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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 29 July 2008 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Ecrone (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... The article has subsequent informative advice on a type of mental disorder (Dissociation). The mental disorder in question has recived little to no attention in the media as depression seems to peek at the top, yet every single individual on earth will dissociate themself's due to anxiety at some point in there life. Most do not understand that it is a medical condition. Some individuals develop this type of illness due to continues' stress and anxiety.

My main reason for why i think this article should be featured is promimently due to the distinctive pure quality of this article and due to the lack of attention this very serious and misunderstood illness gets.

Thank You Ecrone (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding article, very clear; crystal and neutral view. I highly endorse that this article be featured due to it's intresting nature and nicely written features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QualityBadge (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Editors' first edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QualityBadge is a sock of Ecrone, per CU investigation. Struck support, feel free to revise if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - 1) lack of images 2) following one - only image isn't linked to the article, meaning, I'm not sure how it is justified 3) where is the history of the disorder? Did it pop up out of no where? 4) Are the cultural references notable to the disorder? Or is the disorder notable to the references? I think Wikipedia moved against including such lists on the ground that they tend to be collections of trivial information that, if need to be mentioned, are probably in the article of the subject and do not need to be duplicated. Thats just a small list for now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next ones: 5) redlink "trauma-focused therapy" should be fixed 6) I don't see the connection between the "Different diagnosis", i.e. could you explain these fuller 7) the content seems to be a little thin, and the references should have more information on the subject 8) "key textbooks" seems to be subjective and out of place Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you to the extrimeties for enflutuating your concerns so that i can do my best to fix them. Thanks Again. Ecrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrone (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this article relate to the article on Dissociative identity disorder, a formal diagnostic category of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at both suggests similarity? But not quite the same? (if sources correct)

Code	Dissociative identity disorder	Depersonalization disorder
ICD-10	F44.8	F48.1
ICD-9	300.14	300.6
MeSH	D009105	not given

Hope that helps++Lar: t/c 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be some mix up in the article itself between the two, for example, in diagnostic instruments. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - DSM IV-TR is current diagnostic classification, not DSM IV. Nitpicky I know but...anyway, more to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all, it is a rather disturbing illness, since many feel that indeed, they are living in a "dream". - problematic sentence, as very subjective. Second bit also repetitive. I'd propose removing. Could say symptoms are distressing for some maybe, but compare this with almost every psychiatric disorder as most have distressing symptoms.

• (ec) Just use well-sourced material for the symptoms. Nothing need be subjective in this article. ICD-10, the current classification, calls it Depersonalization-derealization syndrome (which I realize is a redirect, but still, that should be fixed by someone).[7] (I did not specify which DSM, so no one has to nit pick.) Also, bunches of PMID primary source references without good survey articles or books is not reliable sourcing, from my point of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICD 10 Dx should be mentioned in lead too, as well as Dx section.

Fluorescent lighting is reported to increase the effects of depersonalization. - needs a reference

Last para of Symptoms needs referencing, and also a copyedit

Second para of Causes talks of symptom, not disorder and needs to go under symptoms bit.

Third para of Causes is inreferenced

Clinically, diagnoses are generally made by clinicians after one or more interviews. Very few psychiatric diagnoses aremade with structured interviews alone. They are more used for research and psychometrics or as additional tools.

Last half of Epidemiology section needs referencing

Cultural References needs to be converted to prose, not bulleted, and needs referencing. I will be able to help with this later.

Lot to work on but not impossible. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You should add a caption to the lead image. Eklipse (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • http://www.rossinst.com/dddquest.htm deadlinks
  • Ref 1 (Depersonalization disorder...) is lacking ALL bibliographical details besides the website link.
  • Current ref 7 (Simeon, D. Depersonalization disorer...) is lacking a last access date
  • Current ref 23 Henri Frederic Amiels ... is lacking all bibliographic details.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, this clearly has potential, but there are too many problems to fix during an FAC. For example, the prose needs work and the article needs more citations. Here are some.

• The lead is very long and repetitive (e.g. repetition about how the patient feels) and doesn't flow logically.
• A number of paragraphs lack any citations.
• The first sentence is a fragment.
• Often a victim of DPD feels as if he or she is going insane, though this is almost never the case. - out of place in this paragraph.
• The symptoms include a sense of automation, going through the motions of life but not experiencing it, feeling as though one is in a movie, feeling as though one is in a dream, feeling a disconnection from one's body, out-of-body experience, a detachment from one's body, environment and difficulty relating oneself to reality. For all, it is a rather disturbing illness, since many feel that indeed, they are living in a "dream". - too long and difficult to read.
• Victims of the disorder relatively feel as though their 'individuality' has been lost or changed, occupying this an individual with the disorder may feel as though, when he/she looks in the mirror, he/she feels a "stranger" to him/her self. very difficult sentence. The word victims should be avoided.
• associated as a comorbid disorder - redundant
• The first two links in the External links section should definitely be removed, the fourth probably should. I'm not sure about the third.
• The "Key Texts – Books" section seems to be making a statement about these sources, I don't think the article should state that they're "key". How about "Further reading"?
• Capitalize only the first word (and proper nouns) in headings.
• The Cultural References section is just a bulleted list, it would be better to have some prose and more than just trivia--how about more depth in cultural relevance?
• The last point about American Psycho under Cultural References appears to be OR: it is not cited and it reads like the author of the article is diagnosing the character themselves.
• The article contains a number of technical terms that should be defined for the lay reader.
• It is not necessary to link common, well-known terms like insane.

I'm not trying to be harsh, it's certainly a good effort and with some more work will be first rate. I also noticed a number of good things about the article but have focused on the negative here. I encourage you to keep working on the article, don't hesitate to ask me if I can be of any help with it. delldot talk 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 29 July 2008 [8].

---

Nominator(s): Mitch32^(UP)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after months of work, I feel that is ready for the big time. This article was worked on in November 2007 by an Article Improvement Drive. It has been through review after review and is in my opinion, FA material. This, if passes would be WP:NYSR's 5th Featured Article, and our longest road to reach such a high level.Mitch32^(UP) 13:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A few comments from a skim:
  • There are a few reference issues: format=PDF is missing from refs that need it, you've got a retrieval date on a print source with no URL, and what is currently reference 27 is confusingly formatted. It appears to be using Wikipedia as a reference, although I don't believe that is your intention.

Done.Mitch32^(UP) 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is it common for articles like this to rely on huge sections of text referenced only by Google Maps? I don't have a lot of experience with road articles. I wonder if everything is those sections is covered by that—"The border would be even closer to the highway had the neighboring Boston Corner area not been ceded to New York when local bandits used it as a refuge in the early 19th century." doesn't appear to be. I think these type of sections deserve a close look.

Google Maps normally gives a better range of detail than to paper maps and is usually considered a better reference. Paper maps are more used for the history section.Mitch32^(UP) 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The article has a lot of red links. This isn't a per se problem—you don't have to go making stubs or anything—but it's worth checking whether all those links would make viable articles. If not, remove the link. If so, leave the red link and it's perfectly fine.

I have tried to reduce the redlinks by delinking several items ("horse country" and local malls) and by redirecting several other items that are closely related to another article. The redlinks left are basically named geographic bodies (mountains, lakes, rivers) that typically get an article, state facilities, historic places, and other notetworthy topics that I haven't found a place to redirect. --Polaron | Talk 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're missing non-breaking spaces (for example, "549 km" should have one). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Non-breaking spaces.

• • Non-breaking spaces have been added to route designations as well as units. --Polaron | Talk 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • This note worries me: "Mileage a rough estimate based on distance between this junction and nearest junction with known mileage, in this case the Thruway exit, as viewed at Google Maps." It sounds like you pulled up Google Maps, got out a ruler, and took a stab at a number. Could you fill me in a little on what this means exactly, and what makes it verifiable?

DoneMitch32^(UP) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Image:Champlain1902.jpg (on Commons) has an obsolete image tag.

DoneMitch32^(UP) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The handy dabfinder tool shows you've got some links that need to be disambiguated.

Pagrashtak 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All links are now disambiguated except for Battle of Ticonderoga, which is meant to refer to the various battles at that specific locality and not just to a specific one. --Polaron | Talk 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still worry about the Google Maps issue. It's fine for all the "the roads bends west towards blah..." stuff, but I don't think everything in that section can be found on Google Maps. Who is the author of Image:Champlain1902.jpg, and when did he or she die? Pagrashtak 02:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps are fine as sources. Any bit of information in the route description can indeed be found on Google Maps. In fact, they're more detailed than a paper map by far. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently not reading my comments. I have no problem with Google Maps being used as a source. I specifically mentioned that it's fine for the description of the road. Pagrashtak 05:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what is it exactly that you dislike about the Google Maps as a source? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the entire route description and checked if there is something being cited that is not found in Google Maps. The only instances I found where the addition of clarifying details within the route description such as the mention of White Plains being a county seat, or Scarsdale being a New York City suburb, etc. While not found in Google Maps, such information is not controversial and can be verified by clicking on the link. It would be an awkard construction to give a dry route description cited by Google Maps then provide details of the points of interest as separate sentences. Mixing in the details makes the prose flow more smoothly plus none of the clarifying details appears to be controversial in my view. --Polaron | Talk 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, as I mentioned in my original comment about it, I have a problem with statements like "The border would be even closer to the highway had the neighboring Boston Corner area not been ceded to New York when local bandits used it as a refuge in the early 19th century." (since removed) which cannot be verified by looking at a map. I wanted to make sure reviewers looked through that section to make sure nothing was unsupported.

Polaron, I agree that providing those details in the route description is the best way to go. However, sentences like the one above would need a source regardless of their placement. I'm not telling anyone to rearrange things, just make sure that a reference is added where needed. Thanks for taking a look through the section. Pagrashtak 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that one has long been fixed and I did go through the route description within the last hour to check and made small adjustments to where the citation is placed. It is possible I missed some or there are facts that might be obvious to me but not to others. If you can point them out, I'll be glad to restructure the sentence and provide additional citations. --Polaron | Talk 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 1 (2007 NY State Dept of Transportation) has the publisher in the title link, needs to be outside the link.

Otherwise sources looked good, links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks!Mitch32^(UP) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "almost 341 mi " and then "An 86-mile "; choose one format and stick with it. Happens throughout the entire article. Gary King (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - All cases should now follow the first example given. Mitch32^(UP) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. "At almost 341 mi (549 km) in total length..." is correct without the hyphen (although I have an issue with length—is someone confusing this with an extremely wide or tall road?) and "An 86 mi (138 km) section..." needs a hyphen, as it is a compound adjective. This isn't a consistency issue. Pagrashtak 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed per Pagrashtak above. The second instance does require a hyphen. --Polaron | Talk 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: Image:Battleofpburg.jpeg needs more source details. Not related to licensing, I don't see how Image:Champlain1902.jpg relates to NY 22. --NE2 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of the images have been removed. I was unable to track down the source information for the first and the second one is indeed not related at all to the road. --Polaron | Talk 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't say I feel sufficiently familiar with (or, I'm afraid, inspired by) road articles to support actively. But it seems fine to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The writing holds promise, but needs a good scrub up before promotion. Someone new to the article needs to be brought in, and might well become a collaborator in future FA preps. Research similar articles and locate word-nerds from the edit summaries in the edit histories.

• Opening sentence: "running north-sough parallel to the state's eastern edge"—oops. And an en dash, not a hyphen, since direction/movement is involved. There are similar hyphens further down. Isn't it a "border"?
• MOS: no hyphen after "-ly". Look, try these exercises.
• "The rural landscape off the road"—"off" is not right, at least not in formal prose. Just remove the last three words.
• "the county seat of Westchester County"—why the repetition? Can't the first be removed? Tony (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears your concerns have been addressed, and there has been some copyediting done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:59, 26 July 2008 [9].

---

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger, Torsodog

User:Torsodog and I have been attempting to pursue a WikiProject Chicago Featured Topic Drive for Millennium Park. Although we have promoted 10 WP:GAs since June 4th, this is the first feature we have nominated at FAC since the drive began. We were going to nominate Cloud Gate first, but some IP editors have been disruptive causing us to semi-protect the page and block one of them. While we are waiting for that one to pass stability, we are nominating this one. Loggie has copyedited most of our articles in the last few weeks.-TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just did a fair amount of copy-editing on this article. But it needs more. It also needs restructuring. At present, the structure is far from clear, and jumps about all over the place. Why, for instance, is there a section entitled "Details"? It's not as though the other sections are lacking details.  ;) There should probably be a section devoted to design, for instance. Another perhaps to planning (i.e. the bridge's purpose and brief before Gehry was involved). And how did Gehry get the commission: was there a public competition, for instance? In general, I think that this article still has some way to go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never heard the term brief applied to architecture so I have change that word. I have retitled the details section as design. The 450 page book detailing the creation of the park does not detail a competition. In fact of the features in the park, the only one whose competition seems to be notable was Cloud Gate due to the last minute switch to a second place choice. It does not seem that the competition was notable based on the secondary sources. It seems the park was originally planned to have a bridge that did not serve any purpose other than to be a bridge. Gehry then came up with the new design to please the mayor. I will recheck the early changes and get back to you later today after making sure I did not leave out anything too important. I have rearranged to separate preliminary design issues from the ultimate design.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • BTW, I was using the word "brief" as in "design brief." A rather common use of the term, and an important concept in architecture. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There must, I feel, be something on how Gehry got the commission. These decisions don't get made on a whim. Meanwhile, still on section titles, I don't really understand what's meant by the title "Themes." The article still feels unstructured to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just did a Newsbank search. Gehry's name appears in articles that also have the phrase Millennium Park and the word bridge 22 times in Illinois newspapers before 2000-03-20. I'll run through them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thre was no competition. I have added two paragraphs describing his initial involvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better. Needs some copy-editing, but this is useful and important information. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why didn't the initial comment get a full strikethrough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, OK! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can not find any pre-Gehry bridge refs in Illinois newspapers. I will have to be satisfied with a partial strikethrough.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are a lot of images here competing for attention. Would this be a case for a "gallery" down the bottom? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:FAs have galleries at the bottom in general because the reader has to page up and page down to figure things out. You have to work the pics in with the text at the featured level.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm normally not a fan of galleries myself, but I am coming to think that this article could be an exception. I'm not aware of any particular prohibitions against FAs having them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have attempted to argue for side "galleries" where the pictures are located proximal to the relevant text at FAC (Rush Street (Chicago)) to no avail. The article has gotten longer in the FAC process, which has improved the text/image ratio. I see less squeezing now. I would rather remove one or two marginal images or stretch the text than attempt a gallery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is not so much that the text is squeezed, as that the images compete for attention. A couple of well-placed images in the text, with a gallery at the bottom, would deal with that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said I would prefer to expand text or remove some images. The lower right images are the most marginal, IMO. However, if squeezing is not a problem, is there an issue with WP:WIAFA?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see that the description of the road has recently been changed to call it an "eight-lane highway"; however, judging from the main picture in the infobox, it is in fact only six lanes at least at the point at which the bridge crosses it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kamin describes it as eight-lane in at least one of the articles referenced. At the intersection the fourth lane is a turning lane and at the point the bridge crosses the fourth lane is the entrance ramp to the garage upon which the column sits. You can see it emerge just south of the column. I just switched to agree with the Pulitzer Prize winning architecture critic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. You obviously don't get Pulitzer prizes for counting lanes. In the photo, it's clear that it's six lanes where the bridge crosses it, seven at the intersection (with the turning lane). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't there a ramp on the east side at the intersection making it eight or something. Also, in terms of width if the eighth lane is under the column it still represents the width of the street.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All images check out fine. Images uploaded from Flickr to Commons have been verified on Commons. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some comments (not meant to be comprehensive): — Zagalejo 20:06, July 22, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• There's way too much going on in that first sentence. Split it into two sentences, and (even thoughI know you don't like to do it) maybe drop some of the geographic descriptors.

