September 2010

[edit]
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 SandyGeorgia 15:32, 30 September 2010 [1].

Frost Bank Tower

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article has the qualities of an FA article. The article already has reached GA and the problems listed in the Peer Review have been fixed. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sadly. With barely 1,000 words of text, the article does not seem comprehensive. Most of the sections are rather skimpy; compare, say, with Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), or Scottish Parliament Building; check out other building FAs.

I think the article needs to be taken away and reconsidered in the light of the FA criteria, particularly those concerning prose and comprehensiveness. Regrettably, it is not close to featured standard at present, though there is no reason why it should not get there in time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:56, 28 September 2010 [2].

Sutton Wick air crash

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wackywace converse | contribs 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s one myself and several others have been working on for the past few weeks. It is the story of a little-known air crash, and very little is written on it anywhere at all. We have wrung sources dry to try and provide a detailed and interesting account of the crash, the investigation and the aftermath. It is short, yes, but is the most comprehensive account of the tragedy out there. A big thank you to Malleus Fatuorum for reviewing the article’s GA and copyediting and expanding the article, and to fellow aviation enthusiasts MilborneOne for working (and creating) the article and Nimbus227 for finding sources, which are in short supply. Wackywace converse | contribs 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, upon reconsideration, you're right. I've changed the name of the article, but seemed to be having trouble renaming the FAC template. I'd be grateful if someone more experienced than me could have a quick look through my contributions to see if I've done it correctly, and the FAC template will work as normal. Thanks, Wackywace converse | contribs 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a short but informative article. Some concerns:

It is the serial number, which I am told is the military equivalent of a tail number. Wackywace converse | contribs 06:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no the beforehand. I've fixed this throughout the article. Wackywace converse | contribs
Fixed Wackywace converse | contribs 06:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure. The Times article, I believe, is the only article that mentions the caravan, but I don't subscribe to the service required to view it. Wackywace converse | contribs 06:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may sound like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, but I am very sorry for not working as hard as I could working on the article during the GA. I myself have never read Gero's book (I'm trying to find a copy, though) or the article in The Times. I'd say that I could have worked harder on this article, but I still feel it is worthy of FAC. Wackywace converse | contribs 06:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by Malleus Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wackywace converse | contribs 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 24 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:47, 28 September 2010 [5].

Steamtown, USA

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ishtar456 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it exemplifies the best of wikipedia Ishtar456 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, thought I had fixed it. It is fixed now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#25 is actually the official site of the people who own the locomotive in discussion for that citation. Maybe their site appears amatuerish to you, but maybe a locomotive that you might build would look amaturish to them. This is what it says on the site about who they are: "Prior to October 1, 2008, we were the steam locomotive and passenger train restoration and operating unit of the Ohio Central Railroad System. The railroad was owned by Jerry Joe Jacobson. We posted photos and information about our steam activities onto the Internet via our former web site, ocsteam.com. That now-defunct site has been vacated for our new name and this new web site." This information is rather obscure. If the people who are actually doing the restoration cannot be cited, whereelse would you recommend that I look for sources?--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#30 is also the website of the organiszation that is doing the restoration on that locomotive.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what fact-checking and review mechanisms do they have like proper publishers?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to #25: Age of Steam, Ltd is the publisher. Since they are the ones that are actually preserving the equiptment in question, I believe they would be the contact for any other publisher to fact check this information. The same, I think, can be said for #31 (formerly #30-I added a citation) Since the Friends of the Valley RR, a non-profit organization, is the group who is restoring the engine, they would most likely be the contact to fact check the information that I have cited from them. It kind of funny... I consider myself a citation fanatic, and I believe these sources to be reliable. In fact, often newspapers get some of the facts screwed up, but this is straight from the horse's mouth and I am sticking to my guns with these two. If it keeps the article from FA, then so be it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to #9, all I was citing was the date and it turns out it was in one of my other sources, so I have removed it and replaced it with the other source (so #31 is back to being #30). All your other concerns regarding accessed dates, etc. have been addressed.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first two issues are more concerning and should be resolved before promotion. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Simakauskas gave his permission through email. What should I do, copy and paste it somewhere. Please advise. Thank you for asking about the covered bridges, I thought those photos had already been vetted.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the permission to OTRS and tagged on the photos OTRS pending. I understand that it could take a month to be addressed. Will this prevent FA consideration? If so I withdraw the nomination. In the meantime, I have removed File:UnionPacific737in1890.jpg:. I thought I could use it because it was in a government publication. Everything else in on that page has been "cut and pasted" into Union Pacific 737, so as it was explained to me that that was okay, I thought the photo was also in public domain. I do not know what to do about the covered bridges. As I said I thought they were okay for reuse.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The covered bridge contributor appears to have not edited sice May, so that seems pretty hopeless.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [7].

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not promoted previously for certain unspecified prose issues. Subsequently it's been copyedited by several very helpful people in preparation for this resubmission and, I believe, fully meets the requirements of a FA-class article. If not I expect that any issues will be identified so that they can be corrected. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File:HMS Princess Royal LOC 18244u.jpg is claimed to be PD because it was published before 1923, but does not have a publication date or citation. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Library of Congress picture so it is PD in the US by definition. It uses a PD-US license, not PD-old, and makes no claim about being published before 1923, only that it may have been.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, right. If it's not public domain because it was published before 1923, why is that tag being used? Why not just stick with the other? J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it more carefully. It doesn't say that it was published before 1923, but merely that it's out of copyright, often, but not necessarily, because it was published before 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful before assuming that a Library of Congress tag means that everything is done and dusted. The tag specifically says that it does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. Moreover, The Bain Collection tag only says that there are "no known restrictions on the work's use", which is not the same as confirmation of PD. I mention this because I have had previous problems with Bain Collection works. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but how was it resolved? As far as I can figure the photographs were work-for-hire for the Bain News Agency and the LOC holds the copyright, which effectively means that they're PD since no US government entity can have copyright. So what holes are there in this argument?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew the image. I'm not saying that was the only solution, or that you should do the same, just that you should be wary. Anyway, I have asked User:Elcobbola, who has grear knowledge of these matters, to advise on the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several misconceptions. "It's a Library of Congress picture so it is PD in the US by definition" is entirely incorrect. The LoC hosts works still under copyright. [8] "No US government entity can have copyright" is also entirely incorrect ("the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." USC 17 § 105) The statement of "No known restrictions on publication", however, has routinely been determined to be equivalent to "public domain". I agree that the "known" is frustratingly and problematically imprecise, but consensus has been -- right or wrong -- that it is sufficient. It may be helpful to note that a portion of the Bain Collection has been entered into the Flickr Commons, which offers some elaboration of the "no known restrictions" verbiage. The reason, of course, that the LoC uses this guarded verbiage is prudence; only a court may authoritatively opine on the validity/absence of a copyright. Эlcobbola talk 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a possible alternative, there's an image of the Princess Royal facing page 230 in Young, Filson (1921). With the Battle Cruisers London: Cassell and Company, LTD (available on Google books). That is verifiably published before 1.1.1923 (but only upload to en.wiki if you use it, as it may not be PD in the UK). Эlcobbola talk 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, thanks for these very helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my thanks for your response and the clarifications on US government copyrights.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I've seen the argument, it goes something like this: a very long list of noted authors consider navweaps to be a better source than any other; they praise it and cite it in their own works. Over a month ago, we had a long discussion and worked out a compromise where we would continue to use navweaps but also use other sources too; the goal was for people who use navweaps to keep gathering data to make the case for what I just said. I expect we can make a good case now; please give us a few days to, well, herd cats :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything here is double cited already, with Navweaps.com and Campbell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep navweaps in this article, then this would be as good a time as any to present our best evidence. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has given evidence so far in navweaps.com's favor, so it looks like it's time for it to go (at FAC level only). I remember seeing high praise for it, but we'd need a number of editors giving the links and making the case to have even a chance of keeping it at FAC, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<southern drawl>Boy, we ain't nowhere near done discussing this issue; don't you go on giving up now before our cats have even been herded.</southern drawl> I will draw attention to my response to Karanacs over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Navweaps.com_again. Little response there so I don't know what else I need to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I made it known in the last debate that I consider navweaps to be of higher quality and reliability than most published sources. Frankly, it's irritating to see it continually challenged, perhaps we should coordinate some kind of essay on the topic? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the evidence in navweapons.com's favor, I'd point out that without this site many people like me who write about ship and ship articles would be in trouble because of the lack of good material on guns and armor and such that the site provides. We have had this discussion at least two times previously, and in the second discussion we acquiesced to a demand to double cite the information which in turn helps ensure that the sourcing in these articles remains of the highest quality since two sources are provided for a check, but I would recommend against questioning the site here since this tends to be a point of conflict between two separate camps - the one for the use of the site and the one against the use of the site - and this is a venue for discussing an article's worthiness for promotion to FA class, not about issues related to sourcing and citation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Resolved. I would support, but I'm too involved. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Everything else looks pretty good. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Two quick ones...

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

And some more ...

Will keep looking. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:55, 28 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [9].

1962 National League tie-breaker series

[edit]
Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a series. The longest 9-inning game in history (at the time), the last 3-game tie-breaker, a pennant in the balance, and 8 Hall of Famers in the mix between the two teams? Fun fun fun. The general game play facts are cited by the general references which are repeated at the end of each paragraph for clarity (as requested in the GAN). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I am not an expert on baseball references, but as far as I can see these are all mainstream and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is inpenetratable to non baseball fans. 86.141.247.236 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes to the specificity vs. accessibility issue voiced above. I could explain everything in the article in more generally understandable detail, but the article would be 15 pages long before talking about the first game. The box score article is linked, and those are really just quick table'd summaries of the actual game. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A listing would be good, but I'm guessing there may have been a few changes after the first game as well, due to poor performance (or possibly eyebrows in the reports if there weren't) which would be useful things to discuss YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Baseball lineups are not something that feature massive changes, because the game is built for a longhaul season (162 games). Heck, it was practically national news when Joe Torre moved Alex Rodriguez down in the batting order in one postseason series. The only difference I noted in looking at the lineups a while back was I don't think Duke Snider played in Game 1, but none of the sources made a particular deal out of it. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just did a full breakdown of the Dodgers' lineups, they had the same 2B, SS, RF, CF, and C for all 3 games. The only variations were Walls at first in Game 1 and Carey at third base in game 1 (with Tommy Davis, the 3B in games 2 and 3, in left field replacing Duke Snider, the LF for games 2 and 3). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the Giants were the same, identical starters except trying Haller at catcher and McCovey in left in game 2. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – After a full reading, I think this needs some more work on the writing. The issue of jargon is one that I struggle with since I am a passionate sports fan, and I'm not the most qualified reviewer to judge on that. There were a few things I caught, however, along with some more basic prose concerns that should have been taken care of before coming to FAC.

  • Heh, that's one of the most confusing parts. You have a batter (Wills) driving a runner (Walls) around.

In addition, I find the article to be under-punctuated throughout in terms of commas etc. When you have something like "and scored on the catcher's throwing error trying to catch him extending the Dodgers' lead to 4–2" without a well-placed comma, the whole meaning of something can be interpreted differently than is intended. Just another thing to work on while looking at these. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern: just File:Koufax1.JPG. Who said this was published without a copyright notice or registration (or that it was published at all)? No publication information was given. Did anyone perform a search on the plausible copyright owner with the US Copyright Office? Jappalang (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The level of writing has been addressed ad nauseum. This is certainly no more difficult to understand than, for example, the specific language of biology or warship articles. Yes, if you don't know what a home run is you'll have to click through, but the article becomes far worse if every instance of such language is explained in crushing detail. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rather unlikely that I'll be changing my mind about this article, but who can tell. I'll simply add for now that I can't recall having seen "even" used as a verb before. "Level" yes, but not "even". Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you some examples, and I could have given you many others. I'm afraid that my oppose stands, and as you consider my observations to have been "harsh" and "sarcastic" I will offer you no further examples of where this article falls short of the FA criteria. Other reviewers may of course be more generously inclined than I am now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just rather tiresome and turns me off from bothering with FAC, which is rather contrary to the process being the primary goal of Wikipedia. This is my second FAC of the year, both with (I think it's fair to say) reasonably high quality articles and people barely even return to their reviews. Since I can't alter your oppose if you won't suggest things to change the review may as well close now. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made every change you requested and noted, rather politely, that I thought your language was unnecessarily jarring. At which point you said you likely won't change your vote and won't suggest anything else to change. Where didn't I listen to what you're saying? I'm happy to improve the article in any way possible. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still missing the point, as I requested no changes at all. I simply made some observations that you characterised as "harsh" and "sarcastic", as a result of which I have no further interest in helping you with this article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then your edit summary of "your choice" is untrue. I don't really have a choice, you're just going to leave an un-fixable oppose vote here, which is effectively a death sentence. How would you characterize calling parts of the article "poorly written" and suggesting my view on a piece of prose was common in "tabloid press perhaps"? Every other reviewer has simply pointed out the flaws they find without feeling the need to twist the knife. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just a very small cog in the FA wheel, and there may well be other cogs who support your position rather than mine. All you need is for two or three of them to come along and say that it's perfectly comprehensible to a non-baseball fan and well written. I don't have any kind of a fiat, all I have is an opinion, and I've given it. It's for others to make decisions. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two teams have the same record leading a division, wild card, or in this case league. For example, when the tie-breaker became necessary (at the end of the traditional regular season) both teams had share of the National League lead because they both had the league-best 101-61 records. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 26 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [10].

Hal Block

[edit]
Nominator(s): BashBrannigan (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempted nomination of this article after meeting the concerns expressed. I was able to find some information on Block's personal life which was absent. I've also improved the structure of the article, added a photo and generally improved the prose. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me what photos of Block exist, free or otherwise? I'm aware of none. You said you wouldn't mind the sketch if no photos existed and as far as I know that's the situation. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You use one further down the article? What was the sketch based on if no other images exist, or is it pure guesswork? J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect regarding the photo of the staff meeting with Patton that "we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact." The image is the only source I'm aware of indicating Block met Patton. This is explained in detail in the fair use rationale for use of the image. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use non-free images to "prove" what we're saying in the article. Reference it to a reliable source; if no reliable source exists, don't mention it. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would have been for a photo of Block to lead the article, but I'm aware of none. The Patton photo with Block is not appropriate for the lead as, even cropped, it's a profile. The drawing is the best that's available. I can see your point about the poster, but the Patton photo adds significantly to our knowledge of Block and I disagree with your dismissal of it. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for the fact that this was at FAC, I would have removed all of them without a second glance. Every image in this article bar one has serious issues. The posters still have not been removed, the drawing still leads the article (again, if no photos exist, what the hell is the drawing based on?) the Hope image still has no source. You assert that "the Patton photo adds significantly to our knowledge of Block" but you still haven't explained why. Yes, he met Patton.

Very strong oppose. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important. Seeing as there's not actually been any effort to do anything about this, very strong oppose (with a note that I'm shocked and alarmed that people are supporting...) while the image issues remain. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You originally had said you wouldn't object to a drawing if no photo existed. When I said I have been unable to find a photo, your response is essentially to call me a liar. I'm perfectly willing to respond to the question "what the hell is the drawing based on", even though it is absurdly obvious, but not to you. I believe I've been attempting honestly to respond to your questions which I guess is not sufficient as you said "Seeing as there's not actually been any effort to do anything about this". It appears the effort you wanted was to jump to your command. And by the way comments like "I'm shocked and alarmed that people are supporting" which disparage others is intimidating and inappropriate.BashBrannigan (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed out that photos existed- you use one in the article. You still haven't actually responded with regards to what the drawing is based on, just asserted that you could. It isn't actually "absurdly obvious"- apparently, there are no photos in existence, so, unless you knew the guy personally... Can we stop with all this sophistry and get to the point? Yes, the response I was looking for was for you to remove the images. Sorry to be so blunt, but we actually have a policy on the issue- these images don't meet the policy, and so shouldn't be there. And yes, it is alarming that people are supporting. Again, sorry, but when articles fail to adhere to our fundamental policies... If there's anything that's "inappropriate" here, it's your refusal to do anything about it. I've been polite, and given you plenty of chance to remove the images yourself, but you've thrown that back in my face. I'm gonna now treat this article like any other, and remove them myself. Do not add them back without solid reasoning... (Also, still oppose due to the lack of decent sourcing on the Bob Hope image, which, low and behold, you've done nothing about. Good show.) J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep misquoting me. I've never said no photos of Block exist, only that I was unable to find any appropriate for the lead. As I said, in the Patton photo Block is in profile and it's not appropriate. The drawing was a last resort on my part. I haven't answered what the drawing is based upon because your reason for asking is to prove that a good photo exists. Essentially to prove I'm a liar. I also disagree you've been polite. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Could you please tell me what photos of Block exist, free or otherwise? I'm aware of none." I am not misquoting, you said you were aware of no photos of the subject. That may have not been what you meant, but it's certainly not what you said, so do not accuse me of misquoting. And if you're not going to explain what the sketch is based on, that's fine, it can just be removed as unsourced original research. You really are being awkward here. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're being selective here. The reason you were asking me what the drawing is based upon was not to determine whether it was "unsourced original research". That's only what you are saying NOW. Read your own words. You said "if no photos exist, what the hell is the drawing based on?" Determining the source of the drawing is reasonable, but that's not why you were asking at the time. Yes, in one place I may have not used the perfect phrasing, however I made myself very clear afterwards, more than once, that I meant no photos appropriate for the lead. BashBrannigan (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so, so far as you know, there's are no photos in existence that are suitable for the lead. So now, the obvious question (again): On what was the drawing based? J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I ask why are you asking? I would like to understand what the issues are involved. The drawing is based upon TV video; not one single video, but a few. I was not concerned with plagiarism as it was a creative product. My concern was with possible OR issues. I tried to find something in Wikipedia policy dealing with user-generated portraits before I uploaded it, but couldn't. If someone made a clear argument for why it should not be used, I was fully prepared to accept it. I actually had less concern over the Patton photo. I still believe this an viable image. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two possible concerns are OR and copyright. Either this is based upon a decent source, (in which case the source should be used if free, or the picture is a non-free derivative work if it's non-free) or it isn't, in which case it's pretty much original research- it's what you think he looks like, rather than what he does look like. And now, the obvious question- why not use a screenshot from one of those videos? J Milburn (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons for not using a screenshot. First, I didn't think the quality of the video would be good enough. Second, concerns that a screenshot would violate copyright. On the other hand, the Dorothy Kilgallen article uses what appears to be a screenshot. Is that acceptable? BashBrannigan (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-free screenshot of the subject would be fine under the NFCC to lead the article, if we take it as a given that there are no free images available. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about providing a screenshot. Can i ask for a clarification for the Patton photo? Your argument against consisted of "sure, talk about that point in his career and the meeting, but we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact" and "Yes, he met Patton. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important." It seems to me, this same argument could be made about almost ANY photo on Wikipedia. From the section on images [11] the only criteria is "must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Aren't you being too harsh? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're reading the wrong policy page. That's a non-free photo, for which we have the deliberately extremely strict non-free content criteria, the important part of our wider non-free content guidelines. Non-free images need to be a hell of a lot more than simply "relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". Instead, they have to add significantly to reader understanding. As I have explained, this one doesn't. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this photo does add to our understanding. I found no other source that Block met Patton. BashBrannigan (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a request for some other opinions on this dispute at: [12] BashBrannigan (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, what? If you don't have a reliable source that contains the information, don't include it. I am not sure what is unambiguous here. We have non-free content criteria, please respect them. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the photo is the Library of Congress. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source what is in the article to reliable sources or do not include it. If reliable sources have not mentioned the meeting, it really can't be that important. To repeat, we cannot use a non-free image in an article purely to prove that something happened. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if I came across a photo on the CIA website showing Richard Nixon was actually a space-alien, I would need a newspaper to print it and write about it first, before I could use it in the article on Nixon? Even if the caption on the CIA website said "Nixon was an alien." Is this correct? BashBrannigan (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Does this have anything to do with you wanting to use a non-free image? J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ending this now. I'm not opposing your removal of the photos. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All info regarding Block meeting Patton has been removed as per above discussion. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: if all of this is resolved, and the parties agree, can this lengthy discussion please be removed to the talk page here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it if you like, but note that I still oppose due to the substandard sourcing on File:Hope WWII 44.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case, it shouldn't be moved (I didn't note an oppose before). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Hope photo as per objections noted above. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I withdraw my opposition, but I haven't looked closely enough at the article to have any other opinion. (Also, my comments above seem to have been chopped up a bit? I'm not fussed, just thought it was odd.) J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think have the page number in my notes. If I can't find it, I'll get the book from the library and add the pages tomorrow. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added page numbers. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Added page numbers
formatted properly
fixed
fixed. made consistent
The title is the same as the source title.
added the publisher and link to original source.
replaced source. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it
fixed.BashBrannigan (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [13].

Art Ross

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth article of my 1945 Hockey Hall of Fame class to come through here, Art Ross was a major part of hockey for nearly half a century. Player, coach, manager, referee, innovator, he did everything and has a trophy named after him. The article went through GA back in June, and after some delay it should be ready for a final promotion. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—no dab links, all external links check out. Imzadi 1979 → 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: A couple of minor format nitpiks re refs 6 and 7: these should be formatted so that they reflect the relevant entries in the bibliography. Otherwise sources OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at those two references and don't see anything really wrong with them. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "wrong" with them as references – and I made a mistake, I meant 6 and 8, not 6 and 7. These are format nitpicks. Refs are normally by author; the "author" of ref 6 is Associated Press (1938), so for consistency I would have expected the ref to read "Associated Press (1938), p. 13". Likewise, the "author" of ref 8 is "Canadian Press", not "Lewiston", which isn't even the name of the journal. These are relatively simple fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean. Understandable and rather obvious thing. I made the changes. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'll take a look to see if there is anything I can find. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so I spent the last few days looking, and have found that there is little to no information about any type of style used. Writing about coaching stategy from the early days of hockey is severly lacking, as there is nothing even written in contemporary news reports. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It probably has something to do with the change over from the International Hockey Hall of Fame. On the IHHOF web site they claim that there is 4 different HOF classes and if you click on the links for the players it gives the corresponding years, but if you look at the pic of the players plaques they say differently. Bain says 1945 next to year but in the pic' it says "selected 1950", Ross, like Bain says 1945 on their info box but the pic' shows "selected - 1946" etc. Not that this helps any it was something I noticed. As for the most trustworthy I would think that something actually from the HHOF would be the thing to go with--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty much it there. I noticed the same thing when I was expanding the article, so sent an email off to Phil Pritchard, curator of the Hockey Hall of Fame. He said that the IHHOF was the original HHOF, and incducted the players in a couple different years. When the HHOF in its present form was founded in 1960 they retroactively inducted players, and the first 12 players were all listed as being inducted in 1945, even though they technically had not been. The catch to this though is I am not sure if there is any source for this other than a now-deleted email. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Addressed all these. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll understand if you don't have answers to some of the comments I had, I'll support once everything is fixed, or why it can't be fixed. Thanks Secret account 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed everything to what I see as best; if it can be improved, do tell. As for the few concerns about sources, all of them are covered in the following sentences; I felt it was redundant to include the same reference in consecutive sentences when one is sufficient. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Support Secret account 03:31, 23 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [14].

His Band and the Street Choir

[edit]
Nominator(s):  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I now think it meets the FA criteria. This is one of Van Morrison's key albums in his development as an artist, even though it is not remembered as one of his best. I've been working on this article on and off for about two years, so I've about exhausted all the sources I have on the album. I hope you all enjoy reading it and add some reviews. I hope it can pass this time. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The images were reviewed during its third nomination and nothing has been changed concerning them since.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: A couple of small issues:-

Otherwise, all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 36 is for Ankany, citations 13, 22, 24 and 30 are for Van Morrison Anthology and Van Morrison album is citation 38. I moved the Van Morrison albums cite to the correct place. The date for the Van Morrison Anthology can't be moved unless an author is inserted into that citation, which has not been given on the publication; if you click edit and view that cite the date's actually in the correct place, but it gets moved to the end when the page is viewed normally. Thanks for the review  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't pick up 36 is that you have misspelt the name as "Arkany" in the bibliography - should be "Arkeny" per the reference. As to the others, they need be cited to the sources, not to the publishers of the sources, otherwise the citations are unclear. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've fixed them :)  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have withdrawn my support pending the resolution of the serious problems with regard to the use of sources discussed below. Graham Colm (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support on 1a. I get a good feeling about this, having read only the top part. But there are a few things to fix up all the same. I think it needs a run-through by someone unfamiliar with the text.

Hi and thanks for the review. I've fixed your comments. Yes, a cappella does mean singing without instrumental backing.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved 1c/1d issue. Leaning to support on prose and comprehensiveness. A number of concerns, some of them minor:

*"The first recording session began in April 1970 in a church in Woodstock with limited recording equipment." - even though the sentence is short, "in ... in ... with" seems to string us along for too long with too many qualifiers, the last of which could apply either to the church or the session. Consider recasting to tighten and improve flow.

