of effort has gone into it, and I do appreciate the effort that has been undertaken to get it to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article extremely informative and proffesionally done. I think that it has been very well-written, and is therefore some of Wikipedia's best work.

• Object Unreferenced Sandy 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Needs references. -- Underneath-it-All 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object unreferenced. AdamBiswanger1 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object only one ref, very little on culture, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object; yes, very proffesional, with a single reference. —Nightstallion (?) 13:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some odd prose here and there.
  • "Though Japan captured Java by March 1942, it initially could not find any national leader willing to collaborate with the Japanese government against the Dutch." What other government would they want a national leader to collaborate with, besides themselves?
  • "Most Indonesians speak at least one of the several hundreds of local languages (bahasa daerah) as their first tongue." How can you speak more than one language as your first language?
  • "The parliament chose Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri as the new Indonesian president from 2001 to 2004. Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri is the daughter of the first Indonesian President, Ir. Sukarno, and the leader of PDI-P, the winner of 1999 election." Do you really need to spell out "Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri" twice? Why not just "Sukarnoputri" or just "She"? I don't understand whether "the leader of PDI-P, the winner of 1999 election" refers to Sukarno or Sukarno's spouse. "Winner of the 1999 election" would read better.
  • "Indonesia's first direct presidential election was held in 2004, and won by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono." How about "Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first direct presidential election in 2004"? "It was the largest one-day election in the world." This claim begs for clarification (what other kind of election is there?) and citation.

In general, the prose seems heavy and turgid; reading goes slowly. The article would benefit from some pruning, saying the same in fewer words. Peirigill 09:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best Wikipedia articles ever. Well written. Soundoflolllermania 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - no references, Cantonese names of albums need translating. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Soundoflolllermania's first edit ever was to nominate this article, and all edits so far are only related to this FAC. Looks odd to me. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - needs major copyedit, completely unsubstantial (no bio information, etc.), long lists, etc. I have to assume the nom was a joke. Matt Deres 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - for one, no sources. "Trivia" sections are unencyclopedic, need to be inserted into article itself. Filmography could use formatting into standard style (i.e. see Lindsay Lohan) Mad Jack 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose no word about his life; too long lists; no references, it's very far from FA... NCurse _work 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose As above + tables often don't have any english translation.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose submitter does not understand FA criteria. Rlevse 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This man is as close as they come to being the ultimate role-model for encyclopedia editors, and the article is excellent. - Eric 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for the following reasons:

• No references given.
• The structure is a bit puzzling to me: the section "Other works" contains information about the end of his life and his death. The article may benefit from being splitted in one section for his life, and one separate section about his works
• There seems to be one inconcistency about what happenend with his library. One paragraph says he saw no other alternative than to sell his library (and he sells it to Catherine II), and in the next paragraph, His heirs sold his vast library to Catherine II.Schutz 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Referencing consists of a single embedded HTML link and a statement that the "article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition". This level of referencing is inadequate for a featured article. --Allen3 ^talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object as per Allen3 and Schutz. I don't want to find slabs of text lifted from another encyclopedia, especially without quote marks and attribution. A WP FA should be better than that source in a number of ways. Tony 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: it seems to rely heavily on the 1911 Britannica and is thus out of date. There has been a lot of new research on Diderot since then. I believe some of the dates in the article are inaccurate. --Folantin 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. As per Allen3, Schutz, Tony and Folantin. Some amounts of contributors and sources are needed not to rely on the encyclopedia of 95 years ago. __Okc 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article now meets the criteria for featured article. Please read it carefully before objecting! (I'm so bored)

• Object -- It does not even meet half of the featured article criteria. No references, no pics, short sections, poor prose (use of slang), discusses only Canada and the United States. What about other countries? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What kind of pictures can you put in it? A picture of a student being promoted! Social promotion is only in the US and Canada. They don't have it in other countries. There wasn't any slang. (I'm so bored)

Comment: If it isn't used in other countries, why not? How do other countries handle students who are lagging? What do educational experts say about these differences between the U.S. and other countries? John Broughton 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- ditto Rlevse 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Nothing has been fixied since last nomination, also the nominator should learn how to move and archive articles properly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per the reasons I gave in the previous nomination. --Wisden17 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object: Too short (8.4 K's according to popups), no refs per Cite.php, and one large intro (split that into three). Everything else fails the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Move to WP:PR to get ideas on how to improve it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object: Between June 11, 2006, when this article was first submitted as a candidate for a featured article, and now, the article has had a total of SIX relatively minor edits (four of which I did myself; none of which were done by the person submitting the nomination). Nothing basically has changed since the original submission, so I repeat my original objection: As someone who has contributed a number of edits to the article, but has given up fighting about minor points (like redundant information, poor grammar, etc.), I'd be among the last to consider this article an exemplar for wikipedia. John Broughton 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been listed as a good article for several months, has had a peer review which resulted in some major restructuring of format and a general overall improvement in readability, and it is extremely well-documented and stable. I literally do not think it is possible to do much better given the lack of offical and unoffical biographies and the nature of the material.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, there is no fair use rationale on the image - you may as well upload a clearer fair use image too. The lead is not a good summary of the article. The biographcial info is a bit scarse, is he married etc.? There are some concepts that should be linked for clarity like triadic relation. There is some redundancy in the text and too many bracketed statements, and more commas than I want to count - a copyedit by someone who hasn't worked on the text would be a good idea to improve flow.--Peta 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use again?? Oh boy!!!Here's the fair use rationale right here:

:::This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

* the person, product, event, or subject in question * in the absence of a free alternative, * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license. As well, commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights, if the photograph is of a person.

I don't see any brackets actually. If you're talking about parentheses, I'll see if some can be removed without altering the content. Other than that, this article has been praised by almost every philosopher I know of.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarise yourself with [this].--Peta 10:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm suprised no-one has brought up that point in all the time I've been editing Wikipedia. Anyway, just to keep folks intersted informed, I've added my rationale on the photo page. I cannot possibly get a better quality photo. It's difficult to get any photos of current philosophers. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is subject to deletion -- you're using a template on it that indicates that the image is from a press kit, when it is actually web content from a university. Use ((Non-free fair use in)) if you really think that this image somehow meets Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I don't understand why we would make such a claim -- it is an image used to identify Mr. Fodor for a website, and we are using it to identify Mr. Fodor on our website -- ther's no transformative use here whatsoever. Further, the subject is still alive; why can't we go photograph him? Jkelly 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer to the last question is quite simple if you're referring specifically to me: I LIVE IN ITALY!! I shall delete the photo if that's what you all really want. I have found, through exprerence however, that this sort of thing obviously detracts unconsciously from the appeal of the articles on Wikipedia. Philosophy is not a very image-conducive sort of topic. But without any images at all?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey. Jkelly 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose someone should click on a random user from New Jersey and ask him to track this person down and photograph him? --Shardsofmetal ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—2a.
  • Which is better: "1959-1986" or "1959–86"?
  • Is this a good paragraph: "He has two grown children and currently lives in New York City with his wife and his cat."
  • There's a very long quote in the biography section; is it possible to ration the text, perhaps by the deft use of ellision dots?
  • Can this: "Fodor presented one of the fundamental conceptual bases of his thought: the idea that ..." be reduced to: "Fodor introduced one of his fundamental concepts—that ..."

The flab needs to be trimmed throughout. Then I'll support. Tony 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. These sorts of stylstic things should not be much of a problem. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (dunno if this is too late): the stylistic issues seem to me to be minor, and essentially a matter of taste. The article's content is impressively clear, accurate and in-depth. There aren't enough philosophy articles of this quality on WP, and I think the exceptional nature of this one should be recognised. Cheers, --Sam Clark 12:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A clear and well-researched article. Sam, I also find the stylistic objections above rather petty. Some minor work on citations is needed. I would also like to see his influence on Zenon Pylyshyn, Murat Aydede and Steven Pinker explained. Banno 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...well, the citations are fairly easy to find.

the realation with Murat Aydede and Zenon Pylyshn can probably be explained in a few brief sentences, IMO. But the Pinker would require a whole new section!! Damnit. Excellent point too. But since this is not really an objection....Also, I take everyone's input very seriously. The troublesome photo is gone, the intro is now much closer to being a summary of the rest which can "stand alone" as an artcile, I've removed almost all of the parens, brackets and so on. These objections are supposed to be struck out if they have been addressed. The first commentator seems not to be following the matter though. (he may have legit reasons, of course). The complaint about "flab" is something I have also been working on without assistance. Well, I'll stop blabbering and try to deal with some of this stuff as best as I can.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to explain the link in the Pinker article? Either would I think be fine. Banno 08:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The German Wikipedia is being used as a source. Punctured Bicycle 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for one sentence about the fact that his wife's name is Jean Fodor!! Take a look at it, for heaven's sake. The fact that he has a wife is confirmed in his own writings. I will try to find another source to "verify" that his wife really is the linguist Jean Fodor!!! Oh, for pete's sake!!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Punctured Bicycle 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Quality of writing is poor (2a). A thorough copyedit is required per WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTA. Examples include:
  • Fodor argues that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, are relations between individuals and mental representations, that these representations can only be correctly explained in terms of a language of thought in the mind, and that this language of thought itself is an actually existing thing that is codified in the brain and not just a useful explanatory tool or hypothesis. Fodor adheres to a species of functionalism and maintains that thinking and other mental processes consist primarily, but not exclusively, of computations operating on the syntactic structure of the representations that constitute the language of thought. (whole paragraph has wording problems)
  • Fodor also maintains that significant parts of the mind, such as perceptual and linguistic processes, are structured in terms of modules, or "organs", which are defined by their causal and functional roles in the overall structure.
  • Fodor suggests that the informationally closed and independent character of these modules permits the possibility of the causal relations with external objects that, in turn, makes it possible for mental states to have contents (meaning and reference) that are about things in the world, while the central processing part takes care of the holistic inferential relations between the various contents and inputs and outputs which is characteristic of the traditional functionalist view.
  • Although Fodor originally rejected the idea that mental states must have, what are now called, "broad contents" in the sense described above involving causal relations, he has in recent years devoted much of his writing and study to the philosophy of language precisely because of this problem of the externally-influenced meaning of mental contents.
  • His most significant contributions in this area include the so-called asymmetric causal theory of reference and his many arguments against semantic holism (both discussed below).
• Almost every sentence needs fixing. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object 2a, prose. Sandy 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been sitting out there almost untouched for nearly 6 months. I originally wrote most of it back in February or March. You can check the history. In that time, no-one has apparently seen the need for a thorough copyedit of every sentence. I out it through peer-review and the result was the sort of nonsense that you can see for yourself. I, of course, am incapable of writing by your lights, so I shall not dare to touch the article anymore. If you can fix it yourself, please go ahead and do so!! The point here is to make actionable objections, if I understood the policy correctly. You have, by defintion, disqualified me being capable of acting on your objections. Let me make this extremely clear though: No one else who knows anything about philosophy is going to touch this article. They have all praised me on it, including Professor Dean Buckner. Umm....there are some profoundly differing opinions here, it seems to me. In any case, I suggest that you now go and take a look at the article I have just nominated for FA Hilary Putnam and offer your delicate and refined thoughts on that piece. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You understood us incorrectly. We haven't disqualified you from copyediting. Instead we have provided some excerpts that need fixing. This is an actionable concern and we want you to take action on it. If you can't, ask an experienced editor to do it. There are many of them. We haven't questioned the content, we are only questioning the quality, that anyone, even someone completely unaware of the topic can do. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you help me out with it?? For example, I have just made a few changes to the intro.

Is this better or worse or what, from your perspective? Stay with me here please. I've never been criticed in this way and I do not feel well at the moment.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are moving the the right direction. Your imrpovements are quite satisfactory, and you need to apply them to the whole article. Since you ask, I have already got an article featured through similar harrowing process, and in the end it was worth it. The article is a beauty now. I am currently taking another article through Peer Review, another through Featured Article Review, almost single handedly doing the improvements. You can see the history for the improvements I have made to those articles. Do you still feel that I don't contribute, and only pass by and curse. You asked about any editor who will help with the article. Why don't you go and ask at WikiProject Philosophy. I am sure someone will help. Best of luck. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no,no... I was not referring to YOU at all in that comment in the first place. Also, I was making two separate points, neither of which was intended to refer to you. Anyway, I appreciate your response. As to asking for help, etc,...I suspect the problem is that you have not had to deal with philosophy articles and the philosophy "project" on here. There is no such thing. Or, to the extent that there is, it is total chaos, illiteracy, madness. You just have to take my word for this. This is my only other Featured Article. The total number of philosophy FAs is about 6 or 7. I AM the philosophy of mind section and it is not even my main area of expertise!! Look at the history of the "philosophy of mind" article. I took it over, discarded everything that was there and merged it with the article mind-body problem. The peer review was completely useless. The FA was somewhat helpful in incerasing the number of refernces. Other than that, I had to do it all myself. Anyway...--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have contributed to this article. It provides a broad overview of the subject, with a number of daughter articles available to furnish the details. It has many references and the content is stable. --Vsion 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, the lead is full of weasel words and does not provide a very good summary of the whole article. Fair use images don't have rationales, I'm not sure about some that are claimed as PD either, as there is no verfication prodided on Wikpedia for copyright expiry for Singapore to back up the claim that they are PD. I'm also uneasy about the use of LOC country studies as reliable sources - they shouldn't be wrong - but they might be. It's not as if there aren't lots of good books to use, even the LOC has a list of sources they used.--Peta 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, the LOC is a neutral take on what the government pumps out in its education system every day, so IMO it's a fairly reputable source to use, given that I find nothing particularly wrong about them and it's basically a source for facts citizens have been schooled about. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. per Peta. Also, an article of this length should have a lengthier lead. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO for a country with a history of less than 200 years, the lead has enough information; of course if you think otherwise, please suggest on how to lengthen the lead.