• I have no problem with splitting the info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I rearranged things a little bit. But as I said at the Trump Tower FAC, I'm not a big fan of those long strings of prepositional phrases that aren't really necessary for readers. If I had my way, the first two sentences would look like this: "BP Pedestrian Bridge, or simply BP Bridge, is a girder bridge in downtown Chicago. It spans Columbus Drive to connect Daley Bicentennial Plaza with Millennium Park." Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I believe I said there, the community area information is an important descriptor. Look at the entire Chicago Daily News collection of images at the Library of Congress. Each image is described by its community area. That is how you tell someone where something in Chicago is located. If we want to give the reader an encyclopedic description of the location, following the Library of Congress format is not so bad.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you can find a way to incoporate all that information without making the prose awkward, let me know. Zagalejo^^^ 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Converting City, State, Country to postal address format eliminates a prepositional phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer that. But I still think "downtown Chicago" is more elegant (and more meaningful to most readers) than "the Loop community area of Chicago". (You could hide the link to Chicago Loop behind "downtown".) And is Milennium Park actually part of Grant Park? Or is it considered separate? Zagalejo^^^ 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You might be surprised that the Chicago Loop is actually quite well known worldwide. It is almost synonymous with the CBD. Downtown would include parts of several other community areas such as Near South Side, Chicago, Near North Side, Chicago, and Near West Side, Chicago. Piping loop with downtown chicago would truly be a misnomer. Millennium Park is part of Grant Park, but I am ambivalent about Grant Parks inclusion in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you want me to remove Grant Park?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I think you can do without it. I'll just concede the point with regards to the Loop. Zagalejo^^^ 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In a subsequent design, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley disliked Gehry's original design of an 800 to 900-foot (270 m) bridge, which caused Gehry to come up with ten more designs.

I think you mean, "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley disliked Gehry's subsequent design of an 800 to 900-foot (270 m) bridge, which caused Gehry to come up with ten more designs." Is that right?

• Yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is the connection between this bridge and the lawn seating at Pritzker Pavilion? That paragraph (in "Controversies") isn't clear.

• The implication is a fear of vandalism of this very artisitic structure during a period of frustration for park patrons. It is sort of implicit and there is no other explanation of why the bridge would be closed on a summer day, but two plus two is kind of easy to figure out. What do you think should be in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno, but it seems like the only source for the bridge closing is from a Letters to the Editor page. If we don't have a better source, maybe we shouldn't mention it at all. Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, op-ed pieces are editorially reviewed at major newspapers. I heard John McCain even had one reject in response to one by Barack Obama. Editorially reviewed writings in major newspapers count as WP:RS as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really concerned about the reliability of that source. But if that's the only source to mention the bridge closure, then maybe the bridge closure simply isn't notable enough to mention. Zagalejo^^^ 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently it rises to a higher standard of notability than whatever John McCain has to say these days on one level, although I see your point. I guess the point is that it was a small part of one of the two or three biggest controversies in the short history of the park and such was noted in the secondary sources. It is not like we are dealing with an article that is too long. There is room for this type of controversy in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but you shouldn't give undue weight to minor issues just to have a controversy section. Zagalejo^^^ 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the thing. If I describe this as the most beautiful bridge in the world or rant and rave about how great it is that this architectural object is so beautiful that it is almost a piece of art people are going to ask "Well isn't there anything bad or controversial about the bridge." That section tells you the biggest controversies. The bridge is only four years old. Maybe when it is fifty the story won't be worth telling, but if people want a balanced article with the bridges foibles to date, these are they. You are sort of now yanking me around for presenting what people are going to ask for if I omit it aren't you. In every article that has extensive praise people want to know about controversies and I can't make them up if they don't exist and I can't blow them up if they are too small. In this case, I present a controversy as it happened. We really almost must leave it in the article for balance about this work of art don't we.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I do think the second paragraph of that section is worth-keeping. It's interesting that the bridge was not adequately designed for Chicago winters. (Indeed, I thought that was the most interesting thing in the article.) So, I'm not asking you to remove the Controversy section altogether. But is it really that important to mention that the bridge was closed for one day, especially when the only source we have is a letter to the editor? I can't imagine that's the sort of information people are looking for. It's just trivia. Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In many respects the first day that they charged for Great Lawn seating at the Pritzker Pavilion is one of the most important days in the history of the park and related events are not really just trivia. If we were to make a list of the five most important days in the history of the park, I think this would be on the list so the bridge was not just closed for a random day. It was closed for a groundbreaking day and for good reason. The reader may find it interesting to note that there is a fear of vandalism. The encyclopedic component is being missed because I have asked for advice on addressing the implicit vandalism fear, which is a great concern for such a work. You instead say don't teach the reader about the vandalism fear just ignore it. The vandalism fear helps to mark this work as a great piece of art. It is kind of like saying so and so has risen to the level of popularity that they hire a bodyguard. The bridge is an important enough work of art that precautions against vandalism are taken. That is the story here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Zagalejo here: it does seem remarkably trivial to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have rewritten the section with an introduction to demonstrate an encyclopedic point for which this incident serves as a poignant example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This is original research, based on the most tenuous of evidence: a letter to the editor asking "Why in the world did the bridge need to be closed?" It's not at all clear that the reason is to prevent vandalism, or even that it's a response to public dissatisfaction with charging for lawn seats. Indeed, the letter writer himself doesn't seem to think so: he suggests it's "because Tori Amos and her crew need to have the world's most expensive red carpet or something." This whole section needs to go, unless you can come up with some real controversies. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can not find any other reference to vandalism fear for the bridge so I will remove it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the themes section, you need to be more explicit that some of those statements are based on other people's opinions. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A little better, but it will need some copyediting. There's very little organization within that paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to add some organization to the section by breaking it into three paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some new comments relating to that section:

• Phrases like "Scultpural characteristics" and "sculptural elements" might be too vague for readers who don't normally view architecture articles. Are those technical terms? I'm not sure where you draw the line between "sculptural elements" and "architectural elements".

• In a sense, I am out of my element when using the word sculptural. In truth, it came from a conversation at WikiProject Visual Arts. It seems to be the word a visual arts person uses to describe the artistic component of an architectural object. I presume it was used properly in the context of the sentence and used it in the article in that way. I do not recall if I saw the word in any of the secondary sources that I used. Do you think a reader of the theme section would understand that sculptural means the artistic component of architecture? Kamin uses the phrase "part sculpture" in the sense that it is partly a work of art. I presume your problem is with the adjective sculptural and not with either characteristics or elements and have responded as such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, as I look at Gilfoyle "sculptural abstraction" is a term from his book. It seems sculptural is understood to mean the artistic component of architecture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I assumed it meant something like that. Still, I'd prefer that the language in the article were clearer. To make that kind of distinction between "artistic" and "architectural" just begs too many questions about how we define "art". Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just gave you two points of reference for sculptural being the proper terminology. I think we are suppose to use language that people in the field use. Books on the park use the term and WPians in at WP:WPVA use the term. If you don't understand it that does not make it the wrong term to use. If you said "Tony you are using sculptural incorrectly." I would change it. It seems to me like you are saying "Tony you are using sculptural the way all the people who understand art use it and I am not familiar with this use." I doesn't make sense to change it for that reason because anyone that doesn't have a clue could then come tell me to yank out proper verbiage because they don't have a clue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But remember, we're supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia. The article should be accessible to anyone. Could you at least tell us which specific structural parts of the bridge are being concealed? Zagalejo^^^ 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The text already says "The concrete base and box girder are flanked by a hollow stainless steel skeleton". That paragraph describes things in detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's further up in the article. Readers might have forgotten that section. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried to reword for clarity. Zagalejo^^^ 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks good also.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the NYT article compares Cloud Gate to Gehry's band shell, not the bridge.

• As I return to the article with the phrase "While Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Gehry both work with stainless steel, their sensibilities couldn't be more different; the artist hides seams, while the architect revels in them." I find it as the lead in a paragraph between the paragraphs about the Cloud Gate and the BP Pedestrian Bridge. The Bandshell discussion is much earlier in the article although this paragraph does mention the bandshell. This paragraph is clearly a transitional paragraph from Cloud Gate to BP Pedestrian Bridge with a mention of the bandshell.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's meant as a transition to the next section. In any case, the only explicit comparison they make is between the bandshell and the Bean, and they don't say anything about the bridge's seams. Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at the structure of the article

• Introduction
• One paragraph with a section title "THE PERISTYLE" referencing Wrigley Square
• One paragraph with a section title "THE BAND SHELL" referencing Jay Pritzker Pavilion
• Two paragraphs with a section title "THE FOUNTAIN" referencing Crown Fountain
• Three paragraphs with a section title "THE JELLYBEAN" referencing Cloud Gate
• One paragraph with a section title "THE BRIDGE" referencing BP Pedestrian Bridge

We are talking about the third paragraph following the section title JELLYBEAN. I do not think this paragraph is referencing the Band Shell exclusively as you suggest. The Bandshell is not even known for its seams while the Bridge is. If an art critic is talking about visible seams in the park he is talking about the bridge. You can mention the bandshell in any sentence following a reference to seams, but when one talks about visible seams in this park it is about the shingles on the Bridge. No other argument is really possible. Look at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion and try to make an argument that an artist discussing seams is talking about the Pavilion to me with a straight face. This is not possible, IMO. In the abstract it might seem as if he is talking about the bandshell because of the following sentence. It is not very likely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seam" can mean a gap. [10]. Zagalejo^^^ 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are numerous critical references to the snakelike bridge and its scales. I have seen no critical references to gaps, joints, ridges, grooves, etc. for the Pavilion. The most common adjective describing the Bridge is snakelike, while the most common adjective for the Pavilion is flowing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what the NYT article says: "While Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Gehry both work with stainless steel, their sensibilities couldn't be more different; the artist hides seams, while the architect revels in them. Indeed, Mr. Gehry's band shell could be a Kapoor sculpture shredded and allowed to weather." It says nothing explicit about the bridge's "seams" or "scales" -- and remember, this is a New York paper, so they can't assume readers have seen the bridge for themselves. If there are numerous critical references referring to the "scales", then just cite some of those. Forget about the NYT article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the word "them" that ends the contested sentence is a reference to seams by Gehry. Artistically, this contrast is quite interesting. It may be the most interesting thematic element of the work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but "them" doesn't necessarily refer to any features of the bridge. Again, I'm sure there are other sources you can use to support the statement you want to make. You don't need to cling to that NYT article. Zagalejo^^^ 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I sat on the Great Lawn for the Grant Park Music Festival at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion today. It has more seams than I remembered (mainly because no one talks about them in any critical reviews). My opinion remains unchanged, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "reveled" is basically lifted from the NYT article (although put into a different tense). Use your own words as much as possible. There are plenty of synonyms for "revel".

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK.Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The second sentence of the second paragraph is very wordy.