  • "he was a veteran of the Moondance tour but did not play on the actual album." - "actual" is not encyclopedic here; also, we're left unsure which "actual" album is meant: Moondance, or His Band? Perhaps "he was a veteran of the Moondance tour, though he had not played on the album." or somesuch.
  • "Keith Johnson completed the lineup" - does the article use British English? (Irish English??) line-up is hyphenated in British English (likewise out-take, re-released).
  • "In June 1970 Morrison began work on the album at the A&R recording studios on 46th Street in New York City." - again, a short sentence manages to take us on a tour, "on ... at ... on ... in". The street name seems inessential, so cutting that would help.
  • "Morrison abandoned this concept" - the Recording section has covered various things (original intent for first session to be a demo only; material considered; instrumentalists used; the a capella idea); hence, that paragraph opener fails to make it immediately clear what "this concept" refers to.
  • 'He uses the vocal technique of scat singing throughout the track, most notably with the words "Woman, woman, woman, you make me feel alright"' - isn't scat singing wordless? This needs to make clear what's meant by "with".
  • "and features a recurring bass line riff " - "line" seems superfluous
  • "The song was considered by many reviewers as a tribute to Fats Domino,[16][17] but the lyrics in a previous recording are inconsistent with this view:" - though sourced to Heylin, comes over like WP:OR as phrased; in any case, the inconsistency doesn't prove the end result wasn't a tribute. This needs to be in Heylin's voice, not Wikipedia's (e.g., "although Heylin suggests otherwise, because of the lyrics in a previous recording:").
  • "Morrison first recorded "If I Ever Needed Someone" in Autumn 1968;" - see WP:SEASON; the MoS deprecates the use of seasons to identify points in a year
  • ""Virgo Clowns" was first recorded during the early winter of 1969" - ditto
  • "represents a shot from a gun, consistant with the American outlaw theme" - sp (consistent)
  • "The second recording session yielded the remaining material.[9] "Call Me Up in Dreamland" is a gospel-style composition. The Street Choir feature conspicuously in the song; biographer Ken Brooks relates this to the fact that the album originally was to be recorded a cappella" - what point is Brooks making here? Why say this about this song as opposed to any other? Suggest cutting unless it can be elaborated upon.
  • "They also refer to Morrison and Janet Planet's life at the time, as Planet remembered, "We were finally, really living in a dreamland—believe it or not—it was a magical time."" - unclear what the effect of "as Planet remembered" is here. I suspect it's not encyclopedic, whatever it means

*"Because of these lyrics Heylin was led to believe that the song refers to the time when Morrison was ripped off by the music industry" - why the past tense for Heylin's view? It's not contrasted with another, as far as I can see. Also, "ripped off" can't be encyclopedic ... can it? And regardless of terminology, it's not Wikipedia's role to refer to "the time when Morrison was ripped off by the music industry." That needs to be in Heylin's voice, or Morrison's, or termed neutrally.

  • Past tense is fine for plain words like "said" and "wrote", but here, we have "was led to believe": unlike the plain terms, this invites speculation that (a) the belief was mistaken; (b) he later believed something different; (c) others always believed something different; (d) Wikipedia believes something different ... and so on. Additionally, it can produce the expectation that we will soon be told about how and why he was wrong to believe such a thing. And to refer to Heylin's belief, which involves a view that Morrison was "ripped off" by the music industry, we need to quote Heylin. So, we can quote whatever he says on page 221 that includes that term. That way, Wikipedia avoids making any assertion about whether or not Morrison was "ripped off"; it remains something Heylin said. PL290 (talk)
  • Because of these lyrics Heylin wrote that the song refers to the time when Morrison was "ripped off" by the music industry remains an assertion by Wikipedia that such rip-off occurred. But you're only citing something Heylin said. As I suggested above, the simplest way to resolve the 1c/1d issue would be to fully quote Heylin. PL290 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has solved the 1c/1d issue, but the result now fails to give the reader any context for understanding what's referred to. Heylin wrote that "such songs [as "Street Choir"] were spawned by an increasing awareness of just how badly ripped off he had been". Nowhere in the article does the reader find anything about a rip-off to connect with this quote. So the quote doesn't add to the reader's understanding of they lyric, "Why did you let me down / And now that things are better off / Why do you come around". If Heylin's quote is to be meaningful here, it needs to include the part where he identifies what he's referring to, i.e., assuming it was correct before, the music industry.PL290 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Ken Brooks assumed that the lyric "Move On Up" is another reference " - again, why the past tense, when no contrasting view accompanies? (Or are these two I've mentioned intended to be contrasted with each other? If so, it needs work to make that apparent.)

  • Ken Brooks assumed/assumes; tense change hasn't really helped. Same point as above, the word is the problem. Whether you use present or past tense, a plain term is more encyclopedic to express a biographer's opinion without inviting speculation (writes/wrote, says/said, in the view of Brooks, x is the case, etc.) PL290 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Warner Bros. Records scheduled His Band and the Street Choir for rush-release ... This led the company to mistitle the promotional releases as His Band and Street Choir and prepare an incorrectly ordered track listing." - I doubt that the rush-release led the company to do those things; it produced conditions under which they made those mistakes.

  • 'Morrison dismissed these photos as "rubbish", however Johnny Rogan commented that the front cover looks far worse; it included a "hilarious" image' - that use of however requires a preceding semicolon and a trailing comma; however, in this case, all things considered, I suggest ending the sentence there instead ("rubbish". However, Johnny Rogan commented).

*The Packaging section seems to dwell too much on Morrison's beard and Kaftan. They take up about half the section. There may not be much else to say about the packaging, but this seems imbalanced. A trim seems in order.

  • "The final single, "Call Me Up in Dreamland", managed only two weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 by reaching number 95" - "by" seems inapplicable.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE, blockquote is for quotes of more than four lines, so the couple of two-and-a-half-line blockquotes seem incongruous; however, others may feel differently, and the MoS may need tightening on this point.
  • "Despite this assistant producer and drummer" - needs a comma after this.

PL290 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heylin makes the link between the two quotes, however a better quote is used in Yorke, which is used in the article instead. The Dahaud Shaar quote was removed in a previous FAC, which does relate to the album and not Morrison's feelings. Do you think I should reinstate the quote?  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This role of the Morrison and the musicians' responses section is still strange. One way or another, this section needs to decide its role and be titled and populated accordingly. Adding a sentence about Planet's view, to justify the section title, has not really helped: this is still not about "the musicians" at all (there were lots of musicians). Additionally, the summary in the lead, that he came to regard Street Choir poorly in later years, is not backed up as it should be by this section, which only says that right at the time of release, he was upset by someone else's choice of packaging and title. The quote you say was removed is probably more applicable now the section is no longer part of Reception. Consider titling the section something to the effect of Morrison's dissatisfaction and filling it with all the facts relating to that. PL290 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL290 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review PL290.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Comment

Yes, I know how Jef Labes is actually spelled, but I was quoting from the book exactly as it was written. What is your point bringing this up? It serves to be distracting from the main issue that you misinterpreted the material. This article is up for FA. You need to be very careful about reading and stating the material. Agadant (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first recording session, as marked by Heylin on p.520 was recorded in spring 1970 (March to May), with engineer Elliot Scheiner. I must have got a bit muddled yeasterday when I changed the page number for the church in Woodstock ref from 238 to 239, when it was on 238 in the first place. Heylin notes on p.238 that he recorded new songs "Crazy Face" and "Give Me a Kiss", old songs "Domino", "If I Ever Needed Someone", "Funny Face" and "I've Been Working" and some instrumentals, while on page 520 he lists all the above songs minus "Gypsy Queen", so I changed the wording to "During its course Morrison worked on leftover material from his previous two albums (Astral Weeks and Moondance), recorded three songs that he had not performed in the studio before ("Gypsy Queen", "Crazy Face" and "Give Me a Kiss"), as well as three instrumentals." And for this last bit you've missed out the key points of the quotes from the book "Engineer Elliot Scheiner, back at the console after fulfilling post-production duties on Moondance ... Morrison and Scheiner had an exchange of words and Scheiner found himself out in the cold, with a meaningless 'Production Co-ordinator' credit to his name ... ", which is a disagreement if he was dropped for Dahaud Shaar. The second recording session was in the summer 1970, according to p.520, which is June to August, so I've changed it from June to June to August.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read all of the material carefully and didn't miss out the key points to anything. You have interpreted contradictory and very unclear material in a manner that you prefer. Your job as the trusted editor should be to only use material that is not questionable with contradictory references in the same book. You can't pick and choose whichever you prefer. Well, at least I wouldn't think so. Agadant (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: It doesn't say "some instrumentals" as you claim above and wrote as three in the article—it definitely says, "a couple of spatial instrumental jams" on page 238— couple means two, if I'm not mistaken. Agadant (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non of this is contradictory, as what I've written above explains this. The only time when something is contradictory is the recording location, which is marked "?A&R Recording Studios" on p.520, which should be ignored because of the question mark. Heylin's sources are clear in the main body of the book where the album was actually recorded.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be contradictory about which session Elliot Scheiner was engineer on and replaced by Shaw. Am I reading this correctly? —Heylin, p. 239 reads: "By the time the band transferred to A&R, Morrison seemed in a real hurry to get in and out. As usual, he was hoping to cut the whole thing live, which initially helped push things along. Engineer Elliot Scheiner, back at the console after fulfilling post-production duties on Moondance...... However, at some point during this first set of sessions, Scheiner and Morrison had an exchange of words"... "Morrison turned to drummer Dauod Shaw for technical input...*That doesn't say that it was during the demo sessions at the church that Scheiner and Morrison had an exchange of words, it says at A&R and Shaw was then co-producer. By the way, I do know that Dauod Shaw is also called Dauod Shaar and also David Shaw, but I'm using it as in Heylin's book. Agadant (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always read "By this time" as Heylin talking about before when "the band transferred to A&R", so I've corrected the recording section.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't say "By this time", it says "By the time". There's a big difference in the meaning. Agadant (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's as far as I've checked for now and I can't check all references out, as I don't have all the books used as sources. Agadant (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heylin writes both His Band and the Street Choir recording sessions on p.520 as "?A&R Recording Studios", which implies he doesn't know where they were recorded, but he makes it clear in the main part of the book that it was recorded in a church and the A&R Recording Studios.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again a use of material that is contradictory in the same book with 'your' preference being used. Agadant (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not my preference. I misinterpreted this sentence.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heylin, p. 235 refers to his "profound distrust of those who sought to interpret his lyrics" and says, "he would dramatically compress the number of levels on which the lyrics could operate, denying his audience any real songs open to such literary analysis." I don't see how "the level of poetry" statement formerly in the article would be arrived at by Heylin's writing on this page. Agadant (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just have to accept your word on this one. Agadant (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a serious lack of comprehension of the material on the recording sessions and where they took place, etc. and unfortunately you built the article around that misinterpretation and misrepresentation. (The article is now just a shell of its former self) There also seems to be a very casual disregard for facts and the trusted position as editor of "getting it right". Most importantly, there were other serious misattributions in sourcing unrelated information in Heylin and other biographies as listed above (Rogan, Collis) [and more Heylin below] and with reviews used for references. Agadant (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [15].

Paul Krichell

[edit]
Nominator(s): Secret account 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krichell was one of the scouts of the New York Yankees from 1920 to his death. His involvement included signing several future Hall of Famers. Everything in the FAC, with the exception of adding some extra stats to his playing career which I would add later tonight was taken care of. It might need a copyedit as I expanded it another 1,000 or so bytes. Thanks for Wizardman for his copyediting of the article. Thanks Secret account 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: One nitpick: be consistent in your page number formats. Sometimes "p." is used, sometimes not. Otherwise all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Opposed at the first FAC, but don't think that's necessary here. I did read through the whole article and came up with the following thoughts:

Image review: No issues with the three photographs; all are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the two were sent to the Boston Red Sox for cash considerations - I am unsure what this means.

I think I can provisionally support pending the above query. I am okay with the prose and comprehensiveness - I can't see any prose clangers otherwise, but someone else might be able to iron prose out a little more, which would be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why are websites (as opposed to books, periodicals, journals, newspapers) italicized in the citations (see WP:ITALICS). (I think this is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Book sources that are used more than once, and referenced with a short citation, could be listed in a separate Biblio or References section to make it easier to see what the short citations refer to without having to scan the entire list of Notes.
    Fixing it should be done by tomorrow. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prose review needed: (samples ONLY). "He started out as a catcher ... " He started "out"? What... his professional career, semi-pro, what? He had no baseball experience prior to that? High school? "Krichell also spent part of the 1909, and 1910, seasons ... " Why the commas? "Krichell signed in 1911 with the St. Louis Browns, who used him as a backup catcher during his career." During his career is redundant. Samples only, prose check needed. "He ended up on the same train ... " colloquial. The prose is choppy and unconnected in several places, with no relationship between sentences. "Krichell and Coakley decided to meet Gehrig in Yankee Stadium for ... " decided to meet ?
    Asked a couple of editors if they could copyedit the article for me, I don't understand the colloquial part, fixed all the rest of your suggestions. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is there nothing on his childhood or early background in sources?
    I went though the sources, what I got is the only thing found, there isn't no biography of the subject. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "During a 1912 game against the Detroit Tigers, Ty Cobb stole second, third, and home plate in the same inning against Krichell." Non-baseball fans may not understand this sentence (that he was catching, you steal against a catcher), and the sentence will seem strangely out of place for non-baseball fans, better context needed. Was he considered a weak catcher? In the next paragraph, we see he was released, but this could all flow better.
    He was considered a weak catcher but I don't have the source for it without going to original research, as for that statement, I can't reword it on a non-baseball way. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried, but it still doesn't help a non-baseball person understand that you steal against a catcher. Don't know how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "He resigned on June 27, 1918, after two wins were taken from him because he used a player not under contract.[13]" No more detail? For someone considered one of baseball's best scouts, there seems to be a lack of detail. "He worked with the shipyards during World War I." Choppy prose, unconnected to text around it, or some rearrangement of paragraphs needed in this entire section. Nothing about his time with the Red Sox? It just seems strange to me that we have so little detail on someone "Considered to be one of the greatest scouts in baseball history," what library research has been done?
    There's nothing special about being a coach in a MLB team, you won't find information on that unless you do something really extraordinary, that goes for all baseball coaches articles. As with the other information, I think I could find it in my sources, especially the New York Baseball Coach one (should be manager), I think there was further detail on the incident, need to look at google books. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Barrow thought Krichell was the right man to upgrade the scouting staff ... " Why?
    Source didn't give why. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This source shows a different quote for what Krichell said when he saw Gehrig; double check your source? Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Krichell is considered one of the greatest scouts in baseball history" has only one source; is one book sufficient to make this statement, or should it be attributed? (The book is, after all, about the Yankees rather than baseball in general.)
    There's a few more books, and a website that the baseball wikiproject approved as reliable that says that. Should I add the website. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "brilliant" polished story is not woven here, the prose needs work, and the reader does not see a compelling story of why he was the greatest ever, or what distinguished him from other scouts.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to work on the article when I could, I exausted all the avaliable sources btw the NYT. There hasn't been a book written on the subject, or Yankees scouting in general, I heard in one of my sources that Krichell wrote an book about the subject of scouting, let me see if I could find that, but yea you do make some valid points, which some of which I can't fix. The quote was on the book (which I own). I was planning to do a dissation on the Yankees scouting system when I get to my PHD, I'm planning to visit the Baseball Hall of Fame in November. Maybe I could complete the story there. I'll work on the prose tommorrow morning. Wait until Monday to see what I could find with his early life etc. Secret account 01:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, pls ping me when you want me to have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending, I intend to search my local library database to see if there are more sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've begun a read through and copy-edit, just a few points I can't clear up.

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I think I've done what I can, but I've hit the limit of my baseball knowledge so I'm not sure I can do much more. The legacy and scouting style section give a good flavour of why he was so good, but not sure the main bits give quite as strong an impression as I suspect was the case. But I'm not sure it is possible to do much about that. Maybe make it more explicit that he saw what others passed up? It already does to some extent, maybe a touch more? As above, I think it needs some more about his being regarded as the best ever scout. Have any prominent players, writers or commentators said anything to that effect? That might be useful. And I think something about what the team achieved with the players he discovered: i.e. what was the playing record, what did the team win in that time, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarastro1 (talk • contribs)

Comments –

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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [16].

No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ωphois 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ωphois 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Refs - Personally, although the sites themselves don't look like more that I'd use for general purposes, I've always been of the mind that personally conducted Q&As should be considered "reliable" sources of info so long as the source itself doesn't have a history of falsifying information - which you can usually find out with simple Google searches.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. In that case I'm afraid I have to oppose. Nothing is jumping out at me that would make this article an FA. The writing is ordinary because the subject matter is; that's not a reflection on your writing, because it would be hard for anyone to write about this well. In addition to that, though, it could use a copy edit to smooth out things like "let go due to budgetary reasons". There's nothing of substance about the topic, nothing quirky, no interesting angle, no analysis. The reception section is just a list of quotes, and there's over-quoting throughout the article, e.g. "Although Kripke found it difficult to pen many of the episode's scenes, the terrorizing sequences 'just came right out' because they were 'just so fun.'" (And why "pen" and not "write"?) There's no overview regarding how this episode fits into the series, how the series fits into whatever the genre is (I would have developed the Twilight Zone comparison more), why this episode matters more than any other, or why we should care about any of it. I'm sorry I can't be more positive about it, Ophois. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used "pen" to avoid repetitions of the word "write". Anyways, I wholeheartedly disagree. The plot section, IMO, connects the episode to the main storyline (I also added in to the lead that they hunt supernatural creatures). The reception section is a bunch of quotes because that is what the reception section, especially for a TV episode, is supposed to be. I also don't see how you can say there is nothing of substance, seeing as how the writers completely changed the direction of the episode due to the writers' strike, as well as the information regarding the design of Hell. FA criteria does require an article's topic to be amazing, or for an episode to have something that people are "speculating about for ages". Ωphois 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through and trimmed down or reworded some of the quotes. I feel a lot of them, however, need to remain as quotes because it would be speculation to assume what they fully meant. Other quotes I feel are best phrased how they said it. Regarding the Twilight Zone stuff, it would be original research to make any further connections without reliable sources. Ωphois 06:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a Background section. Ωphois 00:57, 29 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 12:30, 27 September 2010 [17].

Jocko Thompson

[edit]
Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. In the period of time since this passed its good article nomination, I have done additional research on this player and have not found any further information beyond what's currently in the article. Thus, I believe it to be complete, fully referenced, and of featured quality. This is my second go-round through the FA process (my first try was a dismal failure), and I'm hoping that this one turns out well; if passed, it would obviously be my first successful FAC. I'll try to address all comments as expediently as possible. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks. ; the external link to http://gonu.com/baseball/archives/results.htm produces "We're sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found." PL290 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My Google search of Phil Nordyke's More Than Courage, a history of the 504th, shows that Thompson is mentioned about a dozen times. My copy is in storage, but I seem to remember he's mentioned in some detail. Have you looked at this source? If not, I don't think this is comprehensive as of yet. Skinny87 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Hey, no problem - I'd have had the exact same problem in reverse if I'd tried to get this to FA. I'll see what I can dig up in the next week or so, no worries. Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Military award images are verifiably in the public domain. The bridge photo is appropriately licensed. Jocko is dead and conceivably there can be no free replacement available unless someone releases their shot into the public domain. Possibilities include John Comier's photos and bubble gum cards[18][19] if Bowman Gum had failed to renew the copyright registrations. Regardless, the fair use (to identify a dead subject and who is unlikely to have a public domain photo) is likely appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, go ahead and withdraw the nomination. As always, my work doesn't seem to be FA caliber. — KV5 • Talk • 12:23, 27 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 12:33, 26 September 2010 [20].

Menominee Tribe v. United States

[edit]
Nominator(s): GregJackP (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article, as I believe that it meets the criteria. It is currently a good article, is stable, and is written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW and WP:SCOTUS criteria, especially in regards to the Bluebook reference style (which is slightly different from other reference styles). The case is a leading case in Native American (Indian) law as regards treaty rights. GregJackP Boomer! 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PUNC deals with whether the punctuation is part of the original quote and should be included inside or outside of the quotation marks ... it can be tricky, and often requires access to the sources ... if you still don't understand it after reading that page, don't sweat it, as it is not something that will hold up a FAC, but something you should attempt to understand. By the way CJLippert (talk · contribs) is an editor you might want to ping for review of this article (just keep the request neutral to avoid WP:CANVASS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the articles and found several problems (some are problems with the article, others are link (or lack there of)). So, here are my beefs with the current article or the current links
  1. The 1831 treaty preserved usufruct, not granted because the right was not taken away and then given back.
  2. The tribe was located in both Michigan and Wisconsin since time immemorial, though the current tribe is found only in Wisconsin. Some of the Menomini bands of the past were absorbed by the neighbouring Ojibwe while other bands were amalgamated into a single band that forms the current Menomini tribe.
  3. Since there were three different Treaties of Washington plus a Supplement, all in 1831, and through Treaty of Washington (1831) article was created, but focusing only on the Menomini Treaty and its Supplement, it and other treaties, if there were multiple ones signed in the same year by a tribe or tribes, placing a clarifier by citing the US Statutes at Large would greatly help. In the case of the Menomini Treaty and its Supplement, the citations would be 7 Stat. 342 and 7 Stat. 346, respectively. Similarly, as some of the links to the treaties are currently still a "red link", the in-line US Statutes at Large link would help the reader go directly to the source.N.B.: there is the template ((USStat|V|P)) that would make this a breeze.
  4. With the Treaty of Washington (1831) article, I wonder if it should be renamed as Treaty of Washington, with the Menominee (1831)? Or else, if one is really careful, the non-Menomini treaties could be inserted and appropriate section breaks would be needed. In that treaty article, showing Royce Areas 158~162 in eastern Wisconsin would be helpful.
  5. Minnesota is pretty big. Clarifying the location of Royce Area 269/321 would help. BTW, there is an appropriate image already available currently found in the Treaty of Fond du Lac, under the 1847 Treaty of Fond du Lac, showing the location of the Royce Area 269 that the Pillager Chippewa ceded to the US for the purposes of establishing a Menomini Indian Reservation. There isn't an image currently available on Wikipedia showing the same area as Royce Area 321 as Menomini land cession.
  6. On Dakota/Ojibwe with the notes: the specific parties involved were the Santee (Dakota Sioux) and the Pillagers (Ojibwe/Chippewa). The term "Dakota" can be used instead of "Sioux" but the converse does not hold, just as "Santee" can be used for "Dakota" but the converse does not hold. The reason is that there are "two" very different "Dakota" (Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonai)(and if you want to really split hairs, the "two" becomes six), and together with the Lakota, they collectively form "Sioux". In addition, through "Ojibwe" and "Chippewa" are interchangeable terms, both the Ho-chunks and the Menomini didn't have problems with the Mississippi Chippewa but with the Pillager Chippewa. If you're going to bother putting in notes, the notes should be concise and serve to clarify this without rambling (like the way I am at the moment).
  7. The transition from the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century is a bit too abrupt. Not sure how to bridge it, especially when the pertinent facts-at-hand occur in these two periods as well.
  8. Link to the Indian termination policy, may be valuable as there is a section in that article already regarding the Menomini. This should also clarify it was the mid- to late-1940s, and not just the 1940s. In addition, House concurrent resolution 108 of 1953 should be mentioned regarding the termination policy.
As for the last half of the article covering the Opinion of the Court and Subsequent developments, I don't see any problems there. CJLippert (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and addressing your points:
  1. Done - changed to "retained" hunting and fishing rights.
  2. Done - reworked. I knew better, part of my family went with the Menominee, the other part are with the Grand Traverse Band.
  3. Comment/Question - The USStat template is used in the references, are you recommending that I add an in-line one also? I'm more than willing to do so, but am curious if that wouldn't be redundant.
  4. Done - renamed to Treaty of Washington, with Menominee (1831).
  5. Done - added image.
  6. Question - I am familiar with the Sioux, their divisions and bands (not so much for the Ojibwe), but wasn't sure how much detail I should go into. I didn't feel that it was really that relevant to the article, but am willing to add more.
  7. Comment - I don't know if the intervening period is that relevant to the case - the treaties were included due to the treaty interpretation present in the case. I'm open to adding it though.
  8. Comment - not clear on what you are asking/saying. It is already wikilinked at the start of the Tribal termination section.
Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responses-
3. The USStat ref, in line, only if 1) article doesn't exist yet, or 2) if multiple treaties go by the same name, then to clarify which one. I don't know if we really need an inline link to each and every one of them, but that legal clarifier should be included inline first time the treaty is mentioned.
6. Maybe instead of "Santee and Ojibwe", you should say "Sioux and the Anishinaabe" (very general, and probably too general to be meaningful), "Dakota and Ojibwe" (general and meaningful) or "Santee and Pillagers" (specific); basically, to match parties involved in the conflict at the same organisational level.
7. Nevermind. Looking at the article, I see that I missed the transitional phrase "From that date forward for 100 years, ...."
8. I think the problem I have is just with Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the "Tribal Termination" section, as it wasn't in the mid- to late-1940s Menomini were identified for termination, but rather during that time they were part of the survey by the BIA to determine the condition of the tribe as so many weren't fairing well at all. It was only from 1950 onward that Menomini were identified when the poorest and the richest tribes were identified for termination because it was thought the richest (like the Menomini) could survive without being encumbered by the gross mismanagement of the BIA, while the poorest were identified for termination as it was thought their lives would drastically improve if managed by the states instead of by the BIA. Both assumptions proved disastrously wrong. Rewording the first sentence of that section to reflect this would be helpful. What would be even more helpful would be if the Indian termination policy article itself were edited to clearly iterate this point. Oh, in that termination section, have you considered using [[Indian_termination_policy#Menominee_Termination_Act|Menominee Indian Termination Act]] to remove that red link since there is a small blurb already in existence?
Thank you for such a wonderful article and hard work! CJLippert (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Done - inline cites added. 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Done - changed to Dakota/Ojibwe, edited fn to match, made sure ref was still valid. 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Moot.
8. Done
8a. Done - reworked sentence. 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
8b. Done - Wikilink replaced. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing:
9. "Crow Wing area" currently links to Crow Wing County, Minnesota. This link would be incorrect as the "Crow Wing area" refers to the Crow Wing River basin, so my first inclination was to recommend changing that to Crow Wing River, but as that really don't focus on the area of interest, maybe having a link instead go to the Long Prairie River—as this tributary of the Crow Wing River served as the dividing line between Royce Areas 268/361 of the Ho-chunks and 269/321 of the Menomini—would be more appropriate. The Royce Area 268/321 is bounded by the Leaf and Long Prairie Rivers on the north and southeast (both tributaries of the Crow Wing River), and by the Prairie du Chien Line on the west. Royce Area 268/321 covers significant portions of Wadena, Otter Tail, Douglas and Todd counties and very small portions of Cass and Morrison Counties... all west and south of Crow Wing County.
CJLippert (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Done - linked to Long Prairie River. GregJackP Boomer! 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks. That takes care of all the issues I've seen. So, no-caveat Support. CJLippert (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with suggestions:

Fixed. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kablammo (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Question - I tried to write the lede from a perspective of the layperson, but I'm open to suggestions. Where can we get someone to look at that aspect? GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - referenced to LexisNexis list of law review articles citing case. Note that this is behind a paywall. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions I have a non-US background which gives me familiarity with iwi vs the Crown situations, so I'll give the lead review a go.
  • Is it normal to have the first sentence of case articles be a statement of the holding? It immediately made it very hard to follow. Would "...was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the tribal hunting and fishing rights under treaty of the Menominee Indian Tribe" be sufficient? The rest of the lead lays out the situation much more clearly.
  • "terminated the tribe's federal recognition" - I'd appreciate clarification here that the primary effect is (I think) that it terminated federal funding to the tribe.
  • "Members of the tribe were charged with" - could use a mention of when this happened; ie. the subsequent year, and also that they were hunting/fishing on the land on which they had been resident, by treaty, before the legislation change, for 100+ years.
  • Also note from body of article: "lived in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan since time immemorial." Beautiful phrasing, but wouldn't archaeology place it at <20k years?
  • "On termination, the Menominee went from being one of the wealthiest tribes to one of the poorest." I would have appreciated mention of why the Federal process thought that termination was a good idea at all if this was the immediate outcome.
Iridia (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although these were suggestions and not an oppose, I believe all of Iridia's suggestions have been addressed. Iridia was notified and asked to reconsider here and has not commented further on the FAC nomination, although Iridia has been on-Wiki and her talk page subsequent to the notice (see here). GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a friendly note on expectations: quickly checking one's talk page on a weekend is a lot less onerous than doing a detailed read-through for checking against FAC standards. :) Iridia (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. I did not mean that you should have immediately returned here, and I'm sorry if I left that impression. SG told me that reviewers are often busy, and can't return right away - I was just trying to convey that I believed you would have seen the message and would return when you could. I'll try to use better phrasing in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'll get on these in the morning. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 07:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This now has more material than is in the text body - the two must be kept consistent. Also, how can "police and fire protection" be ended - if the tribe is "assimilated", wouldn't they receive normal county &etc. coverage? Iridia (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reservation was formed into a brand new county - since the tribe were the only residents, they had to pay for police and fire protection themselves, without any industrial tax base to support it. The same applied to all other services. GregJackP Boomer! 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear goodness. *is aghast* This is the kind of thing that is completely unfamiliar and has to be mentioned for those of us who are more used to, say, one police force that covers the entire country. I just learned there are twenty thousand such U.S. agencies... Iridia (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also do agree with Tony that the body prose needs further smoothing out: WP:MOSLAW says "Aim to provide an overview to an international lay audience", and between that and 1a, it just needs polishing. The content is clearly adequate. But as I only gave a lead review, I will limit my involvement to resolving my previous comments. Iridia (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too many problems in the prose.