• Comment'. Sorry, how is the lead full of weasel words? A lead section is a lead section, it's supposed to have weasel words for risk of being wordy (see Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia). Why should it be longer? As I see it - this is the perfect size for a lead section, which isn't supposed to exceed 2-3 paragraphs. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a couple of weasel words right off the bat: "a relatively minor role" and "becoming one of the most important port cities." How about "a minor role" and "becoming a key [or 'pivotal,' or 'influential'] port city"? My rule of thumb regarding the length of the lede is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section heading, it's important enough to be in the lede. That's not the case here. Either some of the sections should be consolidated, or the lede should be expanded, or both. Peirigill 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I went through and typo-edited the entire article, not that there were many to find. I will say that it's really anoying to look for typos in this though- silly British spellings, with your U's and your S's. --PresN 03:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps the editors of the article could decide on whether they wish to use British English or American English. I've spotted a mix of both after skimming through the article. --R4ge 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Support. The article lead seems to have been extended, and I believe the weasel words have been removed. Overall it gives a very accurate and detailed history of the country. R4ge 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this article could use some cleanup, but I think that there is a ton of useful information on here that, if formatted properly, could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles. Soakologist 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, the discussion of Sinatra's place in music is brilliant. We do need to get the links with organized crime sorted out though. Gareth E Kegg 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—2a. I do hope that this becomes a FA, but it will need work to satisfy the criterion. Let's take a look at the lead, which needs to be rewritten, I'm afraid.
  • "Francis Albert Sinatra (12 December 1915 – 14 May 1998) was an American singer who is one of the most highly acclaimed male popular song vocalists of all time." Remove "an American singer who is" as mostly redundant. By taking out "American", you strengthen the scope, which is justified, IMV. Tell us in another sentence that he was American, or slip it in here in a way that doesn't narrow the scope.
  • The second paragraph is a one-sentence stub. Either merge it (two paras would be OK, I think) or expand it.
  • Please get rid of "also"—every sentence is an also, and here, it weakens the impact.
  • The "Chairman of the Board" reference should be relocated further down, where it can be explained on the spot, or enlarged on in the lead. There's not even a reference for it.
  • "Similarly, he found considerable attention given to his alleged connections with the Mafia." Similarly to what? The previous sentence is about something quite different. "He found" is clumsy ("There was") might be better—I'm unsure. This third paragraph needs to be recast so that the fragmented morsels are set in a clear, all-embracing statement. At the moment, the lead is disorganised; in particular, the epithets describing his style are disconnected.

Although the rest of the article doesn't suffer from quite the same level of disorganisation, it could do with TLC by a good copy-editor. My eyes should not catch sentences such as "Sinatra had begun appearing in movies in the early 1940s, but usually in musicals, often undistinguished ones. ("But" needs to contrast with the previous statement; we don't need "usually" and "often"—why not "... 1940s, in many cases undistinguished musicals".) You know where to find the copy-editors? Tony 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- please replace all of the unfree images in the article with the freely-licensed images at commons:Frank Sinatra. Jkelly 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object prose problems mentioned above, some weasle words, and lack of inline citations. It appears that the citations are available (in the Further reading), but not used inline. Also, please convert your References (which should be Notes) to a more formal style (I did two – FBI and Mafia – as an example). Sandy 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It was rated as a B-Class article Tomer T 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous failed FAC

This is the second time this has been nominated for FAC. After fixing all the problems in the last FAC, me and a few other PCP members fixing the refs, and making a few changes, I think its just about ready now, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. References section should be split into "Footnotes" and "References" sections, "References" including the DVDs, publications and volumes. — Wackymacs 18:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment, have I done it right? —Minun ^Spiderman 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, thats one improvement...However as the others have said, there are problems with the sources. — Wackymacs 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't know what "small number" means in order to be "fair use". I noticed however that all 6 images are property of "Pokémon USA, Inc." and it is possible that that exceeds the "small number" allowed. Sijo Ripa 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically nearly everything, anime, video games and toys etc, is owned by Pokemon Inc and it would be very hard to get pictures that adequately describe the subject matter without resorting to fair use. You can't really illustrate the video game without using images from the video game or box art, if you know what I mean. Harryboyles 04:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote now: Conditional object. First of all, images are not necessary for an article to be a FA (see: Wikipedia:What is a featured article?). Secondly, only the first image seems to be really necessary for this article, because it is very difficult to describe such a fictional creature. Thirdly, the fair use rules takes precedence over our wishes. I think the number of pictures should be trimmed down to 1-2 (perhaps 3), which is without any doubt a "small number" and "proportional". There shouldn't be any doubt left for a FA, which are after all our leading and shining examples. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anime, lead and TCG images are the most important, since the manga isn't described at all, and the game atwork isn't a screenshot. CHeers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to describe the anime and manga in the article text, as this is by itself not too hard (the creature is decsribed and shown above and anime and manga are two well established genres (and the Pokemon anime and manga perhaps even have their own articles available on Wikipedia). It seems more difficult for the TCG and the lead, so I think that those two images constitute "fair use". I'm not an expert though. Sijo Ripa 12:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the style of battling is very different in the anime, and Pokémon can often look different. What's it doing in the picture, battling an Articuno is also a reference to its imense power. Th reason the TCG is fair use is becasue that card was at one point the most expensive and elusive card in the whole game, and probably still is. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object there are still not enough secondary sources. And there hasn't been any visible check of all the references, after it failed the refernce spot check 5/5. Nothing has been chaged in the article, why bother? Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Per above. Hezzy 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Object We don't need another pokemon as a FA. This article isn't important enough to be a FA in my opinion. We could have a country or famous person and that would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan the Magnificent (talk • contribs)
  • Not a valid reason to object. Subject matter is not relevant to FAC. —Cuiviénen 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to keep the balance of featured articles on the side of countries, I recommend you get to work. We don't, and shouldn't, retain a balance by suppressing perfectly good Pokemon articles, we do so by working on other articles to bring them up to standard. The failings of our country articles are not the fault of Pokemon articles and we shouldn't treat Pokemon articles as if this were the case. Of course, everything I've so far said ignores the fact that we promote features articles on grounds of quality, not content. PS. It is considered against etiquette (or Wikiquette) to post a comment without signing it.--Oldak Quill 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara and I have helped to reorganize, wikify, reference, and greatly improve this article. This is the third time this article has been nominated. QuizQuick 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Scarcity of inline citations and references. Wisdom89 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - in addition to the above concern, the article is once again in need of a thorough copyedit. Why not wait for the Good Article decision first? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - entire sections without references. Morgan695 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• *Support. Hezzy 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) On second thought, Object.Hezzy 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hezzy, just so you know, FAC isn't a vote, so objecting without a reason given is meaningless. Fieari 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That said, Object, for the reasons above. Fieari 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:
  • The first line feels weak. I expect the first line to define the subject, and to start strong. While the early domestication and popularity of goldfish makes your topic notable, it doesn't tell me what a goldfish is, and the notability is markedly weakened by the phrase "one of the...". I'd suggest starting with something like "The goldfish is a popular aquarium fish belonging to the carp family."
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize the article, and should not include details not found later in the article. My rule of thumb is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. I see nothing about feeding, behavior, breeding, etc., in your lede.
  • Similarly, the lede should include only the most important information. The fact that the carp family includes koi and crucians, or that proto-goldfish were "gray/olive/brown," isn't central enough to your topic to merit inclusion in the lede. Both of these facts would be better mentioned in the History section. The mutation of cyprinids belongs in History or Breeding, perhaps, but not in the lede.
  • Word choices often weaken the meaning, almost becoming "weasel words." The goldfish is "one of the earliest" fish to be domesticated. It is "one of the most commonly kept" fish. Goldfish are "relatively small" as carp go. Goldfish "may grow" to 23 inches. "Most" goldfish "generally" live for six to eight years. "It is quite possible that owners will notice." "Goldfish should learn." See if you can strengthen the impact, perhaps with concrete data, like "Goldfish are highly popular aquarium fish, accounting for 55% of aquarium fish sales worldwide." You could also simply say that the goldfish is "a small member of the carp family" and that "goldfish grow to a maximum length of 23 inches" without changing the meaning. You could say "however, household goldfish have an average lifespan of six to eight years" or "household goldfish average only six to eight years."
  • Some words get unnecessarily repeated. The phrase "one of the" appears twice in the first sentence. "Domesticated" is mentioned twice in the first paragraph. The word "egg" appears twice in the passage "Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers. They produce adhesive eggs that attach to aquatic vegetation."
  • You rely on several devices that impede flow. "Gray/olive/brown," for example, practically stops me in my tracks. Even after stopping to parse this phrase, I'm not clear whether you mean that each fish was all three colors, that each fish could be any one of these colors, or that the fishes were an indeterminate color that mixed gray, olive, and brown together. Your use of parentheses also impedes flow: "(which also includes the koi...)" and "(first domesticated in China)" both slow down reading and imply that the information is of secondary importance. If this information really is of secondary importance, it doesn't belong in the lede.
  • "Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers." How about "Golfish, like all cyprinids, lay eggs"? Use strong verbs when available and appropriate.
  • The organization needs improvement. For example, you mention in the first paragraph that goldfish are "relatively small," but you discuss their size in detail in the second paragraph. Find a way to bring the topic and the supporting details together. The section on Mosquito control is too short to justify its own section; either expand it or merge it into another section.
  • I'm not crazy about the lists. Since you tell us more about the different varieties later in the article, why not remove the list altogether and replace it with a table of links at the bottom of the article? The section on Chinese varieties should be easy to convert to paragraph form.
  • Several sections, including Feeding, Native environment, and Breeding, have no references. The Behavior section has only one.
  • Why is "cyprinid" blue-linked in the Breeding section but not in the lede? Please fix the red link on "generalist."
  • Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You should rename the five section headers that include the word "goldfish." "Edibility and cruelty" implies that goldfish are edible and cruel, which is not what you mean.
  • Per WP:CAPTION, try to take advantage of some reviewers' preference for captions that are complete sentences. Instead of "Goldfish swimming in a goldfish bowl," use the caption to reinforce some fact about the goldfish's size, or popularity as aquarium fish, or coloration, so that the image illustrates the article rather than just decorating it.

I hope these suggestions help. Peirigill 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great article about essential topic. Luka Jačov 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nomination. Luka Jačov 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporary oppose This is mostly an aesthetic issue. Can you somehow integrate section 7.2.1 "Extremes" so the material is at the same header level as the other sections? It sticks out like an ugly duckling at the moment. The heading "Descriptions of Earth" did not give me much of an idea of what to expect. Presumably the whole article is a description... "Symbolism"? "Cultural significance"? I also corrected a layouting issue by placing one picture on the right rather than left. If you really want to have it on the left, let me know, I may have an idea how it can be done. Cheers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please respond to User:OldakQuill's concern, below. My support is conditional on this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. The article is nice but could use a few improvements:
  • The "Geography" section is waaay to listy.
  • Plate tectonics is a theory? I thought it was an established fact... (I'm no expert though)
  • "Extreme" section is listy.

That's all I can think of atm, but these should be fixed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theories can be true. My impression is that this change in usage happened in the evolution vs. creationism debate - now any theory with solid evidence is called a "fact". Facts, however, really are observable little fragments. Hypotheses about how things work are often not directly observable contemporaneously in their entirety and therefore couldn't be considered "facts". Talk about scientists getting emotional... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts, theories and hypotheses are three quite distinct things, their meanings have not changed in recent times. A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural phenomena. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. Despite all the evidence we have for plate tectonics, the entire process has not been objectively and verifiably observed. --Oldak Quill 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose for now. Right off the bat, 21 inline citations and another three non-inline refs to reference the planet upon which the subjects of most other Wikipedia articles resides is just too thin. Obvious things that need easy sourcing exist, as with the paragraph on Hitchhiker's Guide. Two page references, one for the "Harmless" entry and one for the "Mostly harmless" entry. The see also section could (and should, IMO) be converted into a template rather than an odd table of links in the article (it would connect various "Earth" topics much more nicely). Also, the development of life on Earth is rather jumpy in the summary history section, maybe the topic warrants a subsection of history (certainly needs some expanded coverage). Also, the article seems heavily scientific. The Descriptions of Earth section isn't very well written, is very thinly referenced, and doesn't include what seems like a logical section to be merged in - the "Symbol" section from Lexicography. Even that single section of non-scientific content is heavily scientific with little note of lore. Earth has played a massive role in images and stories from various societies, but figures like Gaia get half of a parenthetical in one sentence that isn't referenced? Finally, the lead could probably use some trimming. Basically, to summarize:

1. More references, preferably inline.
2. See also section converted to a template.
3. Expand the development of life on Earth info one way or another.
4. Merge "Symbol" into "Descriptions of Earth"
5. Properly reference what text is currently in "DoE"
6. Expand and possibly rewrite "DoE".