• Is that better?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at it again, I think that you could say everything from those first three sentences in one sentence. The three sentences repeat a lot of the same ideas. Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you care to take a stab at it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have the source, so I don't know exactly what Gilfoyle says. But I'll give it a shot. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried, but again, I don't have the Gilfoyle book at hand, so you should double-check to make sure I'm representing him correctly. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "man-made beauty" and "natural beauty" might be considered POV terms. Zagalejo^^^ 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The citation uses the phrase towering human-made structures and later human-made skyscrapers and the phrase natural, sublime beauty of Lake Michigan in a paragraph that goes on and on about "essence of space", "physical reflections of open space", "endless water", and goes on and on about artistic elements. I am paraphrasing lengthy prose, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "belvedere" is enough to imply that someone thinks the views are pretty. Couldn't you just say that "the bridge provides views of both the Historic Michigan Boulevard District and Lake Michigan"? Zagalejo^^^ 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh... why is that something you have to present as Kamin's opinion? You can leave the "belvedere" part. Otherwise, the sentence has no punch. Zagalejo^^^ 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure of your desire. I just reverted the edit back to what it was before. If you want Kamin removed from the sentence it loses some degree of WP:ATT, but with the source it could be removed. Again, not sure what you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a stab at it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On Firefox, the entire article is squeezed by those three huge image boxes. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you figured out your screen resolution yet, so I can respond. I could rearrange and resize images and am willing to do so. Just tell me what the problem is. I kind of think the first image box is important to the reader. It could be moved. The other two image boxes are in locations where they should not be a problem for most. However, in the last image box, I was considering moving the middle image toward the top of the article because it shows the center column that was discussed in the preliminary design section. I think the images of this bridge are important for the reader and should be handled carefully.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As is the case now, I often edit on computers other than mine, thus I'm afraid I cannot find the answer to that. As I have said before, Wikimedia Commons is for people to look at images, whereas Wikipedia is for people to read articles. As I know that you disagree with my opinion, I'll give you a couple suggestions. First, you could probably remove all but one of the "BP Pedestrian Bridge from different perspectives" images, as they show more or less the same thing. Also, maybe move an image from the top of the article to the "Credits" section? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am going to have trouble arguing with you about the three perspective images in a politically correct manner. Suffice it to say from a visual arts perspective they are very different views. The left provides the best geometric perspective of the vertical dimension. The right provides an excellent perpective of the horizontal dimension of the curvature. I should probably move these images to a section describing the geometric complexity of the sculptural bridge. Which image do you think should be moved to the credits section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you are working with me on rearranging the images. I moved the perspectives into the theme section and moved a narrower image box to the top where on some views it will squeeze less with the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The conversion to vertical image boxes is O.K. except for the perspectives, which look goofy. I resized them a bit to make them less likely to squeeze.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Most of the article is starting to look better. The "Final design" section is the only one that is terribly squeezed at this point. I moved one of the images that was crowing the Design section to the Credits sections, but feel free to revert if you don't like it. Also, I'm not sure what "I am going to have trouble arguing with you about the three perspective images in a politically correct manner" is intended to imply. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have reverted two of the layout changes toward the bottom because of some additional text and reformatting that should cause less squeezing because pictures will not be opposite each other. One image box remains narrower than the infobox and the other one in the themes section has been resized a bit to be smaller than it was originally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per the MOS, titles of weblinks shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 17 is lacking a last access date (BP Pedestrian Bridge in the Sturturae databse.) Also, what makes this a reliable source? It says it solicts submissions from everyone...
  • The problem is with the template. The ((Structurae)) template does not have an accessdate parameter like a ((cite web)) template. I have requested a change in the template at User_talk:Hqb#Template:Structurae.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to WP:RS I see the following at [11]: "Structurae is brought to you by Nicolas Janberg, structural and bridge engineer by profession, who works on this site full time on his own, but who obtains a lot of help and information from a large number of professionals from around the world. Hundreds of engineers and architects, professors and students, professionals and amateurs — whom we wish to thank here wholeheartedly — have contributed to this database." It seems to me that Janberg would be a reliable source and that he obtains a lot of help from professionals. It sound not much different from an architecture critic who has industry sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can probably add the last access date manually after the template, solving that problem. The other issue about RS, I'm going to leave this one for other reviewers to decide, as I think it's borderline. Generally, we want to see sources for information on websites or in books. However, it's not like this is highly contentious information either, so, I'll leave it for my fellow reviewers to decide for themselves. (Taking this FAC off my watchlist!)
      • The template has been augmented with an additional accessdate parameter. I have filled it in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment to Tony Look, I don't plan on spending a month arguing with you over this. Do realize that my comments were just samples of problems in the article. Every time I look at it, I find new things that need fixing. I'd advise you to withdraw now, and let a copyeditor work his or her way through it without being rushed. Zagalejo^^^ 07:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose ....

• "who donated $5 million to the Park's construction, the bridge is the first Gehry-designed bridge to have been constructed"—repetition.
  • done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Additionally, the bridge is a sound barrier and a connecting link between Millennium Park and points east, such as the nearby lakefront." and ... and: We could do with a comma here to make the sentence structure easier to ride over. What does "and points east, such as the nearby lakefront" mean?
  • Is this O.K.?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS—the comma needs to be after the closing quotations marks. Edward Uhlir said "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture," and noted ...
  • Actually MOS is that punctuation goes inside quotes for full quotation and outside for phrases. I.E., inside as above or outside as Edward Uhlir said Gehry is the cutting edge of the next "century of architecture",--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Our readers shouldn't have to go through clicking a link and coming back to learn what "berm" means. Please define within commas or parentheses on the spot: the linked article says that a berm is "a level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas." Perhaps just part of this will do, interpolated into the sentence.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Multihyphen-absent gobbledygook. "only called for a 170-foot (51.8 m) long 20-foot (6.1 m) wide bridge"—(1) This occurs quite a lot in architectural articles, and is very clumsy with the conversions (even without, a triple hyphenated compound epithet is required. Look: "only called for a 170-foot-long, 20-foot-wide bridge"—correct, but gawky. Here's your model for doing it: "called for a bridge only 170 ft (51.8 m) long and 20 feet (6.1 m) wide". See? Very simple recasting. I see this is used in "Final design" already. (2) Put "only" as late in the sentence as possible. Only called for? Rather than insisted? No.
  • That was a pretty confusing directive so I rewrote the sentence without only.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• En dashes would be so much nicer: "an 800-to-900-foot (240 to 270 m) bridge"—>"an 800–900-foot (240–270 m) bridge. Again, this should be common fair for text on this field. But why not recast as I've suggested above? ", thus ... "a bridge 800–900 feet (240–270 m) long". Much better.
  • Sandy says to use ((convert)) for FAC conversions when possible. You should have them change the to command to your liking so this would not be a problem. Maybe there is another adjustment parameter for the to that I don't know about, but I am just using the template I am suppose to use. I can not control what type of dashes it uses and I don't convert outside of templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Sandy doesn't. Sandy says to provide conversions per MoS, but correctly hyphenated (which sometimes means you have to do it manually). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put a request in at Template talk:Convert to switch the dash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you help me explain the change request at Template_talk:Convert#to_command. The programmer is not convinced the ndash is proper MOS. If I am explaining it wrong then we will have to ask for an ndash parameter possibly, but I think it is always suppose to be ndash with the to parameter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I now have the right parameter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate "which caused". "... bridge, which caused Gehry to come up with ten more designs." Try bridge; Gehry subsequently came up ....". I think the causality is obvious and doesn't need to be marked.
  • The which was malplaced as noted and I have rewritten otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "northwest-southeast"—nope, MOS wants an en dash, since it's directional
  • Yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "with ramps on the west, leading south, and the east, leading north"—bumpety-bump bump. And confusing. You can't say "western ramps leading south, and ...", can you?
  • That is a good idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "cantilever"—don't write for experts; let us dummies into it too, and don't expect people to divert to links to find out what specialist terms mean. "... cantilevers (beams supported on one end) from opposing ...". Easy. Remember that most people in the world still have dial-up. So now your sentence is a little longer, simply split it after "street" with a semicolon plus "this".
  • You and I seem to have a disagreement on links. It is not clear to me why a link for informational purposes needs to be summarized in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't treat this as the fixit list. I'm not reading further, but want to point out why whatever copy-editing you've thus far arranged for needs to be augmented by more careful work.

• Maybe I should have put this through peer review, but I made the following requests for editorial assistance to people who had expressed interest in this or related topics Dank55-1, Dank55-2, Loggie, Torsodog, and Lpangelrob.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that this nomination was premature, and quite understand Zagalejo's frustration. The FAC page should not be this long—it's drawing our precious reviewer resources away from dealing with other articles. Please nominate articles that avoid the problems reviewers are having to point out time and again. I'd like to see evidence of evolving skill in their preparation based on the feedback received in the past.

• Main complaints have been links in the past. This was not an issue here. Excessive images have been a problem in the past and there has been minimal complaints about that here. I have attempted to seek guidance from a reasonable number of people before presenting this here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. The appalling overlinking in your previous nominations is much, much better here, and look, we can actually see the high-value links that were previously embedded in a blue haze. But I see a sentence that spoils it: I wonder why, for example, "footbridge" is linked. It tells us: "A footbridge is a bridge designed for pedestrians and in some cases cyclists and horse riders, rather than vehicular traffic." Hey, that's useful. And the image casts new light on the BP Pedestrian Bridge. That's called diversionary browsing, and should be discouraged as a technical policy; rather, readers who want to jungle their way through tree-branches can easily type in any item they see in the article. Then we have that obscure term "handrails"; "parapets" might be worth linking, but not the others; you need to assume that the reader has a reasonable knowledge of English vocabulary. Tony (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I remain unclear why you feel footbridge is not a relevant link for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My best guess is that you are suggesting it serves as a de facto dab page. None of the sub-types fit this bridge. However, I have found beam bridge on the page and linked to that as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by dvdrw

• Support - looks good to me! dvdrw 05:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC) After TonyTheTiger's request that I say something more than just support I noticed the following...[reply]
• 1)In the second line in the "themes" section it says, "Kamin describes the bridge as a delightful pleasure that was designed to emphasize its artistic elements while deemphasizing its concrete and steel support system.[7]" You are paraphrasing him in this sentence, but to my ear you are just jumbling his words together. I would use a direct quotation instead. Starting with "Kamin describes the bridge as a [...]" I expected to hear a quotation. I was also expecting to hear about its serpentine quality since it is in the "themes" section, and this is mentioned by Kamin first off in the citation. This is most likely the formal concept for this bridge, Gehry often uses animal themes for his buildings-- snakes and fish especially with the shingle-like quality of their scales. Yes, this is in the lead but it should be in "themes" as well. I would consider moving "themes" under the "design" heading, as these where determined in the design process.
  • Do you have a source for the statement that Gehry often uses animal themes? I added a bit about the snakes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found plenty of sources along these lines. I'm not trying to say this is all he's doing, there is a lot more there. Yet there is often a biomorphic quality to his works.[12] Some specific examples of animals are fish,[13] notably gefilte fish and the Guggenheim,[14] but there also figure people,[15] and in one building, and in some sculptures a horse head;[16] but what you are interested in for this article are snakes, so maybe you could talk about his early snake lamps [17] for context. You could mention that the siding in his other projects such as the Guggenheim have a scale-like quality.[18] There is a coiled snake project I remember seeing but unfortunately I can't find it now. dvdrw 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to edit any of the articles at WP:CHIFTD because it looks like you are a good and knowledgeable researcher. I imagine most of what you found belongs at Frank Gehry. However, we can use some of it here. I will try to figure some of it out and add as appropriate. You should add as you see fit as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence you are referencing was modified by another FAC reviewer. I can not please everyone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 2)The sources: very good, but I would try to find some to add that are not Chicago newspapers, as it starts to sound monolithic. Look for ideas in architectural magazines and journals.
  • If I knew how to find such sources, I would. However, anyone is able to step in and contribute. Feel free to join in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are very good, like I said. I enjoy reading papers such as these much more than magazines. It is just sometimes going to the library and digging a little helps flesh out what isn't already available on the web. I'm trying to help but I have a lot on my plate too. dvdrw 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I try to get info from Library sources. I just have not mastered the art of researching trade journals. That is not a developed skill of mine. Help welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 3)From the second to last sentence in the lead, "[...] and is known for its aesthetics." I would qualify "aesthetics" here. I think this is a very descriptive moment, and I wouldn't hesitate to say "fluid aesthetic" or "biomorphic aesthetic." "Aesthetics" alone seems to vague and I think this project has a specific aesthetic that you should try to describe in this instance. Even if intentionally vague it could be expanded upon without all the description going to engineering and function.
  • I am not sure what you are asking me to do. I have started by linking the term for explanatory purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just seems to me like a good time in the article to describe the aesthetic. Just saying it has an aesthetic doesn't say much in my opinion. dvdrw 01:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I gave it a shot, but am not sure what you want. Feel free to tinker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• These may not sound like my reasons for supporting, but I think after these concerns and the others on this page are met it should meet the criteria beyond doubt. I can look even closer tomorrow, but I'm going to leave it at this for now.