  • Comment - I believe all of Tony1's objections have been addressed save one, as noted below. The one that is not addressed is due to a convert template in order to show both U.S. and metric measurements per WP:MOS. Tony1 was notified that the objections have been addressed and asked to reconsider here and has not commented further on the FAC nomination, although he has been on-Wiki and his talk page subsequent to the notice (see here). GregJackP Boomer! 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Not until 1871 would Indian Tribes officially become Domestic Dependencies, so the use of "the federal government" would not be appropriate and the "the United States" would be. Any land cessions after 1871, "the federal government" wording would be appropriate as it is assumed we are speaking of the federal government of the United States. Minor point, and it is legalese. CJLippert (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern: I think the licensing/copyrights for the images are pretty fine, except for perhaps File:US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart - 1976 official portrait.jpg. Robert Stanley Oakes was never a government employee; he was employed at National Geographic since 1960.[21] He may have been contracted to be an official photographer for government officials but under US law, copyright transfer to an employer (for work for hire) requires documentation. Otherwise, the copyright remains with the photographer. What I fear here from reading the LoC's page is that Oakes might have given permission/rights to the Supreme Court for unlimited reproduction, but might not have surrendered his copyright on derivatives (another essential component of Wikipedia's "free" policy). Could the LoC or the Supreme Court be contacted to clarify this? Even if clarified, the copyright tag on the image would likely need to be corrected (since Oakes was not a government employee). Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the LOC "No known restrictions on publication. Verified with the Supreme Court, 2004." located at [22]. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says "on publication", not "on publication and derivative uses" or "for all uses"; please read my concern again. Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it is not a freely available image. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your interpretation. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not so keen on "then" at the opening of a section. The back-reference has to climb over quite a boundary. And the very next para starts with "then" as well. And the third para. Just bin the word. Can you audit out "then" in sequential narrative where possible?
  2. "The court first made clear that the Menominee Termination Act did not actually abolish the tribe or its membership, it merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe." Would this be better? "The court first clarified that the Menominee Termination Act did not abolish the tribe or its membership, but merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe."
  3. "albeit not one under" ... "albeit" is a bit old-fashioned legalistic. I've been criticised for using it. "although not under"? Is "federal" not with a lower-case f? MoS says when in doubt, use lower case.
  4. Dash, not comma? "Court—that the"
  5. Surely "the Court had noted" with C, since it's titular, not generic.
  6. Mood tension: "If it had, the tribe had a valid claim for compensation but if not, then there would be no compensation." Surely, "If it had, the tribe would have had a valid claim for compensation; but if not, then there would be no compensation." Can you think carefully about the use of semicolons and colons; these boundaries are important in presenting involved, technical information.
  7. Noted ... noted ... note.
  8. "that stated that". (solved by accounting for the fact that the first refers to people, not things.).
  9. Try to minimise "that" where possible: "the court took note that Congress also amended Public Law 280 to state that in Wisconsin, Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected." -> "the court observed that Congress had amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected in Wisconsin."
  10. Do readers have to divert to the link to learn what "certiorari" means? Perhaps a phrase in parentheses after the item to gloss it (or is that clunky?).

You know, we'd love to get WP's legal articles on a better footing. Can you establish collaborations with copy-editors who are interested in / have worked on this area? I suggest withdrawal and the building of a team to transform legal articles, which in the short-term might re-nominate this one. I am picking up that a little library of words/expressions/constructions is required in this genre to avoid close repetitions of the clunky "note that", "stated that". You might consider starting a little copy-edit resource with advice specific to writing about this subject (buzz me if you prepare a draft); I see the film people have a very good tutorial page, although I'm not suggesting you go that far quite yet. Tony (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done
  1. Done - Not so keen on "then" at the opening of a section. The back-reference has to climb over quite a boundary. And the very next para starts with "then" as well. And the third para. Just bin the word. Can you audit out "then" in sequential narrative where possible? GregJackP Boomer! 11:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done - "The court first made clear that the Menominee Termination Act did not actually abolish the tribe or its membership, it merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe." Would this be better? "The court first clarified that the Menominee Termination Act did not abolish the tribe or its membership, but merely ended Federal supervision of the tribe." GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done - "albeit not one under" ... "albeit" is a bit old-fashioned legalistic. I've been criticised for using it. "although not under"? Is "federal" not with a lower-case f? MoS says when in doubt, use lower case. Changed to "although" and l/c. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Done - Dash, not comma? "Court—that the" GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done - Surely "the Court had noted" with C, since it's titular, not generic. I actually agree, on another article, I was told to change it during a GAN. Fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done - Mood tension: "If it had, the tribe had a valid claim for compensation but if not, then there would be no compensation." Surely, "If it had, the tribe would have had a valid claim for compensation; but if not, then there would be no compensation." Can you think carefully about the use of semicolons and colons; these boundaries are important in presenting involved, technical information. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Done - Noted ... noted ... note. GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Done - "that stated that". (solved by accounting for the fact that the first refers to people, not things.). Now "who stated that" GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Done - Try to minimise "that" where possible: "the court took note that Congress also amended Public Law 280 to state that in Wisconsin, Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected." -> "the court observed that Congress had amended Public Law 280 so that Indian hunting and fishing rights were protected in Wisconsin."
  10. Done - Do readers have to divert to the link to learn what "certiorari" means? Perhaps a phrase in parentheses after the item to gloss it (or is that clunky?). Not sure - I added a short explanation, what do you think? GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you pinged Tony1 for a revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, regretfully - you've put in some good work during this FAC, but there are still too many problems for me to accept this as FA-status. I would suggest finding a copy-editor or two to give this a good work-through before renominating; the below should not be considered a complete list of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article but dont think it is quite FA ready. Will post more extensive comments when I have a chance. Savidan 06:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have a particular issue that concerns how articles are written in the field of law, particularly case law. It is one which I have raised in some previous contexts, and I reproduce here (with original datestamp) the point with which I kicked off discussion on one of those previous occasions:

"There is a problem across a large number of WP pages that relate to legal topics, in particular which involve case law.

(a) to cite cases, including Wikilinks if available, in order to inform the reader of the cases, dates etc at which certain legal events took place;
(b) to cite or quote judgments to the extent that the article is describing what the judges said; BUT
(c) to cite other sources, that are not the judgments themselves, in describing the effects those judgments have.
Here is an example that used to be in Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (the article has changed somewhat since then). The article stated:

...the Supreme Court, since Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), has also interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats on a "one-person, one-vote" basis.

This sentence reports how two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted a clause of a constitutional amendment. This statement cannot rely on the citations of the cases themselves, which are primary sources. It is not reasonable to suggest that on the strength of two case citations, "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" could readily verify the claim made in the WP article regarding what was the effect of those judgments. The understanding of the effect of those two judgments must be based on a secondary source. This is a problem which plagues many articles in the field of law. I think it stems from this case citation approach being the prevailing style in the writing of scholarly papers in the field. However, it is not valid to transfer this use of primary sources in creating works in the secondary literature into the WP domain, which must rely on secondary sources in creating a tertiary literature. I encourage all the law students, law professionals, journalists and others who contribute to these articles to just pull out your case law handbooks and textbooks - it doesn't have to be anything as fancy as the Harvard Law Review - and provide secondary sources to ensure verifiability of these articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific examples where this is happening in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of the early treaties addressed hunting and fishing rights" is cited only to the treaty texts themselves - primary sources.
  • Much of the text around these early points (in "Early treaties") is cited jointly to the primary documents and to the the court case Menominee Tribe of Indians et al. v. United States. I am presuming the case is being treated here as a secondary source. If that's consistent with MOSLAW, then fine, but I would have expected a scholarly article about the treaties here.
  • "In 1954, Congress terminated the federally recognized status of the Menominee in Menominee Indian Termination Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 891–902" - this appears cited only to the statute. It seems unlikely to me that "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" would be able to readily work out that this was the effect of the statute, but that may depend where one thinks one should 'set the bar' for a reasonable educated person.
  • My main concerns are probably with sections "State enforcement actions" and "Federal Court of Claims" where I think the majority of cites are to case law. The cases are cited to support lines such as "Since the Menominee was still a tribe, although not one under federal trusteeship, the tribe had a right to assert a claim arising out the Wolf River Treaty in accordance with the Indian Claims Commission Act and the Tucker Act". If other editors believe that this is information that a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge would be able to reach these conclusions with only the case law before them, then I'm happy for my oppose to be disregarded. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamiltonstone. Per WP:MOSLAW, Referencing section (at the bottom of the page), it states:
"Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." (emphasis added)
Given that this a legal article, it was written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW, which is part of the overall WP:MOS. It is the consensus of the WP community. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <scratches head> Thanks - I'm not seeing anything at MOSLAW that speaks to my argument, but I may be missing something. I work with the law a lot, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be reading things in the same way as others including yourself. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 11:12, 26 September 2010 [23].

Mary Anning

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... There was a lot of work on this article the first few months of this year and it passed GA in March. Ever since then I and other editors have been making improvements, mostly copy edits to improve the prose. I now believe it is FA quality.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist who painted the famous portrait of Anning at the British Museum is unknown. I have edited the file description to state this explicitly. It should not be an issue for copyright purposes because the painting is from the first half of the 19th Century and therefore is clearly in the public domain. I have updated the Duria Antiquior file to show where I got the original image, which was from an article on the original water colour painting, which is at the Department of Geology at Amgueddfa Cymru (a Welsh museum). Again there shouldn't be a copyright issue here because the original watercolour was painted in 1830, and the artist, Henry De la Beche, died in 1855. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I didn't expect there to be copyright issues (though I guess it's possible that they are modern reproductions "in the style of" or something) it's just good to have the sourcing top-notch. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking a read through.

Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like FunkMonk added it along with another really good image. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is from (Torrens 1995) :"The woman was Lady Harriet

Silvester (1753-1843), widow of a former Recorder of the City of London. She visited Mary on 17 September 1824 and recorded in her diary the 'very extraordinary history of this young woman'." The quote from her on Anning is widely reproduced (though couple of online sites misspell her name as "Lady Sivester"). The citation in Torrens is "E. Welch, 'Lady Silvester's tour through Devonshire in 1824', Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries (1967), 30, 313 and (1973), 32, 265-6." That is as much as I have been able to find out. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I linked deep time, even though it was linked in the lead. I think that with an article this long it is Ok if a few key terms are linked more than once. Unfortunately when the article was nominate for GA it was heavily over linked and the reviewer made a pass through and deleted all the duplicate links, which was mostly a good thing, but I have quietly added a few back in key places since, and I agree that since this is sort of a "term of art" used by modern historians of science it is probably worth linking in both the lead and the body. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is complicated. According to the source (Emling 2009) there are multiple conflicting versions of events. She invested the money with someone in London, and that man either died, leaving her with no way to recover the money or ran off with the money. The person responsible is not named. No other source that I have found even says that much about what happened so I am not clear on what more would be useful to add. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I don't know of anyone who criticised De la Beche's decision to include the eulogy in the Geological Society transactions. By that time Anning had earned quite a bit of respect. There was not much overt criticism of Anning in scientific circles. The only things I can think of is a somewhat unflattering description of her that Gideon Mantel put in a letter, which doesn't seem particularly relevant and Cuvier's accusation of fraud which is discussed in the article. For the most part the slights to Anning were ones of omission as when someone like Coneybeare or Owen just failed to mention her name when writing papers on her discoveries. Even then there was probably little or no personal animus involved. They just didn't consider her a "gentleman" therefore they felt no obligation to mention her any more than they felt an obligation to mention the names of the quarrymen, ditch diggers, and road workers, who often found fossils and sold them to wealthy collectors, who, as Torrens points out, were often credited in scientific papers of that period as the discoverers of a fossil when all they did was purchase it and donate it to a museum or make it available for examination. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back and added a couple of sentence to the "interactions" section to make this a little more clear. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little more context, but I don't want to go too far in this direction. This is not a general article about the history of paleontology. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That took longer than I expected :P Very nice article, really interesting subject matter. I think this would make a great FP once a few tweaks have been made. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Not an issue anymore. That footnote is now gone.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume your question is what makes it a reliable source. This question came up during the GA review and here was my response. "Strange science is an educational web site that is self published, but it is supported, approved, or endorsed by a variety of organizations including the National Science Foundation, encyclopedia Britanica (who gave it a Web's best sites award in 2009), School zone who gave it a 5 star rating, and KidsSites.com who lists it as one of the top science sites for kids, and it lists the sources used for each of its articles. I should think it is Ok for what this article uses it for." If you need more information than that please let me know. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that and the Dorset Page as sources, the first because it looks self-published, and the second because it's just a local council page by the looks of it, and they're both tertiary sources anyway. It would be better to use the sources they used. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but I have gone back and re-added them as external links. They are useful and well written articles and therefore they are useful as external links and the standards for suitability as an external link are not the same as the requirements for reliable source. I really don't agree with the decision that they are not RS. They are self published web sites but that does not automatically make them not reliable sources. There has to be a process by which a self published site acquires the status of being reliable in this day and age when so much material is only published on the web, and it should have something to do with how trusted the site is by other sites and organizations. That should be particularly true of a site like strange science which has become a major educational site. As far as this article is concerned the loss of them as sources is not major problem since as you say most of the information in them was available elsewhere. The loss of the Dorset Page as a source will mean some changes to the section on ichthyosaurs as some of the information about the discovery of the first ichthyosaur namely "and a year later a storm weathered away part of the cliff and exposed some of the rest of the skeleton" I was only able to get from the Dorset Page. I will reword the section after I have a chance to review the sources I can use.Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my bad, Emling 2009 does support everything there. So we didn't actually loose anything with the two deleted sources. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, one clarification point below Comment CoI, I did the GA review. I made these edits, please check. Note that putting '' around titles in the template removes the italics which the template would otherwise automatically format Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to her skill in locating and preparing fossils, as well as the richness of the Jurassic era marine fossil beds at Lyme Regis where she lived, she made a number of important finds. — This reads poorly to me, what about something like Her skill in locating and preparing fossils led to her making a number of important finds in the rich Jurassic era marine fossil beds near her home in Lyme Regis
  • Civil list — can't be correct, with one word capitalised and not the other. Must be both or neither
  • Deep time — as at GA, what's wrong with geologic time?
The term is no longer in the lead. I don't see a problem with the way it is used in the body of the article as it is the preferred term among historians of science and others for the idea of long course of the earth's (and life's) history that developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. Besides the Martin Rudwick book Scenes out of Deep Time that I cited in the discussion at the GA review. Here are some more examples: [24], [25],[26], and [27]. It is somewhat of a synonym for 'geologial time' but that term is more often used as a synonym for our modern geologic time scale (which is what the link geological time redirects to) and that isn't quite the meaning we want here because the concept of a geologic time scale in something like the modern form (with different eras and ages in a sequential order that was constant across the globe) did not exist until very near the end of Anning's life (John Phillips created the modern one in 1845), where as the concept that the Earth had a long history (a sense of deep time) was very much a topic of discussion during her entire career. Therefore I think deep time is the most appropriate term. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Heroine of Lyme Regis: The Story of Mary Anning the Celebrated Geologist — Can we have the author, either in the text or as a note?
  • note 6 is a bare url
  • Ref 12. Magazine is capitalised, nothing else. Can this be right? Why is it formatted as a book?
  • Anonymous ref is formatted as a book, actually a journal
  • Conybeare (1824) and de la Beche are formatted as web pages, should be as journals since they are on-line copies of real publications. Shouldn't they both be Transactions of...?
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society) — why the Roman repeat of the italic publication (twice)
Jim, I think I fixed all of the above except for the deep time issue, because I don't know the difference between that and geologic time, so I'm reluctant to fiddle; and the Conybear and de la Beche webpage issue, as I didn't follow what was meant. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that they are on-line versions of real journals, not web-only pages, and should be formatted as journals. Title in quotation marks, not italics, journal title (in italics, Transactions of the Geological Society), not the publisher (Geological Society), no retrieval date needed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) "Henry De la Beche, who later became one of Britain's leading geologists, collected fossils with Anning (and sometimes with her brother Joseph as well) when they were both still teenagers." Just checking that it was Henry and Anning who were the teenagers, not Anning and Joseph.
  • (2) Is switching from a Congregational church to an Anglican one (both Protestant Christian) really a religious conversion?
  • (3) I would consider adding to the lead that she's the source of "she sold seashells on the seashore."
SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the above myself. Now a little concerned that the "sea shells" thing may not be well-sourced. Discussing that and some other issues on the article's talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to the lead that Dickens wrote about her, that she was the subject of the famous tongue-twister, and that a Royal Society panel placed her third in the top-ten British women to have influenced the history of science. [28] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We say her father died when she was 12, but Dickens says 10. Do we have a good source for 12? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the first reference to Emling is pp. 1–22. Could we have some more precise referencing to make it easier to check?SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more page numbers myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was November 1810, when she was eleven, so I changed that. Do we have a source saying she was discriminated against because of her religion? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says no fossil species was named after her in her lifetime, but this page says Acrodus anningiae was named in 1839. Do we know whether that's correct? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source says "The only two British species that were - the fish Acrodus anningiae of. 1841 and Belenostomus anningiae of 1844 - were both named by the Swiss"[29] (can't see more of the paper), which is two within her lifetime. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the article says John Fowles wrote in 1969 that it was a disgrace that no BRITISH scientist had named a species after Anning in her life time. This is quite well known (many sources cite this passage from Fowles) and quite accurate. Two sentences later the article points out that the Swiss-American scientist Louis Agassiz did name the two fish after her. I fail to see a problem here.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's different. But it could still be mentioned that the two fish were named in her lifetime just to make it clear, for some reason each source lists a different year though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is OK if a source is a just a website that can be linked to directly to just have it in the footnote, but if a source requires significant bibliographic information (author, publisher, ISBN number, or journal, issue number, page numbers etc.) or if the source is going to cited multiple times I have tried to move the source to references to keep the footnote section as compact and uncluttered as possible. I have also used the harvnb template as much as possible so that you can click on the footnote and see the reference. However, some other folks have added footnotes containing sources during this FAC preocess that I would be inclined to move to refs. The one that stands out to me is the Torrens article in the Oxford online dictionary of national biography that someone has added in a footnote, which I think should be listed as a reference. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Dickens piece should appear in the reference section as well. If noone beats me to it I will take care of this tonight when I get home from work. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been able to work out what your system is, so I didn't know what to do when adding refs myself. The usual thing is: (1) having everything in short form in the footnotes and long form in References; (2) everything in long form in the footnotes, and everything repeated in a References section or no References section at all because repetitive; or (3) books in short form in the footnotes and in long form in References, and everything else long form in the footnotes and not mentioned in the References. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't see the problem even with IE (I just switched to Firefox a couple of months ago), but I realize the problem might be IE version specific so I have replaced the Quote Box with a Quotation template. Hopefully this will avoid the problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:32, 24 September 2010 [30].

Dancing mania

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aiken (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's a bizarre topic and I feel it meets the relevant criteria. Aiken (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added a note.
  • The lead says "One of the first major outbreaks was in Aachen, Germany, on 24 June 1374, believed to be at least partly a result of ergot poisoning", but nowhere in the text does it mention the ergot theory in relation to this particular outbreak;
  • Removed this.
  • "One of the most prominent theories is that victims suffered from ergot poisoning" needs to be meticulously sourced, ideally to more than one source; ergotism can cause convulsions, but since it also shuts off the flow of blood to the limbs, it certainly couldn't cause any kind of prolonged activity. Additionally, it was an extremely common disorder and it's extremely unlikely that witnesses wouldn't have recognised the very distinctive symptoms;
  • Added more sources.
  • "St Vitus Dance" or "St Vitus's Dance"?
  • Changed all to St Vitus' Dance.
  • Lots of weasel words ("some believe ", "it is believed", "scientists have described"…) all of which appear to be sourced to the single source of Bartholomew;
  • Trimmed these down, though with a topic like this, it is difficult to be certain about things.
  • Try to get rid of the Fortean Times reference. There's nothing from it that's necessary to the article, and FT is generally an unreliable source unless the particular author is recognised as an authority. The philosophy of Forteanism ("all views are equally valid") is fundamentally opposite to that of Wikipedia, and while FT does carry some respectable articles, it also carries a great deal of extremely dubious amateur original research;
  • That's not exactly true. None of the available sources discuss the similarities to the Pied Piper other than that one, for example.
  • I think you've missed my point completely here. The reason no other source other than Fortean Times has discussed it isn't because FT is a superior journal willing to go the extra mile when it comes to research, and has stumbled on a hitherto unknown fact; it's because FT (and its sister magazine Bizarre) are mainly written by enthusiastic amateurs and have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking considerably worse even than Wikipedia's. FT has a "one measures a circle beginning anywhere" policy of treating all research as equally valid, regardless of who's doing it, and thus carries all kind of speculative nonsense. (Every issue of the magazine carries the disclaimer 'From the viewpoint of the mainstream, [FT's] function is [to] lure us into a region of the spirit where the writ of law does not run […] FT is a forum for the discussion of observations and ideas, however absurd or unpopular'.) – iridescent 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid "Black Death" as a term if you can help it. The term is a modern invention, and not what people in this period would have called it;
  • This is an article written today, for people of today. I don't see why I can't use the most commonly used term for it.
  • "Bartholomew considers raving, an activity which became popular in the latter half of the 20th century, as sharing some features of dancing mania" is such a bizarre statement that it probably warrants an explanatory footnote detailing exactly what he believes. An organised concert or party has nothing in common with the outbreaks of mass hysteria described in the article, other than "some of the people involved may have been dancing in both cases". By all means leave it in, but it needs some kind of explanation;
  • I disagree. The article describes how many of the dances could well have been organised, and participants were often drunk (see the point about wine). Sure they aren't identical, but I've not said that they are. You're right that this could be expanded upon though. Bartholomew describes how the modern-day hallucinations are gained through use of drugs (probably referring to LSD), and these happen at raves. He also describes how participants are often part of a subculture, and act in ways that onlookers may consider odd or bizarre (I personally don't understand the impulse to party all night long). Furthermore, like with the religious cults, raves were sometimes illegal (depending on where they were I guess, I'm not really that knowledgable about them). All these show things in common with dancing mania.
  • Most glaringly (to me); you've completely ignored the two leading books on the topic, The Dancing Plague and A Time to Dance, A Time to Die. We don't expect article writers to cover everything about a topic, but (rightly or not) this has a whiff of "only looked at what we could find on Google". There may be good reasons for not using Waller, but since you quote from his magazine articles presumably you're not opposed to him per se. – iridescent 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't ignored them. I decided not to use the latter book because that's specific to the 1518 outbreak. I'm certainly not opposed to using him as a source but I don't have access to his book. There are so many other sources out there I don't think it's that big of a deal. The first book I have mentioned, but haven't used because pretty much all of the other sources draw their information from it, but at the same time add other information and updated ideas (as it was written in the 19th century). For example, Bartholomew discusses some of Hecker's commentary, which I've noted. I could have chosen to use it, but I chose to use the other sources, which are all as reliable and comprehensive.