Sorry for the long list, but this is a pretty wide piece of subject matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only 21 citations and 3 references for Earth? That's really low for something like this. There obviously have to be thousands of books you could get information from. The section needs to be beefed up. I'd like to see at least 10 books and 50 cites for a scientific article of this importance. --SeizureDog 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. One of the most amazing features of Earth is that it has had the correct conditions for life to evolve. There is too little information on this (primordial soup to present day biosphere) for this article to be featurable. --Oldak Quill 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the first paragraph of ==Environment and ecosystem==. If there is not enough info there, it it is due to the necessary summary style of the whole article. -- Rmrfstar 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Mostly well written.

• • The link fairy has been hard at it, diluting the value of the important links (I've removed some at the top).
  • The third paragraph requires references.
  • "Changes in the orbit of the planet may also be responsible for the ice ages that have covered significant portions of the surface in glacial sheets."—Doesn't the changing tilt of the planet also contribute to ice ages? Insert "partly" before "responsible"?
  • You state that "The Earth does not have another natural orbiting body other than the Moon" and that the Moon is the Earth's "largest natural satellite". Tony 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support

**Geology and atmosphere sections are too short **Magnetic field should be before Earth in the solar system section **Geography is like a data list. It should be in prose. At least the first part of it

• • Earth's future section: what about the impacts of human being?

**Needs mush more references and external links. BTW: good article. NCurse _work 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Without actually reading most of the text, the formatting of the article is clearly poor and lists (as opposed to prose) abound. Try to turn some of the lists into paragraphs, improve the use and spacing of images and expand or merge some of the shorter sections. —Cuiviénen 03:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Easily meets FA standards. We do not need citations for citations' sake, and the facts are well-referenced where necessary. Again, we must remember that not everything about Earth can be dealt with here in full. -- Rmrfstar 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not enough inline citations, there are entire sections which as far as we know are somebody's fictional ideas: 'Lexicography', 'Atmosphere', 'Earth in the solar system', 'Magnetic field', 'Plate tectonics'... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article, well written. Mercenary2k 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A well reference, well written article. Good use of pictures and an informative structure of writing. While the article is a bit long (83kbs), I think that the infomation included justifies this. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose,

1. Lead is not a decent summary of the article, see WP:LEAD
2. Quotes should not be in italics
3. TIME cover is not necessary or justified - we don't need a TIME cover to prove the event happened - which seems to be the only purpose the images is serving
4. The text is flabby, there is duplication of the same information in several places, for example the coalition is described in Diplomacy/operation shield section and another section on the coaltion, isn't there a better way to present this without the duplication (mabye a table?); the health effects of DU are discussed in two separate sections.
5. No reference for the cost section. Also it is unlcear who those costs apply to.
6. Consequences is unreferrenced, opinions should have propper cites. Same goes for the casualties section
7. I'm not sure the technology section is necessary, and may be better merged into some other part of the text

--Peta 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Object A good article, but the lead could be improved (especially by summarising the end result of the conflict). The Time magazine image could also be moved to the media section.--Thud495 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose This is a really good, thorough, well presented article, let down by a lack of spit and polish. As above, the lead needs work

1. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths. Previously in the paragraph we are told that the war started on August 2 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait. The sentence above should make it more clear that allied hostilities commenced in January 1991.
2. Minimal should be thought about as well I think. Is it minimal in comparison to the Iraq forces or just a few blokes and goats died? Too woolly.
3. The image Image:Tanksatdocks.jpg is a broken link.
4. Could use some more inline citation (One per paragraph min?).

--Mcginnly 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, simply because of ambiguous/misleading title; an unambiguous title should be chosen that does not confuse this with the first Gulf War. 195.250.64.76 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Image:GWI DU map.gif should be svg. I can barely read the text in the current version. WP 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myanmar/Archive

Nomination for featured article quality- Since 2006 (last nomination) the article has been greatly expanded, particualrly the "Culture" section and the lead paragraph. Information on the country's history has been extensively covered and referenced since last nomination, and every paragraph is thoroughly referenced with citations of reputable sources (NGOs, government agencies, academic journals, encyclopedia, etc.)

Self nomination After an extensive peer review of this article, tremendous changes have been made, improving the article's quality, tone, and verifiability. Therefore, I nominate this article. --Hintha 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with quibble. All objections I pointed out at the last FAC were solved. The only thing is that I would rather see the lead expanded slightly to reach 3 paragraphs instead of 2, given the article length (48k). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The first reference I clicked on (currently number 41) doesn't go to the article indicated. Please doublecheck all your refs, and let me know when you're done. Sandy 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Not sure what you mean by "doesn't go to the article indicated". I clicked on #41 and it went right to the correct note at the bottom.--WilliamThweatt 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Oh, now I see -- the link itself pointed to the wrong article. I have fixed the link and checked the others. They all appear to be fine now.--WilliamThweatt 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article has vastly improved over last FAC. It went through Peer Review answering all concerns raised there. A tremendous amount of research, fact-checking and general copyediting has went into this version of the article. Article now appears to meet all the criteria for FAC.--WilliamThweatt 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it meets all of the Featured article criteria. Hintha 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportMild Object, the article switches between DD MMM YYYY and MMM DD YYYY. They should all be the same, preferably MMM DD YYY. Other than that, good work. Rlevse 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Those have been fixed. --Hintha 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and mild object. The article shouldn't use MM DD YYYY as this is not Myanmar's standard, MM DD YYYY is only used in the US, Canada, Micronesia and Indonesia. --Oldak Quill 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response That seems to be user preference issue, because despite how the date is placed in the editing box, its display (MM DD YYYY > DD MM YYYY and vice versa) can be modified in the user preferences. Hintha 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since anons, who make up the majority of our readership, do not have this choice, it is not an issue of preference. The date format should be determined by the subject matter. --Oldak Quill 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That has been taken care of. --Hintha 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although the sentences are still a little choppy, I think the article's strengths outweigh its weaknesses and deserves to be featured.

**Comment Also:

"endowed upon its peoples a rich and unique heritage"

The lead is not a brochure. Every country in the world has a rich and unique heritage. Again, see the lead in Canada
Otherwise beautiful article --User:Jaw101ie 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• worked on that. Rlevse 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Image:Daw_Aung_San_Suu_Kyi.JPEG needs fair use rationale. Andrew Levine 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Taken care of. Rlevse 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object there are some referencing problems, and prose problems, which call for a thorough copy edit by a fresh set of eyes. Picking a random section in the middle:
  • Myanmar is one of the poorest nations in the world, suffering from decades of stagnation, mismanagement, and isolation. Needs a reference: there are various ways of measuring wealth, and the reader isn't told what this is based on.
  • Lucrative industries of gems, oil and forestry remain heavily regulated. They have recently been exploited by foreign corporations which have partnered with the government to gain access to Myanmar's natural resources. Needs a reference.
  • Myanmar was designated a least developed country in 1987.[39] Tourism has been encouraged by the government. However, fewer than 750,000 tourists enter the country annually.[40] Prose is choppy.
  • Not comprehensive: Many nations, including the United States, Canada, and the European Union, have imposed trade sanctions on Myanmar. Why? Problems with human rights are mentioned in earlier sections, but this sentence leaves us hanging.
• Those are examples from a few paragraphs only. Sandy 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. 1ne 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Image:National League for Democracy flag.png, Image:MyanmarAdministrativeDivisions.png and Burmese characters should be in SVG. Also, is it necessary to include so many government departments in the external links? WP 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is comprehensive, has undergone mostly minor edits recently, etc. --Gray Porpoise 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose

1. The politics section should be about the government now - not other counties and human rights organisations views of the government. The article doesn't even mention what sort of parliamentary system the country operates under, that there are political parties or that the country has elections or the frequency of those elections. Discussion of foreign relations, sanctions, military abuses ect should all be moved to a section on foreign relations and military. At the very least the internal politics need to be distinguised from the international politics.
2. The image Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG should not be there, I don't think that fair use is justified here.
3. There is no mention of media in the culture section, is there freedom of the press in Myanmar?

--Peta

• • Response The government does not have a parliament (it never convened) at present. The majority of political parties elected in the last election (held in 1990) have been illegalised (which are all in the History section). The government is the military. --Hintha 05:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section should explain that - it should not be coloured by whether we think that is a bad thing. The way it is set up does not present a NPOV.--Peta 13:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added information about politics, and moved foreign relations/military to a new section. I've also removed the Aung San Suu Kyi image. Hintha 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a casual browser of this article, and would like to know why Peta thinks Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG would not be not fair use here. She's being discussed in the Politics section, and the caption giving an overview was sourced. I won't readd the image, since it's not essential, but I thought her image illustrated an important element of Myanmar's politics, and added a visual human element to the Politics section. The next prominent face is several sections below, in Demographics. TransUtopian 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The photo of Aung San Suu Kyi should be replaced. She is one of the foremost politicians/leaders/symbols and known worldwide. Her contributions and legacy are very important, as the article discusses so I believe the use of the photo is not only justified but added quality to the article.--WilliamThweatt 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The image of Aung San Suu Kyi is not necessary for us to understand what is going on in the text, it is not commented on in a meaningful way - so the rationale for fair use is just not there. Read WP:FU if you need more infomration on what is and isn't a fair use. The politics secion has improved - but still needs work, the last paragraph in particular should be divided between history and foreign relations. there is still no mention of media in the country and as Tony points out below, the grammar needs work.--Peta 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a public domain photo of her be okay? I'm still looking. state.gov's only Burma pic of her is credited AP/Wide World Photo. TransUtopian 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object per Sandy. It's good in many respects, so why not network to find someone else to go over it properly. For example, the lead has the following blemishes:
  • "on the north" should be "to the north" - I notice that after a sequences of ons, we do finally get a "to".
  • "overcome coups d'état" - is this a reference to the current military dictatorship? If so, it's unclear.
  • "The country's culture, heavily influenced by regional neighbours,..." - Pick the two redundant words.
  • "One-third of Myanmar's total perimeter" - Just "A third" will do; remove "total".
  • "Myanmar's diverse population" - This is vague.

Please don't just fix these examples; the whole text needs serious attention. Tony 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. A citation spot check turned up enough problematic cases to suggest a wider issue with referring to sources that relate to but don't directly support the article's claims (results here). Someone needs to go through and straighten that out; also, books cited need ISBNs. --Robth^Talk 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already a good article, and already has had a peer review. Its a fantastic article. All that put together makes a Featured Article. 11kowrom 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Why do we think that Image:Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.jpg is the work of a federal government employee? Jkelly 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment\Object -- The Image source is www.house.gov, which does make it public; however, this article still needs several citations, especially under the consumer advocacy section. Furthermore, while the coverage of his political ambitions is lengthy, I think that sections on his consumer advocacy and clashes with the automobile industry need to be more comphrehensive.--Thud495 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything at house.gov is in the PD. Everything that is created by a federal employee in the course of their duties is. House members get webhosting from house.gov that they can publish their own photos in. They don't become PD by being uploaded to house.gov. Jkelly 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Not all citations are inline, tons of citation needed tags, not enough detail in some sections (mostly on early career), etc. Quotes should be in wikiquote. Mad Jack 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Object I diddn't have time to read the entire article, but I noticed a few things.

1. Way to many red links, not sure if that is a valid point, but there is a giant list of almost all red links, not very useful
2. History of his political career is lengthy, a triming would help.
3. Very few pictures. If no more can be found, then this can be ignored.
4. as mentioned by Mad Jack, the quotes should be moved to wikiquote.

Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—2a. Here are examples from the lead that suggest that the whole text needs a good massage.
  • "Issues he has promoted include consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader has also been a strong critic of"—Why not: "He has promoted consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism and democratic government. Nader has been a strong critic of ..."—Go through it and weed out the "such as", "including", "etc", tags unless you really want to indicate that you're only giving us some of the items. Redundant "also"; remove it for better flow.
  • "the creation of many governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as the EPA, OSHA, Public Citizen, PIRGs and many more"—The "such as" says it all, doesn't it? Remove the over-informal "and many more". Again, there's an overuse of listing and subset tags—remove "many"?
  • "(1996, 2000, 2004)"—Make it "(1996, 2000 and 2004)".
  • "In 1996 and 2000 he was the nominee of the Green Party; Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate" These two ideas are so close that you might consider replacing the semicolon: "In 1996 and 2000 he was the nominee of the Green Party, and Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate."
  • People will hate the extent of your reliance on bulleted lists. See if you can recast some into running prose, and trim or eliminate others. This will sink the nomination otherwise. Tony 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, citations need to be cleaned up. Inline web links are mixed with ref tags. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great team, great article. Deserves to be featured. Sportskido8

• Object. I will not debate the merits of the team, but the article has several issues that need to be addressed before it is featured quality. 1) The article has an active dispute that needs to be resolved before it can be considered stable. 2) Besides a handful of embedded HTML links there is no form of inline citation. 3) As per WP:CITE, full citation are needed for the embedded HTML links 4) The "Quick facts" section is a bulleted list of triva that needs to be converted into prose. 5) The bottom half of the article is very list heavy. I would recommend combining the "Season-by-Season Records" and "Postseason appearances" sections into a single table to reduce this problem. --Allen3 ^talk 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per all of the above, and no refs gets a speedy object from me. We can't ask Wiki readers to just "take our word for it". Sandy 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Object This article is a) too long (86kb's is way too much for the info that's on here), b)Way to listy for an FA (Borderline listcruft in places), c)fails 2a d) doesn't have as many pictures as I would like too see for an article of its size and cultural importance. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Image:Yankees ny1.jpg and Image:Al 2005 newyork 01.gif should be SVG or PNG. WP 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I fixed the ugly list and combined the records and postseason into 1 table. I'm also trying to add more pictures but these copyright laws are a pain and I'm having problems adding them in even with permission from the picture owners.