Regards, dvdrw 07:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying again and again that you've had this and that person copy-edit it already is irrelevant. We can go only by what we see. How are you going to deal with the rest? (The bit that I haven't taken samples from.)? My samples are from one small part, to illustrate the urgent need for further work on the writing. Do you have someone in mind? Please search. Tony (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it fails here, it will go to peer review. I can't do everything by myself. Compared to earlier WP:CHICAGO efforts such as the Chicago Board of Trade Building FAC where others were helping, this is a mess. No one from the project is coming around to help. I am balancing a bunch of balls at once. Yesterday, I just got Rob Pelinka promoted to GA for the project. I am working on Jon Corzine. I am trying to clean up all of the other WP:CHIFTDs in part based on feedback here. In addition, it seems like you are holding me to a higher standard than my prior FAs and even some other FACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to juggle so many things at once. My impression of you is that you're always in a mad rush to get things promoted to GA or FA. Just take your time! I'm willing to help you with this article, but I really want you to withdraw this nomination, so I can work at my leisure and gather some off-line sources. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify your impression. There are all types of contributors at WP. There are guys (generic maybe I should use a androgynous word like peeps or something) who research, guys who copyedit, guys who program bots, guys who eveluate featured content, guys who chase vandals, guys who write policy, guys who coordinate projects, etc. I like to research stuff and assemble it in a cogent manner. That is what i do. My current horizon for GA is Jon Corzine, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, Barry Bonds. My current pipeline at FA is various WP:CHIFTD, Jack Kemp, Walter O'Malley, Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago). If you want to declare this nom a WP:SNOW, I would surrender and nominate Crown Fountain because I have addressed as many of its PR concerns as I can and it as well as Cloud Gate are the only two presentable components of WP:CHIFTD, but Cloud Gate is at PR. Alternatively, I could go down the list beyond WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I plead with you to take Zagalejo up on his/her offer so that there is not another Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) which used up tremendous FAC resources to no useful end, from my point of view. There is not a need, in fact it is not fair to FAC, for you to juggle so many balls. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like you are lining up to get in the way of the promotion of this one. I have no problem giving this one a month at PR and bringing it back.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreement with Zagalejo and Mattisse: Indeed, TTT, you're not engaging with the point that is being made in unison by a number of reviewers. Every nomination here demands scarce reviewer resources, and we keep pointing out to you—to no avail, it seems—that you're taking up a disproportionate slice of these resources. It's not fair on a number of counts: I'm sure you can work those out. The sheer size of your nomination pages indicates that something is wrong. And just a relatively small point, framing your GAs as having done something "for the project" is not something I'd be boasting about. GAs are worth little because the process is not rigorous. I want to see a significant slowing in your rate of nominations, and MUCH better preparation so that there isn't a royal commission here into each one. Tony (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:FAC rules are clear each nominator can nominate one at a time. The disproportionate slice charge was thrown at me about 75 GAs ago at WT:GAC around the New Year when I had about 30 concurrent noms. More than half of those are now GAs. GA decided to match my nomination time donation with reviewer time donation and the GA project has gotten another 75 or so GAs out of me. There are constructive ways to participate at FAC and there are prohibitive ways to contribute. It is quite possible to derail any FA nomination with well-timed subterfuge. You and I know full well that you can describe an article as a piece of crap or as heavenly and get a cadre to follow along. You and I have seen some of the crap that you describe as well written because you like it where I have come by and pointed out its terrible construction.). I promise you I could take half of the most recent FA promotions that have had your endorsement and make it look like they can not write. Of late, you have decided to derail all my FACs. You have done so masterfully. I think you have done it enough times to RFA proof me.
  • You do make a valid point that being the most productive GA producer on all of wikipedia is far from commendable (in some world somewhere). First of all, there are three types of GAs. There are articles that did not exist where I have done more than a little by taking them to GA from nowhere. E.G., More Demi Moore has gotten at least 8984 hits in each of its first five months on WP. Regardless of whether the process is rigorous or not, having a half decent article on a subject a lot of people want to read about is a good contribution. It is a different contribution than vandal fighting on a page that gets 50000 hits a day but it is still a non-trivial contribution. I have also jumped onboard in the creation of a GA by another editor. In this case, the article would have been created, but became a better resource because of my involvement. These are certainly less important contributions because the article merely got improved by my involvement and it was not so important because it did not even exist before. Then there are articles like Jack Kemp, where they are moderately traveled pages that look like crap when I arrived. Cleaning up crap is a good thing. Not all my cleanup GAs started out this bad, but improving pages is a contribution. It may not rank up there with having articles anointed FA
  • With respect to the slowing of my rate, I am allowed one active thing in the FAC queue at a time. I will continue to present things and you are free to derail them at your leisure in any way that entertains you. I only wish you would be as constructive with my nomination as you are with some of the half-assed grammar ones that you commend so often.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I was the first to comment on this FAC, and as is often the case I have been reserving judgement until now. The article's OK, and there's been a fair amount of improvement. But not enough, I feel, to make me feel confident that it'll reach FA standard any time soon. There are both broad structural problems and more local sentence-level issues. As an example of the former, I still don't know what "Themes" is meant to mean. (The word "theme" is not used once in that section.) As an example of the latter, take the repetition in the (now very short) section on "Controversies": "Another concern is [. . .]. An additional concern [. . .]." Meanwhile, I'm not sure that the nominator's comporting himself in the most helpful manner, though I do recognize that the work that he is putting in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you are noting a short controversy section. I have reworked it and added back some removed content that now seems more relevant. Broad structural problems that you don't describe is not constructive and not even actionable. Tell me something that I can fix. I may by the end of the day withdraw this and nominate an alternate candidate. In this case, please comment when I put this at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to play guessing games about what it "seems like" I'm noting! The example of broad structural problems (which I have been mentioning for some time: see unstruck comments above) was the "Themes" section. I've asked this already, but what is this doing? Why is it here? My guess is that by themes you mean "aesthetics" (a very different concept, of course). But I doubt you're sure, yourself. Second, I gave you an example of sentence-level repetition. (I mentioned only in passing the short "Controversies" section, which is structural rather than sentence-level). Such repetition continues to afflict the prose throughout, though it has been improved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you pass by the PR and give more detail on your concerns. There is a triumverate asking for a withdrawal of this nom, so I will withdraw it and nominate something else. As for whether a better section title is Aesthetic, I will take your word for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close request After numerous responses that this needs retooling I am going to move this to PR and move on to other editorial work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:59, 26 July 2008 [19].

---

Nominator: --—— Gadget850 (Ed)

previous FAC

Self-nominator --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• 'Units are led entirely by volunteers, supported by local councils using both paid professionals and volunteers." - comma -> "and"?
• "The YMCA was an early promoter of social welfare and other reforms involving young men that focused on programs of mental, physical, social and religious development." could be better phrased as "The YMCA was an early promoter of reforms involving young men, such as social welfare, that focused in programs of mental, physical, social and religious development." The former could be misread more easily, methinks.
• Does the MOS have anything on U.S. versus US? Seems to me that every other acronym in the article is sans periods.
• "the Woodcraft Indians started by Ernest Thompson Seton in 1902,[7] and the Sons of Daniel Boone founded by Daniel Carter Beard in 1905." - why the serial comma? It's only two items in a list.
• "Several small local Scouting programs for boys started independently in the U.S. soon after— most of these later merged with the BSA after it was formed." - is the "after it was formed" really necessary? It's fairly obvious that it couldn't merge with anything before it came into existence.
• '"... to teach [boys] patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values ..."' - I'm fairly sure the ellipses after the phrase aren't needed. Additionally, the other two quotes don't have ellipses before them, either, and I'm fairly sure consistency should be maintained.
• "Later, in 1937, Deputy Chief Scout Executive George J. Fisher expressed the BSA's mission, "Each generation as it comes to maturity has no more important duty than that of teaching high ideals and proper behavior to the generation which follows"" - should the comma after "mission" not be a semicolon?
• "These policies are controversial and are considered by some to be unfair." - the reference is to an organisation which considers exactly that. "Some" is vague and isn't really upheld by the reference.
• "The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts." - in the reference given, only three cases are described, and only one can really be described as upholding the legal right mentioned in the article.

More later, possibly. Interesting reference style, by the way. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply
  • 'Units are led entirely by volunteers, supported by local councils using both paid professionals and volunteers." - comma -> "and"?
    • Changed comma to "who are"
  • "The YMCA was an early promoter of social welfare and other reforms involving young men that focused on programs of mental, physical, social and religious development." could be better phrased as "The YMCA was an early promoter of reforms involving young men, such as social welfare, that focused in programs of mental, physical, social and religious development." The former could be misread more easily, methinks.
    • Changed to "The YMCA was an early promoter of reforms for young men with a focus on social welfare and programs of mental, physical, social and religious development."
  • Does the MOS have anything on U.S. versus US? Seems to me that every other acronym in the article is sans periods.
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), U.S. more common in American English.
  • "the Woodcraft Indians started by Ernest Thompson Seton in 1902,[7] and the Sons of Daniel Boone founded by Daniel Carter Beard in 1905." - why the serial comma? It's only two items in a list.
    • Fixed
  • "Several small local Scouting programs for boys started independently in the U.S. soon after— most of these later merged with the BSA after it was formed." - is the "after it was formed" really necessary? It's fairly obvious that it couldn't merge with anything before it came into existence.
    • Fixed.
  • '"... to teach [boys] patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values ..."' - I'm fairly sure the ellipses after the phrase aren't needed. Additionally, the other two quotes don't have ellipses before them, either, and I'm fairly sure consistency should be maintained.
    • Fixed.
      • Comment: As this is a quotation fragment, I believe the article did comply with WP:ELLIPSES in its original version, to indicate that portions of the original quotation were omitted. Also, with regard to the Fisher quote (below), it is customary in American English to introduce the speaker's or writer's quotation with a comma (or sometimes a colon), not a semicolon. JGHowes ^talk - 04:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, in 1937, Deputy Chief Scout Executive George J. Fisher expressed the BSA's mission, "Each generation as it comes to maturity has no more important duty than that of teaching high ideals and proper behavior to the generation which follows"" - should the comma after "mission" not be a semicolon?
    • Fixed.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm a little confused about this article still, but I think that it has improved over the course of this FAC. I still would like to have those 2007 membership figures instead of 2006. Changed to neutral, if that's possible for an FA. :) --Meldshal (§peak to me) 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If you have specific concerns, please list them— if you are confused, others may be as well. I finally found the full 2007 numbers with a bit of help, so this has been updated. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support It's even better than the last time!Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A lot of my points on the previous FAC have not been addressed. Besides that, the final comment about their being a large amount of literature on the BSA not being included needs to be remedied. A lot of the references are primary, which isn't the best. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind listing what concerns are still outstanding? I think there is some confusion over that. The BSA refs are mostly about internal organization on the BSA and BSA is pretty much the sole source for that info. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its not. I would suggest you find a major university library and perform a search. Just going to WorldCat, I found these immediately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and on and on and on. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finance has been expanded. Here are the references in my collection: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Resources. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the specific references you listed:

• 1- The Boy Scouts : an American adventure

In my personal library; used as a source

• 2- On my honor: Boy Scouts and the making of American youth

Available at a local library; I checked it out again because it is relevant to improving the Impact section as recommended by other comments.

• 3- Story of the Boy Scouts

Appears to be about Scouting in the UK

• 4- Get off my honor : the assault on the Boy Scouts of America, Hans Zeiger

I am reluctant to use this. Zeiger is militantly pro-BSA, his columns are vitriolic and often historically inaccurate and this book is even more so. You can preview it at Google Books.[20] It might work into the Impact section, with care.

• 5- Building character in the American boy

In my personal library; used as a source. Does an excellent job of discussing the origins and early operation of the BSA into the context of American culture of the time.

• 6- Building a popular movement; a case study of the public relations of the Boy Scouts of America

Available online, already used it to support the statement about the progressive movement.

• 7- Scouting for the truth : ethical culture in the Boy Scouts of America

Thesis only available from Penn State

I had already searched the University of Virgina and the James Madison University library systems; I found several items that are interesting, but have no relevance here. The best bibliography of Scouting material is at *Paxtu: The International Web Site for the History of Guiding & Scouting. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Impact on American life section (I chose one randomly) needs work. Some random comments;

• "The term "Boy Scout" is used to generally describe someone who is earnest and honest, or who helps other cheerfully; it can also be used as a pejorative, sarcastic term" - it sounds like it is used sarcastically to describe someone who is earnest and honest... is that what's intended? I think you need to distinguish to two possible uses better.
• "Over two-thirds of all astronauts have had some type of involvement in Scouting" - seems randomly thrown in... what's it got to do with the prior sentence?
• Indeed, the entire first paragraph is just random praise of the Scounts thrown in with very little context. I'm concerned that there is barely any negative commentary in this section.
• "Scouts have been urged to "Do a Good Turn Daily"" - you'll need a ref for this wording (quote)
• And how is the image in this section relevant?

—Giggy 11:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. --Una Smith (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Too much content of this article is (apparently) outside its scope. For example, content about the Scout Movement, "Scouting", and "scouting": this content should be removed or should be related directly to BSA.
2. This article also lacks significant content that is within its scope. For example, content on the origins of BSA itself.
3. Sources are inadequate; they are selected primarily from within BSA's own literature.
4. POV is not neutral. This is related to the biased selection of sources.

• Reply I am just so confused...
• Too much content of this article is (apparently) outside its scope. For example, content about the Scout Movement, "Scouting", and "scouting": this content should be removed or should be related directly to BSA.
  • The BSA is one national movement within the broader international Scout movement. Scout Movement as such is used once; Scouting is used multiple times to refer to the BSA Scouting movement; scouting—referring to military, sports or other scouting—is never used.
• This article also lacks significant content that is within its scope. For example, content on the origins of BSA itself.
  • Please define the missing content.
  • As a contributing editor, you added content that was later removed. If that is the issue here, then lets discuss it at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#Origins.
• Sources are inadequate; they are selected primarily from within BSA's own literature.
  • Of 86 references, 31 are directly from the BSA. Much of this is in the organization section, as there is very little third-party material on the internal BSA organization. If this use of source material is a problem then we will remove the related content.
• POV is not neutral. This is related to the biased selection of sources.
  • The article is intended to introduce the BSA to readers who are not familiar with the organization. If there is content that is missing, not accessible or is biased, please point it out so that we can correct it.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Well done in a lot of ways, but I have to agree that some things are missing. I agree both that the history section needs more on the BSA itself, and there are some neutrality concerns. For example, consider the following passage:
  • One of the more visible methods of Cub Scouting is the uniform that gives each boy a level of identity within the den, the pack and the community. The boys learn teamwork by meeting and working together in a den of eight to ten boys under adult leadership. They learn and apply the ideals codified in the Cub Scout Promise and the Law of the Pack, [30] and in the Character Connections program that develops the core values of citizenship, compassion, cooperation, courage, faith, health and fitness, honesty, perseverance, positive attitude, resourcefulness, respect and responsibility.
• This reads like a press release straight from the BSA, and doesn't have a logical flow (how do the uniforms relate to learning teamwork or any of the other stuff?). This is one example of a problem that exists in several sections. I also agree in part with the above comment that the sourcing is not broad enough - the BSA itself and Usscouts.org (a site run by Scout leaders) are the only sources for large swathes of the article. (Also footnote 24 is missing a publisher) Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:59, 26 July 2008 [21].