Aiken (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "one particularly notable outbreak of many occurred in Strasburg in 1518.": I know it's difficult to strike a balance between covering the main points and not going into too much detail in the lead, but it's not clear why the 1518 event is singled out.
  • ""Dancing mania" comes from the Greek choros (dance) and mania (madness)": do you mean ""Choreomania" comes from the Greek choros (dance) and mania (madness)"? Otherwise the derivation makes little sense as saying that dancing mania literally means dancing madness is a bit pointless.
  • "The earliest known incident occurred in Bernburg, where 18 peasants began singing and dancing around a church, disturbing a Christmas Eve church service in the 1020s": I think the "church" of church service could probably be dropped as it's implied and a bit repetitious as it currently stands. Also, it seems odd to put the date at the end of the sentence when you open with "The earliest known incident...".
  • "at the nearby St. Vitus chapel": should it be "at the nearby St. Vitus' chapel"?
  • Does Bartholomew explain why it's unlikely that it was usually women who were effected? At the moment this is just left hanging.
  • When you mention Bartholomew in the prose, it would be useful to mention why his opinion is worth mentioning. This can be done by simply saying "Historian Robert Bartholomew..." or "Author Robert Bartholomew in his study of mass psychogenic illness and social delusion...". The same goes for Hetherington, Marks, Martino, and Midelfort. You got it right for Justus Hecker.
  • The second item in the further reading section need publication dates.
  • A matter of personal preference, but do the columns of the reference section need to be so narrow?

Sources comment: In the bibliography, publishers' details should not be abbreviated (as in "American Psychiatric Pub", which sounds like a crazy drinking club) Disappointingly, this should be spelt out. Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was what Google books called it. However, I changed it to press instead. Aiken (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It is difficult to describe it as anything other than a phenomenon, and most sources agree that it was one rather than an illness. That nobody is completely certain is detailed further on. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stark contrast to what you said here "In general though I really enjoyed it, and I don't see any reason why you couldn't get this through FAC.". Why give me false hope? You're not exactly inexperienced with this process, which is exactly why I came to you - experience and knowledge. Not that I'm blaming you of course, but this has been a big waste of everybody's time when it could have been better at GA instead. Aiken (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being a little selective. What I also said to you was "I think you were probably a bit too quick out of the blocks with this FAC, but I suppose that faint heart never won fair lady. With a bit of hard graft you ought to be able to make it, so good luck." In my opinion that "hard graft" hasn't been done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this? Apologies for wasting your time. I'll take it to GA instead. Aiken (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 13:21, 24 September 2010 [31].

Razer (robot)

[edit]
Nominator(s): The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(My 1st FAC nomination) I am nominating this article because it has recently been granted GA status and I think it's maybe good enough to go to the next level. I think it is also a well written and informative article and would be good to be read by all. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted that cylinder link. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Welcome to FAC! I don't mean to discourage you, but unfortunately I feel this article is not ready for FA status. Here are some of my concerns:

Well, I've dealt with a couple of those issues, but I have noticed that some of the issues you brought up have been covered with links in them in an earlier part in the page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant contributor was not consulted in advance of this nom, problems highlighted, closing this nomination per FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I'd jumped the gun a bit adding it so soon. So Shall I get the creators say so then nominate it again? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a subsequent nom, you should 1) get clearance from Crispy that the article is ready; 2) get clearance from Nikkimaria that previous issues were addressed; and 3) wait at least two weeks (see FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I just thought I'd drop everyone here a quick line as the major contributor. I'll admit I was quite surprised to find that the article made the jump from newly listed GA to FAC in the time it took me to do my shopping! ;-) I agree that the article isn't ready, but am very grateful for your comments which can only help The C of E, myself and other more occasional editors to improve this article. Thanks all for your time, and my best wishes. CountdownCrispy 15:15, 24 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:47, 23 September 2010 [32].

The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have entered a commodification section using other sources.

I'd love to see some Beatrix Potter FAs, not least because it'd give me something else to put in Portal:Cumbria!

Have yet to find anything specific on this. Likely, the LZG but without a citation cannot enter.
No further info.
Working on this.
Believe this is now satisfactory.
It's not clear in the tale, and I've found nothing in the commentaries.
Nothing on this.

I wonder whether there may be more sources to be found, more to be said about the subject. It's well researched and written, there's no doubt about that- nice job. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne2009NYC, pls see the WP:FAC instructions; rather than using templates and striking reviewer comments, and extending the length of the FAC, you can simply add commentary at the end of reviewer comments when you are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the issues you dealt with. The text's looking much better already- the first section is now much clearer, and much more detailed. I also feel the last section could be stronger if criticism was arranged by theme (plot, illustrations, etc) rather than by author. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm dealing with last few unresolved issues, looking here and there. I've rewritten the plot to incorporate some of Potter's text and have broken the last section down by themes. I'm trying to locate two academic articles about Potter and her techniques that may enhance the article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a commodification section at article's end with two images but I'm not sure these are acceptable. Uploading images is complicated and I have little experience with this. I did what I thought was correct. However, if the images have to go, then they have to go. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid none of the newly added images (the book, the biscuit tin or the ornament) are OK. While the artwork on the book and the tin are PD, meaning it would be alright to upload photos of them, the photos are still copyrightable. As for the ornament, that is an artistic work in its own right, and so, as well as the fact the photographer can claim copyright, someone will have the copyright of the ornament itself. I will remove those images for you; if you give me permission, I will delete them off the bat, otherwise I will have to nominate them for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove them. I'm sorry I've made so much work for you.

Just having a quick read through again-

Done.
Have linked to Royal Doulton
Not yet. I pulled the items from a "Timmy Tiptoes" search on ebay. I've found a Beatrix Potter collectables guide.
Reference entered.
Have deleted this paragraph.
I'd rather not keep this and, as I recall, TTT was not adapted to the ballet film.
This I don't know. She was working on the Peter Rabbit painting book just before taking up Timmy Tiptoes so it's unlikely there. Possibly Tom Kitten's (1917) or Jemima Puddle-duck's (1925) books but have no sources that state so. I have not seen the 3 painting books.
Deleted.

A section on commodification is good, (though "adaptations" or something may be a better title) but it doesn't currently feel like it's about this book so much.

"Adaptations" regarding fictional works I believe is restricted to dramatic adaptations. "Merchandise" I think is appropriate here. Have edited this section to focus on TTT.

J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More (and sorry, this is up and down)-

Linked to William Henry Hunt (painter) on the authority of the Hobbs book.
Corrected.
Cut.
Fixed.
Done.
The source reads "not in a cozy little 'house' somewhere". Revised. Paraphrased the source.
Will find.
Ref entered.
Have not found one yet and this bothers me but will continue to look.
Have found only month and year.

Hope this is helping.

It certainly is! And thank you so much! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more drive-by comments-

Done. Deleted. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cut some material. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been all over the place during the review- it's now completely different. If this fails, do not be disheartened, just work with what has been said, and renominate in a few weeks. I would be happy to review again next time around (or even between nominations if you feel it would be helpful). J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has. I want to withdraw the nomination to continue working on the article, but leaving it in the queue will hopefully draw some useful comments, suggestions, and recommendations about the extensive and daunting improvements the article needs. There are very few children's books listed as FAs so I have few models in putting this article together. The only young children's book I could find was Make Way for Ducklings. I'm concerned Timmy Tiptoes lacks sales figures, number of copies issued at release, total number of copies sold since release, non-English editions, audiobook editions, global impact and similar concerns but in all of the expert literature on Timmy Tiptoes nothing has surfaced. The article would be charming on the main page in the autumn (the season of squirrel and chipmunk nut hoarding and caching) but I don't think it will make it that far. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:34, 23 September 2010 [33].

Slipknot (band)

[edit]
Nominator(s): REZTER TALK ø 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after a complete rewrite and edit I believe this article meets the FA Criteria. REZTER TALK ø 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multiple varying date formats, consistency please.
  • All three presses listed under "Literature" require locations for supply and verification purposes, they're small presses, at least one with a commonly used name.
  • Metro (London) is a newspaper, give them italics, indicate location (as it is a common title and requires clarification.)
  • "Slipknot – Up To Our Necks. [DVD]. Chrome Dreams. 2004." — lacks editor / director attribution; press requires location. Both the 16 second excerpt and the claim, "At this time the future of Slipknot was unclear and there was speculation over whether the band had split and the possibility of a third album." are footnoted to this. Neither has a time-stamp location for the point at which the proof occurs in the text.
  • "Slipknot – X-Posed, The Interview. [CD]. Chrome Dreams. 2001." editor or interviewer, press location, time stamp for the portion referred to.
  • "Porter, Dick (2003). Rapcore: The Nu-Metal Rap Fusion. London: Plexus. ISBN 0859653218." Location in text cited required for verification purposes.
  • ""The joy of 666". NME. 15 May 2001. http://www.nme.com/news/slipknot/7781. Retrieved 25 April 2009." NME is a magazine, deserves italics for its title.
  • "Shawn Crahan (Director). (2006). Voliminal: Inside the Nine. [DVD]. Roadrunner Records." timestamp for verification purposes
  • USA Today is a Newspaper.
  • ""Slipknot Bassist Died Of 'Accidental' Overdose". Belinda Goldsmith, Reuters. 2010-06-22. http://www.billboard.com/news/slipknot-bassist-died-of-accidental-overdose-1004099551.story#/news/slipknot-bassist-died-of-accidental-overdose-1004099551.story. Retrieved 2010-08-20." Authors come first

THe article is underdeveloped, espcially the style section which has two sentences dicussing lyrics and little on genre of music. Sentence oddities like "Including; a case in 2003 " and non-sentences like Featuring a typical heavily down-tuned guitar set-up (lead, rhythm, and bass guitars), two percussionists in addition to the primary drummer and electronics (samples and turntables). redundancies: Burger King responded to the suit with a countersuit, and in that suit pointed out that many other bands. just pointing out. Taylor had this to say. just said. Furthering his point by saying: "there are always going to be mental disorders and people who cause violence for no other reason than the fact that they're fucked up and lost." again not a proper sentence. Even though Slipknot have been linked to several cases like this, there has been no incidents in which they were proven to be liable. redundant first part. vocalist taylor appears a thousand times. we already recognise this the first time. also issues with tense switching back and forth/ Another source of controversy was the band's 2005 lawsuit against Burger King, claiming that company created the advertising based band Coq Roq to capitalize on Slipknot's image. not grammatical and hyphen. "advertising campaign designed to motivate young people to vote". there's lawsuit and then the next minute theres a campaign getting young people to vote? Throughout their career, Slipknot have continued to develop and change their image. continued redundant with throughout. Several band members have noted that wearing the masks helps keep their personal lives private, percussionist Fehn went as far as saying it was a "blessing" that they do not get recognized. new sentence, or semi-colon. Most notably; for the music video and live performances of the song "Vermilion" in 2004 and 2005 the band members wore death masks made from casts of their own faces,[74] and in 2008 prior to the release of All Hope Is Gone Slipknot released photos of the band wearing large masks, guitarist Root explained that they "represent the ego" - this sentence is an unrepentant abomination. strong oppose edit conflict. 86.141.247.236 (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When I rewrote the main body of the article I wanted the article to more concise. I thought it would be a better move to remove some information that I thought was trivial and keep the article on track without going in to too much detail. I actually deliberated over the use of 'Meld' in the article because they only used it once in a performance before changing it. However, I'd be more than happy to include it in the article. I believe the article is comprehensive and concise and there are other articles based on Slipknot (for example; albums, band members, tours) that go in to further detail. As for copyeditting issues, I don't think the article has terrible issues and I thought that they could be addressed with the comments from reviewers in this process. I would appreciate reviewers help on identifying problems in the article and suggestions on how to make it better. --REZTER TALK ø 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just that we don't mention the Meld performance (I think we should, given that at least three books mention it), it's also that we seem to say the group's first name was "The Pale Ones", a statement which is unsourced. The nearest source cited is Arnopp, but Arnopp does not appear to mention that name. [34], [35]. I can't find the name "The Pale Ones" in any RS. --JN466 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the info on Meld. And the book by Arnopp is the correct source for The Pale Ones. It appears that google books only has a blurb from that book. The exact excerpt from page 40 is: "Come September 1995 [...] Shawn and Paul had started a new endeavour named The Pales Ones" "Shawn was on drums, while Anders Colsefni sang and ex-Body Pit guitarist named Donnie Steele riffed it up." --REZTER TALK ø 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. The article contains the sentence, "Slipknot are known for their chaotic and energetic live shows, something which has been attributed to their early success." Two issues: (1) do we mean "contributed" to their early success? "Attributed" does not really make sense. (2) I am having a hard time extracting that info from the cited source, which is http://www.nme.com/reviews/slipknot/6129 .
  • Fixed, I copeditted it and replaced the reference with Allmusic, specifically per this excerpt: "They gradually built an audience through near-constant touring, working their way up to the summer Ozzfest package tour, which really expanded their audience. Their live shows were a much-discussed hit with metal fans, and the band performed with such energy that Crahan gashed his head open on his own drum kit twice that summer, requiring stitches both times." --REZTER TALK ø 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence is, "Typically featuring most band members headbanging, several members stage diving and even fighting." You won't get the prose to pass here if you have sentences like that (there are a good number of such sentences.) You can write, Slipknot are known for their chaotic and energetic live shows, typically featuring most band members headbanging, several members stage diving and even fighting. Or you can write, Slipknot are known for their chaotic and energetic live shows. These typically feature most band members headbanging, several members stage diving and even fighting. But you can't write, Slipknot are known for their chaotic and energetic live shows. Typically featuring most band members headbanging, several members stage diving and even fighting. That won't pass as "excellent prose" here. Generally, every sentence is expected to have a subject and a verb, and the second sentence has no subject. You need to go through the article and reformulate sentence fragments that have been made to do the job of sentences; sometimes it may be enough to turn the preceding period into a comma or semi-colon, in other cases you may have to reformulate. Now, the cited source for this sentence is http://www.nme.com/news/slipknot/45333 ; this does not comment on what a "typical" Slipknot show looks like, but is a review of an individual concert. It seems quite plausible that what is described in the review is typical of the band's live shows, but to pass the FA criteria you need to find a source that comments on the typical style of their shows, rather than a review of a single show. For example, is it typical that members have a fist fight, or was it an isolated occurrence? The cited source does not tell us.
  • Fixed, I copyeditted the highlighted sentences and added the reference from the Rapcore book, specifically this excerpt: "Live, Slipknot are a spectacle of non-stop motion, which regularly decends to the level of on-stage brawling between band members." --REZTER TALK ø 21:01, 16 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:35, 23 September 2010 [36].

John Babcock

[edit]
Nominator(s): Canadian Paul 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the criteria of a featured article, and over half a year has passed since the subject's death, making it less susceptible to major changes in the future. It had an A-class review at the Military History Wikiproject where all concerns were addressed, but did not pass because it did not attract enough reviewers. It did, however, pass a Good Article review and was kept during the GA sweeps process. Canadian Paul 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks; the external link to Video Interview with John Babcock is dead. PL290 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it anywhere else, so I removed it, as it was merely supplemental. Canadian Paul 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool (except for the deadlink as noted above) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, hopefully. I replaced the Holmes reference because I couldn't find the information again in a search... plus I think it was referring to British soldiers anyhow... Canadian Paul 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - interesting article, and I'd love to be able to support, but I don't think it's quite at FA standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:25, 23 September 2010 [37].

Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I put a lot of work into it and it appears to pass all FAC criteria and is consistent with other featured album articles. This article has been GA for over a year and any changes that would be made to it at this point would be relatively minor. I will watch this discussion and make any necessary changes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I have been through the first 50 or so, and found numerous issues. It will take a long time to get through the rest, so perhaps you would look at these meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will work on this today. Thanks for your input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:50, 21 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:17, 23 September 2010 [38].

Thrud the Barbarian

[edit]
Nominator(s): GDallimore (Talk) 00:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it has received many good tweaks since the last nomination, some responding to specific comments there, some just to improve it having left it alone for two years and come back with fresh eyes. It's about as ready as it's ever going to be. GDallimore (Talk) 00:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been searching for something to replace that dead link for a while, and decided the best option was to link to the online version of the rule book. I'd prefer to cite the original paper rulebook, but don't know the publication details. GDallimore (Talk) 10:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are. GDallimore (Talk) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking a read through. Pop culture seems to struggle to get reviewed here :)

Overall, I'm afraid I don't think this is quite there. The reliability of sources is an issue, but the short paragraphs and sections, unreferenced bits and bobs and mid-sentence referencing means that the article doesn't flow perfectly, either. I also question the comprehensiveness here; I couldn't honestly say what it is that is missing, but I do not feel I walk away from this article knowing all about the subject. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources, as per above: Few of the online sources appear to be of high quality and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (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 sources issue is not major and can be dealt with quite easily in FAC if I'm given more than 24 hours to respond to comments. Please reopen it. GDallimore (Talk) 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning sources. Many of them are non-mainstream and minor, but that is because they are part of a network of British small, independent press titles. Nevertheless, care has been taken to select only the best sources or to select sources which clearly accurately verify the information in the article. Taking them source by source

TRS2 - online version of a long running small publication review magazine (TRS, The Review Sheet) and part of the bugpowder network, formerly a comics distributor (see British_small_press_comics#The_1990s). Although in blog format, it has a long term editor in the form of Jez Higgins who commissions reviews. Indeed, the particularly review being linked was written by Jez Higgins. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Bulletproof Comics - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic book resource under the auspices of editor Matt Yeo who commissioned reviews. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

The Ninth Art - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic art resource with regular contributors and editorial oversight. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

2000AD Review - website is now shut down but for many years posted reviews of every 2000AD issue commissioned by editor Gavin Hanly. Although independent of 2000AD is appears it was supported by Rebellion Developments, the publishers of 2000AD. This official support combined with the editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

3dtotal - the source is an interview with Carl Critchlow and is being used to confirm facts about Carl Critchlow's inspiration, so must be a reliable source in that context.

Grand Comics Database - this site was only being used to provide online confirmation of the contents of published issues of White Dwarf. The references have been rephrased to make White Dwarf the source with the GCD being merely a url as part of the reference.

enjolrasworld - site was being used to provide online confirmation of the contents of published issues of Warrior. Link removed as was a duplicate reference.

GameHobby.net - again, site was being used to provide online confirmation of the contents of published issues of Warrior. The references have been rephrased to make Warrior the source with the site being merely a url as part of the reference.

Forbidden Planet - These were being used merely to provide images of the front cover of the Thrud comics. The references have been rephrased to make the comics the source and to link to FP only as an online image.

Strike to Stun - another defunct website, but at the time provided reviews written by regular commentators under the auspices of editor Natascha Chrobok. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Collecting Citadel Miniatures wiki - the link is to a collection of photos of Thrud miniatures, and is therefore easily confirmed as providing reliable information. In particular, the wiki is only being used to provide a date of production of an early thrud miniature and the source gives its source for that piece of information: it is written on the bottom of the miniature itself.

Heresy Miniatures - the source is being used for information about their own production line and must be a reliable source in that context.

Hope that explains everything. GDallimore (Talk) 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:11, 23 September 2010 [39].

Arado Ar E.381

[edit]
Nominator(s): WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have gone through a failed A-class review with WP:MILHIST, where consensus was not garnered, and I feel I have met all the concerns raised there. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on a prose review. It's fine with me if writers spend their time writing and not learning how to copyedit, but please get help from a copyeditor. I'm doing my best to get copyeditors to help out at SHIPS and MILHIST.


P.S. I'm just starting to look at the MILHIST FACs now that I have a better idea what I'm doing ... lucky you :) Don't get discouraged; none of us think this can't be a FAC eventually if you find the right sources, and finding a little copyediting help and getting help with translation of a German source or two are not hard with a little effort. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [40].

David Carradine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ishtar456 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I expanded this article substantially several months ago. It passed GA review without any recommendations from the reviewer, in February. It receives between 3-4K hits per day, and it is stable with no edit wars. It is thoroughly researched and the sources are cited. It covers every aspect of the topic and is neutral in POV. Ishtar456 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added bolded inserted text. --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not liking the derogatory way you phrased your comment, but I did remove the offending images.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that came across as derogatory, it certainly wasn't meant to be. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be move specific about the "many unsourced paragraphs"? I removed one sentence that predated the expansion: "During this time Carradine's alcoholism escalated and he entered alcohol drug rehabilitation". Everything that is there regarding his personal life I wrote, and sourced and I don't really discuss specific marital problems (except one affair which is sourced). All the statements made are cited. So I do not see "many unsourced paragraphs". Please give at least a couple of examples.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and will work on cleaning up citations. --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paras 1, 3, 4 in "early successes" and last one in "Kung fu" for instance YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Shouldn't be a GA because of a lack of sourcing. How could a wikipedian with 300+ GAN reviews pass this without any comments? Pretty poor I think. Seems as if he wanted to rack up the GAN reviews... Aaroncrick TALK 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed an unsourced paragraph that was incerted AFTER the GA review. Everything else in that section has been cited somewhere else in the article and I am going to add the citations later in the day. If we could be grown ups we might say "this is something that should be like this instead of that" and leave out all the judgemental insulting crap. Some people wonder why more people don't try to get their article FA-the insults might be one reason.--Ishtar456 (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fair comment. I don't know who reviewed it for GA, nor do I need to. Whoever it was, please assume they are editing in good faith. Wackywace converse | contribs 10:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, the article is already nominated at FAC and you've decided to go ahead and add refs after it has started. It may be cited somewhere else but it's not now. Aaroncrick TALK 11:12, 22 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [41].

Lady of Quality

[edit]
Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were running away from a forced marriage, would you take your almost-fiance with you? If you were the heroine of a romance novel, would you turn down the hero's marriage proposal? Join me in exploring the antics showcased in a classic Regency romance. Lady of Quality was the last book written by Georgette Heyer. It's fairly short, but comprehensive–I know of no other research that exists on this book. User:Malleus Fatuorum promoted it to GA earlier this year and did some light copyediting (which gives him the highest edit count - I worked in big chunks), and provided other support during that process. Thanks for taking a look! Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) edited Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Support this is a good article unlike the many crap ones i've seen 86.141.247.236 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [43].

Air well (condenser)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it was a popular article when it appeared in Did You Know, it has already achieved Good Article status and it is a matter of practical importance to people in certain regions of the world. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Nitpicks:-

Otherwise sources all look OK Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is not well-organized. My concerns, in order of severity:

I will also be conducting a line-by-line prose review, but I will wait until the above comments are addressed and the article is in a more stable state. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganising the text will take a while. Please be patient. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, mate. Ping me here or on my talk page if you need any other input. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:33, 20 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [44].

Banquo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wrad (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the first Shakespeare character article to reach FA status. Currently a GA. Wrad (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting replacing anything? The article has only two images, and tons of space. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "rather more interesting." Wrad (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, One is progress! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the naming of the article a critical issue or can it be left until after FAC for a move discussion (to avoid messing with links to to various pages and such)? While I haven't looked specifically on the issue of whether there's material on the historical Banquo, I'm fairly sure there will never be an article on him (iff he existed at all, there doesn't appear to be enough data for much original research, much less encyclopedic coverage). I don't particularly care about the naming of the article—above vaguely general esthetic concerns—but neither do I see much value for the project in having a dab page at Banquo whose only link is to Banquo (character) when the character is the clear (snowball) primary meaning. If new research is done, or sources we've missed are found, this article can easily accommodate that information for quite some time before there's a need to split them (and hence decide on which merits pride of place). --Xover (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why "the" King?
You can't "revise" a "descent".
the next bit is still iffy, and must a source from 1884 be used?
Where does Lochaber come in, and what is the source for this? It has never remotely been a "province", and at this time was a parish at best.

There are numerous careless style points: "In Chronicles Banquo ...", "honor", no link to Cawdor, and so on. "Bradley, Andrew. Shakespearean Tragedy. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2003" - he is always known as A. C. Bradley, and the book was first published in 1904, and has countless editions, which should be indicated. I think you were probably too quick to shorten the lead, which did meet the WP:LEAD suggested length, & I imagine now doesn't. But generally the prose just has an ungainly feel, & needs a good bit of polishing; a last example: "Banquo's ability to live on in different ways is another oppositional force, in this case to Macbeth's impending death." - meaning what exactly? Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of vocubulary - it is the theory or whatever of his descent that is revised.
I can see that; get someone else to copyedit it.
No, it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Looks like it's a case of writer's blindness. I thought it had been copyedited, but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Someone besides me better look at it. Wrad (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not a bad article, just a few concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I certainly don't think this nom is hopeless, or I would have said so (maybe - well anyway I don't). But the prose does need a good going through. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't think I could handle everything timewise, but if Xover is willing to help we can keep moving ahead. Wrad (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article reads well in general. I don't see a reason for it to be renamed; even if the supposed historical Banquo merits his own article, Shakespeare's Banquo remains much more prominent and therefore the primary topic. But I do see a few problems (some quite minor):

Ucucha 20:39, 9 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [45].

Juwan Howard

[edit]
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a great article with a lot of detail. I have finally gotten a good copyedit from Finetooth after having added a lot of encyclopedic content. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We ran into one problem as far as citing encyclopedic content when we realized that he is married, but there are no good sources regarding this. We are using questionable sources, but the fact isnot likely to be challenged and I was not sure what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also one dab issue with template defaulting to Charlotte Hornets rather than New Orleans Hornets. I am not sure how to handle this template use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add WP:ALT to the final image when the template is reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created the Juwan_Howard#Scouting_report section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, thankyou. Aaroncrick TALK 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Nitpicks:-

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've just looked at the lead and first few paragraphs so far.