Good thurough article that has been peer reviewed. Thirds times a charm! --The_stuart 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination Second nomination

• Object unreferenced. Sandy 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is the third time this article has been a FAC, then links to the two previous nominations ought to be provided so people can see what action has been (or havn't been) taken to improve the article. WegianWarrior 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Compression artefacts on Image:Roger Rabbit.jpg; there are still ((fact)) tags WP 09:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, just about no inline citations. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative, well written, neutral, cites its sources and provides many references and outside links, goes indepth about the battle itself, the aftermath, why it was notable, and its impact on modern culture. --DA Roc 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object:

• Lead is too short.
• The level of inline citation is utterly inadequate for an article of this length. Such citation as is present is a confusing mix of footnotes and parenthetical references. Many of the footnotes are ambiguous or simply meaningless. ("VII, 202"? How is the reader supposed to know what this means?)
• All the sections from "Oracle at Delphi" onward aren't real prose—much less "brilliant" prose—as they are composed primarily of extended quotes and lists of trivia.

This needs a lot more work before it can be featured. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Besides all of the above, please put refs after punctuation. Prose also needs a lot of work. Here is a random section:
  • It must be noted the 110,000 Greek troops of Plataea did not include forces from Thebes, Thessaly and the northern Greek kingdoms, which, from a belief of inevitable Greek defeat and desire to save their land from destruction or hope for a change in the political status in Greece that would put them on top, defected to the Persian side after the Persian army advanced to their region.
• It's hard to even wind my way throught that: by the time I got to the end I really wasn't sure what I had read. Sandy 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Not enough inline sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The article lacks appropriate detail in places and inline citations to identify its sources. For example:
  • Monuments at Site:
    • "There is an epitaph on a monument at site of the battle with Simonides' epigram, which can be found in Herodotus' work The Histories (7.228), to the Spartans:" When was this monument erected and by whom? Does the monument have a name?
    • The eight translations of the epitaph need inline citations to identify their sources.
    • "A note on translation: This should not be read in the imperative mood," Which of the eight translations does this statement refer to? The paragraph reads as though it may be a quote from a text?
    • “Visitor, please confirm to the Spartans that we indeed remained faithful to them until the very end …just in case someone else tells them otherwise.” This quote is presented without an explanation of its context and lacks a citation.
    • "Ruskin said of this epitaph that it was the noblest group of words ever uttered by man." A citation is needed to support this statement.
    • "Additionally, there is a modern monument at the site, called the "Leonidas Monument" in honor of the Spartan king." When was this monument erected and by whom?
    • Good luck with developing the article. Jazriel 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I am responsible for the references (bofore my edits it had none) and I must say that I did not do a good job then since this was among my first works. I have been working on other aricles and I must say that I did not manage to get back to improving it. I intended to put up a paragraph on why Western historians believe it was 200,000 troops only, and then set it for peer review, not FA status. In it current status it is prematureIkokki 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article as I consider it highly informative, well written and structured, and one of the prime articles on forms of art contained on Wikipedia. tyx

• Strong oppose, no inline citations for the dozens of statements in the article that need them, including howlers like "Trey Parker and Matt Stone's animated television series South Park often seeks to make points by employing satire that is surreal in nature" snd "Some Surrealist theorists have stated that Surrealism has somehow 'gone beyond' or 'superseded' philosophy, or that philosophy has been 'outclassed' by Surrealism." None of the quotes are sourced either. Andrew Levine 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong object no inline citations. Please reference the entire article, and remove vague language as pointed above. A very thorough copy edit is needed as well. Here's a sample: The Marxist dialectic and other theories, such as Freudian theory, also played a significant role in some of the development of surrealist theory and, as in the work of such theorists as Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse, surrealism contributed to the development of Marxian theory itself. This text can be made more user-friendly. Just seeing the word theory five times in one sentence makes me lose track of who's on first. Sandy 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. In addition to the above, the paragraphs are too short and choppy, and there is an infobox right in the middle... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow is World Jump Day, so why shouldn't we have this article on the Main Page? --Emx 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but please read the criteria for featured articles; the article does not meet most of those requirements. First, it is extrememly short and not comprehensive, providing only basic information. In addition, the article is not sourced, leaving the impression that the latter part may be original research. Finally, the article is not stable: as the event has not occured yet, the article is bound to change after the event. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read that and I agree with you, the article is really short (much shorter than most of other featured articles). Maybe it could be featured article for Friday, after it occurs? --Emx 16:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, no. Read the description of a perfect article and tell us how many of those criteria this article fulfills. Phoenix2 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above --Mcginnly 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose meets none of the crtiera for an FA, just barely over a stub Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose speedy removal needed from FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it hasn't been peer reviewed - it hasn't been a Good Article - if there is any FA criteria it doesn't totally fail to meet, I'd be suprised. It should never have been proposed as an FAC - speedy removal please. SteveBaker 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose No adequate referencing, not an encyclopedic tone, the list goes on! —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above, and it also contributes with the hoax. Irelevant. --Yago Stecher 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with everyone else and feel like this nomination should be withdrawn. -ScotchMB 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is even better than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the third nomination attempt, and I believe I have fixed every single objection that has been presented about this article. As I have been working on this article I have modeled it after Arsenal F.C. featured article, which I believe is one of the best articles written.

Previous Nominations
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive2

--Happyman22 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Nomination) --Happyman22 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose: the Honey Bears and Bears inn pop culture sections are not necessary, and could be incorperated into the rest of the page. A lot of the information about the remodeling of the stadium is POV w/o citation, and the History Section is not as descriptive as say the New England Patriots article. The uniforms section should be shortened.Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To False Prophet: If these sections are not necessary in the article then the Arsenal F.C. article should be removed from the featured articles list because it has a section involving Arsenal in popular culture. The history section is not as descriptive as the Patroits history because the Bears franchise history is twice as long, and that is why there is a separate daughter article detailing the Bears franchise history. --Happyman22 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE:To False Prophet The Bears have only a song and some minor things that are easily incorperated into the article. The Arsenal F.C. article covers a lot more in it. My point on the History Section it that it is a long section that is not divided up into subsections like the Patriots Article. It would be better if you divided it up into time periods, as do most professional sports teams articles and Player bios. There you can incorperate the Bears in Pop culture section. If you find more info, and can improve it, be my guest and go ahead and I'll re-asess it. Try and use the New England Patriots article for a good layout for the logo and uniforms section, and the history section. You won't have similar events of corse, or the same groups, but shows a good break down of how it should be divided up into sub-sections. — Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Corrections The stadium section has in-line citations now in the section. --Happyman22 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have pointed out, using the straigtforward peerreviewer script, quite a few compliance issues for common Wikipedia guidelines. Some of the I already tackled; others are still recommended to be corrected. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Neutral for now. Pretty good article. Many of the sections should be integrated into the history section to provide a chronological account of the team's history. Stuff like logo and uniforms, which may break the pace of the history section, can obviously have its own subsection. Ownership can easily be integrated into the history as per my suggestions. This will make the history section long enough to satisfy almost all opposes. The only opposes you'd probably get after that point (and after some POV neutralizing mentioned above) would be for the prose, which may be a minor issue. — Deckiller 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I kind of see what people are trying to point out, but is the question calling for the merging of ownership, uniforms and logos into the history section the only obstacle preventing this article from achieving featured status? --Happyman22 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I believe I raised other issues about the Honey Bears, and the Bears in Pop culture section, along with re structuring the History section, and another editor mentioned there are still issues from the previous FAC's to be adressed.

• What is wrong with the Honey Bears section or the Bears in Pop culture. The pop culture section covers more than just a song. It talks about Brian's Song, Super Bowl Shuffle, and the SNL skits involving Da Super Fans. Would you like the section to be expanded maybe? I don't believe it should be removed because it is necessary. --Happyman22 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I had said the pop culture section needs to be either expanded or merged into the rest of the article. Here's a list of Professional Sports teams featured articles:

New England Patriots

Arsenal F.C.

Manchester City F.C.

IFK Göteborg

notice how not one of them mentions their cheerleading team. Considering the Honey Bears aren't even active, I don't see why they should be included. I still also think the History section should be split up into subsections, to make it easier to read. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrections I have merged the ownership section into the history section, which I have also expanded. Also, I am about to divide the history section into sections as per the wishes of False Prophet, Deckiller, and other Wikipedians. --Happyman22 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Corrections The Honey Bears section has been placed into the history section, and the mascots have been left where they are for now, but they will probably be deleted or moved to the Staley Da Bear page. Any new comments? --Happyman22 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Still not completely satisfied with the Pop culture section, but like how the colors and mascot section is now if the mascot section is shortened to a paragraph, with the rest going to the Stanley da bear page. I'll change my vote to Conditional Support. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the concerns I mentioned about organization are not specifically highlighted in the criterion, which is why I remained neutral. It does, however, make the article more comprehensive by integrating things into the history section, giving the reader a good idea of the timeline. — Deckiller 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrections The mascot section has been shortened to a paragraph as per request and the Bears in Pop culture has been expanded to include more information. --Happyman22 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good job. All of my concerns have been adressed, and I can't find anything left critisize. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The only major issue here is the prose in a few areas, but I'm sure if this is an issue to people, they will address it. — Deckiller 05:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Logos, helmet and uniform should be in SVG. WP 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is invalid, so it has been struck. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Where does it say in the critera that images have to be in SVG? --Happyman22 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critera 1 says feature articles should "exemplifies our very best work" and Wikipedia:Uploading images#Technical aspects says SVG is the preferred format for drawings and line-art illustsration. WP 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Critera 1 also says that the images can be in PNG just as the helmet and logo are just like in the New England Patriots featured article --Happyman22 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment unless the author of the previous complaint can elaborate more, I request that the previous oppose be striken. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sloppy writing. RomeoVoid 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the writing? --Happyman22 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the previous oppose has been striken as to raise a valid oppose, you must suggest how the article can be improved. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Has a number of good parts, but overall currently not a featured article. Jeronimo 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "Current roster" section belongs in this article, it is too specific and biased towards today. It should go to a separate article.
  • The "Statistics and records" section consists entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs.
  • The "Bears in popular culture" section has longer paragraphs, but is also rather choppy and jumps from fact to fact. Some facts are outdated and/or unencylopedic (e.g. Urlacher was a rising star and sold a lot of shirts in 2002).
  • The "Famous players" and "Headcoaches" sections should be included, but should have a little more than just tables/lists. A little could be said about the persons involved. Maybe some overlap with "Stats & records".
  • "Since the founding of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Bears boast the most enshrined Hall-of-Famers (26)" - this is incorrectly phrased. It's currently saying the Bears have always had the most enshrinees (which is false).
  • The external links need some annotations. It is unclear why there are so many links to fan sites; Wikipedia is not a web directory.
  • It is unclear why the history section is split up in 1920-1967 and 1968-2006.
  • Nothing is said about the popularity of the team. What about spectators, tv viewers, fan club members etc.?
  • Comment The current roster is on every sports team page and cannot be moved, and the "Famous players" and "Headcoaches" sections are the way they are. If a reader wants to read about an individual, they can click on the link to its own page. As for the other points brought up, I will see if there are some ways I can improve them. --Happyman22 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrections The Hall of Fame statement was revised so it made sense, the history section was divided up on pre- and post merger, and the stats section was revised and expanded. --Happyman22 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Object This article has some very severe images problems, there are quite a few images their that are claimed as GFDL but they are clearly copyrighted and not the case, while other images are claimed as fair use but has no rationale. This has to be fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly object - per Jaranda, lots of false GFDL images. FCYTravis 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object image:Virginia mccaskey.gif is unlikely to be fair use and I'm going to need to see some pretty good evidence for the GFDL claims on Image:Soldmain2.jpg, Image:Payton5.jpg and Image:Honeybears.jpg.Geni 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How does one know how to correctly tag an image? --Happyman22 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Us PCP members have put in 2 and a half days of work into getting this article to featured status. We have added at least 30 new references, improved all the sections, and added a couple of extra images. I think its time that this article gets nominated, if you object it, please provide a good reason, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - still in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. I'll have another look when this is fixed. —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Looking better. Now, what on earth is a "Fire/Flying type combo"? That paragraph needs to be made so non-Pokémaniacs can understand it. Appropriate linking to the subsections of Pokémon types would help immensely. —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thanks for making suggestions, i'll get to it. Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... I think I know what you mean, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, is there any other changes needed before you support the nomination? Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not done. I wasn't under the impression that "combo" was an English word. Plus, you have to link all of the types. Maybe explain what a type is? Oh, and "come at a cost" sounds POV to me. —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • • • Fixed, i've replaced combo with combination and added extra links Minun ^{(マイナン)} 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, though one of the links is broken and in English "/" means or, surely you mean "and"? Anyway, I've noticed another thing. You seem to have mixed up plural and singular, a common problem when dealing with Pokémon articles. Remember, when you're talking generally, use "they" (intro, characteristics and video games), otherwise, use "he", "she" or "it". Thanks! —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure, i'll get to it. Anyway, is it alright using references from fan sites, because someone seems to have problem with that, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think i've fixed all the problems now, if you still object, please point out any more problems. Cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I'm afraid that you have not. "It spits flaming hot fire hot" for instance (needs to be "they spit", and needs a comma after fire). This is a problem through most of the video games and characteristics sections. Speaking of the characteristics section, try and cut down on the number of times you use "Charizard", it gets a pit grating after a while. —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've fixed the problems you have pointed out, if you still object, please give another reason, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Re-indent) "They spits flaming hot fire", "When it gets angry", "The temperature of its breathe" - all terrible grammar/plurality issues, and these are not isolated - it's a problem throughout. It should be them throughout the video games, characteristics and intro sections. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, point out any other problems if you still object, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object not finished. FAs take more than 2 and a half days. Highway ^Batman! 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I support, Highway ^Batman! 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object again. ;) Sorry, but after all these things have been cleaned up, I feel the article needs more secondary sources. As far as I can see, I count 4 secondary sources out of 72. By the way, secondary sources are things which are the games, manuals, guides, fan sites or DVDs. They are also not the Amazon site hidden under a different title. This article needs way more. Sorry. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify, there are random links, huge spaces and paragraphs drowning on about unimportant stuff. I am dealing with Dorapion, Pachirisu and Chierimu, but I will deal with it soon. Highway ^Batman! 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for leaving comments, thet will help, I'll just review the article and look for important stuff Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things still wrong -