---

Nominator(s): Stardust8212

This article has been a "Good Article" for some months now and I feel the necessary changes have been made to move to the next level. I believe the main issues presented in the most recent peer review have been addressed and I hope that I will be able to address any further issues satisfactorily during this process. Thank you for your time in reviewing this article. Stardust8212 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments regarding MoS compliance.
• In the "Continuity" section, images shouldn't be left-aligned under section headers, although given the small amount of text in the section, I know that might be hard to avoid.
• In its initial airing the episode had "unprecedented strong numbers" with a Nielsen rating of 11.2/17 in homes and 9.6/23 in adults 18-49. "18-49" should have an en dash instead of a hyphen.
• The Futurama premiere was watched by more people than either its lead-in show (The Simpsons) or the show following it (The X-Files) and it was the number one show among men aged 18-49 and teenagers for the week. Likewise.

Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've fixed the dashes, I'm terrible with dashes though so it's equally likely that I fouled them up. I tried a couple different layouts for the continuity section to address your concern but they all looked pretty bad, anything that is right aligned pops down below the infobox and moving the images below the first paragraph moves them away from the relevant text and interferes with the section below. The only "good" option I can come up with is to switch the production section with the continuity section, then the images could be right aligned without as much infobox interference but I'm not sure I want to change the article structure to deal with a pretty minor style issue. If you have a better idea I would love to hear it. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Stardust8212 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, the dashes look better. I also tried a new format for the images, but feel free to revert if you don't like it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the suggestion but I reverted it, there was the same problem with the images not being next to the text they are discussed in (at 1600x1200 they move all the way down next to the Broadcast and Reception section) and also the label of "Scenes from Space Pilot 3000" isn't technically correct as the second image is from a later episode. Here's an idea, could the images be placed at the bottom of the plot section on the left side so that they still align with the proper text but are not actually under the section header? I'll try that now, I think it's a bit better.Stardust8212 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am unconvinced Image:Nibbler-SpacePilot3000.jpg and Image:Fry3.gif are both justified WP:NFCC#3, I think one would suffice Fasach Nua (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think it does satisfy it, a single image cannot portray that the exact same scene is shown in two different episodes but changed to show a change in continuity. Since the article specifically discusses the change it seems appropriate to show this change. Both images are low resolution so I don't think 3b is an issue either. Stardust8212 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I was looking at the images on an old LCD screen, and they didnt come out too well, you are correct both are needed. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think "Cultural references" should really come before "Broadcast and reception". Also, (in B&R) New Statesman, Science Fiction Weekly and IGN.com should be in italics. Gran² 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done. Thanks! Stardust8212 13:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Seems decent. The lead is a little short, but then so too is the article. I only saw a few issues that I couldn't immediately address:

• As Futurama is a U.S. production, shouldn't one of the episode titles be "Love's Labors Lost in Space"? Or am I mistaken about the origin?
• "...time is seen passing outside the window until reaching the year 3000. This is a parody of a similar scene in the film The Time Machine." How is this scene a "parody"?
• Please clarify why "olde fortran malt liquor" is an inside joke. (per Olde English 800 perhaps?)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments, I will see what I can do to address them. As for the episode title Love's Labours Lost in Space, the title is a reference to Love's Labours Lost so it uses the English spelling, there has been considerable confusion over this as can be seen on that article's talk page archive however the title itself can be confirmed on the DVD. I'll see what I can do about your other points (though it may take me a couple days, visiting family over the weekend). Stardust8212 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After verifying with the audio commentary I have changed the wording to say the scene was inspired by The Time Machine rather than parodying it. I have also added some further commentary about Olde Fortran to hopefully clarify this point. Stardust8212 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The prose is really awkward. These are just the first few examples:

• "It also sets the stage for many of the events to follow in the series, foreshadowing plot points that are not revealed until later in the show’s run." "for many of the events to follow in the series" could be "future events". "Foreshadowing plot points that are not revealed until later in the show's run." - By definition, foreshadowing is something that isn't "revealed" until later.
• "In general the episode received good reviews; often contrasting it to Groening’s other series, The Simpsons." This is just a weird sentence.
• "He is defrosted in what is now New New York City one thousand years later, on December 31, 2999" could be "He is defrosted on December 31, 2999, in what is now New New York City."
• "Refusing to accept this...." "to accept this" is redundant.

These types of mistakes appear throughout the article. Also, the images are throwing off the text format in both of my monitor resolutions (1024x768 and 1680x1050). Could they be moved somewhere else?-Wafulz (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone went through and did a basic copyedit. However, the writing is still really awkward. I think someone uninvolved with the article should have a look.-Wafulz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not noting it here, I am trying to work these issues just some real life issues have kept me from having as much time to work on it as I would like, I will try to find a fresh copy editor, it is not something I am very good at myself. Stardust8212 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a couple editors who might be interested to copyedit, hopefully this will help bring the article to your standards. As for the images looking awful...I fully agree. I personally liked the original layout[22] but the first comment here informed me that images apparently just aren't done that way (even if it does look better :-P) so this is the best alternative that has come up, I'm open to other suggestions. Stardust8212 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Definitely GA quality, but not up to FA standards. The lead is short, and I don't really like the use of images in the article. Needs a screenshot that appropriately illustrates the story content of the episode. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Do you have a problem with the images that are there or do you just think there needs to be another image? How about something like Image:Futurama - The Future.jpg? I will see what I can do about the lead. Stardust8212 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:19, 25 July 2008 [23].

---

Nominator(s): rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

I'm nominating the India House for featured article. This article material has been mainly (almost entirely) my own contribution. I have tried to make sure the FA criteria have been met. I did not recieve any indications that the article was not NPOV, one editor who I asked for comments said it was well-structured and a copy editor said it was an excellent article. I have tried and addressed the issues raised in the Peerreview, and the comments that further reading was not available has been addressed. I have made use of all the sources I could find available, bot amongst journals and historical works, to try and make this comprehensive but focussed. Lastly, the article was copyedited a second time (by myself, today). I would like to nominate this article for FA now, not least because this will also help improve the Hindu-German Conspiracy to FA standards. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.bhavans.info/heritage/champakchatto.asp a reliable source?

Bhavans info is published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. If this is not deemed reliable, I am sure I'll be able to find other sources. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that looks reasonably reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The JOglekar, Jaywant D. reference is published by lulu.com, which is a vanity press. What makes this a reliable source?

Give me half an hour, I'll replace this. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joglekar references now substituted and text altered where appropriate. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources looked good, links checked out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

• Comment Why is the "see also" in "Nationalist movement" section at the bottom of the section? Why not put it at the top? I think that's where they typically go. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nationalist movement section already had it at the bottom, as were all the other see also templates, save one. I have (now) put the see also sections at the bottom of every section, which I think is consistent. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Image:3411.jpg – do you know when this was published? Savarkar lived until 1966, so it's quite possible that the image doesn't fall under the public domain in India. Speaking of which, you might want to check the public domain status of all other Savarkar images. Some of these images don't include dates either. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:TIS.jpg – why is this applicable under the terms of fair use? It was published in 1909, hence public domain.
  • For journal publications, do not include the journal, issue number and page numbers in the "title" parameter. There are separate parameters for those items. Please see ((Harvard reference)) for more. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me half an hour, I'll sort this out. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savarkar image has been removed, the TIS template changed to ((PD-US-1923-abroad)), journal template sorted. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few comments

• [8][9][10][11][12] -- why do five references need to be used for such non-controversial and obvious information taught in class nine at schools? One or two would be more than enough.
• Watch out for overlinking. Shyamji Krishna Varma and Hindu-German Conspiracy are linked twice in the lead alone. There's no need to link UK, US, Europe, India more than once in the entire article (even that isn't necessary, if you think about it).
• Rationalise the use of "Main article" and "See also" as they affect the appearance of the article by creating white spaces. Often they are mostly unnecessary as the links could be incorporated in the prose itself. indopug (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: i like to support.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Indopug.

You may find the statement non-controversial, but I know a number of people may take exception to the notion that political and social unification was a result of the company's or the Raj's work. Moreover, others will also suggest that India was already an entity under the various pre-company kingdoms without considering or giving due weight to the the changes in the 1800s. The referencs therefore help to focus the argument to the Raj period and cites references so that such arguments are not raised and any doubts are clarified. The reference literature should direct the reader's apetite for more info.

I'll sort out the overlinking as you suggest, give me a few hours, since I may also need to edit afew more lines as well.

Rationalisation of template: ditto. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Varma and HGC links now rationalised, and main article templates reduced to where only brief outlines are given and larger main articles exists. See also templates retained where topic is relevant but not discussed or mentioned. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: Image:Image delegates INC1885.jpg, Image:Shyamji Krishna Varma.jpg, Image:Chatto01.jpg, Image:Champakraman Pillai.jpg need information on when they were published. --NE2 11:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Image delegates INC1885.jpg, published I believe 1885- British Library (BL) collection. Moving here catalogue Reference: T10951.

Image:Chatto01.jpg is of Virendranath Chattopadhyaya, who died in 1937. It is therefore definitely taken before that date. Moreover the photo is from a personal collection and the owner (who may be linked to User:BobClive) has not made any claims. If this is still a problem, I'll get in touch with the uploader to sort this out.

Image:Champakraman Pillai.jpg- Pillai also died in 1934. So I am certain it was before this time. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is the date of publication, not the date taken. If it is unpublished, a different set of rules applies (year of death of the copyright holder plus some large number of years). --NE2 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can get in touch with Pritwindranath Mukherjee or Dwaipayanc to see if the copyright can be copylefted. I can revomve the c.r. pILLAI img of needed. Give me some time to sort out this img issue. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Images:

I have emailed afew people to look for free licensed images and for permission for the images already under use in the page. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe P Mukherjee granted permission to use the Chatto image. I am awaiting an email. But User:BobClive has communicated to me that this is fine. I am awaiting a reply for Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan on Champak and Krishna Varma image. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have permission to use Image:Chatto01.jpg. I am still awaiting response from Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Is it at all possible to use the two images under fair use? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have permission from Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan to use the Champakaraman Pillai image. I will change the license in a short while. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Shyamji Krishna Varma replaced with a Historic image of Cama with flag in 1907. Fair use rationale. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the writing improves. This is an important article. It still needs work to meet the criteria.

• Are you sure it's "The India House" and not just "India House"? In fact, now I see the second half-way down the lead.
• I'm finding the clumps of multiple reference numbers very intrusive. For example, why three refs for a relatively uncontentious statement—and in the lead, too, where we want to capture readers' attention with minimal clutter: "India House rapidly developed into a centre for intellectual and political activism, a meeting place for radical Indian nationalists in Britain.[2][3][4]". And this porcupine: "Nationalism had been on the rise in India throughout the last decades of the 1800s as a result of the social, economic and political changes that were instituted in the country through the greater part the Century. The result was the realisation and refinement of the concept of Indian identity.[9][10][11][12][13]". No; ration them to the most important or turn into notes, or something. There are reference gurus around who might be able to help. And I see reference duplications in consecutive sentences; our readers will cope with a rationing in these cases.
• Talking of clutter, there's a lot of unnecessary linking. MOSLINK and CONTEXT say drop the linking of well-known geographical names, such as India, the United States, and here, Europe. This will allow your high-value links to breathe. Why not remove the date autoformatting, which MOSNUM no longer encourages?
• Can you pipe the links so the spacing of people's initials doesn't clash? "V.V.S." "M. P. T." etc. Me, I hat the spacing, but the guide says either is OK, unfortunately.
• "through the greater part the Century"—No.
• Start of section: "From very early on, the Congress also sought to inform"—get rid of "also", please, and it will be stronger. Can you audit the whole text for "also"? It's all over the place. Use only if absolutely necessary.
• Whoever said to put "however" in the middle of clauses deserves to be shot. "In its aims, however, the committee was". Tell the readers the new angle at the start, please. Same for "Therefore" and other angle-words.

• I'm planning to do a full copyedit of the article today or (probably) tomorrow. I just wanted to quibble, however, with this request. Strunk & White, indeed, insist that it is not to come first in the sentence or clause. In the case of this sentence, I prefer: "The British organisation, however, was largely unsuccessful in its aims, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate the adoption of more radical approaches." This would also remove some of the commas which currently overburden the sentence. – Scartol • Tok 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And lots more. These are only random examples from the top. The whole text needs therapy. TONY (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments., and I am glad you point out this is a very important article. But on the points you raise-

• • The appears to me to be the correct usage since India House is also a specific noun.
  • The clumps of reference you mention, if I am correct, you're referring to multiple references. The lead section I had increased the number of references after comments during peer review. For the other parts, I have explained above why I have given multiple references in the sentence you highlight. What seems uncontentious to you may appear heiniously PoV to others, and I know plenty of people who will throw that sentence at your face as well as mine. I wanted to make sure that (and where other multiple references have been given) statements which may appear contentious are supported by strong references. Let me direct you to Talk:India archives from June-July 2007, Talk:British Raj arhives between February and May 2008 archives and Talk:Indian independence movement for example, where comments were made suggesting eg that revolutionary movement for Indian independence is played up these days and was infact non-existent("twiddling their thumbs" according to one editor), or that Hindu right wingers and Savarkar's supporters these days make hooha about the radical movement ("teeming with Hindu right"), or on the other extreme British rule in India and its directors in Britain were nothing but bloodthirsty wolves which did nothing but rape India (equated to "Nazi Germany") etc etc. And these comments are editors who participate in the WP:IND project quite avidly and do work very hard. So Tony, you think it's uncontentious, the next guy who comments might just slap PoV tag on the article.
  • Link etc will be sorted out by myself later today. Pipe link for names, allright, but this is getting irritatingly confsing, one man's MOS seems to be another's eyesore.
  • "Greater part of the century- No" Why???
  • I am glad you've suggested the recommendations. But just leaving it at lots more doesnot help since to me the text would appear perfect, and it has been copyedited by another copyeditor as well. It will really help if you point which bits you disagree with. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the specific points that you have raised. I could not find any "therefore"s, but I have trimmed the references, rationalised and alter text from "also", and trimmed the number of links. The shortened names have been piped without space. I will have a look through the text, but as I have explained before, specific examples would help a lot more than generalised comments. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made requests to a number of editors in WP:PRV to have a look at the article especially with c/e and prose. Some have already started helping out, and also made suggestions. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to peer review this, but it was already at FAC, so now I will make comments here. I will not comment on the text for now as there is a LOCE edit in progress banner (and has been for well over a day). However the images do not meet MOS gudelines currently. Specifically, there is no image in the upper right corner. The images also have pixel widths set, but per WP:MOS#Images all widths should be set to thumb to allow reader preferen ces to take over. Portrait format images can use "vertical" to be narrower. More comments after the copyedit is done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is the best picture that may be added, since the most appropriate would be one of Shyamji Krishna Varma or V.D. Savarkar, but a free or appropriately licensed one I have not found. The pixel issue escaped my mind completely, I will sort this in an hour. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a collage to the top right hand corner, pixel specifications have now been undone