Could some of these explanations be added to the article? I think it would help.
I added some more. The paragraph seems quite meaty to me now, but let me know if you want to see even more added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph is fine. It may need copy-editing in places. Could a sentence be added to the lead to the effect of "he became the first player to graduate on time with his class after leaving college early to play in the NBA ... , as most players did not feel the need to attend classes." Or something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I split the sentence in half to make two shorter sentences. I think the $100 million contract is sufficient evidence of his success. A productive starter is one who scores points or otherwise contributes to the team. Not sure what else you are looking for here.Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm not clear. I think it would be better to say how he was productive, i.e. how did he contribute. Maybe the lead isn't the place for it, but as I said below, I don't think the lead gives a clear picture of how good he is/was. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastrol, I don't mean to be rude. The current WP:LEAD has the following text "After one season as an All-Rookie player and a second as an All-NBA performer. . .During his first 5 seasons in the NBA, he averaged 19.3 points per game. . ." Any basketball fan knows very well how good he was. Those two phrases may not mean much to you, but anyone who follows basketball understands very clearly how good he was. Anything more would be an overstatement or overemphasis. The lead properly balances his peak and his present state pretty well, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I just establish that this is not written with the general reader in mind but only for basketball fans? If so, I do not feel that I can support it (which I would like to, to be honest, as it seems comprehensive). IMO, FAs should be written with the general reader in mind, and it seems that most of them are. And "any basketball fan" may understand this, but is that enough for FA? Obviously, the entire rules and structure of the sport don't need explaning in depth, but there are points where further brief explanations would make it more accessible for everyone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, it might help to add a comparison stat or two if you have them handy. I'm thinking maybe after "19.3 points a game" something like "X points is the NBA average" would help. Or after "All-Rookie player", maybe something like "Only X rookies out of Y (Z percent) make the All-Star team each season." This would put Howard's accomplishments into a quantitative perspective that any reader would understand without knowing anything about the NBA. Comparisons like this should go into the relevant places in the main text and then could be included in the lead. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, and your construction is more clear. I adopted it. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I revised to "Howard attended Chicago Vocational Career Academy, where he was named a 1991 All-American basketball player by Parade magazine and won McDonald's All American honors in a national tournament for boys and girls. He was also chosen for the National Honor Society, which recognizes achievements in scholarship, leadership, service, and character." Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I revised to include a clarifying phrase: "By his sophomore year, he was already expected to be a 1991 blue chip recruit, highly prized by college basketball coaches." Does this make the claim more clear? Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"He was the only sophomore named by the league coaches to the 20-man, 1988–89 All-Chicago Public School League squad as a second-team member." Long and a bit clumsy. What is this squad?

OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I split the sentence in two but retained the existing explanation for the dates as well as Howard's height, which is important because he was considerably shorter than Bradley. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be made explicit? It is not immediately obvious that this is why the info is there. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added "despite having his shots blocked several times by the much taller Bradley" to the subsequent sentence (which also contains the first of the problematic uses of "big men". I hope this makes more clear that Howard excelled even against players with a height advantage. Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clears it up nicely and "big men" sits a little better now it is defined. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what would be better. He was a junior in high school, and he was big. Size is very important in basketball. Finetooth (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem with this is the part about "despite having his shots blocked..." I'm not sure "big man" belongs in an encyclopedia, and if it is a common term, maybe it could be linked in some way. Personally I think "tall players" or even "big players" sounds less informal. However, I'm not too bothered if it is that common. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to an NBA or college basketball broadcast. "Big man" is a common term. See below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarastro1. I changed the sentence to read: "At this camp, Howard established himself as one of the best junior-year big men (tall basketball players) in the country despite having his shots blocked several times by the much taller Bradley." I'm hoping that this makes "junior" more clear, makes the importance of the height difference more explicit, and (knock on wood) makes "big man" more meaningful. It is an odd specialized term that might literally be taken to mean a fat guy or hulking brute uninvolved in sports. :-) Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough with this now. If I was been nit-picky, I might still say that he could not be one of the best if his shots were blocked (i.e. as if that by itself would stop him). And as I said, "big man" sits a bit better now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we resolve this one by deleting all mention of the sneakers on grounds that it's even less than a hiccup, and the article is already quite long? Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Although it sounded quite interesting! :) And Tony, with the greatest respect, I'm not sure the words "controversy for receiving a second pair of sneakers" is "pretty clear". I doubt most people realise it is illegal to own two pairs of shoes of any type. :) But seriously, if it is staying in it should be made clear why it is controversial. All it needs is "a second pair of shoes was not permitted" (which sounds odd to me, but I'm not a basketballer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one for Tony to decide. I'm the expert on comma splices; he's the expert on basketball. I don't actually know who gave Howard the sneakers or why it would upset anyone." Finetooth (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think sneakergate has more detail than necessary, but the whole story is in the article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. If big man is a common term, I'll let it go but would prefer it not to be there as it sounds informal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will my addition of "big men (tall basketball players)" on the first use suffice? Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Covers it nicely, I struck the comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am a sports fan and quite familiar with many sports articles. However, I have only a passing knowledge of basketball and found it hard to follow the beginning of this article (although the rest looks clearer at a quick glance). Most FAs (and GAs for that matter) that I have seen do not use too much jargon so that the general reader can follow them. As a fan, what is not confusing to you may not be understood by others. It only needs the addition of a few words and phrases here and there. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not really establish how or why he was good, but mentions lots about his decline. More on the peak would be good. There is a lot of linking which is distracting, and the article seems to use a lot of jargon which makes it hard to follow for a non-expert who is not prepared to follow every link. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of how good he was, I am wavering about adding that he averaged 7.9 rebounds a season for his first five years or about 7.5 for his first 10 seasons. I just don't see it as a WP:LEAD-worthy fact. I grew up reading the sports page and the jargon seems natural to me. Aside from the term "big man", I am not sure what you mean. I am always willing to listen to suggestions on delinking because I am a heavy linker. I don't know that expanding this article by teaching basketball terms to the reader would be the proper thing to do, but if you have specific problems, I can attempt to address them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –


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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [48].

Saw VI

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Allen 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've have been working on this article for over six months. It passed GA in March and had a peer review in July-August. Most concerns in the peer review were, lack of images (I finally got a free image of the director), and problems with prose. I had an independent copyeditor go through the article. Another concern was lack of offline sources. I managed to track down the issue of Fangoria that featured the film, but wasn't successful in finding anything else offline--and probably won't anytime soon. This is also my first FA and I will probably not have help fulfilling reviewers' concerns. Mike Allen 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Shouldn't the sequel info be at Saw (franchise), and not on this article? Typically, once you get into multiple films, all sequel info is intially mentioned on the original's article and then subsequenly on a film series/franchise page. Technically, any film after numero uno is always a sequel to that film, and not a sequel to the sequel - even when it continues a storyline started in a sequel.
  2. Can we legitimately say this article is comprehensive if we haven't used anything from the audio tracks on the DVDs? Maybe I missed them, but I couldn't find anything in the sources listing their use and I find it hard to imagine that with 2 full tracks that neither covers anything new that could be included in this article.
  3. Image placement. You're infobox image is your first, so the next one should be on the left side, the quotebox on the right, and the last image on the left (where it is currently). As the MOS for images says to cascade the sides for those types of things.

Just a couple of things. I don't want to ruin the film for myself by reading details. :( Sorry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. That makes sense. I just added the section before I nominated the article, like I said above, I thought everything listed in the infobox should be included in prose, somewhere.
2. I rented the DVD once it was released in January hoping to be able to add something useful to the article... but was disappointed. I listened to both commentaries and remember mostly trivia. The only useful thing that came out of them is on the Saw 3D article (and it was republished on a horror news site). It was Marcus saying that Tandera Howard would be in Saw VII. I'll rent it again and refresh my memory.
3. Fixed. Also someone has added the soundtrack poster (again) ... is that really needed? Mike Allen 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack image would fail WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE in a heartbeat. Probably don't need the infobox itself (which is what is drawing the need to fill the "image" parameter for some people), as the soundtrack has its own article. Plus, you're really only supposed to have 1 infobox in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I feel about the non-free poster too. I brought the album infobox up on WT:FILM last month. Mike Allen 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as Erik pointed out at WP:FILM, the image doesn't stand the test of time as far as fair use rationales go. You'd have to have critical commentary on it for justification, which as far as I know that article doesn't have. That said, I'm personally against soundtrack infoboxes. I was under the understanding that we're only to have one box per article (not a FILM guideline, but a Wiki guideline), but maybe I'm wrong. Again, in the least it's a personal preference and if I cannot find anything stating that it shouldn't be there then there isn't a reason for you to remove it. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should Saw VI: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack be bolded? Mike Allen 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:MOSBOLD, I could not find anything (and I may have easily missed it) that says you bold a title later in the article. All I could find is "in the lead", and that isn't in the lead. So, I'd say "no", unless someone else sees where that page says that you should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

86.141.247.236 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the box office, what else am I suppose to present? I thought the box office section is supposed to show how it did at the box office (that involves numerical figures). At least I did include the international box office performance, what else would you like to see. I don't know what you mean about the "Blue"-ray. I would appreciate, instead of listing a bullet point presentation, that you would please list your comments like the rest of FAC reviewers. Thanks. Mike Allen 04:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment—The Critical response section containing the film critic reviews appears a bit "light" on content. It seems it could use a bit of an expansion. As a quick example, have you looked through a site such as the Movie Review Query Engine for additional viewpoints? For this particular film, it lists 73 critical reviews, which of course also appear on other film critic review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. DeWaine (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right it does list a lot of reviews... but I'm not sure if many of those sites are considered reliable critics to use on Wikipedia? Also, I disagree with two of your edits. The first one you added this to the lead, "Following its cinematic release, the film failed to receive any award nominations from mainstream motion picture organizations for its production merits or lead acting." Is this really needed? I'm not sure if any "mainstream" motion pictures organization would nominate a Saw film for anything, given its nature. The other edit where you delink the US$ sign from the infobox. The film is also considered a Canadian film (apparently), and since US$ and CA$ are too different things, I thought it would be best to clarify that. Mike Allen 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response—Well, to start off, I believe the lead sentence addition is needed. A film like Saw would sometimes garner an award for special effects or music. (I admit it; I might have overdone it by adding lead acting in that sentence). But never the less, films like that do receive nominations for "production merits". The dollar sign, is a questionable edit. I just didn't think it was necessary to include that tidbit of information. Finally, as far as the reviews are concerned; I do believe a significant number of those reviews are reliable. They contain viewpoints from notable newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Village Voice, the Boston Globe, the Austin Chronicle, Orlando Sentinel etc. Just because it's not Roger Ebert, doesn't make it unreliable. The point I'm trying to make is, a page under consideration for Featured Article status should contain thorough-filled content in it's main sections. The amount of critical content is a bit low. If you remove the image, it becomes even more slim. I just feel you should add more reviews. DeWaine (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more reviews from the major publishers. I also saw a few via NewsBank. I wouldn't expect a big critical analysis of a Saw film though and one reason I think I didn't add more reviews is it was just the same thing, just a different reviewer. And Robert Ebert hasn't reviewed a Saw film since the first... Also I would like others to weigh in on the dollar sign linkage and the addition to the lead--before the FAC gets closed due to no consensus. Mike Allen 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response—Ok, fair enough. By the way, I was aware of that Roger Ebert issue. That's one review that would be considered a "given". If he reviewed the film and you didn't insert it, I would have made another objection. DeWaine (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more reviews (though I'm still looking through newspapers), would you "Agree" or "Oppose" to be a featured article? Mike Allen 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary response—I'm leaning towards a support for FAC status. I'm satisfied with the additional inclusions of critical critique. It certainly looks more built up. Just so you understand, I wanted to clarify something with that. I understand your point by mentioning you didn't want to add the same types of reviews over and over again. But for the reader, its important to do just that. The reason is, every critic has a different reason for their individual negativity. One might think the plot was too predictable, another might have thought the dialogue was absurd, or another might have felt the film had cinematography and editing which was of low quality. Its important for a reader to understand why each critic gave a negative review.

But on another front, in the Production section, is there any more supplemental content to add? The material is segregated in three short paragraphs. I noticed through the References section, much of the content is sourced using only internet sites. And those would include Bloody Disgusting, The Collective and Crave Online Media. Have you consulted any novels? I don't see a single printed book with a corresponding ISBN number for your sourcing. DeWaine (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a concern (see the top of this page) with User:Erik. The only "book" source that I know features Saw is Fangoria, and it's already in the article. Google Books doesn't show anything. I live in a small town (under 500 people) so my library is not a good resource. I just don't think there is in-dept coverage of Saw VI in offline sources. Do you have access to subscription-only databases? Mike Allen 05:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Sorry there. Indeed it would appear I missed that previous response. I didn't know that issue was already addressed. When I get back in 10-12 hours, I'll see what I can dig up. If I can't find anything, then that will have to suffice. I suppose. DeWaine (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Other comment—Well, after searching for additional print sources, I've come to the conclusion that you were indeed correct about it's prospects. I don't have any access to any subscription-only databases, and my search for novels in connection with the film was fruitless. I'm not sure if it would be too wide or relevant of a topic to simply reference the Saw film series in general and not just this film in particular for more production details. If your able to do so on that front, I don't see how it could hurt the article.
On a separate note, I would like to just quickly touch upon other content in the article. First, in the See also section, is it really necessary to include the link for 2009 in film? I see virtually no relevance at all between that link and the Saw article. In fact, the only connection I see would be that the film was produced and released in 2009. Thats about it. Nothing else. I don't think thats a good enough reason to include it. Its simply way too broad of topic to include in the article. Wouldn't a more relevant link be to include the Saw (franchise) instead? I can't think of a more applicable topic to insert. Now I understand the link already appears in the lead section; but its distance from the See also section in the article warrants a duplicate insertion. Also, if a reader wants to research more into the film series, he should not have to search for the link in the article. Its easiest located in that section. Lastly, for the same reason just mentioned, I believe you should also re-insert the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo links in the External links section. If a reader wants a more detailed layout of the box office performance, or simply wants to read into more critical reviews, the easiest place to find it would be the External links section, instead of searching for the link to those websites somewhere in the article. DeWaine (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's how current film FA's do it now. See Fight Club (film). Instead of piping 2009 in film to 2009 which results in an Eggy link, editors have been placing it in a See also section. I will include the Saw franchise link and re-insert the RT, MC and BOM links. Mike Allen 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments—Ok, fine. Just three quick comments though. First, in the Home media section, you might want to add that the film is currently available in Video on Demand format too. You can reference that on say, Amazon.com. It is a home media format just like DVD and Blu-ray. Next, I just wanted to justify that lead sentence which you thought had no merit. These type of films, and this one in particular could have been nominated for any of the following awards:

The inclusion of the phrase lead acting was just to round out the sentence. But I don't believe that sentence is unwarranted. Finally, I would just like to make a quick reference to that dollar sign issue. You can link the sign if you'd like, but I would suggest adding perhaps a citation as to why it's linked. Just linking it in the fashion you did it as, serves no purpose. It would be the same as linking the phrase United States or the term English. If you would like to reference a correlation between Canadian and United States dollars, it would be best to indicate that exact point. DeWaine (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to link, then it may be better to leave the US in front of the dollar sign (US$)? This is to show readers that the money is in US dollars and not Canadian. Mike Allen 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Ok. DeWaine (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [50].

Sacramento River

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shannontalk contribs 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large river, and it's in California… that generally means that it is relied on for water supply by millions of people. The Sacramento is California's biggest and most heavily used river; its waters rise in the Klamath, Sierra and Coast Ranges as scores of snowfed tributaries, but by the time it reaches the sea after its tortuous course, it's little more than a trickle for parts of the year. I have been working on this page for a few weeks (mostly in a sandbox) and feel it is ready to be a featured article (as I live in California, it feels fitting to pay tribute to this great river whose water likely comes out of my tap.) Shannontalk contribs 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... Shannontalk contribs 04:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, refs look OK Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking… several books are listed below the references because they’re cited several times in the article. I could move all the books to the bottom, but that’d take a while. Shannontalk contribs 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SFGate => San Francisco Chronicle fixed. Shannontalk contribs 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the links are okay… Ref 86 works fine for me… are you sure?Shannontalk contribs 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 11 has a source, Sacramento River Watershed Program; Ref 14 (15?) is attributed to CEC, and Ref 4 is simply a note, could add USGS-NWIS urls to it if needed Shannontalk contribs 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe references are mostly fixed; also added some to supplement the "unreliable" ones.

Comments

Doesn't the Pit reach into Oregon? The page says so in several places.

Nope, the Pit doesn't, I'll correct the article if there is. Shannontalk contribs 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"The Sierra Nevada generally decreases in height..." I'm not sure, but isn't the term usually pluralized? The Sierra Nevadas? The Sierras? Similar to the Cascades, Rockies, Appalachians, etc. The terms occur in a number of places on the page, in singular form.

A bit of research makes me doubt whether this is even a minor issue. Looks like the singular form is alright in this case. At least, I don't know enough to say one way or the other, so I retract the point.

Shouldn't the San Joaquin River's watershed be said to occupy southern California, not northern?

Actually the San Joaquin drains central California. See the map on List of rivers of California. The San Joaquin Valley isn't close to the southern part... Shannontalk contribs 04:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this either, but isn't the norm to refer to state governments without using adjective name form? That is, the California government, the Washington government, the Florida government, etc, rather than Californian, Washingtonian, Floridian?

Is there a word missing here? between four and five years ago?

Are there still 9 species? Saying "there were once 9 species" implies there are fewer now, but "their population is now declining" suggests there are still 9 species, but fewer individuals.

A bit of a run-on sentence, no?

I assume "second only" means in terms of the size of Chinook salmon runs, but perhaps the sentence could be made clearer.

A nitpicky comment: Some of the em dashes have spaces on either side and some do not. Perhaps they should all follow the same style? I tend to not use spaces around em dashes. If spaces are used they should be non-breaking.

Otherwise, the page looks good to me, at least in terms of "is well-written", "is comprehensive", "complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS)", "has a satisfactory lead", and "is of appropriate length". The content is factually accurate and neutral. Pfly (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Parts of this seem well-done, but I also see big problems. Here are three:

Added a discharge section, it's probably kind of c*$#py, any suggestions? Shannontalk contribs 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I was asked to look at the article and would like to see the responses to Finetooth's questions before making many of my own.

Comment the refs that are PDF should have the "|format=PDF" parameter. Would like to see other comments addressed too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 22 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [51].

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

[edit]
Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) --JayJasper (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article earlier in the year and it failed due to a wide range of issues. These issues were addressed and it then underwent a Peer Review. I nominated the article again in June, but withdrew due to a lack of feedback. I am now co-nominating with JayJasper, who frequently contributed during the article's development.William S. Saturn (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I co-nominate this article with William S. Saturn. Per his above remarks, the issues that hindered the earlier nom. have been addressed. The article is extensively and credibly sourced, vastly informative, and written in a readable and encyclopedic style.--JayJasper (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the above link.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please see Future of Freedom Foundation and James Bovard as well as Ballot Access News and Richard Winger. These are reputable publications.
  2. Footnotes 7 & 8 show that Barr voted in a such a way. There is nothing implied in the text it covers.
  3. Footnote 22 is hosted by George Washington University.
  4. The remaining reference issues have been fixed. Thank you for your input.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continued comment: Hosting is not publication, but that footnote seems to have disappeared. Re 7&8, if it is trivium why is it present, if it is present as fact in relation to analysis, where is the analysis (and its own citation). They are facts which contribute to the argument "criticized by Libertarians who opposed his efforts in Congress" (lede), but no mention of criticism occurs in the "background" section. Winger's publication is not subject to commercial or peer review and he is a partisan, take it to RS for an opinion (or note previous RS opinion) or remove it. FFF is a partisan political body whose newspaper is not subject to commercial review, take it to RS or remove it. Additionally FFF is still miscited, it comes from their newspaper, not an organisational press release. Reason magazine is still miscited as there are multiple Reasons around the world. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the place of publication for Reason Magazine, and it's already linked. The background section is a quick summary of Barr's political past, the affect of his votes on his campaign can be found and sourced elsewhere in the article. In regards to FFF and Ballot Access News, please see the last paragraph in WP:SPS.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." ? you may wish to remove those two and locate alternate sources then. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about a living person. This is an article about a political campaign. Expert sources such as these are permitted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
For clarification, this is in a caption. Prada glasses are a status symbol that may be hard to read in the image itself.
Note the word "and". --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jim Bovard is notable, and the lawsuit gives insight into the former campaign's financial status.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am currently working on this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's increased by a sentence in 12 days. This rate of fixing on the run isn't fast enough YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns.


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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [52].

Illinois (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC), Jujutacular[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it met all of the requirements for GA status and was then further amended based on those recommendations and well as the suggestions at its first FA nomination and its peer-review; I have also asked for feedback from relevant WikiProjects. The article at present is stable and no changes that are suggested here should be a serious impediment to FA status. User:Jujutacular and to a lesser extent myself (User:Koavf) have been the primary contributors. I am willing to amend the article based on comments here and I have posted to Jujutacular's talk to inform him of this FA nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources looked OK at the last FAC, subject to a minor issue re retrieval dates. The same issue requires that for consistency, retrieval dates are added to 5, 17 and 29. Otherwise no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article just seems bland for such an iconic album (and it really is, it's won so many awards). I really feel it's not comprehensive enough. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 02:47, 21 September 2010 [53].

Petitcodiac River

[edit]
Nominator(s): EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Petitcodiac River is located in south-east New Brunswick, Canada, and was once home to one of the largest tidal bores in the world (from one to two metres high). The area around it was inhabited solely by the Mi'kmaq people before 1698, when Acadians from Pont Royal, Nova Scotia arrived to claim it. The river also went through the Great Upheaval, various industrial booms, and is currently the subject of a controversy regarding the construction of a causeway in 1968 (which is currently in the midst of being removed). I've nominated this article after an extensive revamp, and now believe it to be fit for an FAC. Thank you in advance for your time to review this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I couldn't find anything at fault. Good article, congrats. Sandman888 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some suitable secondary sources for the early material: Fischer, Champlain's Dream addresses the early settlement of Acadia (but probably not the Petitcodiac River). For events and background on the expulsion, Faragher's A Great and Noble Scheme. Magic♪piano 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much; I found Faragher's work on Google Books, and Fischer's both on my library's database. I'll be checking those out. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can redo the history section from scholarly sources and clear up any MOS issues, I think the article should easily pass next time. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I very much appreciate your willingness to keep working on this nomination and to search out better sources. I would like to caution you, however, that the solution is not as simple as swapping out each of the unreliable sources with a book source. The point I was trying to make is that scholarly works may present the information differently, so it's important to keep an open mind and read all that you can to see whether the text needs to be changed - either to change emphasis on certain facts, add new facts, remove some. I agree that this summary is probably pretty close, but you never know what you'll find in those scholarly works! Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought I had pointed that out in my original comment. I suppose not. Anyway, I'm well aware it could be wrong, and I'm going to take the weekend to verify it. I wasn't sure how to word my comment to assure you of that bit, but I'm well aware of it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I knew the explanation might be overkill, but I wanted to be sure we were on the same page. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up: the library unexpectedly shut down until the 13th, so I'm going to have to push this back until Wednesday at least. Two of the books I'm planning to consult are references only, and as a result, I'll only have a few hours with them (I'll check out the rest, of course). If there are any other comments or concerns people would like to address other than this specific sourcing issue, feel free to do so. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Progress check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it by a half-hour. =P I've sourced most of the History section with quality sources from the library. Some of the information was changed to comply with the new sources. (@Karanacs: A substantial amount of info was changed, you can check that in the description if you want. Seems it wasn't as accurate as I believed.) The colonisation section will be merged with the first paragraph of the Acadian history section, due to the fact that I cannot find sources for the Micmac claims (other than the fact that they colonised it and that they live at Fort Folly). The final paragraph of the Recolonisation section will be sourced either tonight or (if I cannot find information) on Saturday. The History section's layout will be shifted tonight as well. That's what I've done so far. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is done. Larracey's book is quite informative, and I was able to complete everything asked. A bit of the layout was shifted, but not as much as I thought. Just waiting for Karanacs' opinion now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the history section. Kudos for your hard work! Unfortunately, I still see some issues.

Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Several image issues:

Other than the second item, the rest should be addressed before promotion to FA can occur. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally take this long to respond, but I was a little busy. Fixed everything I could. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images are okay, either licensed appropriately or can be verified to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (reluctantly) by Ruhrfisch

This is not a complete list of objections, but I belive it is enought to justify my reluctant oppose. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:44, 19 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 12:45, 20 September 2010 [54].

Warren County, Indiana

[edit]
Nominator(s): Omnedon (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Huwmanbeing and I have done a substantial amount of work on the article over the past month, and I feel that it is now substantially complete and provides a thorough overview of the county. Omnedon (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. This is a decent, well-illustrated and generally informative article. It is in the main the work of one editor, with significant help from one other. Its main problem is that it does not seem to have undergone any form of prior review before coming here; unless I have missed something, there has been no peer review, no GA submission, no talkpage discussion. Any of such reviews might have allowed some basic problems to be identified and fixed prior to this nomination. In particular:

I have also reviewed the sources. Apart from the citations issues raised above, there are no further isues here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:29, 17 September 2010 [55].

Things Aren't Simple Any More

[edit]
Nominator(s): The JPStalk to me 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is comprehensive and appears to tick all of the boxes. It has recently undergone a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors, and a peer review further enhanced the prose. I envisage any additional improvements that might be requested here to be minimal. The JPStalk to me 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 1a. The problem with the prose is unexplained connections/statements. It assumes far too much that you know and expect even a knowledgeable reader to know as well. Needs a certain distance. I do not see how the rest of the text could possibly be up to standard, and this has been here for quite a while. Here are comments about the lead alone.


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 SandyGeorgia 21:14, 16 September 2010 [56].