• In other media doesn't cover Charizard in the real world nearly enough, look at Torchic, or even Bulbasaur. You should have let editors have a chance to work on it.
• Characteristics is in a "in-world" view point, as is In the video games.
• The writing has weak areas, the prose in characterstics is poor.
• Evolving, types and other Pokémon terms aren't explained.
• There are unsourced statements in the anime.
• The plurality of Charizard is muddled, they are sometimes referred to as singular, some times plural
• Things are over linked, or linked multiple times.

This FAC was before it's time, Highway ^Batman! 10:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the mix of singular and plural words M inun ^(Spider-Man) 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now i've added the references for the anime M inun ^(Spiderman) 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support yet? —M inun ^Spiderman 16:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He has: after where he has crossed out object, it says I support. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, some of the above stuff is also true, but what really stands out is "In Other Media", which could (and should) be far longer, at least ten lines. Charizard is one of the more well-known Pokemon. —Cuiviénen 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I want to remove that section, but HighwayCello won't let me, and its my own work, so I don't see why I shouldn't be able to delete it, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely need that section, and I'm glad you've kept it. The article has been much improved, so I support. —Cuiviénen 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking alright, with a vote of 3 supports and 4 objects, I just need to help fix the problems Celestianpower pointed out and then the FAC will be looking a lot better. Thanks for supporting, you've improved my wikimood. Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. In other media section seems like an afterthought, too short. Surely more can be added? — Wackymacs 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged section per a comment on my talk page, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All I can say is wow... I saw the objections and a nominated Pokemon article and figured this would be easy. In comparison, however, to other featured fictional characters (even other featured Pokemon articles) this is perfectly fine in terms of comprehensiveness. The references are very well done (love the formatting), and I only have two small issues. First, the statement at the end of the TCG section should be sourced. Just dig up an old copy of Scrye or something, should do fine. Second, are you sure the TCG section should be it's own full section and not a subsection of "Other media"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, thanks for supporting, this is the first time someones supported a fac started by me, so you have definitely improved my Wikimood, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm sure. Highway ^Batman! 06:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, since Bulbasaur has a seperate section, Charizard should have one to, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; this article was nominated somewhat too early. However, much post-nom cleanup has taken place, and I now feel I can support it. I've referenced the fact Staxringold pointed out. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, thanks for supporting, this is the first time someones supported a fac started by me, so you have definitely improved my Wikimood, cheers Minun ^{(マイナン)} 10:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object—you call these references? Answers.com, Pokemon fan sites, etc. Who runs these things? Serenii.net is one of the main sources you use, but what on earth is it? For all I know it's run by some guy working out of his basement. I expect the sources we cite to be more reliable than Wikipedia, and I'm not feeling good about that right now. Please use the print sources you mention and remove anything that only appears in fan sites; verifiability and reliable sources are important. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, almost everything is from fan sites, so we would be removing everything Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serebii.net, the main site used, is considered quite authouritative on Pokémon, a subject for which not a lot of paper sources exist. Admittedly, Answers.com is mainly a Wikipedia mirror, but as it was only used for a dictionary definition, I've moved it across to Dictionary.com. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got the felling this is not going to succeed, we'll have to try really hard Minun ^{(マイナン)} 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Knowing a little bit about Pokemon, I think serebii.net can be considered reliable. Fan sites are not necessarily unreliable if the site is prominent enough, and Serebii is definitely the most prominent Pokemon fan site. —Cuiviénen 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I suggest WP:JAPAN contributors channel their energies in more constructive ways, like History of Japan articles. But then, this is purely my personal opinion. -- Миборовский 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of us don't know a lot about Japan; I think almost everyone at the Pokémon Collaborative Project came because we like computer games rather than Japanese culture. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we can find a public domain or similiar free resource about Japan M inun ^(Spiderman) 10:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • anyway im glad the supports and objects are even, we just need one more before the supports are in the lead M inun ^(Spiderman) 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • FAC is not a vote. —Cuiviénen 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object For two reasons:
  • The whole "Bellyzard" thing (second or third paragraph under the vg section) is wholly unencyclopediac.
  • Also, much of the article seems to have too much info about charizard in the pokemon universe rather than in the real universe.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. A couple of things, the Bellyzard is perhaps the most well known strategy in the meta-game, so it definitely deserves a mention. And two, could you highlight the areas in-universe? Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am retracting my comments. I read through the article to quickly, so I am changing my opion to Support.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. First, 5 out of 5 citations checked in a citation spot check had problems (results here), and I see that this leans quite heavily on a site (serebii.net) that looks quite unprofessional (its articles are littered with spelling and grammatical errors). Other sources need to be found to replace serebii.net, and someone needs to go through the references one by one and fix all cases where the statement in the article is not directly supported by a statement in the source.
• Second, this needs a copyedit. The first section provides some good examples of issues that crop up throughout:
  • "Through evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle,": Perhaps replace with "through evolution, a sort of metamorphosis that Pokemon undergo as a result of gaining experience in battle'? Within is not the right word here, and the current structure of the sentence fails to identify who is doing the gaining (not that it isn't clear from the context, but it's grammatically necessary to clarify it).
  • "Charizard grow a pair of powerful wings, which allow them to fly at altitudes approaching 4,600 ft (1400 m), supplementing the fiery breath they would inherit": This sentence changes voices halfway through; it needs to be either all indicative or all subjunctive. Supplementing is also an iffy wording here; replace it with "and supplement" and remove the comma after "(1400 m)", perhaps?
  • "...earlier forms of Charmander..."; Change to "...earlier forms, Charmander..."
  • "However, the flames they produce as Charizard are even hotter than those produced by Charmeleon; at full intensity they would have the power to melt solid rock or large glaciers.": Why "however"? This doesn't contradict any previous statements. Perhaps change to "furthermore"? This is another sentence that goes from indicative to subjunctive in midstream. And why "even hotter"? "Hotter" will suffice.
  • "are said to ": Drop altogether.
  • "noted to rely on claws...": Change to "and rely on their claws..."
  • "Nevertheless, the strength of their flame is said to be so volatile, that accidental or careless uses have been noted to cause forest fires and other disasters.": Perhaps "Their flame is so strong that it has caused forest fires and other disasters when used accidentally or carelessly." "Nevertheless" is unnecessary, as it "have been noted to", and what does it mean to say that the "strength is so volatile"?
• Similar prose issues need to be fixed throughout; note that none of my above suggestions should be interpreted as endorsements of writing this section in an in-universe perspective; I was just going off of what I had to work with. --Robth^Talk 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The principal objection to the last nomination was referencing. I believe this has now been largely addressed. Another objection was the length. The article has shrunk a little since the last nom, and I think most of the sections are concise and interesting summaries with little superfluous detail. However, I don't think it is practicable to get this article below, say, 40k. I will do my best to respond to objections during the FAC process. –Joke 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived nom, previously nominated version

• Mild Support. The facts, layout, etc. are all well-executed. Some of the prose could use polishing but there's nothing so ugly it makes me want to oppose. I'll take a shot at some of it later. Andrew Levine 14:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The article's citations are inconsistent - later sections are peppered with in-text citations, while the history and geography sections are largely uncited. At 62 KB the article is a little long, ~ 50 KB would be a good size. There could be less images on the page, at some points the images distract from the text. It is a lot better than previous, bloated versions though and is really close to FAC status. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. External links could use trimming as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Comment I tried to improve the citations in history and geography. Consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links there are no citations for many facts, which are much more extensively discussed in articles like Industrial Workers of the World, New York City Subway and Robert Moses all contain authoritative references to their subjects, not to mention History of New York City. The three books by Jackson listed in further reading are also good references. Is there something else I can do in these sections? It seems inappropriate to put a citation with every sentence in such a brief summary section, but I have tried to add them where it seems they might be called for. –Joke 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Comment I find it really hard to see how the article can be made much shorter. I think the key here is to keep sections short and to keep the sections free of anything but the minimum useful summary. Do you have any suggestions? I have organized the external links. Aside from the official website, it wasn't clear what to do with them – it seems like if we keep any, we should keep them all, and if we remove any, they all ought to go. Comments? I will have a look at the pictures. –Joke 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, prose 2a. Prose is not compelling, brilliant. Throughout the boroughs there are hundreds of distinct neighborhoods in the city, many with a definable history and character all their own. Please put categories in alphabetical order. Sandy 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I have fixed this rough passage. Do you have any other examples you would like to point out? I've been over the article a few times, and I think User:Wv235 has as well, but a fresh set of eyes really helps. (Categories: done.) –Joke 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That was only an example: the entire text needs to be gone over. I've had another look, and the prose is still not compelling, but a bigger concern is the lack of references. Once the article is thoroughly referenced, I'll re-examine the prose. Also, the References need some improvement in terms of bibliographic style: they are inconsistent. For example, at times, the author of a newspaper article is available in the URL, but not given in the ref. Please remember that, if URLs are taken down, a reader needs to be able to find the article. Please make the references entry into a formal style; we can't depend on the URL to always be available. Here's an example of a large section of text with no references:

• New York City emerged from World War II as the unquestioned leading city of the world, with Wall Street leading America's emergence as the world's dominant economic power, the United Nations headquarters (built in Manhattan in 1952) emphasizing its political influence, and the rise of Abstract Expressionism displacing Paris as center of the art world. The growth of post-war suburbs saw a slow decline in the city's population. Later, changes in industry and commerce, white flight, and rising crime rates pushed New York into a social and economic crisis in the 1970s.

The entire article needs to be thoroughly referenced: the above section is only one small sample. "Unquestioned leading city in the world" can't make it without a reference. Sandy 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I am working on the references. They are now entirely consistent, and usually point to a reasonable source, although some things still must be referenced. –Joke 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak support While some sections don't quite meet 2a (only just missing it), I think that the article is well put together, well referanced, and informative. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Problems with referencing continue in the History, Geography, Cityscape and Climate sections. Also, the lead is quite short for such a long article and should be expanded. The length of the article itself does not concern me; New York City is a big subject, and the use of summary style and daughter articles is solid. —Cuiviénen 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Response Ok, I rationalized some footnotes so that the figures in Cityscape are properly attributed. I would appreciate some more specific comments, particular regarding my comments on referencing History and Geography above. I feel like I'm working in a vacuum here. As for the lead, I think having a short lead is a feature: it hits the salient points and allows the reader to get right into the most appropriate part of the article. Is there anything really important missing? –Joke 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - architecture, education and environmental sections are over-indulgent - the energy efficieny of the governments cars is not really interesting, nor does the reader need a two sentence description of all the colleges in the city. There is a fair bit of statistical information without sources, like the number out tourists, cabs and so on. The sport section is just a bunch of disconnected sentences.--Peta 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also the TOC is bloated with unnecessary h3s, text doesn't need a heading if it only a paragraph.--Peta 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Response I have fixed the TOC and I'm working on the rest. The references are now entirely consistent, and I'm trying to make sure all the statistical information is thoroughly referenced. I agree that the sports section is rather fragmented, but it is pretty hard to have any kind of narrative structure in the section. Basically, it needs to compactly list the major sports teams in the city without getting too bloated – it seems to do that, more or less, and doesn't seem worse than the sections in other FAs, such as Boston, Massachussetts. –Joke 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your efforts so far, writing a coherent sports section isn't that hard, see Canberra.--Peta 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Response Well, I gave it a shot. I've asked people to try to find a reference for baseball being New York City's most popular sport – historically this is obvious, and it is probably true even now, but my research energy is drained for the day. Aside from that I think the section has been improved. –Joke 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment While I'm with you about the colleges, I do actually think that it is interesting and remarkable that the NYC government is a leader in energy efficiency policy amongst US cities. Although I removed the bit about the underwater turbines, as it is unlikely to have much impact on the city's energy needs. –Joke 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, too long. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Response Can I ask that you offer more than two words? What sections, in particular, are too long? Do you think the summary style has not been adequately used here? –Joke 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 months later, the nomination of New York City as a featured article returns! I looked over some of the problems with the last namination and decided to do some research:

Wikipedia Article	Total size	"readable prose"	# Words
Seattle, Washington	83K	49K	7800
Detroit, Michigan	69K	40K	6300
San Francisco, California	81K	39K	6250
Boston, Massachusetts	59K	37K	5900
New York City	57K	33K	5300

August 2006

These are other cities that are currently featured articles. In comparison, I think New York City should have made the cut since that was the main issue. Blackjack48 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• April 2006 FAC
• July 2006 FAC
  --Paul 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So how much "readable prose" is there in the NYC article?--DaveOinSF 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, there are 5300 words and 33K of "readable prose" in the NYC article.--DaveOinSF 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just what do you two mean by "readable prose"? The text of the article excluding footnotes, captions & infoboxes? Please, let's try not to use jargon that not all Wikipedians either are not familiar with -- or are unable to easily find a published definition for. -- llywrch 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't think this was obscure. According to Wikipedia:Article size:

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:

• Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
• Diagrams and images
• Tables and lists
• Wikilinks and external URLs
• Formatting and mark-up.