Reluctant oppose I struck my image concerns, thanks. While this is fairly well written and a fascinating topic, there are too many concerns, mostly with language and refs for it to earn my support at this time:

• In the lead, a direct quote is uncited ...was a noted platform for anti-colonial writing and was banned in India during the Raj as "seditious literature".
• There are several places in the article where articles seem to be missing or odd, some examples (not an exhaustive list) follow:
  • India House was both [the?] origin and [a?] "point of support" for a number of noted Indian revolutionaries and nationalists...
  • With the foundations of [the?] IHRS, Krishna Varma began a scheme for scholarships to Indian students...
  • Since the name is "The Indian Sociologist" (TIS), italics like "the Indian Sociologist" are wrong
• Awkward and unclear India House became the focus of Scotland Yard and the nascent Indian Political Intelligence Office's work against Indian revolutionaries, but it ceased to be a potent organisation after its liquidation in the wake of the 1909 assassination ... It was the focus of all of Scotland Yard(??), or was it a focus, or was it the focus of a Scotland Yard investigation?
• Another direct quote without a ref The "British committee of the Congress" published a periodical titled simply India, which provided a platform for moderate (or loyalist) opinion and demands, while keeping the British public informed about the Indian situation.
  • Now it is "The British committee of the Congress published a periodical titled India, which provided a platform for moderate (or loyalist) opinion and demands, while informing the British public about the Indian situation.[15]" but I think this does not follow Wikipedia:MOS#Italics Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a ref It was at this time, during the political upheaval caused by the partition of Bengal, that the first foundations of India House were laid in London by a nationalist Indian lawyer, Shyamji Krishna Varma. Also it is unlcear to me if this means they literally built the physical house (laid the foundations) or if this is more of a metaphor - if the latter, perhaps a better word choice is called for ...that India House was founded in London by a nationalist Indian lawyer... perhaps?
• Awkward However, differences with Crown authority and British resident to the states led to Krishna Varma's dismissal ... perhaps something like However, differences with Crown authority and British residents in these states led to Krishna Varma's dismissal ... is clearer?
• Needs a ref He chose to return to England, where he found freedom of expression more favourable. His views were staunchly anti-colonial, even supporting the Boers during the Second Boer War in 1899.
• Per Wikipedia:See_also#.22See_also.22_for_one_section, the See also in a section should "be placed immediately after the section heading for that section" and are "references to articles that are not wikilinked from the text". So in the "Indian Home Rule Society" section, the See also is at the end (wrong place) and three of the four links are also linked in that section (wrong). ((Main)) might be a better choice.
  • I meant to keep all four links in that example, ((main)) could be used - see Ernest Shackleton, specifically the Endurance Expedition (1914–16) section for an example of this for multiple articles. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Need to explain "ICS" in Nonetheless, the views expressed in TIS drew stinging criticisms from ex-ICS officials ...

Note - these are only problems as far as the "The Indian Sociologist" section. I stopped there for now - needs more copyediting, after which I will be glad to take another look. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have gone through what you highlighted, gimme fifteen minutes for the ((see also)) since a cup of tea is crying for my attention. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reread the part I commented on before and it is much improved, although I still have two concerns noted above. I will look at the rest of the article next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments following up my reluctant oppose

• I copyedited a few places that had minor errors, please revert if I made mistakes. I also looked at the Savarkar section. If Tilak in Savarkar was an admirer of Mazzini, a protégé of Tilak, and a law student is the same as Savarkar's work found its way in India to the extremist Congress leaders of the time, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak., then the link to Tilak should be in the first instance, not the second.
• Assuming this is the same thing as the Abhinav Bharat Society, then this phrase is needlessly repetitive (we already were told he founded it) and uses a different name "initiating the secret society of Abhinav Bharat Mandal.[39]" and could probably be removed.
• These sentences confused me - needs to be clearer in some if Paris or London is the city referred to Savarkar had lived in Paris for sometime, and visited the city often.[44] By 1908, he was able to bring to the folds of his organisation Indian businessmen then residing in the city. During one of his many visits, he was able to acquire a copy of a bomb manual given by the Russian revolutionary Nicholas Safranski to Hem Chandra Das, a Bengali revolutionary in Paris.[45] Savarkar is further known to have met Gandhi while in London, and his hardline views may have influenced Gandhi's opinion on nationalist violence.[46]

I really don't have time to read the rest of the article this closely and make comments - please get a good copyedit and let me know and I will take another look. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The template ((Harvard reference)) is, we're told, deprecated; ((Citation)) should be used instead. And why is there no information on place of publication for the books cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmurray (talk • contribs) --07:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been replaced with ((citation)), place of publications have now been included. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:48, 25 July 2008 [24].

---

Nominator(s): Domiy

This page has recently underwent substantial updates and contributions. I myself and the other editors on the page have ensured it is of the highest accuracy and relevancy, hence references are more than commonly included. Amongst its superior content (which other national football team pages lack), this article is well written. This has also been ensured. Whilst many edits came in over this past month, I myself and sometimes others have gone through and reworded every difficult sentence. As a result, this article is currently in an excellently written prose. With the minor exception of a small amount of sentences being of long length, the rest of the page is very enticingly written, done after careful consideration. Just as the criteria states, its prose is very engaging and of professional quality.

In addition, it is written in a neutral manner. Whilst there were previous issues with this criteria, it is completely solved now as the articles content is stated in an encyclopedic manner and nothing more. It has been this way for a well time standing as well (it is stable!). The structure is also user friendly, all headings and subheadings are in chronological order and easily navigational on by other users in the Table of Contents. The lead has been personally written by me in such a way that it succinctly but still detailed mannered summarizes the rest of the coming article. The lead section is actually the most focused on, as a result of my personal view that a good lead section will entice the user to read further. Subject to such a regard, a lot of trouble has been gone through to find images. This article has all relevant images of the past and present issues of the national team. Such includes famous players, a famous lineup diagram, historical times and supporters and stadiums.

With consideration of all this, I think that this article is currently worthy of becoming a Featured Article material. It previously went under a peer review which was followed and hence fixed up now. Again, compared mainly with the Scotland national football team article, this one includes much more accurate and quantifiable information. Such are the reasons that this article is also up for nomination, and in the long experienced opinion of all its editors, deserves to be. Domiy (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2008

• Oppose sorry, even a really quick glance through shows multiple WP:MOS breaches (e.g. WP:HEAD, WP:DASH, WP:CITE), POV (Notable players - what makes them notable?), grammar problems, image problems (e.g. Image:Suker and boban.jpg. I'd recommend a speedy withdrawal and, if you correct the previous, a peer review before returning here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• question Why is the FIFA sanctioned free image Image:Flag_of_Croatia.svg not used to represent the team in preference to the copyrighted Image:Croatia_football_federation.png? Does this meet WP:NFCC#8? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be more concerned with the use of a fully copywritten image, in the form of this one. I'm off to delete... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - I noticed that this isn't even assessed at B-Class now. Listen to The Rambling Man and withdraw this, then put it at peer review again for a run at good article status. Here are a few reasons that this isn't ready.

• Recent Call Ups should be Recent call ups.
• The references need publisher, last access date and date where avaliable.
• A handful of questionable sources. For example, becomeacroatiafan.com is a fan site. What makes it a reliable source?
• Here are a few examples of statements that need citations.
  • "To date, their international squad during their successful first few years has been referred to as their "Golden Generation""
  • "This was marked by their tensional (?) final game, a 2-2 draw with Yugoslavia in Zagreb which saw much unmentioned controversy."
  • "This marked the beginning of what many called a new era for Croatia."
• There are numerous statements that I consider POV. Here's an example: "They have been a strong force in international football ever since". This is overstating things slightly. They're good, but not Brazil or Italy. Another is "The famous Zlatko Kranjčar took over...". Instead of saying he's famous, tell us why he's well-known (in this case, as a former player).
• Prose is not of FA standard. If you take this article back to peer review, try asking a peer review volunteer for a copy-edit, as one is badly needed.
• Match scores should have en dashes, not hyphens.
• Watch out for overlinking. For example, FIFA is linked five times.

Hopefully these comments will be of some help. However, this is not ready for FAC at this time. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While the article is much improved from what it was previously, there are several issues to be resolved before it is ready for FAC. I meant to raise these at the peer review, but I've been off-wiki for the past week. I will leave more detailed comments on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Having only partially copyedited the article, I can say that the tone is less than encyclopedic ("memorable" was used seemingly indiscriminately), the references are wanting and the writing fraught with ambiguity and redundancy. I recommend addressing the objections here, then submitting to GA. Regards, Skomorokh 16:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Please leave the ((fac)) template in place on the talk page until the bot comes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [25].

---

Nominator(s): ISD (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this article to be of a high enough quality to become an FA. This article is already a GA and has gone through a peer review. I made the edits I thought were most appropraite for the article. Therefore, I believe this article should be promoted. ISD (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How curious. I think you need to have a fair use rationale and a fair-use copyright tag on the images rather than a GFDL licence. DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sort of licences? Do you have links to the ones that would be most appropriate? I didn't think the article would need them because I have been given permission to use them from the show's creators. ISD (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could ask the show's creators to contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org to confirm that they accept to freely licensing the image. That way, we can retain the GFDL license and have a permanent record of their agreement. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've asked them and I'm currently waiting for a reply. ISD (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the meantime, you can amend the licenses by replacing the GFDL tag with a fair use copyright tag and rationale. The problem is that GFDL permits anyone to copy, use or distribute the image (with an appropriate explanation of the image's history), but this conflicts with the second tag, which explicitly prohibits use by third parties. DrKiernan (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but which fair use copyright tag should be used? Do you have a link to it? ISD (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Judging from what's said right at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free page, try ((Non-free fair use in|The Museum of Curiosity)) and ((Non-free use rationale|The Museum of Curiosity)) in addition to ((Non-free with permission)). You could try asking User:Elcobbola, who's more knowledgable than I on this sort of thing. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added the templates you suggested. ISD (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I dont think any of those images can be used under FU, they would both fail WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• First sentence needs no comma.
• "a radio comedy panel game"? Couldn't that be rephrased somehow?

Why? Is a UK standard phrase with lots of ghits Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. It just sounded awkward to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is an overseer?
• Sometimes the serial comma is used, sometimes not.

I'm out of time right now. More comments later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "In the show, the panel attempt to donate a range of curious objects to the museum." - should that not be "attempts"?
• "and is considered by some..." Who?
• "As a result, critics tend to compare the series to QI,[ with some critics saying" - 1) the second "critics" is redundant to the first 2) As above, which critics?
• 'for example, "The implausible pitch change"' - explanation of this would be nice. Also, why is "the" capitalised?
• "Bailey and Lloyd introduce themselves as well as giving the audience and listeners a short guide to the museum." - awkward sentence, consider rephrasing.
• "They then introduce the "Advisory committee"; a panel made up of a mixture of celebrities and academic experts, with Lloyd reading out their CVs.[4]" - 1) Why is "Advisory" capitalised? 2) The semi-colon should be a comma, methinks.
• "The donation can be anything, no matter how large, expensive, intangible, or even if there are doubts over whether or not the donation actually exists." - could be phrased far more concisely and less awkwardly as "The donation can be anything, no matter how large, expensive, intangible, or possibly nonexistent."
• Not much on the production - are you sure it's comprehensive?
• "described the show as being "Unusual" and "Eclectic"." - what is with this article and inappropriate capitalisation of quoted words/phrases?
• "Chris Campling, writing a preview of the episode highlighted the series in his "Radio Choice" column in The Times." - not a complete sentence.
• "Miranda Sawyer of The Observer criticised the show[needs comma] saying that..."

Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments - I've carried out the changes you asked for. As far as the capitalisation was concerned, I thought that was correct grammar. ISD (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I'll probably have to wait for the below to be addressed and take another look before I can decide whether to support or not. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criteria 3 - I dont understand the licencing of these images, could this be clarified Fasach Nua (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://epguides.com/
  • http://www.chortle.co.uk/
  • http://www.comedy.org.uk/

Otherwise sources looked good, links checked out with the link checking tool.

I've have used epguides on several articles because it provides a guide to all the episodes, edited by a single user. I used chortle because it often the most reliable source for the stories revolving around comedy in the UK. I used the British Comedy Guide (comedy.org.uk) because as far as I know, it is the only completely up-to-date guide to the entire series. I have had doubts over using this because I was the one who created the article. However, the article was edited by someone else, and as it is the only guide on a website which could be considered to be a reliable source, I think it is permissable for me to use it. ISD (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure that the two images contribute much to the article, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. However, the "replaceable" field needs to be fixed. --NE2 12:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree neither image is justifiable under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [26].

---

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk)

I've significantally contributed to this article as of late, upgrading it based on a peer review and a copy-editor's commentary, so I decided that I'm going to take a risk and nominate the page as a featured article. I say it covers the major areas (gameplay, story, development, reception) quite well, and has nice prose and NPOV. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Put the publisher after the title in "JumpButton (April 24, 2007). "Crash Mania official interview with Radical Entertainment". Retrieved on July 13, 2007." since that's the format the article is following.
• Link the unlinked dates in the references if they are going to be linked throughout the article.
• The first paragraph has a lot of links in close proximity of each other; consider removing links such as North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan per WP:OVERLINK.