Abraham Lincoln

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I"m nominating this because I think it meets the FA criteria. The is a co-nom with User:Carmarg4. It's been over a year in the making, with a big push in the last couple months. Also, it's a WP:VITAL article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on my calculation of readable prose, the article comes in at 81 kilobytes. This may or may not be a problem (see WP:SIZERULE) but it probably needs to be addressed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - very impressive work. Some things to be improved/addressed:

More to follow tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yeah. Whoa. This is where the "FAC isn't PR" comes in. Do you think this article needs several thorough copy edits, Nikkimaria? --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, I could go on like that for a while...definite copy-editing needed, and a check for consistency in all sorts of things, but I'd say it also needs some attention from a non-US reader (or at least someone who's not an expert on American history) to catch stuff that needs to be explained and clarified or reworded. I also noticed some sourcing concerns, most of which are covered by Ealdgyth below. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a hugely important article and has been the subject of much recent work, but I believe it should not be here at this point. The article's history shows that since its delisting from FA status in October 2006 it has failed GAN four times, the last in September 2009. It has never, so far as I can see, had a formal peer review. The number of points raised in this review thus far highlight its unpreparedness for FAC. Please bring it to PR. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm reading this together with a buddy who's a Lincoln enthusiast. I agree with above comments that this needs a PR and a thorough copy edit. I'm finding a lot of repetitive or unnecessary wording, and in several instances controversial statements presented as plain fact. Here's a sample, I can provide more later.

If you end up taking this to PR, I'd be happy to give it a thorough review for you, let me know. delldot ∇. 19:07, 16 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 17:49, 14 September 2010 [57].

Evanna Lynch

[edit]
Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the featured article criteria. (Updated:) Evanna Lynch is an Irish actress who rose to prominence playing Luna Lovegood, a supporting role in the Harry Potter film and video game series. Her casting was "big news", she has received critical acclaim for her acting, and she has done fashion, modelling and charity work. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the nom statement. Thanks for the advice. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the nom statement. Thanks for the advice. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed your comments. Spike.com is the official website of the television channel Spike, the channel which the Scream Awards are broadcast on. It's the primary source for the awards. If it is unacceptable, there's an About.com article, [58]? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept your assurances on Spike.com, provided other knowledgable editors don't object. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evanna Lynch at HBP signing in London - Dec 09.jpg

The article doesn't seem very comprehensive at all. The whole article seems underdeveloped. I notice that she's only famous for playing this Luna Lovegood but there's absolutely no information on who this person is. That seems like a fundamental omission. The article also isn't neutral: you've just cherry-picked quotes to make it seem like this actress is more fantastic than it is, there's no negative remarks or insightful analysis, just unrepentant gushing praise fanboyism. Anyway, I suggest you withdraw your nomination as the flaws are too serious to be fixed in the timescale. Even if somehow you do and get the supports you need, the article as I said above will only get worse with time and you won't be able to keep it in shape. Actually maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're such a fanboy that you will indeed spend the next half-century of your life dedicated to keeping this article an FA. Remains to be seen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.247.236 (talk • contribs) 01:07, September 13, 2010

My advice to the nominator is to ignore the invective from this IP and focus on working on the article. It is always good to have people trying to get articles up to the highest standard :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review 86.141.247.236. I have search every review on Rotten Tomatoes for Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince for "luna", "evanna" or "lynch" and I have not found one negative comment regarding her, her character or her performance. I believe I have fixed many of the flaws you've specified; if there any more, I encourage you to specify them below. :) Thanks again for your review, and thank you to Hamiltonstone for those kind words and emoticon. :) Alex Douglas (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 17:49, 14 September 2010 [59].

Albany, New York

[edit]
Nominator(s): upstateNYer 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was just uprated to GA after a many-month rewrite by me. I think it is thorough, broad, and well written. I'm bringing this to FAC in an effort to get one of the central articles of WP:NYCD to FA level. Note that this nomination is in no way related to the previous FAC. upstateNYer 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 23:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
upstateNYer 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link to oak instead. Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could, but Scrub Oak is more appropriate. Is using a dab in this situation really all that bad? Also, #2 link above has been replaced. If the expert changes it, so be it, but the source I just put up works for now. upstateNYer 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Quercus ilicifolia appears to be the only "scrub oak" that actually occurs in the northeastern U.S., so you could just link that species. No dead external links left. Ucucha 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it, I just came to the same conclusion and updated accordingly. upstateNYer 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, Albany Pine Bush lists Quercus ilicifolia as a native species.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, as far as I can see, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]



I have been asked by the editor in question, with I whom I have worked a lot, to review the article and, before I do, I should make it clear that I am also a member of the Capital District project, that I have under the auspices of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject and the urban studies and planning WikiProject written and photographed a great deal of the articles about historic buildings and neighborhoods in and around downtown Albany, which is about an hour and a half from where I live. However, I haven't worked on this article much save for converting the main infobox to a geobox, which I am glad to see the article retains.

That said, it is with much regret that I cannot support this for FA at this time. It's too long at 184K. That is the symptom of some other issues it has, and fortunately we can get to the FA by cutting it down.

Readable prose is actually 64kB (10,651 words), which is in a grey zone for splitting. I would, of course, argue that it is not too long. As I mentioned on your my talk page (in response to your response), there are numerous other FAs that are longer than this (Byzantine Empire, Ming Dynasty, among others). Admittedly, those examples are large, historical entities. But history is Albany's bread and butter. It's economy is not notable (there are 49 other state capitals in the country and, what, 60 million other baby boomers starting to hit their later [more sick-prone] years?), it's religious breakdown is similar to local states and cities, its outright noted for lacking in culture. Its government is notable, but mostly because of its machine-led history. Its architecture is notable, but that's history, too. The upside to local articles is you can go into more detail because the subject is smaller. Unlike Byzantine Empire and Ming Dynasty, we can mention specific people, and even roads (roads!). These are important to the city's development. I think length arguments are not all that valid because of past FA precedent and necessity of detail to really get to know Albany. upstateNYer 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not that it's conclusive or anything, but the page size tool describes the article's length as "readable prose size". upstateNYer 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet finished going through the 36-page hard copy, but here are some things we can do, not all of which are related to the length issue:

Geobox
Now I'm a little confused as well. My original point was that the recognition of Albany as a municipal entity of whatever nature by a higher political authority was well prior to the establishment of New York State. Therefore it was, along with at least Kingston, New York City and (I think) Schenectady a sort of "charter member" of the state's municipalities that did not need to be rechartered as cities or villages under the General Municipal Law or whatever the predecessor legislation was.

Camelbinky is suggesting that it was the equivalent of a village under the Dutch (were there any other municipalities in New Netherland at the time recognized as ... what would the Dutch word be? Staat or something like that? Or was dorpe just the general term for any settlement with legal status as a body corporate and politic?)

I think I can put this into one question: was there any time following the establishment of New York State in 1777 when Albany was not considered a city? Since the Dongan charter was not abrogated or replaced it would seem the new state accepted it as a city without requiring it to be a village first. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dongan is clear that it takes the "town of Albany" and creates the "Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of Albany". As the article says, this is almost the same document prepared for NYC three months earlier. I've never heard that any formal legislation took place at the time of statehood. They had already been declared cities, so nobody argued it I guess. upstateNYer 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify- Beverwyck, about a year before New Amsterdam, was given a municipal government by Director-General of New Netherland Peter Stuyvesant. The Dutch used the word dorpe generally translated as village, though town is acceptable, and NYC histories often call their incorporation that of a city, so whatever you want to call it Beverwyck had a government. I thought Daniel Case was saying that prior to the Dongan Charter Albany was not a legally incorporated entity by his saying "Albany was not a village". I misunderstood. Albany, unlike NYC, never lost its city status (NYC gave up its charter during the Leisler Rebellion). As for the the Legislature's involvement in municipal status after becoming a state it legally couldnt after the US Supreme Court's Dartmouth v. Woodward decision made charters (a form of contract) as sacrosanct as any contract and technically Albany and the earlier charter cities couldnt have their charters revoked, just as New Hampshire couldnt do that to Dartmouth.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall layout

While I appreciate the general alternation of images as easing readability as I have long advocated, there are too many places where (at least on my monitor) text is squeezed between images contrary to MOS:IMAGES (granted, this may be an issue of our respective thumb-size preferences) We can help this by shortening the geobox per my suggestions above, and also by making sure the image captions don't go more than two lines of text long. The caption to the image of Robert Fulton's steamboat should just tell us what it is ... the passenger load info is really better off in the text.

Also, we should look at culling some of the images, and the first way to do that is eliminate uunjustifiable fair-use ones. I could find only one: the picture of Erastus (or is it Erasmus, as you spelled his grandfather's name on first reference?) Corning. Since the article doesn't discuss either that picture or his appearance, I submit that the picutre of him fails FUC #8 and should be removed.

The amount of times his name shows up in the article means a hill of beans as far as FUC 8 stands: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Readers can click on the link to the article if they really want to know what he looked like; I don't think his appearance is necessary to understanding his effect on the city. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with your assessment, but I've removed him. upstateNYer 20:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were totally up to me we wouldn't be so anal about FUC 8, and my only objection would be the placement. But them's the rules, and I noticed Sandy wondered whether we had more images than we needed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Structure

With 300+ footnotes at present, you should put the section with your multiply-used references, which I believe is currently your bibliography section, ahead of the references as "Works cited". Then make "Further reading" a separate section after the notes, before External links.

When I first started citing this way (listing pages in Reference section and bibliography later), I based it on Joan of Arc, an FA. I've now done this on dozens of articles, including Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York), my first FA. I don't really see a reason to break from the pattern, in all honesty. upstateNYer 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Made Further reading its own section. upstateNYer 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, most of us stick with our preferred way of doing things if there's no MOS or other policy dictating to the contrary. But it's a little rough on a reader looking at your footnotes to have to go down to the bibliography; I think the natural tendency on a scrollable web page is to go back up. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is wholly a preference debate. I disagree that the first inclination is to go back up from the References section and I don't think I've ever seen (or at least noticed) the way you describe it. upstateNYer 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it isn't helped by the fact that while you'd think, from reading the list at WP:FOOTERS, that "Works cited" should go first, when you read the fine print you realize that that only applies to works by the subject of an article, which is obviously inapplicable here, and it is silent on the question of whether that hierarchy should apply as well to a list of works frequently used as sources. It's something we should take up at the appropriate talk page, but not here, obviously. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intro
Butchering it may be, but it's the way about a third or so of New York's population pronounces the name of their state capital, whether reading the news, running for office or planning a trip. You and I call the fizzy sweet brown stuff we drink soda, but from Auburn west it's pop. Whatever you think of that term (and my Buffalo-born wife similarly looks down on "soda"), it's an encyclopedic aspect of New York. Ditto with the way Albany is pronounced. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of New York, but not part of Albany. I personally have yet to meet a New Yorker (save for a NYC-er with a NYC or Brooklyn accent) not pronounce Albany correct (Buffalo? Syracus? I've spent some serious time in these places and never noticed this; and this is a pet peeve of mine). Only out-of-staters (mid-westerners actually) have I heard say AL-bany. And a third of the population? I would very much like to see a source for that. upstateNYer 21:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn? To me that's where, if anything, you'll hear the vowel sound pronounced too correctly, if that's possible (Think the early versions of SNL's Coffee Talk sketches, where pretty much the only gag is the pronunciation of that vowel sound. I think Myers retooled them to the Linda Richman "like buttah" sketches because he knew that there wasn't much further he could go in that direction).

But I should rephrase to "the portion of the state with three of the four cities in it that are more populous than Albany but less populous than New York" (And that you can verify here, here and here with the cited sources). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first off, should acknowledge my COI with this article, as most articles I have written are related intimately to this subject and I have been involved in Upstater's rewrite with helping to find sources and especially with fact checking. I would say the tendency for articles to keep to the correct pronounciation and not cater to whatever someone "happens" to hear. First off any other pronounciation requires an RS, and second- what is the notability or relevance of what people in Syracuse, Boston, or Paris pronounce the Albany? Those two things must be addressed by those who think alternative pronounciations are required.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of how "Albany" is pronounced elsewhere in the state is to me self-evident: it's the state capital. By contrast, I wouldn't consider the sometimes-heard alternative pronunciation of "Syracuse" as if it were "Saracuse" to be relevant since it is not of such statewide importance, and I've never heard anyone in (at least) upstate New York say it that way, in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe say "other cities in the region", then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this sentence is defining that region. This is really a very mild sentence. "Albany, Schenectady, Troy, and Saratoga Springs make up the major cities within the Capital District". That's about as uncontroversially factual as you can get. upstateNYer 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop this objection, then. I do realize that, with the expansion of the area and the growth of the road system, Saratoga Springs is getting to be at least partially an Albany exurb in some ways (it's certainly within commuting distance via the Northway). But I would just note that personal experience suggests that not everyone in Saratoga Sprgins sees themselves that way.
By definition Saratoga Springs is a suburb of Albany. It is within the Albany-Schenectady-Troy MSA. It has for a LONG time been described by numerous RS's as a suburb of Albany. Its history is intimately tied to that of the region, same settler families, economy tied together, Albany's elite with summer homes there (going all the way to Mayor Schuyler in the 1700s), the city government even paid for the first fort at Saratoga to be built (today Schuylerville, also named for Albany's mayor). So its not like 'toga has ever been beyond the region.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the other three cities were, in addition to being close by, all industrial cities that grew as they attracted immigrants. Saratoga has always been a resort town with not that many factories, and a large seasonal population of rich people (And it isn't even the county seat, unlike the other three). Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only when you get to that part of the story. There was no canal when the city was established. I believe the determining factor at the time of Fort Orange was that that was about as far as you could navigate upriver, and it had the high ground where a fort could be established. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but the intro is describing Albany currently (as in, the Erie Canal has already happened). Whether or not you know of the Erie's history, it doesn't matter. If you don't know it, you find out that the city's close to the confluence of New York's two most major rivers and if you do know the history already, you see the connection. upstateNYer 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping this one, too, after thinking about it.
Yes, but I think a claim like that should be cited if it appears in the intro. In a long article, especially as it currently is, it's unfair to the reader to make them hunt all the way through it for the relevant cite. Most people are going to want to be able to check that as soon as they read it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's overkill, but I've added it. upstateNYer 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's perhaps the DYK experience that informs that one. Generally, I think extraordinary claims like that should be cited in intros, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History

As a whole this section is, IMO, the biggest contributor to the article's bloat. It would benefit greatly from attention to summary style, especially since there is already a separate article on the city's history.

Another global issue is the constant chronowhiplash. Too many times we read about something, then immediately afterwards read about what has happened to it or what it has become today. That constant alternation in timeframes is, perhaps, part of the appeal of Lost, but it just makes a text narrative on the history of a city confusing. Stay in the same time frame as much as possible when writing a history.

Well, it's an accident of language, but a large part of history is story. I did the history section of Central Troy Historic District (granted, a smaller area, but it's also the history of Troy until about the mid-20th century) with that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, each historical aspect of the timeline gets its own small story to keep you engaged. I just re-read CTHD and you do this same thing all the time. Maybe not as significantly, but I'd argue it's almost as prevalent. And, again, that's a good thing in my mind because otherwise you'd be bored out of your mind (and bouncing from the ends of sections to the beginnings to remind yourself of what the article was talking about 500 words ago). upstateNYer 21:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section heds, it would help if you put year ranges before the time periods, with the current titles as subtitles after a colon. That seems to be becoming standard practice.

You might also want, in a history this long, to have a short prefatory graf or grafs summing it up.

Colonial and Early American times
I suppose you probably don't have to mention it because of it being such a brief interlude. But it's true. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also true that Van Schaick Island was the state capital for a weekend. The question is whether it is relevant to an article about Albany.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(More to come later). Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Continuing ...[reply]

Transportation hub, 19th century to early 20th century

This section is sorely in need of work. It's mistitled, for one thing ... as it establishes further along, industries contributed mightily to the city's growth and development later on in this time period.

But Albany wasn't established to be a transportation hub. It was established as a military and political outpost. It became a transportation hub, and the history of the city at the beginning of the early 19th century should tell us why. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really getting what you mean here. There are a couple ways I can take this:
  1. You are implying Albany is still a transportation hub and want history stating it became such, it wasn't made such. I would disagree; I don't believe the city is a transportation hub any longer. Modern day transportation hubs are cities with huge airports like Chicago, Houston, Baltimore, and Newark. Railroads are falling by the wayside. There is no public transit system other than CDTA (vice NYC Subway, Boston T, Washington Metro) and no commuter train system. Albany only has 2 interstates that connects it to any other outside areas (not counting I-88, which starts at Schenectady, or 787, which is internal). The Erie Canal is for tourists now. Basically, it is a transportation hub as much as (or less than) any other city these days.
  2. You just want to reiterate that Albany was a transportation hub? In this respect, I don't understand why, since it's covered in History.
As far as I'm concerned this section is really only for reporting current facts. upstateNYer 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean transportation, right? But I find that it's not such a bad idea to reiterate stuff because you can't assume, especially with such a well-developed article, that people will read the whole thing (we have articles divided into sections with boldfaced heds for the same reason paper encyclopedias do, after all).
Albany is still a transportation hub I would argue. The two busiest exits in the entire New York State Thruway, the 13th busiest Amtrak station in the entire nation, a major seaport (Port of Albany-Rensselaer), and when it comes to cargo shipped by truck or railroad it is second only to the NY metro area in importance to the US Northeast. Yes, by the criteria of people-mover it is not as important as it use to be. But historically, how do you think Ohio, Michigan, Ill, Indiana got settled by those New Englanders? They went through Albany. Erie Canal was actually financed by Albanians (mostly the Patroon Stephen van Rensselaer) for the intent of increasing Albany's economy, had actually little to do with NYC (anachronistic historians later made it seem that it was about NYC becoming a major city in competition to Philly, Boston, and New Orleans, that was a side-effect). The first municipal airport and one of the first airports at all (less than a decade after Kitty Hawk I believe). The very first passenger steam railroad in the US. I can continue...
Then I submit that the history article is better for that level of detail. In this article we should keep the history of Albany focused on the city itself: how it and its people became what they are today. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An important part of the history of a city, any city, is how it grew and what drove that growth. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very general statement and while I don't disagree with it philosophically, what you're asking for is significantly more detailed than the gist of your last sentence. Adding a sentence on it would match the generality of your latest request, but the first issue you brought up seems to want a detailed history, and if you don't want to see turnpike names, I really can't see why you would want this detailed history, too. I'm sensing a double standard. upstateNYer 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't have to give details. Just a clause to the effect that the city annexed territory along those routes as it grew (Did Albany completely absorb any surrounding towns or nearby villages like, for instance, the way Troy absorbed Lansingburgh? If so that should be in there too).
The city had the long "tail" into the Pine Bush towards Schenectady from its inception as a city through the Dongan Charter (the Liberty of Albany), lost it in 1871 to Guilderland, then reannexed about half of it making roughly the current western border in 1910. Arbor Hill, Albany, New York was the only incorporated village (and coterminous town of same name) that was ever annexed to Albany. Other hamlets of the surrounding towns have been annexed- Groesbeckville, Kenwood, Hurstville, Normansville, and North Albany being the most notable/populated. Most recent annexation was in the 1960s along New Scotland Road. (Selfpromotion- I wrote every single article I linked to in this post).Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to come up with a concise sentence or two that covers this, with RSs? upstateNYer 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a paragraph with sources regarding annexations, put it on Upstater's talk page. Hope he or someone can pare it down and incorporate it.Camelbinky (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the respective sections of the history summary. upstateNYer 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you cite the NRHP nom, but they do give their own sources, usually, which maybe you have used. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the 19th century... not really. Banking happened too. Albany well known for banking during that time, it was the Charlotte, North Carolina of its day. The Bank of Albany financed the Erie Canal (today one of many ancestors to Bank of America). Albany is not well-known for culture through most of its history it was an industrial city. Despite New England's insistance on writing history the Industrial Revolution in the US actually started in the Capital District (more in Troy than in Albany though), industry and transportation dominate any history of Albany in that period. Back then Albany and the surrounding area dominated just about every major industry- steel, textile, lumber, even manufactoring of pianos and printing of books.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Corning administration to the present day

This section, I think, has the most problems.

Most significant is POV, which crops up a lot here. It may be the result of not making it clear enough that someone else's opinion is being cited, or words to avoid, but it needs to be dealt with.

Well, the least you should do is put the quote in the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Addedndum: And put the footnote itself at the word "arguably" (This is something I did myself with "uncharacteristically" here.[reply]
It's a lot better than "fanboys" :-). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If positive things MUST be found to balance out the portrayal of Albany's "Mayor for life" then I propose lifting from Albany Pine Bush that he was responsible for the largest purchases of land for that preserve (and conversly for most of the destructive development on the parts he didnt purchase), that he pushed for the state museum at the ESP, his environmentalism before it was "cool" to be "green" (olive tree's at Steven's farm with the intent of using them as biofuel for city cars, a fleet of electric cars, basically golf carts, Albanians could borrow from the city to run local errands, a "people mover" on State Street, and other examples), he appointed Don Rittner as the first city archeaologist of any US city and personally funded Don's excavation of the Isaac Truax Tavern.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I appreciate being limited by one's sources (I wonder if he also resisted urban renewal because he and/or his machine cronies weren't about to sacrifice their favorite watering holes to progress). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could just, again, add a clause to the effect that the architecture of ESP has been criticized with the specifics in a note or footnote (I don't consider those to be bloating the article). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see if Diana Waite (Albany Architecture) disses the architecture. If so, I'll mention that critics aren't thrilled and just cite her. That works for me. upstateNYer 19:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to come after I actually go create some content, and maybe call it a night ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnotbod's review
File size: 446 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB
References (including all HTML code): 115 kB
Wiki text: 167 kB
Prose size (text only): 58 kB (9625 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 27 kB
Images: 1039 kB

It's not obvious to me that all of those images are adding to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my "page size" tool doesn't show the image size. Would it be because most of the images in the article are high-resolution files? Or does that not matter? Plus we have two wide images (both of which I think are necessary). I'm not experienced enough with page size to know what's going on. upstateNYer 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the page size script; regardless, the images are cluttering the article, and don't all seem necessary, and prose size is quite high (can better use of summary style be used?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most are necessary, I think. I'll see what I can cut. And I'm still in the middle of trimming the prose. upstateNYer 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is text sandwiched between images in several places (see WP:MOS#Images), and several images that could be moved to daughter articles-- the article is still so slow to load (even on a fast connection) that working on it is difficult, and most surely the images-- along with the article length-- are contributing to the loadtime problems. I still don't see McEneny in the Biblio, and some of the page ranges are wrong (see WP:ENDASH)-- there's still a lot going on in this article, and the review is only a few days old. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two potential places where there could be sandwiching and it doesn't look like it would be that bad, even in a wide window. Plus, there's not really much I can do about it. I'll look into ENDASH. Where is that script? Somebody usually does that for me. There must only be one or two that are a problem because the script was run earlier. And McEneny is in the Biblio. I just confirmed it. upstateNYer 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not experiencing a very slow experience since I replaced all the citation templates. It's no slower for me than editing Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York), my other FA. upstateNYer 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Chabad-Lubavitch is redirect. Have you checked for others? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. Is there a tool? Granted, Chabad is not one of the ones I would be very knowledgeable of (and, oddly, the page is Chabad but the bolded title is the same we use in the article). Almost all of the rest I would, and I'd probably use the correct name. That said, I do know that City (New York) is a redirect, as are many Albany street names (e.g., State Street (Albany, New York) so it's easier for us writers to link to it rather than constantly copy+pasting Administrative divisions of New York#City or Streets of Albany, New York#State Street. upstateNYer 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dab tool but not a redirect tool that I know of. Please fix the redirs you know of. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only know of the ones I just gave as examples, but they were made specifically to make linking easier (especially for the situation where one of those subsections becomes its own article in the future). upstateNYer 01:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make linking easier? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's easier for me to remember City (New York) than Administrative divisions of New York#City. The latter always requires a copy+paste because I don't remember it off the top of my head. Same goes for the streets. The redirects bring you straight to the section of the article. upstateNYer 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects should be avoided, when you come across one, just copy it and use [[[Administrative divisions of New York#City|city]]. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I 1) have never heard this before (and it is not anywhere to be found in WP:WIAFA) and 2) find WP:NOTBROKEN to be pretty clear, stating this is unnecessary. If this is anything more than a personal preference, please point me to the source essay. upstateNYer 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in, the article is still slowloading and difficult to edit, and I don't see progress since I last lodged this concern:

File size: 467 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 117 kB
References (including all HTML code): 116 kB
Wiki text: 166 kB
Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9565 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 27 kB
Images: 967 kB