--DaveOinSF 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Some items to address:

1. Please correct the links so that the article talk page links to the failed FAC as well as the new FAC. I can't find the old FAC, but I seem to recall that I objected to a POV issue, which still seems to be present. The failed FAC shouldn't be removed from the talk page: has the new FAC overwritten the older one?
2. I don't recall what the older objection on prose size was, but I come up with Overall 57KB, 35 KB prose, which is a "normal" and acceptable article size, but seems a bit short for an important city, in relation to the others. This should not be an objection if this article makes good use of Summary Style (and perhaps the others didn't). Without seeing the older FAC, it's hard to understand why this issue is raised. (For those who asked, here is how readable prose was explained to me.)
3. The article needs to conform to WP:GTL: please reorganize sections. (See all of the articles you referenced above: they are done correctly.)
4. I still have a POV objection, which I believe I raised in the last FAC.

   It emerged from the war as the unquestioned leading city of the world, with Wall Street leading America's emergence as the world's dominant economic power, the United Nations headquarters (built in 1952) emphasizing its political influence, and the rise of Abstract Expressionism displacing Paris as the center of the art world.[6]

   PBS very well may believe that New York City is the Center of the Universe, and they may have even found others who agree. But, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet aside, asserting that opinion as fact, even based on a reliable (albeit biased) source, is POV. "Unquestioned leading city of the world" is an extraordinary claim: it requires extraordinary sources. It would be easier to accept if London and Paris sources said the same thing.

5. Reference 8 is missing.
6. Please expand all refs (example ref 35, Safest cities according to SanJose gov.)
7. I cleaned up some typos in a couple of refs just to give you a sample of work needed. Since this is your second nom, the refs should exemplify our best work :-)
8. Lacking citations - examples from one section only - there are numerous others throughout the article:

1. (Where is this article?) Writer Tom Wolfe said of New York that "Culture just seems to be in the air, like part of the weather."
2. (Where did you get this number of seats?) The city's 39 largest theatres (with more than 500 seats) are collectively known as "Broadway," after the major thoroughfare through the Times Square theatre district.
3. (Likely true, so why not provide a source?) The Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, which includes Jazz at Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Opera, the New York Philharmonic and the New York City Ballet, is the largest performing arts center in the United States.

1. New Jersey Nets are a New York Team? New York has two NBA teams: the New York Knicks and the New Jersey Nets.
2. Weasle words, no cite. New York is often called "the media capital of the world".

These examples are only a start: the article needs more work. Sandy 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, they were the New York Nets originally, and might be moving back there. In the sports world, they generally are considered a New York team. The article could explain this a bit better though. --W.marsh 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Sandy Georgia KnightLago 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Some problems with the footnotes:

• 2 needs access date
• 4 needs access date
• 5 needs expanding; what is referred to?
• 8 is missing
• 9 needs page reference if possible
• 10 needs page reference if possible
• 12 needs page reference if possible
• 18 needs page reference if possible & WPA Guide needs publisher & year
• 24 needs page reference if available
• 35 needs expanding: who? when?
• 37 publication data?
• 42 publication date?
• 48 Bureau of Transportatin Statistics .. US? NYC? NY State?

I would love to see NYC get FA status, as it and London are the top two Global World Cities and they deserve FA-quality articles. I hope some editors take the suggestions mentioned here and make some progress. --Paul 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per referencing problems and above. Never Mystic (tc) 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has grown via collaboration to become an excellent example of a Wikipedia article. It discusses both the social and technological implications of the subject, and embraces the international veiwpoint. --DroopSnoot 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is largely unreferenced. List formatting appears in the midst of several sections, sometimes with only one entry. Jkelly 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object/Comment The one note isn't near enough for this article. Also, some of the brands chosen in the see also section seem like arbitrary choices. This article would greatly benefit from a drive through Peer Review. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Not very comprehensive. For example, towing (which every truck commercial mentions here in the U.S.) is mentioned only once in passing. Rmhermen 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this as a GA candidate but I also think this meets the FA criteria because it has some good information and sources. Kingjamie 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. For starters, the citations need to be done correctly using one of the preferred formats (see WP:FOOT). Also, why would you use the British spelling of tire (tyre) for an article about an event that took place in American? Although that is a minor issue.--NMajdan•talk 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: English vs US spelling - it's not a hard rule, but the bulk of the F1 articles use UK English because the sport is largely European and most of the teams (Even 'French' ones like Renault F1 or 'Austrian' ones like Red Bull Racing) are based in the UK. For example Bernie Ecclestone and Martin Brundle, whose conversation is quoted at (excessive?) length are both English, as is Max Mosley, the head of the sport's governing body. (Sorry - that was me, earlier today! 4u1e 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Object citations need to be fixed and the Martin Brundle's grid interview with Bernie Ecclestone is likely copyrighted, if not it should be in wikisource, not there. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak object - I want to support this, as it's by and large a comprehensive and well-written article on one of the most significant events ever to hit one of the world's most popular sports, but a few things need sorting. Obviously the citations need sorting out, and that Brundle section trimming (I don't think there's a "copyright" problem as such, since it's a televised interview, but I do think it's too long and the length of the header makes the contents table ugly). In addition, there's no real explanation early in the article about what turn 13 is - mention should be made of its unique (in F1) status as a banked corner being the apparent cause of the problem. I think it needs a thorough copyedit too, as I've seen a few sloppy examples of parentheses and punctuation use. I'm also not sure what the rules are about being nominated for Good and Featured status at the same time, so I'd suggest withdrawing it from one or the other (although I would like to see it become an FA at some point). Seb Patrick 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also agree that "tyre" is the correct version of the word to use - it's always been the standard in F1-related media, the majority of which are European. The fact that this particular race happened to be in the US is irrelevant, not least because - despite the venue - there was barely any American-related involvement in the event itself (teams, drivers etc.)! Seb Patrick 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Jeronimo 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the inline citations (already mentioned above), the article needs more citing. A lot of the content is only from second-hand information ("according to Stoddart"), and we need to know which statement comes from who or which publication. It is also unclear if these accounts (mostly from Stoddart) are supported by other sources or not.
  • Some of the text needs to be rewritten, they currently appear to be added and written when the event was still ongoing (especially "The FIA's reaction"). Using a somewhat more summarizing style would be more readable here.
  • The interview should be removed - primary sources do not belong in an article. Furthermore, it doesn't add very much that isn't already discussed.
  • The "Refusal of coverage" section should be expanded or merged in other sections. I do not see any reason to pick out TSN's reaction in particular.
  • The contents of the "Notes" section should be moved into the article.
  • I miss any references to the 2006 edition, while there was talk about "The future of F1 in America?"
  • The quote by Sam Posey seems unnecessary in this article, and it is unclear why his reaction (as an EX-racer and EX-commentator) is relevant at all.
  • Not all persons are properly introduced, most notably Paul Stoddart - a wikilink is not enough, give his function/role/job.

Well-written and accurate, so let's see how it does for a nomination. --emc! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Underreferenced (He was a poor student with a meager grade average of 67), very large trivia section, too many large, direct blockquotes, images with copyright problems, lead too short, failure to meet 2a) brilliant, compelling prose. Some brief examples of prose problems:
  • Jacques, whose parents had been Jewish immigrants of Austro-Romanian and Polish origin, was a successful doctor. Did his parents stop being Jewish immigrants?
  • Kubrick was taught to play chess at the age of twenty by his father, and the game would remain a lifelong obsession. When he was 20, Kubrick's father taught him to play chess ...
  • Later in life, Kubrick would speak of his education and of education in general with disdain, and maintained that nothing in school interested him. Change in tense.
  • By the time of his graduation Kubrick had already sold a series of pictures to New York's Look. Tell the reader Look is a magazine, it adds one word, and not all readers are familiar with USA publications.
• That's a few examples only: the prose needs to be improved overall, and the text needs to be referenced. Please put categories in alphabetical order. Sandy 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object lack of Refereces and inline citations. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - insufficient references/sources listed especially given the large number (too many) of quotations, which should all be sourced. Images do not contain fair use rationales and the copyright info is scant. Trivia sections should be avoided. If it can't be said in the body of the article, chances are it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rossrs 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, no inline citations and copyright status of main image is not particularly good. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Per my own nomination. I have not contributed to this article, but upon reading it, I was struck with how informative it was, without being too technichal for non-scientists to appreciate. Plenty of graphics. Its everything the Featured Article checklist says it should be. Give Peace A Chance 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On my first pass, picking a random paragraph, I saw prose problems (Over the decades since the 1950s, a rich technical jargon has grown around the engineering of vehicles designed to enter planetary atmospheres), and the article is mostly unreferenced. Sandy 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Object. The informational depth of this article is impressive, but it suffers from a few small problems. Long stretches of the article have no illustrations, whereas others have a glut of images, that makes the text difficult to read. Also, there is too much bolded text through the main body of the article, bold text is usually only used for the opener, I believe. Other than that, an excellent article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support conditional on changes suggested by RyanGerbil -- more illustrations, in particular, as there should be plenty that are GFDL (just look in the Apollo articles, etc.) and the format regularizing. I don't see the prose problems as particularly troubling. Crowbait 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: there are long paragraphs without illustrations, more references needed. NCurse _work 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Many sections and paragraphs have no inline citations, lead is too short, WP:MOS needs to be consulted on excessive use of bolding, italic and lists. And what is 'Important text books relevant to atmospheric entry'? Further reading?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well written article. Details abou the man and the player. Not to listy either. Every detail needed about him is there. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Jimmmmmmmmm 15:44 14th July 2006[reply]

Comment—I'm glad to see that the text of the article is better than that of the nomination above (one typo, one grammatical error, one awkward phrase). However, the punctuation in the article could do with an audit, and in other respects the prose isn't brilliant. For example, commas would be nice in the sentence below after "first" and "however", and perhaps the comma after "games" should be a semicolon. "Since" appears twice in the final clause, making the construction circular.

"At first some doubted whether he was cut out for the English Premiership, failing to score in his first ten games, however since first finding the net he has flourished ever since."

What does "one" refer to here?

"In the seven seasons he has been at Arsenal, Henry has been the club's top goalscorer for every single one.

Comma before "instead" or "because", or both.

Thierry was put on the left wing by Wenger instead of playing his natural role of striker because the striker position was already occupied by ..."

"2005–06" is used, so why not abbreviate the other year ranges, such as "1992–1993"?

A few redundant uses of "also". Tony 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some copyediting to address the first two points. On the fourth, all descriptions of seasons in the article are abbreviated like "2005-06", but all other refences to time periods are written out fully, so the article is not inconsistent in that regard. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this subtle distinction between seasons and year ranges is not worth making. Please go for simple consistency: avoid repeating the century digits and use an en dash. Tony 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Jeronimo 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has barely any references (inline or not).
  • Organisation is poor. Trivia should be incorporated in text or left out, there's a "honours" and an "awards" section, and the "Family" section can barely be called a section at all.
  • Trivia entries are usually not very suitable for FAs, but the final one here is particularly silly, considering Henry played only in two World Cups, and that France did not score in 2002.
  • Statistics are inconsistent. Just as an example, the sidetable at the top says Henry played 20 matches for Juventus, while the text says 12. The extended table below says 20 as well, but composes this of 16 + 1 + 1.
  • The accolades at the bottom seem rather random. Why is there one for Arsenal's current team, but not for last season's? Why two for Henry's World Cups, but not for his two European Championships?
  • Not NPOV: e.g. "spectacular play".