Gary King (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Much as I love GameFAQs myself, what makes it a reliable site?
• What makes http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/index.htm a reliable site?
• Likewise http://www.worthplaying.com/?
• And same for http://www.codenamerevolution.com/?
• What makes the author of this piece http://kotaku.com/gaming/beer-and-tractor-pulls/crash-of-the-titans-the-hummer-288623.php reliable?
• What makes http://www.kidzworld.com/ a reliable source?
• And http://www.cad-media.com/index.php?
• Current ref 8 (Crash Mania official interview with Radical Entertainment) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 22 (IGN preview of Crash of the Titans) Has the publisher only given in the title of the link, it should be listed separate.
• Current ref 27 (Crash of hte Titans Monster Edition rated PG by the BBFC) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 54 (Androvich, Mark "Dead Head Fred wins..) is lacking a last access date.
• Same for current ref 55 (Grant, Christopher Dread Head Fred wins WGA..)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I switched out the GameFAQs site with a more reliable source.
• The interviews on HPZR were held with the developers of Radical and Amaze Entertainment. The developers of the game themselves are a quite reliable source of information.
• The statement made on the WorthPlaying site was made by the producer of the game.
• The statement made on the CodenameRevolution site was made by a developer at Radical.
• The author of the Kotaku page appears to have been to the festival to cover the subject of the Crash hummer. It looks like he even took the photo to prove it.
• Like the HPZR pages, the Kidzworld interviews were concocted with the actual developer of the game, so they're bound to be a reliable source of information.

I've fixed the other problems addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem with the "interviews are always reliable" argument: Interviews are only as good as the transcription/interviewee makes them. Yes, generally they are reliable for non-contentious information, but they are still 1) primary sources and 2) only as reliable as the person who publishes the information. With something like CNN or Time Magazine, we presume that the company that is in the business of doing news/journalism will get the information correct. Little sites that aren't known as well, it's not as clear that there might not be some bias that creeps into the interview, or other problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but I hardly see how it changes the fact that the answers come from the very people who made the game. I am aware that there may be some bias in those answers, but we have to take into account that game developers are human, so even they can be biased sometimes. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the references are really long (the ones with quotes from in game). Can they be trimmed at all? —Giggy 10:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do about it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead really should be three paragraphs; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409 for useful information. —Giggy 06:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "From there, the main goal of each "episode" is to complete fights against large groups of enemies or simply progress through the episode." - needs to clarify what an "episode" is; the article (Episode) doesn't seem to relate to the word's meaning in this game. —Giggy 06:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take responsibility from that one. I removed the explanation to improve flow in hope that the meaning could be assumed when copyediting. Obviously not. Sorry. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't sweat. :-) My issue really is that without jumping to the Setting section (which I read after making that comment), the first paragraph of the gameplay section, and indeed a fair bit of stuff after that, doesn't make that much sense. You can guess (I guessed that it was a level of some sort), but we don't want to make the reader guess - it's an FA and we can do better than that. Anyways, any ideas on how to fix this? —Giggy 09:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm thinking that it could be wikilinked to Level (video game) to spare a prose-disjointing explanation. As I understad it, that's all it is, a level. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That works. —Giggy 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Article switches between "Titans" and "Crash of the Titans" when referring to the game; be consistent. —Giggy 06:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that problem. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good, I think. --NE2 12:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. I did a copyedit, and since I am not a gamer please make sure that I did not inadvertently change meaning. Questions:
  • I'm not sure what this means "scoring a minimum combat hit combo"
  • What does this mean "Crash has a light and heavy attack "?
  • I don't understand the paragraph about the Nintendo DS version. Do the other versions not have islands with two levels? (Shouldn't the information about levels go in the Setting area, where this is better explained?)
  • What does this really mean -> "Radical observed that Crash Bandicoot's presence had diminished in the minds of modern gamers, and decided to refresh the franchise by producing Crash of the Titans"? and why isn't "diminished in the minds of modern gamers," in quotes since it was taken directly from the source?
  • Ok, now that is in quotes, but what on earth does it mean? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Originally, the Xbox 360 version would get a few extra months of development time to improve its graphics before setting a final release date" - does this mean that the extra development time was taken away?
  • The lead contains information that is not in the body of the article, notably the release dates and fact that it was not released in Japan (why not?).
  • Could a sentence or two be added to the lead to describe some of the information in Development and Audio?
  • In the lead, I am not really happy with the way the reviews are presented. Perhaps include one or two of the quotes to let the reader know what people really thought of the game.

Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409, the first paragraph should state the name of the game (using both bold (to identify the article's name) and italics as per the manual of style), along with any other alternate names the game may go by. The genre of the game should be clearly identified as well as the developer and the publisher. If a notable person has been cited by the game as having worked on the game's development (such as Tim Schafer or David Jaffe), this should also be noted. Release dates should be given, along with the release of any ports, remakes, or sequels. The second paragraph should summarize the plot briefly in one or two sentences; a high level overview is only needed to set the stage for further discussion. One or two sentences should be included to discuss the gameplay, including any notable features of the game. The third paragraph should cover the reception of the game, citing its general critical reaction and any significantly notable successful or failing elements in the game. If the game has won awards, this aspect can be noted, but specific mention of any award is discouraged.

In short, I'm not sure if any Development or Audio info is necessary for the lead. And the release dates aren't usually included in the article's body. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, however, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article.. The current lead does not include any information at all about 2 sections of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, WP:LEAD also says that info that is in the lead should be somewhere in the article body. I just noticed your comment about that. I don't work on video game articles and don't review them very often, but I don't really see a good reason why a WP newsletter should override MOS guidelines. Feel free to convince me otherwise :) Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information about the development in the lead. Don't know what to say about the audio. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Crit. 3 (Images): Only a select images, all low-resolution, all have appropriate templates. One thing, however: for the screenshots under the 'replaceable' heading you have some stuff about 'if better quality could be found' and 'fair use image'; the purpose of that space is to defend using a fair use image. What should go in those spaces, then is "Non-replaceable; the studio has not released comparable images under a free license, so fair-use images must be used." or something of that sort. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [27].

---

Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs), G.A.S (talk · contribs)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources, using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed and thoroughly copyedited, with all issues from both addressed. It follows both the Wikipedia style guide and the anime and manga MoS. It is of an appropriate length, with both non-free images having a proper FUR. The one not in the infobox is used to illustrate a section where the illustrated topic is explicitly discussed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 11 is lacking a title
• What makes http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/index.html a reliable source? Looks like a commercial listing to me. Normally, a couple of listings of a commercial site aren't a concern, especially for information, but there are a large number of citations to this source.
• Likewise http://www.kalahari.net/default.aspx?
• What makes http://brandnoise.typepad.com/brand_noise/2005/01/feline_females_.html a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 11 fixed. G.A.S 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• CDJapan and Kalahari.net are used to cite information about the media related to the series; there are one citation per item. G.A.S 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What G.A.S. noted. CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (sort of like an Amazon). Kalahari is also one. While commercial sites are the preferred option, they are both used to cite the existence of the CDs and DVDs noted in the absence of an official website. As none of the CDs are licensed, and those regional DVDs haven't been reviewed, its the best available source. The Brandnoise site is the official blog of scenarioDNA, a marketing research firm and think tank. So its a company blog by experts in the area of marketing, making it a reliable source I believe. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave the other comments and replies out for other reviewers to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "189-191" – en dash needed WP:DASH. Hm I think that's all I could get. Great job! Gary King (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed, thank you. G.A.S 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also fixed the other page numbers - en dashes, the bane of my editing existence :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 12:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Quite well written. Not opposing, but I have formatting issues.

• Is there some way of preventing a pile-up of four citation numbers at the end of a sentence, like this? "Critics praised the artwork in both Tokyo Mew Mew and Tokyo Mew Mew a La Mode. Ikumi's "free flowing" style and character designs were seen as a perfect fit for the series.[54][55][56][57]". Can't it be conflated into a single note? And this: " The individual character song discs were released as standalone CDs on September 4, 2002.[34][35][36][37][38]". It's over the top.
• I've removed overlinking: why DVD should be linked at all is beyond me, but twice in a sentence? MOSLINK says avoid the linking of the names of familiar countries, esp. anglopohone ones.
• "twenty-seven", but other large numbers are in numerals. nine/10 is MOS's default boundary, I think.
• The Japanese script is pretty, but just why is it necessary to make the text really difficult to read by inserting large tracts of it inline. Other articles have accepted the need to put intrusive non-roman equivalents in notes: I suggest that this be done here. TONY (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the citations can't be combined as they are different citations and all such statements have to be backed up. The one about the critics combines multiple reviews, hence the multiple citations. When they were removed, the statement was questioned, necessitating the need for the multiple citations. I've adjusted the CDs to combined four by using a different page. The Japanese names are included, in part, because the video games were merged in, and, in part, because its more accurate to include it for the titles, the same as we do with the lead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As I understand, the Japanese text is required by WP:MOS-JAPAN#Using Japanese in the article body. Is it possible to provide an example of articles where this is provided in the footnotes? G.A.S 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:MOSNUM, "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words...; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". Most numbers in the article are in fact spelled out, except for dates. Should we change all of them to numbers or to words? G.A.S 08:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• About the dates, at WP:OVERLINK#Dates: In the main text of an article, autoformatting should be used either on none of the month-day and month-day-year dates, or all of them. So you can't have it both ways; either link all the full dates, or none of them. The way I've always done it is to link full dates, but leave mm-yyyy unlinked along with lone years.--十八 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until the mass delinking, it was consistent that only full dates were wikified. Apparently the MoS date changed so now they don't want auto formatting at all, hence all the dates being delinked (or at least, that's my understanding of it). Don't get it myself, but at this point I'd just be happy if someone would change one of their comments to support :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User talk:Juhachi#Date-autoformatting seemed to clear it up for me. Makes no sense why some people would want to change a long-standing convention though...--十八 05:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008 [28].

---

Nominator(s): MASEM

Self-Nomination - The information for this article is pretty much complete from the work of editors involved; I've gone through myself and have had a separate copy-edit for the text to make sure that it is FA quality (given that there is the "Game" within the game that has be followed, I wanted to make sure that the distinction between the real-world DS game, and the fictional in-game Repears' Game, is clear and understood.) --MASEM 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the fair use rationale for Image:Gameplay screen.PNG be fleshed out to be more specific as to what is going on in the screenshot and why it should be used in the article? Gary King (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded these a bit, basically the image is to show the unique aspects of the battle system in the game. Please let me know if you were looking for more. --MASEM 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes http://www.siliconera.com/ a reliable source?
• What makes http://kotaku.com/gaming/skies-of-blue/its-a-wonderful-world-ds-lite-265367.php reliable?
• What makes http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/03/the-world-ends-with-you-new-shipment-coming-mid-june/ reliable?

Otherwise sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Siliconera link is not necessary but is there to help with visual connection of the game's setting to the real thing. Both Kotaku and Joystiq are blog-type networks, however, it is necessary to look at the authors of these; in both cases, Brian Ashcroft and Ross Miller (respectively) are major contributors and long-time authors. In the former case, this is basically an english version of a japanese page announcing the special DS lite - I can point to a web page at the import store Play-Asia which shows the same thing but that's not as good as a more summarized source. For the Joystiq article about the shortage and reshipment, they are they are the most reliable of all sources reporting that, if not the one they all refer to. Again, going by the author here, his articles would be appropriate sources. However, if these explainations aren't sufficient, I can go ahead and remove those that are problems. --MASEM 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think on these, I'll just leave them out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the VGChartz reference reliable? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VGChartz is not unreliable but not perfectly reliable either (they don't fully reveal how they get their #s, but their numbers are consistent when they can be compared to more reliable sources like NPD). However, they are the only other available source for sales numbers which do seem to agree with the one number from a reliable source listed there. Some sales data is needed to be complete; I made that cavaet in the text by stating "According to VGChartz...", as to allow readers aware of the odd nature of VGChartz to be access the numbers in light of that. --MASEM 13:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with the reliance on VG Chartz for sales information here. A caveat should be put against VG Chartz figures, and their accuracy and methodology should be more heavily criticised in the VG Chartz article. Essentially, as the GameSetWatch article mentioned, VGChartz do not have significant retail information, and they trust NPD figures over their own. Why are VGChartz figures being used for Japanese estimates, given that the Japanese tracking firms such as Enterbrain release their games sales data? - hahnchen 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found this link to a translation that comes from Famitsu/EnterBrain for 2007 japanm yearly says, so I can replace/augment that (however, it tracks with VGCs data appropriately). However, we're still at a loss with North American data; it didn't break the theoretical bound of a million units or a top 10 sale for the month, so NPD is not reporting #s. (Given that the Famitsu and other data is basically only behind a translation wall, I would expect VGChartz to actually follow this accurately - its the NA and Europe numbers that remain in question). --MASEM 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it tracks with VGC appropriately is because VGC rip their figures off other firms without crediting them. But my main point was that there was more reliable data which could have been cited, and that has been addressed. - hahnchen 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the second image, the split-screen view, somewhat confusing. Am I correct in thinking that the upper screen shows the action from the "side" while the lower shows it from the "top"? If so, I would like to add that to the caption. Also, it seems that the readability could be improved by re-wording the "lower portion of the upper" text. Maury (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Setting" section is extremely confusing. Would anyone mind if I took a whack at fixing it? Maury (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and try to fix whatever you can. As for the screenshot - in the context of the game, as you and your partner battle, you're put into alternate spaces that physically separates neku and partern yet fight the same enemy (this is part of the story, too much detail to go into). The "top" and "sides" would be misnomers, they're supposed to be the same area. From a development standpoint, the views are different as one is aestheticlly pleasing (top screen) and the other minimal and practical (bottom); I can see adding some language in the gameplay that explain Neku and partner fight in separate realities (I would need to quote the game for that) as to make the explanation of why the views are different. --MASEM 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've gone ahead and included this aspect (called "zones" in-game) in both the setting and gameplay sections as to make it easy to explain on the screenshot caption, but please go ahead and improve if needed. --MASEM 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's excellent! Maury (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverart should be cropped top and bottom and maybe scaled down to 250px to make it appearence a bit clearer. 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --MASEM 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the development section be cleaned up a little bit? It seems to be slightly disjointed and somewhat messy. Also, is there a reason that the characters can't be summed up within a few paragraphs? It would be better to strengthen the article than have a useless split. TTN (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the characters, do you mean bringing in the "List of characters" content (much shortened), deleting that afterward? Also, for the development, can you be more specific? The facts of development are grouped into paragraphs based on gameaply, setting, art, etc., so I'm sure what rearrangement you're looking to see. --MASEM 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the section would work much better as a condensed version of the character list. I don't really know what I'm looking for with the development section. It really just isn't a pleasant read. I guess it's just that the section is one topic after another rather than a well flowing section. I really don't know what I mean, so you can probably just ignore that. TTN (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied the character list that would be inserted into the character section per this advice at User:Masem/twewychar. I need to work on the language, but I would like to know if this is appropriate and what you meant for inclusion. If so, this would be a drop in replacement for the character section (and deleting the list page). --MASEM 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it would be fine after being cleaned up and refined. You could potentially use Template:Anime voices to help with formatting. TTN (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this section in with cleanup and used the anime voice template (which is nice, no red links necessary). --MASEM 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would have prefered that the article follows the same layout as literally all the other video game articles on Wikipedia (with the Gameplay section before Plot), but I think the article does meet the featured article criteria. Kariteh (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, it was originally gameplay before plot before I took this to a GA, but it really made it difficult to explain the game and the Reaper's Game within the gameplay, and then making the plot section work out smoothly. Switching the order helped to smooth the flow of both sections and avoided repetition in the gameplay section. --MASEM 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem on this one. Having this order is permittable as long as it's for a good reason, and I feel this follows a more logical order when reading it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Masem and Ashnard. A good case for IAR (though I hate citing it). —Giggy 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agreed too, you know. Kariteh (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. The lead alone shows that there are persistent problems in sentence structure, plus other glitches. Please get someone new to run through it carefully.