Some of the images are not enhancing the text and could be moved to daughter articles, and more aggressive use of summary style is needed. The length of this FAC suggests the article might need additional work once it is trimmed; it's not productive to work on MOS and other issues when the article is too large to edit (and I do not have a slow connection). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm continuing work on summary. Can you specifically call out which images are not enhancing? I think I've removed 5-7 now, and an article on a whole city can only do so much justice if it's at least somewhat illustrated. I see we disagree on this, but the article is now severely lacking in images in my opinion. As for the size/connection/etc., I'm not seeing much of an issue. That ((vcite)) switch made a huge difference, and I don't have a notably fast connection (and, add to that, I'm on that connection through wireless, which slows it that much more). But I have cut this article more than 1000 words and shrunk the file size 30% since the FAC started. The further I go, the more skeletal this article gets. And skeletal≠WP:SS. But I will continue on trimming details. I just wasn't around much this weekend. upstateNYer 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Sandy. 170K is WAY too big. 100K is about the max any prose article should be — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I understand where you're coming from, and you can agree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is obvious precedent. And the 170 is for wikitext, not prose. I can't help it if I'm being limited technically because I have a lot of references. This is shorter than many other FAs, but many of those link to books and have simple Author (XXXX), p. XXX type citations. See Ming Dynasty, for example: almost 14,000 words, and 137kB of wikitext. No newspaper references though (which, in Albany, require a long url, repetitive publisher and work fields, etc.); Byzantine Empire is another good example. upstateNYer 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying a city that's a few hundred years old warrants being longer and having more refs than an article on an empire that's thousands of years old? You're obviously very thorough but some of this really could be moved to sub articles and then you can make FAs of them too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not longer than those. Wikipedia offers a great opportunity to get a lot of information in for smaller subjects. Where the authors of Ming Dynasty might feel cramped by the amount of space they had to write in, the writers of a reasonably small city in New York shouldn't because the subject is much more specific and allows for greater detail, especially for the smaller population that can appreciate the added detail (and if I had 14,000 words as my quota for this article, I wouldn't feel at all cramped for space). While the article must cater to the masses as a general overview, minor details sprinkled here and there are what make the article interesting for a local to read (otherwise it will just be all information that they already know). Anyway, the subject does not dictate the length. Because every article on Wikipedia is theoretically only limited to WP:SIZERULE, that space is able to become more detailed and specific for a smaller subject (and the readable prose size here is 57kB, which is clearly a grey area for breaking apart per SIZERULE). As for breaking off, I've done that for Architecture of Albany, New York and Neighborhoods of Albany, New York. Like I said, I'll continue to whittle this down; I'm doing the best I can. IMO the article has already lost a great deal of its charm. Isn't there a guideline out there stating that editors needn't worry about the performance of pages assuming the content is reasonable, that it is assumed that the technology will become good enough soon enough to cover the issue? upstateNYer 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ming Dynasty did not pass FAC at that size; it grew post-FAC, and it doesn't have almost 1MB in images slowing down its loadtime. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact is, I can't edit this article, which means other editors can't either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then what does that say about other FAs? Cleveland, for example, has 29 images not counting small flags or portal images; Albany has the same number now (I can't see what the size is because the "Page size" tool doesn't report image size counts outside of Internet Explorer, I guess, and I have a Mac, which doesn't run IE any longer). Cleveland is 437kB (vs. Albany's 464). These are comparable numbers here, and one can "get away with it" while the other can't? Not to start a philosophical debate, but it seams all that matters is that the snapshot of an article at the time of FAC needs to be good enough to pass, then the floodgates can open after? But it's not the snapshot that readers see! That's not to say I'm trying to create more work for FAC reviewers—I respect that it's a strained community—but something has to be done for these older articles then if you plan to hold such standards to new candidates. And not to press too far, but I've had the Guild and a GA reviewer—as well as regular contributors—go thru the article with no editing complaints. I will work on trimming this early this week, but it's more than disheartening that other FAs don't meet the same requirements that I'm being asked to. Requirements that aren't even written down anywhere. upstateNYer 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleveland loads fine for me (it has less images), but it is also significantly larger than what passed its last review. Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:FAR if you see significant deficiences in Cleveland (I haven't checked it). Anyone can pass a GA, and anyone can sign up for the Guild of Copyeditors-- this is FAC, where review is more stringent (depending on the reviewers you get at each place, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleveland has the same # of images! And when I brought up the Guild and GA, I was talking about the fact that there were no complaints from anybody—other than you specifically—on load time. Just to be clear. upstateNYer 03:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Just caught your "otherstuff" reference. I've read this before; I'm not a new editor here. You're implicitly telling me you believe the comparisons are invalid. I wouldn't have made them if I believed that to be true. These are very much valid arguments. Each FA is to be held to the same standard. That's where we're talking apples-to-apples. As the guideline clearly states, "...these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." While openly noting that "'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'", that other stuff isn't just stuff, they're FAs; they're the cream of our crop. If you want to avoid article creep because you're low on review resources, protect the pages at that snapshot in time. Then you won't get these comparisons in the future. Simple fix. upstateNYer 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to chime in with an observation about the push to limit the size of this article and the photos. This article is getting attacked basically for being complete! The very definition of an FA is that it completly covers all aspects of the topic, nothing missing. Yes, summary style with spin-off articles are wanted and needed. But in the end, you still have to give Upstater and the rest of us leeway to summarize completly a city that is 400 years old and has contributed greatly to every aspect of US and world history/economy/transportation etc in those 400 years. The comparision to Cleveland sucks because, well comparatively (and no offence) Cleveland sucks compared to the achievements of Albany. It's younger, it has less history and importance towards US and world history, those are facts; there's simply less to state in an article. Is Cleveland more important than Albany today, oh G-d yes it is, Cleveland crushes Albany if you look at only present-day. Personally- if making this article an FA means it gutted and becomes an article that is pretty much useless then I encourage Upstater to make the article what he thinks looks good and forget the FA. I'd rather have a great article with no title than a fancy title that required making the article worse. Do you see the trees or the forest?Camelbinky (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've heard that Cleveland Rocks. upstateNYer 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a city can be complete and compact (See WP:SIZERULE). Bratislava is a good bit older, more populous and, I daresay, more important than Albany in the overall global scheme of things (after all, it's a national capital, not just a major political subdivision capital). The current version of the article, which has been featured for over two years, is 96K; the version that got the FA star was 86K. If we want a model for an article on a city that has retained its featured status (look at FAR; it's scary how many city articles (New York City included) have lost the star) I suggest that that's a good one to emulate. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the nomination
I don't believe I can make the requested cuts in good conscience. Just too much is removed from the article. Thank you for the reviews. upstateNYer 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs already archived the nomination several hours ago; see WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I thought closed noms get the blue background placed around them telling users not to add anything more, and since that was missing, assumed this was still open. upstateNYer 02:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be, once the bot goes through. As a side note, Bratislava has significantly deteriorated since its promotion, and might warrant a visit to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that good to begin with. upstateNYer 03:15, 15 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [60].

Akira Kurosawa

[edit]
dylanexpert: Dylanexpert (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... this year is Akira Kurosawa's (1910-1998) centennial year. It is also the 60th Anniversary (August 25th) of the Tokyo premiere of Rashomon, the film that opened Western eyes (and Western film markets) to the cinema of Japan and, by extension, Asian cinema as a whole. This year is also the 25th Anniversary of the premiere of his final masterpiece, Ran.

Kurosawa needs no introduction to anyone who knows or cares about the art of film. A website, They Shoot Pictures, Don't They (TSPDT), that gauges the reputations of films and filmmakers, ranks him as seventh among all directors.

This article consistently maintains a neutral point-of-view. Various views of individual films are expressed in the article with which the nominator does not agree, in the interest of presenting different facets of opinion on a work. In addition, a concise Criticisms section is included that, again, contains some negative judgments about the subject with which the nominator does not agree.

With my co-editor, Vili, we have made certain that the article is well-written and comprehensive, and all assertions have been supported by correctly-formatted citations.

Every effort has been made to make the article as brief as possible. Everything from the "Life and career" section has been eliminated that is not relevant to the main theme: the development of the subject as an artist and his struggle to realize his creative vision. Several tables and lists have been taken out of the main page and given separate articles. But Kurosawa's life was, like his films, an epic story and, as all 30 of his films are extant, a cursory summary of his output, which would be appropriate for other, less prominent, subjects, was simply not possible in this case.

As articles longer than this one (e.g. Michael Jackson) have been chosen as Featured Articles, we feel that those who will decide whether this article deserves featured status will take the importance of the subject into account.

We would very much like this article to be chosen as a Featured Article soon so that it can selected as Today's Featured Article on September 10th, the 59th Anniversary of the date that Rashomon won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, establishing Japanese cinema -- and Kurosawa -- as a major force. We will, of course, given time constraints, understand if this is not possible, but this is our current goal. Dylanexpert (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 10th is only eight days away, and Raul is likely to schedule the TFA for that sooner; it is rare for an article to be promoted that fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sept 10 TFA is scheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further bits. You misunderstood, I'm not questioning the further reading items inclusion, I'm questioning why they aren't used as sources. Several of the sources questioned above on reliablity need addressing still. And you can drop locations from the book refs if you like, that's one valid option. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got it. And you have a good idea. So I took the Martinez book out of Further reading and put it in sources. Then, for Battle Beyond the Stars, I removed the IMDB reference and replaced it with a Martinez reference. So that's two issues solved. I changed the reference to the Eugene Register-Guard (newspaper) so that now it reads correctly in italics. I dropped locations from the book references... though frankly, it still seems silly and totally unnecessary to me. I eliminated the whole passage about the "Sukiyaki Western" (which I never really felt comfortable with including anyway) so questions about the reliability of its source are no longer relevant. "What makes http://akirakurosawa.info/ a reliable source?" - I really don't know how to answer that question. What is the standard of reliability? You, subjectively, say that IMDB is not a reliable source; I, equally subjectively, say that it (mostly) is, or at least is more accurate and complete than any other film reference source that I've ever encountered... though I eliminated the IMDB reference that you were dissatisfied with. So what is the objective standard to this very subjective question? I will elaborate on this issue on your talk page. Dylanexpert (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability 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. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Also note that since that dispatch was written, the standards for FA have changed to require "high quality" sources. IMDB isn't just me, it's a consensus from the WP:RSN, which is a good spot to go to for questions about sources. As for the locations, it's a consistency issue, making the citations consistent with all the other citations used in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for http://akirakurosawa.info, I probably cannot call it "reliable" according to Wikipedia's stringent standards, as the site's own About page modestly asserts that it is "not definitive." However, there is no such authoritative source that I can find that "proves" the assertions on the "On home video" paragraph. The vast majority of sites that mention Kurosawa DVDs want the reader to buy them, or are Top 10 lists, etc. I have always been uncomfortable anyway with the mention of all the DVD brand names in the para. So I propose just editing the paragraph down to the first two sentences, "All thirty films directed by Kurosawa are available on DVD worldwide, most of them from more than one distributor and in more than one region code. His movies are also becoming increasingly available on Blu-ray." These are simply facts: there is no single scholarly source in the Internet that "proves" them. Is this satisfactory to you?
It's perfectly acceptable for something like this to use Amazon or a similar large retailer to show that the DVDs are available. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change and saved it. As far as I can see, all your objections (except debatable aesthetic ones) have now been addressed. Thanks for your input! Dylanexpert (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very nice to see an in-depth article on such an important director. I'm finding style issues here. Just the top for the moment:

Responses to Comments: Thank you both for your input!
To Ealdgyth: 1) Removed ALL CAPS in those two cases, which I believe were the only ones. 2) The Eugene Register-Guard reference was a news, not a web ref: I have made the change (thanks for catching that). 3) The refs that were publisher-less have had publishers added. 4) "Web Site" is the title of Toho's foreign-language (Japanese) site, and the title just is what it is: I can't arbitrarily change it. 5) Consistently changed references to remove "Univ." and spell out "University". 6) Many books don't list place of publication on their title or copyright pages, and I'm not about to make guesses: I believe location must be optional in a book reference, not mandatory. 7) From the external references, I deleted the IMDB and TSPDT links, as you suggested. 7) The "Further reading" section was very carefully considered: the Shakespeare books (by Buchanan, Davies and Leonard) have significant content about Kurosawa because of the latter's Shakespeare-inspired films, Throne of Blood and Ran (much of the information that allowed me to include the Shakespeare volumes came from the website http://akirakurosawa.info, which is *not* a superficial fansite, but engages in significant scholarly inquiry, and is thus authoritative); Noel Burch has a very significant chapter on Kurosawa which was nonetheless not used in any of my references; and the appropriateness of the Cowie and Dresser references is self-explanatory: therefore, I am retaining all the volumes cited in "Further reading". 8) As far as the introductory section is concerned, I'm sorry, but I have a pet peeve against articles that contain intro sections that I think are too long; as a devoted reader of Wikipedia, when the article is as detailed as mine is, I don't want the intro section to be long as well; I want it to be concise and succinct. Every single statement made in those three paragraphs is one that no reputable film scholar would dispute, yet they are all later explained in the main text and supported with references for non-scholars. I don't think that section should be "beefier": I think it's just right.
To DCGeist: 1) Made dating consistent in article and infobox (Month-Day-Year). 2) Changed "released a film a year" to "directed a film a year". 3) Removed "American" from "American AsianWeek"; 4) For the file page of the photo used in the infobox, I changed the summary (under "Portion used") to make clear that Mifune was in the uncropped version of the photo. (No, I don't know the exact date on which the picture was taken, but I can tell from internal evidence -- the age and costumes of the participants in the full photo and other photos obviously taken during the same shoot, the appearance of the set, etc -- that the picture had to have been taken in the early 1960's, with Sanjuro rather than Yojimbo the more likely film, and I gave the release date of the former film, 1962, as the last plausible year in which it could have been taken.) Dylanexpert (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Many image issues. Just looking at the first half of the article:

Comment: The Reputation among filmmakers (and arguably the Homages and allusions) subsection, as well as the Legacy section are currently grab bags of stubby, bullet-point-like grafs. They need to be reworked for more flowing prose.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Due to the impending merge of ((Infobox actor)), you may want to switch to ((Infobox person)) now and make the most of the extra fields in that template. PC78 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as confused and frustrated as if I were invited on public property and then arrested for trespassing. The whole purpose of a Commons section is to include in it images that anybody can take and put in their articles without challenge. If I use the Commons section and am challenged for it, what’s the point? At the same time, I can see your reasoning that these particular images, which might at first have seemed to be “free,” may not be. So my argument would be that, because of their ambiguity, perhaps I might keep the images unless they are challenged by someone claiming to hold the copyright for them. If you don’t accept that, then I will “rehost” the images as you indicated… but you will have to let me know how to do that.
For the images of Akira Kurosawa himself (there are actually two disputable images, not one) I grant that these are probably not free images, but again, they shouldn’t have been in the Commons in the first place. (Who’s minding the store anyway?) I’ve contacted the New York Public Library website from which the images originated and asked if I could use them in my article without a fee. They said that they did not require a fee, but that I have to find out about copyrights by third parties. So I guess I will have to rehost these also as Fair Use images.
The Yojimbo and Red Beard images already have fair use rationales for the articles in which they originally appeared. Do I have to write a whole other rationale for *my* article?
I will rewrite the rationale for the Tora! Tora! Tora! image to make it a bit more detailed.
I would argue that the “Reputation among other filmmakers” subsection represents a nice change of pace from the “flowing” style of the rest of the article. And I believe you exaggerate somewhat when you describe the whole thing as “currently grab bags of stubby, bullet-point-like grafs.” For example, the Robert Altman paragraph “flows” fairly well. However, in a couple of instances (Spielberg and Scorsese), the grafs are not written as complete sentences, so I will change those.
Since you used the word “arguably” in your description of the “Homages and allusions” subsection, I am taking that as a subjective judgment and will keep that part as is.  : - )
Forgot to sign. Dylanexpert (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies on image use and non-free content can lead to frustration, but they are policies and we're all obliged to follow them. Especially if you want your work recognized as among Wikipedia's best, you should be aware that it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with those policies and what they require from you. Here are the two basic pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content—the second is a guideline page, but it incorporates the full text of our non-free-content policy, while providing more detail and examples.
I hope you've gotten over the shock of realizing that the Commons, though a wonderful resource, is not an example of perfection in this universe. While the vast majority of items there are indeed free, it is a volunteer site just like this (the Commons is organizationally related to Wikipedia via the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is by no means a "section" of Wikipedia), and people make mistakes—there are all sorts of items there that don't belong there. (Sometimes that's not due to a mistake by the volunteer who introduced the image—copyright laws and interpretations of those laws can change, as well.) It's your responsibility to check the licensing status of each and every image you want to include in an article here to make sure that it's correct. You ask, "If I use the Commons section and am challenged for it, what’s the point?" The relevant point is simply that you didn't do your job—evidently, you didn't know that it was your job to verify images' licenses before bringing an article to FAC; now you do. Commons remains a great, though imperfect, resource for free images—greater for some subject fields and eras than others, it should be kept in mind. You say, "So my argument would be that, because of their ambiguity, perhaps I might keep the images unless they are challenged by someone claiming to hold the copyright for them." Sorry, no, that's not how it works. First, and specifically, there's no "ambiguity." The information in the licensing tags on the Commons pages of the three screenshots makes very clear that they are under copyright and do not presently belong on Commons. Second, and generally, we do not sit and wait for challenges to patently erroneous claims that items are in the public domain—if something appears in all likelihood to be under copyright, we treat it as if it is under copyright.
Yes, you will have to rehost the image of Kurosawa from 1957 on the set of The Lower Depths if you intend to use it. The Commons image of Kurosawa on the set of Throne of Blood, apparently a publicity photo, was evidently taken before December 31, 1956, and is in the public domain if it was published before that date. However, the movie was not released until January 15, 1957, so while it is certainly possible, it is not safe to assume that the photo was published before Dec. 31, 1956. Unless evidence can be found that it was, yes, it too must be rehosted as a fair use image if it is to be used here. By rehosting, I simply mean uploading the images to Wikipedia as fair use content—I see you did that with the infobox image, so you obviously know how. If you want to be a good Commons citizen and assist in removing the inappropriate hosted images from there, by all means, but this is not the venue to get into that. On the other hand, an issue you will have to grapple with here is whether the inclusion of three fair use images each of whose primary purpose is to show Akira Kurosawa abides by clause #3a of our non-free content policy: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
You write, "The Yojimbo and Red Beard images already have fair use rationales for the articles in which they originally appeared. Do I have to write a whole other rationale for *my* article?" Yes, you must. That's a basic requirement of our policy. Here's the guideline page that goes into greater detail on the matter: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
You write, "I will rewrite the rationale for the Tora! Tora! Tora! image to make it a bit more detailed." My suggestion that its rationale "should be improved to discuss its function in the context of the article's critical commentary on the film" was actually intended as a hint that, under our policy, it is not a particularly effective choice of image to represent the movie in an article about Kurosawa. I am sorry that I was not more explicit in making that point. While our non-free content guideline does support the use of "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television", our best practices urge us to find screenshots that directly support or expand on textual commentary. I'm afraid that someone who draws a harder line on non-free image use than I is likely to identify this image as "decoration." On the one hand, it appears to have no direct relationship to the text beyond the fact that it's an image from the film. On the other, it should be possible to find an image from the film that does inform us more about Kurosawa's style and/or methods, shouldn't it?
You write, "I would argue that the 'Reputation among other filmmakers' subsection represents a nice change of pace from the 'flowing' style of the rest of the article". I disagree. The shift from full-fledged, conventional paragraphs to a style in which over half of the section's 13 paragraphs are no longer than a sentence (and, as you note, in several cases, not even a grammatical sentence) appears odd, unmotivated, and unprofessional. This is similarly true of the Legacy section, if not to the same extent. This "change of pace"—"nice" or not—does not represent writing of a "professional standard", as required by our criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely revised the "Reputation among filmmakers" subsection to make the implicit structure of that subsection explicit and to organize it into coherent paragraphs so that it reads better. (If you think that passage was "odd, unmotivated, and unprofessional" before I just changed it, you should check out the article's View history to see what a mess it was when I first started work on the article.) I have deleted the "Homages" section because I had absolutely no idea how to make it "flow" and it just wasn't worth the hassle. I will have to get to the problems with the Legacy section and the images later.
I do hope that you have exhausted your objections to the article, but in case you haven't, I would appreciate it if you would give them all to me now, because I will be traveling from the middle of next week and will have little to no time to work on this project then. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To date I have merely raised those issues that leapt out at me from a quick glance at the article—concerning the lede, the images, the obviously rough sections at the bottom (Reputation among filmmakers looks much better now—good job—and I just edited Legacy myself). I am afraid I have not yet had time to read through the entire article, giving it the careful attention it deserves. I look forward to doing so, but I will not have time myself until next weekend.—DCGeist (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely unfortunate (not to mention careless) that you chose to (double) oppose my site without even bothering to read the previous commentators. If you had, you would have realized that many of your objections had been voiced already, and if you had checked out the "View history" you would realize that even on the day that you posted here, I was already addressing the problems you have mentioned. When I get finished, all the non-free images will have Fair Use rationales. (You seem to get upset with non-free images whether they have Fair Use rationales or not.) Please note that many of these images were taken from Commons when I was naive enough to assume that on Commons every image was free (as indeed they are supposed to be). Since the problem was pointed out to me, I have made every effort to rectify it, but I'm not finished yet. As for your objection to "one sentence paras", please look again: I doubt if you'll find them now.
I will address your other objections when I have time and energy to do so. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of your comments are directed toward Hammersoft, myself, or both of us. I have struck my concern about the single-sentence paras. I'm not quote sure why you are concerned that some of the objections had already been voiced. As the FAC process continues and comes to a conclusion, the delegates who close the noms have to make an assessment of the consensus of editors around whether the article meets the FA criteria. I was deliberately adding/concurring re the image issues others have raised. On another point, (again not sure whether you are addressing Hammersoft or myself), but I'm not concerned about non-free use images per se; rather I am concerned not just that they have a Fair Use rationale, but that the rationale is adequate to defend their use in this particular article consistent with the guidelines. The only image I checked out in any detail was the Tora! Tora! Tora! image. The fair use rationale currently includes this: "Screenshot from a copyrighted Hollywood motion picture". However the caption says "all footage he had already shot was scrapped." That being the case, I'm not sure how the image can be from the released motion picture. In any case, I don't think a still image from a moving film for which the director was fired will be capable of meeting the non-free use criteria. I'd delete this image and focus on the rationales for those images that are most closely tied to the article about the director himself: an example might be File:Akira Kurosawa Throne of Blood.jpeg, in which he is pictured actually directing. Under replaceability, the current text states "As the motion picture appears to be in copyright, it is not possible to replace the image with a free image." However, the image itself is not from the motion picture, so this doesn't make sense. But I agree it is a very promising image to try and include in the article, so i'd work on tightening these up. For what it's worth, you have my sympathies for the size of the task. I have used a small number of non-free images in FACs and it has always been a struggle to get them exactly right. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dylanexpert: You are correct. I didn't read much of the oppose commentary. In this case, I don't need to do so. This article currently contains 23 non-free images. That is an extreme amount of non-free imagery. 23 non-free images places this article in the top 15 of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usage...something we discourage. To be an article in the top (rather bottom 10% of 1% of 1% of all articles is excessive and extreme. Extreme usage requires extreme cases. What makes this article so different that it requires that much non-free imagery use in order to be able to adequately convey its meaning in an encyclopedic way? This is nothing more than a biography of a director. I'm not seeing a strong reason, much less an extreme reason, why we must include so much non-free content.
  • This does not even get to the issue of whether images have rationales. It's not enough that images simply have rationales. They must be acceptable rationales. There's many rationales among these 23 images that are seriously lacking. "To provide an image of the actor Toshiro Mifune, who became a film star in Japan as a result of this film, as indicated in the article's text." (File:Drunken-Angel-1a.jpg). To provide an image? I.e., decoration. We don't use fair use images decoratively. "To illustrate this groundbreaking film which introduced Japanese cinema to the West." (File:Rashomon 1a.jpg). Again, decoratively. Is there something significant about this scene from that movie that was commented on in press or other secondary source of the time? If so, then it should be noted in the rationale...but it isn't. It's just a scene, apparently randomly chosen, if we are to believe the rationale. "To illustrate Akira Kurosawa at the time the film was made." File:Akira Kurosawa Throne of Blood.jpeg Again, to illustrate. Decoration. Was there something radically different about his appearance at the time the film was made that was noted in secondary sources? I'm just scratching at the surface here, and this is not a thorough review of all the images. It's blatantly obvious there are serious failings throughout these images.
  • The amount of usage is extreme, and it MUST be trimmed before it reaches featured article status. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I think Hammersoft is right. I've removed some of the images that seemed to me most markedly 'decorative': that is, they added nothing essential to our knowledge of the director that could not be adequately conveyed by the text. The non-free use rationale issue remains for all the other images - i've just started to narrow the field to the more significant images around which there might be prospect of some legitimate discussion about use. I expect there will however need to be more culling. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a thread on the subject at the article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [61].

William H. Prescott

[edit]
Nominator(s): Claritas § 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article pretty much single-handedly since May, and it's gone from a weak start class to GA. I think the coverage and sourcing clearly meets the FA criteria, and I doubt that anything other than minor changes need to be made to other aspects of the article for it to meet the respective criteria. Claritas § 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. Claritas § 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an issue with it ? I like that template, and some journal articles use the same/similar format. Claritas § 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally quite liked the format, but it may be contrary to MOS:ALLCAPS Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. The MOS seems to be more concerned with all caps in the main text of the work, and I don't think there are any difficulties in reading it, so I'd prefer to ignore that rule and keep the present format. Claritas § 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:MOS#Keep_markup_simple and MOS:ALLCAPS is not confined to writing within the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the smallcaps, although I did take a fancy to it myself, too :P. Not a big deal, though. —fetch·comms 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the Legacy section it says "Prescott himself was the origin of several now common elements of academic writing, including the use of bibliographical citations and critical notes.", cited to Gardiner. Now, I am intrigued by this: Edward Gibbon famously used footnotes/citations/critical notes in the 18th century, and Anthony Grafton seems to think the scholarly footnote originated with German scholars (I have examples of such citations from decades before Prescott on my shelves myself). Buchraeumer (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas has informed me that: "Gardiner does explicitly say that Prescott was the first historian to use citations etc. However, Gardiner's work is particularly centred on America, and I therefore think Buchraeumer is probably right - Gibbons did use footnotes/critical notes (although not to the extent which Prescott does)."
The wording has been changed in both the last line of the lede (to "Prescott has become one of the most widely translated American historians, and was an important figure in the development of history as a rigorous academic discipline.") and the first two lines of the "Legacy" section (to "Prescott's work has remained popular and influential to the present day, and his meticulous use of sources, bibliographical citations and critical notes was unprecedented among American historians."). —fetch·comms 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely fine with the new wording as regards this point! While I found the Legacy section very good, I am afraid, some earlier sections are a quite confusing for a reader relatively unfamiliar with the intellectual life of the era. For many personalities I had to use the link. In the Isabella section (for example) passages about the work and other details of his life alternate too much IMO, it's really confusing. My impression is that the article still suffers too much from the problem of organizing the material into a logical (and understandable) overall narrative or structure. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. I've reordered a few things, done more copyediting, etc. in the meantime. For the most part, I think the article reads fine except for bits in the Career sections, especially the early career, as you mentioned. —fetch·comms 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images are verifiably in the public domain—no issues. Jappalang (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [62].