• Note Right firstly. The trivia part of your objection is wrong Henry has played in the last three World Cups. Secondly why sould there be a section for last season Arsenal squad? I undertstand about the European and World cup and they need adding but only the current squad needs including or would you have the last 7 since he joined?Jimmmmmmmmm 19:12 14th July 2006

I still think it's rather random to have the 2006/2007 season team (which hasn't played a match yet) listed, but not any of the other teams he played in. Jeronimo 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another point the text says he started 12 games for Juventus. He played 20 in total but only started 12. You obviouosly didn't really read it properly. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did read it, and "started" could be considered ambiguous. Anyway, noticed you fixed up the other counts though. Jeronimo 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • This is old, obviously, but for future reference, I thought these points ought to be addressed. The article definitely needs a lot of work to reach featured status. Until recently, World Cup squads were the only international squad boxes used. They were originally started only for the 2006 World Cup season - not intended as permanent fixtures. Less prestigious tournaments have only just been added, and add even more clutter to the bottom of articles. It's been proposed that they be removed (along with the WC squads). International team rosters for such competitions as the Euro (and World Cup, for that matter) can be found with the articles for those tournaments. Listing the squads for every competition would be excessive. Should we include the Olympics as well? Young tournaments like the FIFA World Youth Championship? The line has to be drawn somewhere. For club rosters, only the current squad is displayed. Again, including the squad list for every unique roster he's been on would be absurd. That would be at least one and often two rosters per season (because rosters often change in the January transfer window as well). If you have concerns about these squad boxes (international or club), a discussion should be opened on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football as this is the format used for all players on Wikipedia.
  • "Started" is not an ambiguous term in sports. It means he was in the starting lineup for those games - that is, not on the touchline as a substitute. It is also a relevant statistic given his short stay and criticized performance at Juventus. Substitutes in football usually come on in the second half, so the number of games he started - not necessarily the number of games he simply played in (starts + substitute appearances) - gives a clearer indication of the amount of playing time he was given to adapt to the new league.
  • Henry has played in three World Cups. 1998, 2002, and 2006. Slow Graffiti 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Too many lists and short paragraphs. Text is choppy. Though not a requirement, could do with more pictures. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Biography doesn't contain any personal info (who are his parents, how many siblings etc), which is surely an important thing.

This kind of thing isn't always known about famous people. It's known about the name of his wife and daughter but whats to say Thierry wants the worls to know his parent names and the number of siblings he has. An just because he doesn't want this why is that reason to say the article is bad. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Too small not very well referenced bitty, no chuncks of info, FA requires alot more work than this. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Object Fails 2a, too litte referencing, not enough about his early career (he had a career outside of Arsenal, though you wouldn't know it from the article), I also think that there is not enough about his contributions to France's 1998 success, of which he was a major part, untill the final. Try Good Article first, and get a peer review done. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no hand in writing this article, but I think Pia did a *wonderful* job with this, and that it's more than suitable for FA status. —Nightstallion (?) 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object pretty good, but footnotes belong at the end of a sentence per wiki style - not in the middle of a sentence, a few images need fair use rationales, and the geograhy section should be after or inside the history section, not after politics. Rlevse 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad on history, I meant geography seems out of place. Also, there is little or nothing on pre-Columbian history, the culture section only has one paragraph and is music-oriented, and the recent history section should be a little longer to summarize the main article. Rlevse 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support, per Rlevse. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. Very nice, but I have some small issues. The names in the "Famous Nevisians" section shouldn't be in bold (making more paragraphs here might do the trick), and the "Parsishes" section could use some accompanying / explanatory text. The caption for Cicely Tyson seems incorrect, too. Jeronimo 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read this, I've sorted the fair use issues (I think), and fixed the footnotes. I've also also acted on Jeronimo's suggestions vis a vis the famous Nevisians. The caption is mea culpa, as I changed the image to one which fell under fair use, but forgot to change the caption. The images need a bit of neatening up following my replacements, which I'm not quite sure how to do. I actually disagree with the three editors above in that I feel that since the history section is largely concerned with the political history of the island, it is more logical to follow it with the politics and parishes sections, and then the geography section. I strongly agree that the parishes section needs some explanation, as nowhere is it made clear what their significance is. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The placement and format of the sections were done in accordance with the standard template used for all the Caribbean islands on Wikipedia (maybe for other articles about countries or places as well? I haven't worked on any other geography related issue yet, so I'm not too familiar with the issue of what is standard and what isn't.) However, a map showing the division of the island into parishes would perhaps be a better choice (as well as self-explanatory)? A map would enable us to simply remove the "Parish" section altogether, since it seems to create confusion. I don't want to step on any toes in that regard though, since all the other articles are in compliance with the standard. I admit, I really wrestled with urge to change the order between the sections, with the same ideas as those expressed by Rlevse, but in the end I decided to just follow the template out of respect for the people who have put in the time, energy and effort to create these things. I'd be happy to help change the order though, if that makes more sense to a general reader. Pia 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I see problems with 2b (Comprehensive) and 2c (Factually accurate). For example, one paragraph on Culture ? And seemingly trivial entries which are unreferenced, such as, Leonard Harris, a cricket player from Nevis, held the Leeward Islands' batting record in 1968. In spite of a good number of inline citations, there are a lot of unreferenced statements. Sandy 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sandy, please refer more specifically to what is factually inaccurate or 2c cannot be corrected or dealt with. Would an expansion of the culture section take care of 2b? Cricket players are not trivial in the Caribbean, but if removing Harris from the list of famous Nevisians would make the article less trivial, I will certainly do that. The list of footnotes is becoming very, very long, but I will add references for all statements that seem controversial, or remove them, if you prefer. Please help by pointing them out, if you don't mind. Thanks, Pia 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2c (Factual) has to do with referencing. I don't believe you can have too many references: the cricket player should be referenced. There are too many articles about towns, cities, counties, states, countries which claim notable residents, without giving us any means of knowing the person is actually a resident, and I've encountered many such inaccurate claims on Wiki. (Same applies to notable alumni on schools.) I'm not suggesting cricket is trivial :-) or that you should remove content, rather do what you suggest (add references), but add references to any statement which the reader might need to further investigate. For example, I saw the statement about the only 5-star hotel in the Caribbean. That screams for a reference (how many stars do the Ritz in Cayman, the Hyatts in Cayman and Aruba, have? Does that include countries that consider themselves Caribbean, like Venezuela, or is that only islands? I shouldn't have to go check.) Even items that seem to be straightforward still need a reference, not just those that may be controversial.

2b (Comprehensive) Culture was only the first I noticed, and it struck me that Culture warranted more than one paragraph. I've gone back and seen other areas: Recent history (1882 on) has very little content? There are Secession movement and constitutional issues that don't seem to be fully explored: as a reader who knows little about Nevis, I'm left unclear about where those issues stand today. Is the Economy discussion truly comprehensive? What are the advantages and drawbacks of an economy so dependent on tourism? I guess what I'm saying in general is, try to read the article from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about Nevis, and consider what we might not know. I have limited internet access because of a lightening strike, and am losing track of what I'm keeping up with, so please leave me a talk message if I need to respond further. Hope this helps, Sandy 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thank you. I'll work on those sections and on adding more references.

• Temporary object—oh dear, I see a false contrast in the lead:

"The most famous beach is the 4-mile long Pinneys Beach on the west coast. In the lush interior, rivers and ponds fill up seasonally, but the gently sloping coastal plain (0.6 miles/1 km wide) also has natural fresh water springs, especially along the west coast."

Does "but" lead to a countering of the previous statement? Can someone go through the whole article to check for false contrasts (and other problems in the prose)?

• • Why not spell out numbers less than 10? (e.g., "The two islands are separated by a 2-mile wide channel.") Sometimes metric equivalents are provided, sometimes not. Sometimes "St" has a dot, sometimes it doesn't.

• • "Nevis is conical in shape, with a volcanic peak at the centre. It is fringed by long strands of golden sand beaches ..."—What, the volcano is fringed by beaches? Try: "Nevis is conical in shape, with a volcanic peak at its centre. The island is fringed by long strands of golden sand beaches ..."

• • "Of the approximately 12,000 inhabitants of Nevis, the majority is of African descent." Ungrammatical and awkward. Try: "The majority of the approximately 12,000 inhabitants of Nevis are of African descent."

Now that's just the lead. Tony 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your concerns, except for spelling out numbers. Personally, I find that having numbers written in figures allows me to see at a glance where the statistics are in a piece of text. Does anyone else agree? --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whole point of the examples is to demonstrate that the entire text needs copy-editing, not just the lead. Let us know when it's ready to inspect again. Tony 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you are right about the awkwardness of that particular sentence. More copy editing might indeed be useful and needed. I will go back to the text now and shorten some of the sentences in order to make the text easier to read and I will let you know when I am finished so that you can check it again. About the examples you pointed out: 1. Not to be picky, but "the majority" is singular and the majority in Nevis is of African descent, not "are". Sorry, Tony's sentence is better, and he's right. 2. The reason St sometimes has a dot is that American texts and book titles use St., but there is no dot in St in the Caribbean and British texts and book titles. Inserting or removing dots would violate the rules when it comes to leaving quotes intact and unchanged. To avoid other dot problems, the word Saint is spelled out in the text (but in book titles or quotes, the original is honored, naturally). 3. The island is a dormant volcano rising from the sea. Most of the land mass that connected the three-island chain during the ice age is now under water. I still like your changed version better. 4. The false contrast created by "but" was not meant to be false, but an actual contrast. The lush interior has only seasonal rivers and ponds, but the dry coastal plain has springs supplying fresh water all year around. The name Oualie, "land of beautiful waters", may seem illogical at first glance since the island has no lakes and only occasional, muddy streams, rivers and ponds during heavy rains. It is the hidden source of fresh water that make up the "beautiful waters", namely the natural springs. Pia 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • But if you have to explain the contrast, it's not working in the text. Why not replace "but" with "and"? Tony 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that dot thing can be explained somewhere in a footnote: who knew St had no dot in Caribbean and British texts? :-) Anything that you had to explain above to Tony has to be explained to all potential readers. Tony's examples were only from the lead: remember to thoroughly peruse the entire text for issues of copyediting, comprehensiveness, and references. Sandy 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I went back to check. I think we only have two references with "St./St" left now: the St. Kitts Nevis Observer. The publisher uses a dot in the publication's name (he's US educated). The official site of the Prime Minister of Saint Kitts also uses a dot, most of the time. Sometimes the press releases from his office do not. The British definitely prefer to leave the dot out, see for example the BBC. However, I don't think we have any quotes or titles from British sources with St in the article right now. Pia 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the BBC report says: By 2003, Nevis was home to around 17,000 offshore businesses operating under strict secrecy laws, making the islands a target for drugs traffickers and money launderers. Laws have been introduced to crack down on the problem. This goes to the question I was asking about whether the article is comprehensive. You've got to watch out that the article isn't just a tourism promo: the problems have to be mentioned as well. Oh, be sure to put your categories and interwikis in alphabetical order. Sandy 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sentences like Antigua-based Admiral Nelson and his friend Prince William Henry, Duke of Clarence and future King William IV of the United Kingdom, partied here. do not belong in the article. --Hintha 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows why Des Moines is a regional leader in education, agriculture, insurance, and culture. I think it's high time that the city breaks free from its rural stereotype and shows its true metropolitan mettle.

Fezzador 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The lead isn't a great start, as it contains one out and out blatant inaccuracy. "Des Moines" does not mean "City of the Monks" - you could possibly say it means "of the monks" and derives from the former phrase, but even then, the article itself later goes on to state that the origins of the name are uncertain. The lead, therefore, is confusing, as within the first sentence the implication is made that the name definitely is taken from the French for "City of the Monks". That needs removing. The lead also has a misused "it's" in it, which would suggest to me that the article may be in need of a full copyedit. There are also no inline citations, and they're desperately needed in places, particularly when discussing the possible and disputed origins of the name. There's also a citation needed tag, which is never a good thing, and a fair few redlinks. And the article degenerates into little more than a series of lists in its second half - surely a good chunk of the "Culture" section could be prosified? Seb Patrick 08:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Per above, also featured articles must be referenced, and that includes Notable Natives. It's not usually hard to find a local press reference on them. Sandy 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Some unsourced statements. Also nominator seems to want to demonstrate a specific point more than showcase the city. -- Миборовский 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per above. I'll agree that it could use some improvement. --Iowahwyman 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per above as well. Also, there are several unreferenced statements within this article. "Des Moines has grown considerably in recent years, and can now be compared to cities such as, Boise, Madison, Tacoma, and Hartford to name a few." seems very biased towards the city. Also, several section within this article needs to be expanded. Ajwebb 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article explains and diagrams the movie, very in-depth. Plenty of visual representation. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it has a ((unreferenced)) at the top of it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is very in-depth and covers many viewpoints. ReverendG 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Agree with Grafikm. This can't be featured as long as it has cleanup tags. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. No inline citation. -- Миборовский 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object as one of the most important American movies of the 1990s, certainly one we should have an FA on... but alas, this is full of rampant speculation and conjecture such as in the "Plot devices" section, as evidenced by the lack of sources, the tags requesting them (which have been up for a while). Not our best work. --W.marsh 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object No references. Big ugly tag at the top of the article. Too much of the article consists of "trivia", quotes and lists of cultural influences.
• 'Object - which is a real shame because as has been said this is one of the greats and should be featured. THe thing is theres loads of good content but the lack of references (those tags all over the place just arn't good) and the general conjecture throughout spoils it. Oh and it could be alot shorter too. -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object as per everyone else. No refs, Trivia section still in exsistence, and a shoddy cast section to boot. See Revenge of the Sith, Richard III (1955 film), or Casablanca (film) for ideas as how to improve. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article as it immediately strikes me as extremely well written. The tone of the prose is excellent, explaining a concept that could otherwise descend into reams of mathematical symbols in plain english, without losing any relavence. It is well discussed in the main body, with a variety of different sections with their own layout and style but that are totally consistent within themselves and with the other text. The article also answers newcomers questions fully, while providing relavent links to further topics and further mathematical study. In my view, an excellent candidate for a featured article. AdamSebWolf 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. I can't really speak for the article's comprehensiveness, not being a mathematician, but the following stand out to me:

1. It's alright to have a general bibliography, but the article needs some form of inline citation pointing readers to where facts given in the article were found.
2. Image:Warm fuzzy logic member function.gif could do with being converted to an SVG file, and possibly moved up to the lead if no better images can be found.
3. The "See also" section should be pared down a bit, either by linking within the article text or removing items that aren't particularly relevant.
4. The "Examples" section needs to be converted to prose.
5. The "Formal fuzzy logic" needs to be expanded into prose.
6. I don't personally like the portal link, particularly in the lead, as it smacks of WP:NSR, but I suppose it's not vital that it be removed.
7. Another personal issue is the number of redlinks in the Formal section. While the article can still be featured with these, it wouldn't take that much effort to create short stubs and convert them to blue links. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object - Informal language in lead in which the author seems to be talking directly to the reader, as opposed to simply stating facts. Also, I'm uncomforatble with the way the "Misconceptions" section is laid out; it reads like a FAQ, less like an acedemic article. Fieari 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think my main concern is that this article doesn't properly cover defuzzification. I also felt the article was a bit light on explaining fuzzy logic from an axiomatic point of view — though this is forgivable since the article is an introduction to fuzzy logic. However it is disappointing that all of the links in the "Formal fuzzy logic" section are red suggesting there is no explanation of a formal fuzzy logic system on Wikipedia. Cedars 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Still seems like a rough draft. The prose is not excellent, and the examples meander somewhat. One particularly bad prose example: as gender is often considered as a binary information. So, it is not so complex like being tall. On top of this, the "how fuzzy logic is applied" section needs a lot of rework. It needs reorganization, expansion, and just general cleaning up (it seems somewhat repetitive). I'm not picking on the section because I think it's worse than the others, I'm picking on it because it seems like the most important section. 65.241.152.139 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination Very indepth article on King's "megavillain" which chronicles all his major and speculated appearences and his movie appearence.--CyberGhostface 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object.

1. Image:Randallflagg7.jpg has a Bookcover fair use tag, but it's art from within the book, not the cover itself. Also, the article is about a character, not the book itself. Needs a specific rationale.
2. Image:FlaggTheStand.jpg ditto above.
3. Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg ditto above.
4. Image:Flaggdeathx.jpg ditto above.
5. Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg ditto above. The caption also needs to make explicit which of the two characters featured is Flagg.
6. Image:FlaggMovieSheridan.jpg has a Screenshot fair use tag, but the article is about a character, not the film itself. Needs a specific rationale.
7. Image:Andrelinoge.jpg ditto above. Also needs a more informative caption.
8. Only five of the references are cited. Where are the others used? Also, cites are kind of sparse throughout the article.
9. I'm not sure about the aliases section. Are they all really worth documenting?
10. Why is the generic List of villains in the See also section?

GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. We're getting there, but this is not worthy of featured article status yet. As mentioned above, the references are still quite lacking. I have even placed a [citation needed] tag in the article that was never replaced with a proper citation. All quotes should be backed by a full citation (which includes the page number), and any controversial and/or questionable statements need citations as well. It would also help to have some works outside of King's cited in there (there have been some books about King which could be used). -- LGagnon 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Some things that need verification haven't used citation, such as LeLand Gaunt being assumed to be a possible incarnation of Flagg's. If a critic (s) has made this comment, feel free to cite them appropriately. And there's a sentence which goes "It is known for a fact" - since when? Some people will probably use this article for further reading on Flagg so they will not know "for a fact". Also, Randall Flagg actually does NOT originate from "The Stand" as usually presumed. He comes from an old poem King wrote in college, so please someone check this out. I'd also heavily disagree that this article is getting towards featured status - its currently nowhere near. All it does is chronicle what he does in each book - there's no quoted book critics on perceptions of the character, no King quotes from interviews, no mentions on what King wished to achieve with this character, no nothing. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Yeah, it chronicles what he does in each book and his character arc. Thats the entire point of the article. How is some critic's opinion of him even needed? How is it essential to his character? Sheesh.--CyberGhostface 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has GA status, and has fulfilled the criteria left on the talk page in order for it to be considered for FA status. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: 1) Poor lead, not detailing much about the series at all; 2) The trivia section is the only part that is well referenced. I've not looked much further than that. There is some good content, but this isn't FA quality yet. violet/riga (t) 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not there yet. Lead too short, and seriously lacking in references. Sandy 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree about what has been said about the short lead. I also believe there are too many short, one sentence paragraphs. Some of those need to be extended to put together to form longer paragraphs.--NMajdan•talk 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't think it should have been given GA status. As Nmajdan says, there's lots of choppy writing in the form of one sentence paras. The lead is certainly too short, and worst of all there's a bullet-pointed trivia section. These should never appear in an encyclopaedia article - trivia is by definition unencyclopaedic. Even if that weren't the case, why bullet point it? Why not write it as normal prose? Worldtraveller 20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image:EastEnders CM.gif should not be in GIF. Is one picture enough? WP 09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination - This artilce has gone through two major Peer Reviews (fixed link) and has passed Good Article Status. Alot of work was put into this article to make it complete, but not "to large" that would make it a marraton to read. As a major contributer to the article, I am proud to nominate it to the FA board. (If it gets selected, may I suggest July 26? Marking the 98th year from BOI.)

This is not a voting process =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting

1. Support - per nominator --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support It has references, good pictures, and is very informative without being too long. No article is perfect, but this one deserves to be a FA. --WillMak050389 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I found this article to be completly extraordinary. I saw it when it was unreadable garbage but now it has improved so much. This really should be a part of the FA. -ScotchMB

Objections

• Some other things:
  • Can you please complete your references. If the link to a news article is gone in a month, I should be able to track the article down via another source. For example, your LA times link needs date (March 8, 2006) and author (Allan M. Jalon). Some of your references could use a better bibliographic style.
  • Can you describe each of your external links briefly (the FBI ones are obvious, the others aren't described). For example, why should I have to click on "The FBI ...Past, Present & Future" to know what it is. Is it a news article, a book, what?
  • Ditto for further reading: provide complete bibliographic elements. Also, alphabeticize them.
  • alphabetical interwikis
  • "See also" needs a template for navigation
  • Lead is a bit short, and doesn't seem to summarize the article
  • I went into the article for a random prose check, and found the FBI's official top priority is counterterrorism. "Official"? Is that a redundancy, or is there something we don't know about extra-official top priorities?
• I'll be glad to come back for another look, good start. Sandy 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Sorry, but the article needs much better referencing, in terms of what references are used (for balance), inline citations, and thorough bibliographic entries. The FA nomination does seem premature, and what passes peer review or GA might not meet FA criteria. Sandy 01:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Too short. Stub-sections (Crime statistics, Media portrayal). Organization is basically a list of directors and a little about personel. Are there no organizational diagrams and such? Does FBI personel has any ranks? Very large see also should be merged with main body. Need more inline references - for example in the 'criticism' section there are entire unreferenced paras. And a few more pics would not hurt. The 'media' section, when expanded, should probably mention something about FBI in ficiton, including the two most famous fictional FBI agents ever (do I need to say who? :)).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. I think this nomination is premature. My main objection relates to the selection of references. Still, a vast majority of references are to the FBI's own website. As such, I'm not confident that the history section represents WP:NPOV. Also, all are online sources. This article would benefit from dead tree sources found at a library. The organization section can also use improvement, such as explain more about Quantico, Clarksburg, the field offices, and legal attachés. I'll continue helping out with this article and try and address my own objections, as well as those above. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Sorry, but not enough inline sourcing. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object Introduction is too short and the sentence structures vary too much. Also, 23 inlines aren't too many. 63.23.7.233 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Many issues I raised in the peer review (admittedly late in that game) have yet to be resolved, apart from the good Hoover picture. (You might also want to double check your link to the peer review!)--Monocrat 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed them last night - a bit late yes. I will work on this, but it has yet to be corrected by anyone else. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reorganizing the history: it looks better. But, there are still a number of issues:

• Stubby sections in "Organization." "Publications" and "Crime statistics" are stubby and could probably be combined;

• Crime statistics is just a header of both the UCR and the NIBRS. Combining them would be very messy. That's like talking about one thing then going on about something else. That's why they are seperated. The main header of Publications (the text under this) I will expand, but your "Stubby" definision is unclear. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of serious discussion of major divisions;

• I think you missed this. It's right under Organization. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The copy needs a lot of work. Consider these sentences from "History:"

"This was just the start of modern violent crime as the FBI was again tasked to handle major violent crimes that happen within United States borders." "In the 1970s, the RICO act took effect and the FBI started investigating the former Prohibition organized groups, which had by now become fronts for crime in major cities and even small towns." "The 1980s was dubbed "the year of the spy" because of the large amount of spy-related cases bringing investigated and prosecuted."--Monocrat 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—2a. Here are examples from the top.
  • "The FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list has been used since 1949 to notify the public of wanted fugitives. Its most basic function is to defend the United States Constitution." Does "its" refer to the list or the organisation? Many readers will regard the second sentence as POV, no matter where your references are sourced.
  • "When it first started it was responsible for ..."—Surely there's a more elegant wording.
  • "The latest agent to be killed was Leonard W. Hatton who died of a result of the ..."—More commas required, as here after "Hatton". "Of a result"?
  • "To this date only 33 agents have been killed"—spot the three redundant words.

And lots more. Tony 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just killed all those things because I could not think of other ways to fix it. I don't understand this... why can't you guys work ont he article yourself if there are some miss cues. I am all for corlaboration. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Some things:
  • Needs a better/slightly longer and more comprehensive lead (see WP:LEAD)
  • the "see also" section is a bit bloated. Along with the "other facts" section (a euphamism for "trivia"?) some of this should be integrated into prose, or just removed if it's too minute.
  • The "History" section seems very thin in places, particularly about the role of Hoover in dominating the agency for so long, it doesn't even properly introduce him and his role, the first mention of him in the article reads "After J. Edgar Hoover's death"... Also, doesn't really go into COINTELPRO in enough depth, this event was (as I understand it) a major turning point in the history of the FBI. The articles on Hoover and COINTELPRO seem to do a decent job of covering this, but I don't think summarizing it in the FBI article would hurt either. At any rate it needs to cover it a bit better than it does right now. --W.marsh 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the trivia to Richard M. Nixon, where it fits better amongst all the other trivia there. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so it's out of the way. To answer some questions. A few things... there is no rank. There are Agents and Supavisors, but there is no "rank". I think --Aude has already fixed the See Also section, while I was taking a nap. The directors are now in another article. "provide complete bibliographic elements"? I can alphabeticize, I don't think I can expand them. I don't have these books and I would have to do some majjor looking. Thanks for the comments. I thought there was enough inline sources. :o --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked on some of these "ojbects". I am going to finsh them up tonight. Keep me posted in what you think is completed. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeping the article below the recommend "size" has been hard. usually once I been adding information, it gets to long and then it goes totally against the WP:FA critiera. I guess it's ok to go over it a little bit? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 06:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to note, images are not required for FA's. There are not alot of "FBI" related images to be used. Trust me... I have looked. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (And more notes from me..) This website: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ seems to have a lot of information. After this article is at the FA standered this page can serve as a guide to help expand the articles that come off the FBI Main page and the ((FBI)) template. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• When I looked for more history on the FBI to source it most of the sites were bascily the same thing, using the FBI website as their source. I think we have to overlook that this is where a majority of the information does come from. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• lets make a note, I am not an English major. I have always been bad at English. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, you need collaborators who are good at English, if you're going to nominate FACs. Reviewers in this room are under no obligation to edit articles. For some of us, our work is cut out just reviewing.

I note that this person has just plastered the following comment on my talkpage:

"I would like suggestions not misguided comments please".

Tony 04:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to "And lots more." (Above) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- needs to go through a spellcheck responsiable, couninting first. Having section 3.2.1 is considered bad style. Left aligned images causes some headings to be switched to the right. Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S. Code) ... to investigate specific crimes. -- Too specific to be in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that section. spellcheck has been completed. Title 28 etc. has been moved it another location out of the lead. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the text needs to go through a complete copyedit. 1. eg: Now the FBI actively attacks potential threats before the can take place. --> ...FBI precludes (or forestalls) potential threats? 2. The mission of ... terrorist and foreign threats,... "foreign threats"? that's vague: I checked the source: It says "protect against foreign intelligence threats". 3. =Overall mission= --> =Mission= 4. The FBI's chief tool --> "tool"? needs more encyclopedic wording. I've stopped here and not reviewed from the second section onwards. =Nichalp «Talk»= 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to it later. Been up all night working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI :) -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]