• "The game is set within the modern world of the Shibuya district as Neku Sakuraba, the main playable character, awakes to find himself"—Why is "within" better than "in"? "Awakes" is not a verb. The two ideas, linked by "as", don't seem to go in the one sentence: logic problem.
• More hyphens would ease the reader's task: for example, "seven-day time limit". Please audit throughout for double adjectives that would normally be hyphenated: some you can get away with not hyphenating, especially in AmEng, but some you can't. Use common sense.
• "Neku ... him ... himself".
• Why "utilize" rather than "use"? So ugly. There are other instances, too.
• Audit the whole article for snakes like this, which need to be split and recast: " The game's "Stride Cross Battle System" utilizes several features of the Nintendo DS, including combat that takes place on both screens, and a series of expandable "psych pins" that enable various forms of attack by performing certain motions on the touchscreen or by shouting into the microphone."
• "The game received very positive reviews that praised the game's integration of gameplay and story with the Shibuya setting as well as its graphic presentation and hip hop/electronica soundtrack by various J-pop artists." Instead of puffery, why not replace "that praised" with "of". You've already said "very positive". "integration into", should it be? If you deal with the J-pop below, possibly remove the last "by" phrase, since the sentence is already long enough. If it's unique or otherwise important, retain it here, but it's kind of long, this sentence.
• "it was also noted to be very difficult to learn"—ungainly.
• I see choppy paragraphing in "Development". TONY (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the lead now. I have reorganized and evened-out the paragraphs, in addition to addressing (I believe) all of the points mentioned above (at least in the lead). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. There are glitches all over, but the overall problem is inaccessibility to a general audience via game-guide language. All in all, it's quite rough and needs attention preferably from a non-gamer. Example problems:
  • I would prefer Image:Gameplay screen.PNG use the ((Non-free use rationale)) template so it's easier to identify the required rationale elements.
    • Fixed
  • "After one day's mission is complete, remaining Players are brought to the next day, with no conscious recollection of any events in between." Unclear what this means. Do the Players live out the time between missions, or do they just skip over it?
    • They appear to skip it (no exact explanation is given, just that to the Players, it appears to skip)
  • Instances of "in order to" need to be changed to simply "to"
  • "Beat, a Player Neku met during the first week that had become a Reaper after his partner and little sister Rhyme was erased, saves Neku from erasure by making a pact with him but at a cost; he must recover the Noise form of Rhyme from the week's Game Master or be erased." I don't comprehend why this sentence begins with "Beat".
    • Beat is the character name, however, with the previous character section, the long phrase at the start can be nixed to put noun next to verb.
  • The "Story" section is not accessible to a general audience; it loses me in several places (ex. "As they search Shibuya, they discover that both living persons in the RG and Reapers wear red pins that cause them to become slave to the same harmonious thoughts.") that seem to require familiarity with the game your audience won't have. The explanation of the pins later comes much too late.
    • Within the context of the story, these pins aren't the same as the gameplay pins, and also this is the first point where they are introduced. (More below).
  • "... with each chapter further divided down by each day of the week." What's the difference between "divided down" and just "divided"?
  • "... the two characters battle the same enemies that co-habituate both "zones" simultaneously." In the words of Inigo Montoya: "I do not think 'co-habituate' means what you think it means." Also, "co-whatever both zones simultaneously" is triply redundant. --Laser brain (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed above points w/ comments - however, this is a case where any specific input on what is confusing from the story side is very helpful because we have a game-within-a-game, and trying to keep the elements that affect characters within the story and those that are dealt with by the DS player separated is important here. --MASEM 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:24, 21 July 2008 [29].

---

Nominator(s): Mr.crabby (talk) and Mastrchf91 (talk)

As part of WikiProject The Office, we've been working on the article Night Out, it is currently a good article and we feel that it is ready for FA status. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I'm mainly discussing prose issues here, and its a pretty long list. I'd recommend getting someone who hasn't worked on the article to give it a thorough copy edit. The following is a partial list of prose issues in the article:

• Opening paragraph: "Written by Mindy Kaling, who also acts in the show as customer service representative Kelly Kapoor... the episode first aired in the United States... on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)". This seems like the wrong sentence order - the sentence appears to be leading up to the final clause, but is the channel it was broadcast on really the most important information? Its also a long and complex sentence. I'd recommend splitting into at least two, one covering the writer and director, the second covering broadcasting information. These are really two separate concepts.

Split the sentences. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" was viewed by over 7.5 million people" - that's not technically true. It had a measured audience of over 7.5 million people bu we can't actually say they all viewed it. I know this sounds pedantic, but an FA should strive for this level of accuracy.

Stated that it was an estimated measurement of the audience. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" was viewed by over 7.5 million people,[2] bringing in the lowest number of viewers that The Office had seen in 12 episodes". The juxtaposition of "over 7.5 million" and "the lowest number of viewers" is jarring. Can it be reworded to flow better? Saying "The Office had seen" is again incorrect - viewers watch TV shows, not vice versa.

Clarified that it was a measured audience. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening paragraph: ""Night Out" received both positive and negative reviews among critics." - received reviews from critics, not among critics.

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Second paragraph: I'm not sure that a condensed plot summary work well as the second paragraph of the lede, but others may be able to give you clearer advice on this.

The condensed plot summary is used more as a lengthened teaser, which is the style of Greatest Hits (Lost) and other featured articles. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, like I said, this is something that others may wish to give their opinions about. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Second paragraph: "...and everyone quickly places blame on Jim" either "...places the blame on Jim" or "...blames Jim"

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section: this is written as an "in world" plot description. Per the manual of style it should be written from a real world perspective.

Unclear on what should be done about this. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be rewritten to be from a real-world perspective. The reader should be aware that the events described are fictional, not real. There are examples of how to do this in the Manual of Style page I linked to. For example, you could start the plot section: "In this episode, ...". It doesn't need to be overdone, but is generally better style. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I'll get right on that. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, first paragraph: "A surprisingly friendly Ryan Howard" - why is he "surprisingly" friendly? This should be explained, for readers not familiar with previous episodes.

Clarified the difference between his present manner and that of previous episodes. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, first paragraph: "The previous version was shut down..." its not absolutely clear that you mean the previous version of the website. It would be helpful to include the wikilinked name of the previous episode referred to here so readers can find out more.

Clarified. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, first paragraph: "...due to an invasion by sexual predators of the social networking component..." - this implies that they were predators having sex with the social network. I think this would be clearer as: "...because sexual predators invaded the social networking component..."

Reworded. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, second paragraph: "Upon their arrival at a club..." is it possible to be more accurate than "a club". It seems like they pick a random nightclub and Ryan just happens to be there. I'm not sure if this is the way the episode works or if the writing could be clearer here.

Clarified it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, second paragraph: "...a women's basketball team, also waiting in line" better as: "a women's basketball team, who are also waiting in line"

Reworded. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, second paragraph: "...advises them not to take Ryan to a hospital, the trio run off with." - there is something missing from the end of this sentence

I had fixed this before, somehow it was re-added. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, second paragraph: "...gives him hypothetical advice..." I think the advice is real, not hypothetical?

No, it was hypothetical. It's a part of the humor that Michael misconstrues Ryan's question. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...the rest of the office is forced to work on a Saturday to record their own sales as the website's sales..." its not clear to me how working on a Saturday is required in this? Can they only fake sales on the weekend? I can't follow the causality in this sentence.

I think the latter part of that sentence clarifies it well. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to change it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...everyone to stay in the office overtime instead of coming in for the Saturday" This is confusing, we just read they are forced to work Saturday, then the next sentence says Jim finds a way for them to avoid working on Saturday. This needs clarification. Also the sentence should say: "...to stay in the office to work overtime instead..."

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, third paragraph: "They all agree with the plan..." should be: "They all agree to the plan..."

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...9:00 in the late evening..." 9:00 should be 9:00pm. I would argue that 9:00pm is not the late evening.

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot section, third paragraph: "...gates locked, directly resulted from Jim forgetting to tell the security guard that they were staying overtime." should be "directing resulting from..." or better, something like: ...gates locked. Jim had forgotten to tell the security guard that they were working late."

Changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these are some examples, not an exhaustive list. I also have concerns about some of the sources used in the Critical response section, which at first glance seem to be from borderline notable blogs. Gwernol 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a detailed rundown on what I've done with the requests tomorrow. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to get an independent copy-edit of the article later on this afternoon. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy to revisit my opinion after further copy editing. Feel free to ping me on my talk page when its ready for another look. Oh, and per the instructions at the top of this page, you should removed the ((done)) tags from your responses above. Good luck, Gwernol 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've removed the tags, also. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to update this, I've requested a copy-edit from another person, and hopefully they will be able to complete it soon. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes http://tvbythenumbers.com/ a reliable source?

Added another website for the statistics. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise http://www.officetally.com/?

The first instance of using this source is from an interview, which I feel is a okay use in this case, and the second is a fan-voted rankings from a fansite that's frequently mentioned by cast and crew of the show, and is arguably the most popular Office fansite. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And http://remote.lohudblogs.com/2008/04/24/office-kiss-and-tell-actress-who-plants-one-on-dwight-tonight-grateful-for-big-break/?

The information that we've used from this website are direct quotes from actors. To me that seems about as reliable as you can get. Should I find a new source? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And http://twocentsbranchoffice.blogspot.com/2008/04/scrantonbranchoffice-exclusive.html?showComment=1209161820000#c7705343324240049314?

Same here as above. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, with interviews, we need to know that the site hosting the interview is reliably hosting the interview. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little too much overlinking of cast-and-characters in the article. Mindy Kaling alone is linked five times. "making out" is not formal language. indopug (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed multiple instances of overlinking, and reworded the caption. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better. "although that probably has something to do with there being no Grey's Anatomy and a repeat of CSI." again, very informal and vague language. indopug (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And i believe user polls and the like are discouraged on Wikipedia; I'm not sure though. indopug (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the statement. And for right now, I think we should leave the poll in, unless many object to it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1c. Disappointing lack of any serious sources here. Almost the entire article is sourced to primary sources or blogs with extremely questionable reliability. Reliable secondary sources are needed throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you suggest are "extremely questionable"? I don't see the problem with a large number of primary sources either. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most blogs are extremely questionable, as there is no fact-checking or discernible editorial process. Fan blogs are doubly so and also lack neutrality. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a basic requirement of FA criterion 1c, and calls for reliable, secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure that the images contribute much, but otherwise it looks good. --NE2 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel that big paragraph about the former-basketballer's kiss falls a little short of being "encyclopedic" information ("Mostly lip-a little tongue-but mostly lips"). Trim it a little please. indopug (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and removed the part about the kiss. I agree, a bit un-encyclopedic. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after copy editing attempt: This article needs to be reworked by the authors, or by someone who is willing to study the sources carefully, if it is to become a featured article. Many portions are ambiguous or even do not make sense, making copy editing difficult (I only copy edited a paragraph or so before deciding to post comments here). Examples below:

"but fail to get in because they do not have dates"

Why? The club requires attendees to have dates?

"rest of the employees are going to be forced to work on a Saturday to record their own sales as the website's sales"

How does working on a weekend lead to recording of worker's sales as websites's sales?

"Production" section

The whole section reads like a collection of random facts. What is so significant about the stunts in the episode that warrants such a list of seemingly minor stunts?

"Reception" section

Too many quoations, in my opinion. Consider working the quotations into the text.

Consider reading the article from the viewpoint of someone who has no clue about the episode. All the best! -Samuel Tan 08:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criteria 3 - The two images have the same rationale "To illustrate the episode for readers", if one illustrates the episode, then the other is not needed WP:NFCC#3, and neither of them seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.