Mount Fee

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finally recreated Mount Fee's article after doing months of information gathering. There is apparently not much known about its geology because it has not been studied in detail and its age and timing of volcanic events are not exactally known either because they remain undated. I could not find anything about Fee's volcanic hazards (e.g. the danger from future eruptions). So I suspect GSC volcanologists are not worried about future eruptions; it may even be extinct given its circumstances; the current mountain is the remnants of a larger volcanic feature. Anyway I suspect the article is fairly complete. Volcanoguy 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Volcanoguy 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, even that specific passage is not fixed. It is slightly improved, in that the word covers is no longer there, but the article still claims Mt Fee "has a volume of at least 0.3 km (0.19 mi)". I have tracked down the source cited for that sentence, and it doesn't support this claim, so I have now requested a source. --Avenue (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Volcanoguy 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I have no idea how many summits it has but two major summits lie on top of the ridge. There are several minor peaks that form the lava spines discussed in the article. Volcanoguy 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This mountain ridge represents the base of a north–south trending volcanic field Mount Fee occupies. - which ... occupies
Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Fee is one of the southernmost of more than 10 volcanoes occupying the Mount Cayley volcanic field. - This sentence could use a rewrite.
Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The volcanic belt has formed as a result of going subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate at the Cascadia subduction zone along the British Columbia Coast.[3] - ongoing
Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As periods of glaciation covered the ancestral volcano, it removed much of the original outer cone of pyroclastic material. - Verb tense agreement. I don't think periods is the right word, either.
I just removed "periods of" so it reads as As glaciation covered the ancestral volcano, it removed much of the original outer cone of pyroclastic material. What do you mean by verb tense agreement? Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its volcanics remain undated, but its large amount of dissection and evidence of glacai ice overriding the volcano indicates that it formed more than 75,000 years ago before the Wisconsinan Glaciation. - but the large amount of dissection and evidence of glacial ice at the volcano, versus overriding the volcano.
Overriding is a better term. During glaciations the volcano was buried under glacial ice of the Wisconsinan Glaciation. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remaining products from Fee's earliest volcanic activity is a minor portion of pyroclastic rock. - Verb tense agreement; also, I think you could use a better noun than portion, as that makes it sound like the activity is food.
Food? I changed "portion" to "outcrop" anyway. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is evidence of explosive volcanism during Fee's eruptive history, - Pipe link explosive eruptions?
Yup. I thought there was already a link to the explosive eruption article but I guess not. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural ceremonial use, hunting, trapping and plant gathering occured in the Mount Garibaldi area, - Assuming ceremonial use of the mountain, but that's not clear.
Removed. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September 1928, Mount Fee was named by British mountaineer Tom Fyles after Charles Fee (1865–1927), who was a member of the British Columbia Mountaineering Club in Vancouver at the time.[11] - Doesn't make sense if he died in 1927.
It does not say the namer (Tom Flyes) died in 1927. The year refers to Charles Fee, the person Fee takes its name from. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it is a short article, its scope is large for such a small volcano. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue: all images are fine, except for File:Mount Fee.jpg. Initially, I was of the opinion that it only required an administrator to confirm the original license on Wikipedia (the upload log does not state it). However, I found this, which was uploaded to the web as early as 2005. The image on Wikipedia is a crop from Michael Coyle's photograph (which supposedly can be seen in full glory if you are a paid member of the bivouac site). The copyright status of this image should be clarified and resolved if the image is to be used on this project. Jappalang (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the image's author is the one that uploaded it on Commons. Volcanoguy 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Tsylos uploaded it to Wikipedia on 2007-02-18 01:56. Hike395 transferred it to Commons on 13:14, 23 April 2007. Nowhere is it stated or verifiable that Michael Coyle is either of these two users. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While much of the article is quite readable, the prose is still not up to FA standard in several places, with the wording often being cumbersome or worse. Some illustrative examples: "The conduit for which these lava flows originated from...", "The volcanic edifice ancestral Mount Fee represented...", "It is nearly vertical in structure...", and "The ... volcanics composing Mount Fee contain ... 15% vesicular textures" (should be vesicles). The final section on Monitoring is particularly muddled.
  • There are still multiple spelling and grammar mistakes (especially singular/plural disagreement), e.g. "crevice that give them", "abgle", "The remaining products ... is", "significant support ... have resulted".
  • Some inaccuracies remain, e.g. stratovolcanoes can reach heights of much more than 2,438.4 m (which is a ridiculously overprecise figure, BTW), and the bit saying "About 25% of the volcanics contain crystal content" would be more accurately phrased as "the crystal content of the volcanics is about 25%" (and the source cited says "up to", not "about").
  • Some causal linkages are unexplained and seem dubious or unclear, e.g. the "Therefore" in the Eruptive history section, and the linkage between earthquakes and volcanism in the Monitoring section: "with the existence of earthquakes, further volcanism is expected".
  • Another minor issue is that the ((convert)) seems to omit &nbsp; before units, so the article fails to follow WP:MOS where this template is used. This seems to be a known problem with the template (see Template_talk:Convert#Nbsp.3F). While this isn't ideal, hopefully it will be fixed eventually, and I wouldn't oppose based on that. --Avenue (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avenue, as a member of WP Volcanoes, it seems to be a bit awkward seeing another WP Volcano member giving points to be fixed if they understand what is being discussed even if it is relatively poorly writen. Why not do it yourself and work as a WP Volcano member? Because everything in the article seems quite clear to me. So I am likely not the one to do the copyediting. The reason I used 2,438.4 m is because the source uses feet; apparently 8,000 feet equels to 2,438.4 m according to the Convert template. Volcanoguy 13:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be hard to see what parts of one's writing might be unclear to others. That's one reason why an article often benefits from going through peer review, even if the original author knows much more about the topic than the reviewer.
I'm sorry I haven't yet been able to provide more hands-on help with this article. I have had my hands full with other tasks lately (an FLC, an FAR, and a current event), all also part of WP Volcanoes or my other main project, WP New Zealand. All I have been able to do for this FAC was look in at the beginning, and come back and review the article more carefully yesterday. I hope I will have time to come back to this article again in a week or so. I have a wikibreak scheduled in two weeks time, and I'm hoping to resolve the other tasks before then.
Also, please realise that copyediting is not always trivial. I might understand most of the statements in this article on one level, but the motivations for various statements and the connections made between them are still obscure to me. To take a simple example, I wasn't sure what meaning you intended the reader to draw from the 8000 ft stratovolcano figure. Is it that Mount Fee is close to 8000 ft in height itself? Or (now that I've checked the source) does the 8000 ft refer to the stratovolcano's height above its base (in which case our text should be made clearer), and so imply that the ancestral Mt Fee stratovolcano could have been vastly bigger than the current remnant? How high is the non-volcanic base that Mt Fee is built on? Is there more specific evidence we could cite about the size of ancestral Mt Fee, rather than fall back on a very general figure?
I've fixed a few of the simpler problems (and struck them out above). Again, I'm sorry I can't provide much more help with this at present. --Avenue (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [63].

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC), Ga Be 19 19:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I am the primary editor. I originally planned to nominate this article right after Control (Janet Jackson album) passed FAC, but went on a wikibreak. The article has had a peer review and has been copyedited by editors other than myself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator, relatively new on Wikipedia, requested help in the nomination process. Ga Be 19 19:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed wikilink since there is not a direct page to link with. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've taken care of the sourcing problem. Replaced a few links and changed some of the values used in the templates. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional rationale to show the variation in sound found in the two samples. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: This is a long and pretty comprehensive article, obviously the product of hard work. I'm not well versed in Janet Jackson's music, or of this kind of music generally, so I apologise if some of my comments read naively. There are rather a lot of smallish prose niggles, which make me think that the article needs a full copyedit pass. I'm not through yet, but here are some points to work on:-

Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed your points, barring: 1) Jimmy Jam (Like Sting, Madonna or Lady Gaga) known exclusively by his stage name rather than his birth name, so I'm not sure how you'd would reword those statements. 2) The critic's comments are included for his explanation of the structure of the music, not its reception. 3) Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the rule is words over "ten" are written numerically and words under "ten" are spelled out. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:04, 14 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [64].

Limbo (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of his sister's fate, a boy enters the unknown For a video game which this was really the only text that was given to the player outside of menu screens, and could be completed in 3 hours, Limbo generated a surprising amount of buzz that larger productions would only love to see. I will note that the GA reviewer, J Milburn, is seeing if we can free up the game screen images directly with the developers but I do not see that as a potential problem for FA promotion of this article; if it happens, great, otherwise, the images are rationaled for NFC use. I do expect this game to acquire some end-of-year nods but the reception section is set up to handle the influx if necessary. MASEM (t) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I think this would make a great featured article. The little changes you've made in the last few days (splitting the sections, moving some of the plot stuff, things like that) have made a real improvement. Just some random all-over-the-place comments-

A few little bits to be getting on with- good luck! J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the small language pieces have been changed. I completely forgot to check how the game did at E3 and was able to add more to the awards "paragraph" so that it's better now. As for the categories, that issue comes up every so often at the VG project, but per the most recent discussion [65] and explained through WP:DUPCAT. I do note that Category:Microsoft Games is not in the same "hierarchy" as the other three because MS neither makes all games for the Xbox 360, nor only makes games only for the Xbox 360. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Paper Shotgun is a blog run by four UK journalists with existing background as video game reporters prior to that. The specific person in both sources, Kieron Gillen has an established background in this field, so he has strong reliability. Ref 3 is an interview with one of the game's developers; Ref 34 is more a re-reporting of information from other, less reliable blogs to summarize an event.
Cinema Blend's reviews are generally considered expert; the article used here - a pre-review of sorts - is only to support the list of games that Limbo has been compared to. I believe I can replace it with the A.V. Club review (I have to double check which game is cited by which article), and will do that if there's a problem, but I don't see a pressing need right now. (I'm not opposed to fixing it though, don't get me wrong).
The CNet Germany ref is made up from the same cite web template. There is no author listed on the article, so the cite web drops to that format (same as, say, Ref #23 (Edge) and #31 (Toronto Sun).
All other changes fixed. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You couldn't write a stub to avoid the glaring red link at the top and in the infobox, could you?
  2. The infobox pic really leaves a lot to be desired. What is it? Could it possibly be tweaked and re-uploaded to bring out the structure? It's a mystery.
  3. "trial-and-death"—it's already within quotes, so are the hyphens necessary?
  4. The boy dies more than once? Unfortunate question-mark for the reader at the top.
  5. Could I put in a plea not ever to use "utilising", one of the ugliest words in English? Why not "with" (to avoid ing ing, too)?
  6. Monochromatic is black and white, isn't it? Why write both?
  7. "an eerie atmosphere similar to the horror genre"—possibly remove the last five words? I don't get the reference ... horror genre in vid games? It's clear from the next bit, anyway.
  8. Shouldn't there be a comma before "based on"?
  9. "Limbo received mixed reviews for its minimal story"—minimal story sounds boring. Do you mean "minimalist"? And perhaps if this is an admired trait, you could add a few words of context, even in the lead?
  10. "tied in"?
  11. any -> a
  12. the lack of an abrupt ending? Just add "the" to stop the ellipsis.
  13. Remove "point of". Or better, shave that whole phrase out: "Many reviewers felt the high cost .... purchasing it." ("the title" is a bit laboured.)
  14. Logic problem: "However, some reviews proposed that Limbo had an ideal length." Well ... the length might have been ideal, but that doesn't necessarily negate the cost/lenth ratio complained of in the previous sentence. Why the "however"? Recast both sentences, possibly reversing their order. Tony (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [68].

Winter Olympic Games

[edit]
Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because in the previous FAC nomination the article received a degree of support but was not promoted due to a legitimate object for content reasons. I've addressed the content concerns raised and gave the article some time to breathe. I'd like to renominate it for FA consideration with the hope that it is worthy of the star. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was significant debate as to whether the history section required a synopsis of each Games. See here and here for thoughts that trend towards keeping the history as is.
  • I've added info on the 1980 boycott.
  • I'm reticent to move the list up to this section. I think that would break up the prose and signficantly impact the readability of the article. I'd like to hear what others think of this idea.
  • I've sprinkled participation statistics into the history section at five different Games to show progression. More could be added if deemed necessary. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two sentences in the history section about this switch. I intentionally kept the information here brief so as not to duplicate information found later. It is further discussed in the commercialization section because as you point out, many of the motives for the change were financial. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok so here's what I did, I added the country name to each reference to the city in the history section. If there were duplicative references to the same city I used my discretion. I did not add any more country names to cities after the history section because the reader can refer back to the history section if s/he has a question about the city name, also several of the city references are in the format of, "the Grenoble Games", or "the Turino Games". It is cumbersome to put a country name in this context. Let me know what you think.
  • I'm not sure, I don't want to give it undo weight, I've trimmed it down but if it is still unbalancing the article I would prefer to shorten the section. It could be seen as a controversy though since much has been written both in support of and criticising the IOC's push for financial investment in the Games. I'll reread the section and see if it fits.
  • Ok, I've moved "Commercialisation" into the controversy section. I'm fine with that as it has generated quite a bit of controversy though that isn't explicitly stated in the section. I may add a sentence or two about that to help it fit within the context. Thanks for the suggestion. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I appreciate your efforts to critique the article. I've worked through your suggestions and would like to know your thoughts at this point. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Good to see such a comprehesive article - detailing each games. Aaroncrick TALK 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Yellowmonkey, for jumping in, I was hoping you'd return to review this article again. I'll expand the abbreviations. Regarding the books/page number issue, someone had reformatted some of the books in this way and I didn't know if this was a new requirement in formatting book refs. The contributor didn't do it for all the books so I tried to finish the job though personally I like having the page number in the ref rather than shorthanding it. I think I will convert all the book refs back to the way they were, keep it all consistent. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I have expanded the abbreviations and I pushed all the page numbers into the reference rather than having them hang off the in-line citation. I like that format better anyway. Please advise if it is consistent with FA criteria and works within the article. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Reviewed through the history section last time; now to tackle what's left...

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

*Support - Prose looks good to me. ceranthor 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Abstaining from FAC at this point. I know I'm in no place to sit here disagreeing with Tony, and I intend to come back when this article's prose is tightened. ceranthor 12:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Problems in the prose, just in the lead. The whole article needs an independent copy-edit; a careful one.

  • I'll take a stab at the opening to address the above two bullets.
  • I mean it mostly in the sense of evolution.
  • good suggestion.
  • I'll remove "prior to" and put in the Summer Olympic years that figure skating and ice hockey were contested.
  • removed
  • Interesting thought, I've never run across this criticism before. I could spell them out a little bit, I just felt that piping to the country name would unclutter the prose and remove some redundancy. I certainly didn't intend it to be deceptive. I'm a strong advocate of not linking to generic country names so I'll see what I can do.

Image issues:

These two image issues should be resolved before promotion. The other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:59, 14 September 2010 [69].

Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to fully cover the article and it's surrounding info. Thank you everyone for taking part in this nomination! Feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone! :)PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I fixed all of the "Butterfly," to "Butterfly", etc and all other songs. Check it out now, thanks :D.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the article and fixed allot of those related issues. Please check back when you get the chance. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "an" problem is still there, as are the two spelling errors. You also changed "Hip-Hop" in a quotation, which generally shouldn't be done. I really think you need an independent copyeditor to look over it; I may have a try myself, but not today. Ucucha 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if possible, I appreciate the offer. I fixed those issues as well, so thank you.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did I guess you were going to be unreasonable. That's not a reason to oppose. You have to come up with specific issues with the article. Peer review and GA are not requirements, they are suggestions, so stop trying to sabotage everything I nominate.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article does not need to go to GA and PR before becoming an FA. In this case, however, it may have been a good idea. Ucucha 02:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to oppose a nomination Ucucha, he's only doing it to disrupt the nomination, look at his edit history.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still punctuation inside songs, even after having this pointed out.
  • Background should have some dates so we know when all this is taking place.
  • "Butterfly was one of Carey's best-received albums, hailing as one of the most impressive releases of the year" - ungrammatical.
  • the album was set to be a hit. nonneutral
  • couple's, "irreconcilable separation." why comma.
  • successfully visited Europe and Asia. was she banned and managed to sneak in?
  • Additionally, Erlewine went on to proclaim Butterfly as one of Carey's best records and finished writing, "Carey is continuing to improve and refine her music, which makes her a rarity among her '90s peers." finished writing doesn't make sense.
  • near-perfect score of 4.5 stars. out of 5? and no need for near-perfect, evident.
  • Carey visited The Oprah Winfrey Show where she covered a highly publicized interview, regarding her split from Tommy Mottola. Bad sentence.
  • "Butterfly", which Carey reportedly wrote to Tommy Mottola, was held endeared as her "most heartfelt ballad," a song she felt transformed her career and vocal mystique. very bad sentence.
  • Butterfly's extended popularity, and it's world tour becoming an instant sell-out in Japan, paved the way for Carey's following compilation album, Number 1's, which became the best-selling album in Japan by a non-Asian artist. bad sentence (neverminding the it's).
  • While Carey denied the allegations, many found the proof to be overwhelming. the "proof"?
  • While the video's speculation grew, Carey continued to deny any intention of portraying her marriage in the video. doesn't make sense.
  • as well as The Rosie O'Donnell Show, where she visited twice.
  • Carey re-recorded a Spanish version of "My All", titled "Mi Todo", while also becoming one of her most remixed songs. ungrammatical. implies Carey became one of her most remixed songs.
  • The paragraping seems rather arbitrary. See the first two in writing and composition and the ones in Awards
  • "more mature and subtle than anything Carey had ever recorded." Sourced to [70] which doesn't have that quote. Incidentally that was the first I checked so not too confident that the others support well. Not sure also that you should be using this to summarise critical responses in general (which you later decide to attribute to that specific reviewer).
  • Additionally, Browne commended Carey's "slushy vocals,". What it actually says: "Tracks burble along, verses indistinguishable from choruses, like one big watercolor painting. Others are simply derivative: Prince's The Beautiful Ones is reduced to a slushy vocal showcase for Carey ...".
  • "as well as her restrained and mature "vocal prowess."". Vocal prowess doesn't appear in the source.
  • 13 Juzwiak, Rich. does not check out either.
  • Neither does [71] with "peaking within the top-five in most European countries." only lists a few countries
  • Perhaps tell us what the bomb means in the Review box? Actually appears lower, but not connected.
  • Lots of unsourced.

These are only a fraction of the number of errors; almost every paragraph has some issue or other. Reads like you copied the Shapiro and Nickson books without checking for tense and grammer. Also, any piece using "it's" wrong should be failed automatically. This happens a few times. Also not very unbiased; nothing but overly enthusiastic praise and positive assertions about the album. By far the worse problem however is the shoddy sourcing -- many of those I checked had problems of not quite matching the text. Suggest withdraw nomination. 86.153.124.194 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 14:16, 11 September 2010 [72].

Harmon Killebrew

[edit]
Nominator(s): Alex (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because 1) it has already attained Good Article status. 2) It went through a massive overhaul not too long ago to add information and copy edit what was already there. It has good length, images and references. 4) It is a notable person. Alex (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How might one go about noting the archive.org in the references? Where might one suggest putting it? Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine is a good place to start. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe his site went down because he replaced it with http://www.harmonkillebrewfoundation.org. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have somewhat better sourcing for this than a now-deleted autobiographical webpage. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the factoids that references the defunct website now references a current website. Still working on finding links for the other three. Alex (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All information that relied on the defunct website now has references from current and/or better sources. Alex (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with the source whence that article originally came. Alex (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Sporting News one. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball Cube is an established online statistical baseball resource. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need something more than that to show it's a high quality reliable source, which is required for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a search of the Google News Archive. [73] Baseball America, for one, referenced it. Alex (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two pages, with many of them passing mentions is not exactly impressing me that it's being used often by other reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball-Reference links to it at the bottom of each player's user page. (for example: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/newmaal01.shtml). One could deduce that if Baseball-Reference trusts it, it is reliable. However, looking at what The Baseball Cube is used as a reference for, we could easily switch it out with Baseball-Reference with no ill effects.Alex (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced The Baseball Cube links with Baseball-Reference links. Alex (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrosheet is not italicized because it is marked as the "publisher" of the source, while Baseball-Reference is italicized because it is marked as the larger "work" of the source (the source whence the information came). If anything, it might be wise to remove Baseball-Reference.com as the "work."Alex (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it "looks" inconsistent, suggest following the second idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alex (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Hopefully. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No publisher could be found. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hint... it's going to be the foundation that puts on the gold tournament. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some references to a Danny Thompson Memorial Foundation, so I believe that will suffice. Alex (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Alex (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to provide extra biographical information about Mr. Killebrew. Alex (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is selfpublished and if it was that good, wouldn't you use it as a source? I'm seeing it more as a way for this person to sell copies of their book. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be removed, it really doesn't bother me one way or the other. Alex (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove it. Alex (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is not a full review by any means, but three suggestions:

Another point to make is that some of the citations are curiously constructed. Many of the Baseball-Reference citations do not indicate they are from Baseball-Reference, instead only referring to the publishing company, Sports Reference LLC (this is insufficient). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 13:54, 11 September 2010 [74].

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

[edit]
Nominator(s):   Perseus 71 talk 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is second time I am nominating this article. The First nomination has been archived here. The nomination got archived for one reason only. There were not many extensive comments on the subject of this article. As you can see, there were no opposes. Only Comments on the Sources and image copyrights.

My rationale for nomination is same as before. This article is predominantly about the organizational structure of Luftwaffe during the period of 1933 to 1945. This was the period when an Air Force was not yet recognized as a strategic armed force. One of the lesser known facts is that Luftwaffe during this time was probably the only force to have a tank division of its own. Point is, this article goes into the distinctive organizational structure compared to other contemporary Air Forces of the time. At the same time its not going into the the history of Luftwaffe.

From assessment standpoint, this article has undergone A class review and has been assessed to meed those criteria. A Peer review was conducted and is now archived. The Article also underwent a proper CopyEd by an editor from WP:GoCE. I think that at this point its in a good enough shape that it could be reviewed to see if it can be a FA candidate. The Sources of this article were extensively validated as part of the A Class review and the first nomination.   Perseus 71 talk 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will start fixing these in next few days.  Perseus 71 talk 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be more consistent in the way references are formatted. Consider: "United States War Deparment" vs "US War Department"; multiple-author references with second author first-name first vs last-name first; shortened citations with two authors using "and" vs "&"; etc.
  • No it's not - USWD still not consistent.
  • Is Frieser and Greenwood 1995 or 2005?
  • Is Caldwell and Muller 2002 or 2007?
  • Does the book by Lepage have one author or two? The formatting leaves this unclear
  • Formatting is still unclear here.
  • Is the second author of the Taylor book Percivale John or John Percivale? Again, unclear formatting (and Google search suggests neither is correct?)
  • Is the second author of the Williamson book Andrew Stephen or Stephen Andrew?
  • Deighton appears only in References, not in Citations
  • You have two Mitcham 2007s on the Reference list, but the Citations don't consistently distinguish between the two (one says 2007-b - which one does this refer to? What about the one that says only 2007?)
  • Okay, but now you have Mitcham-a and 2007-b - use a consistent formatting
  • Weal 2001 appears only on the Reference list
  • Check publisher for Caldwell
  • The linked page gives the publisher as Greenhill Books.
  • I agree with you. However I have been scolded time and again for using too many German languages and making the article unreadable. So finally I have decided to follow WP guidelines to the letter with English words on first use with German words in parenthesis. At second use simply use German word in italics.  Perseus 71 talk 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead - introduces the expansion of the Luftwaffe to have its own ground troops and goes on to list some of them, but not the why of it. How about dropping the list of ground units for a sentence on the reason for these units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily because Luftwaffe of this period is only a specific period of the history of modern Luftwaffe. Secondarily, it's just a slight emphasis on the distinction that the Luftwaffe of this period was a air force formed as a Strategic force/instrument part of of war and not part of Army or Navy. I guess we could call it Luftwaffe of the Wehrmacht. But then we will need to rename History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) too.   Perseus 71 talk 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is an underdeveloped stub. The information there does not have proper books cited to back the facts. This article has come from a similar stub level to FAC through rigorous reviews of GAN and ACR. I am perfectly happy to move the Main Links to See also section if that helps.  Perseus 71 talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated the facts as provided by the books cited. FallschirmPanzerkorps Hermann Göring was formed from the merger of Luftwaffe Armored Paratroop Division and Fallschirm-Panzergrenadier Division 2 Hermann Göring as cited with four different citations.  Perseus 71 talk 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This FAC article isnt sufficiently consistant with the main articles, that following the link actually brings the reader into a conflict between information, while the other articles arent up at FAC the significant points in this article should have some corellation with the information in the main articles. Gnangarra 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, no feedback from nominator since September 3rd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 11 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 19:18, 8 September 2010 [75].

German Type UB I submarine

[edit]
Nominator(s): White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because in the past few months, Myself and to a lesser extent, Ceranthor have been improving this article from the state that it was left in once User:Bellhalla left Wikipedia back in December of last year. When I found this article, no one was working on it but it remained in very good shape. I decided to further work on it by taking it through a Peer Review and promoting the remaining U-boats from this class to GA status, thus making this article the centerpiece of a Good Topic. Ceranthor may make a few passing comments and help out here and there on the FAC but he has declined my offer to have him co-nom this FAC with me. As for the article itself, the German Type UB I submarines were a series of very small U-boats that three of the four Central powers operated in the First World War. Both German, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria used them and it was a Type UB I submarine that became Bulgaria's first true U-boat. These small vessels patrolled the coast of Belgium, France and the Netherlands as part of the Flanders Flotilla, the Adriatic sea, The Baltic sea as part of the Baltic Flotilla, and the area around Ottoman Turkey as part of the Constantinople Flotilla. Any comments would be much appreciated. This is my first true FAC that I myself am undergoing. I was a co-nom in the FAC for the Austro-Hungarian Battleship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand yet it failed. This time around, I will be addressing most of the comments and I hope to promote this article to FA status.White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Comments - a neat article, and I wish you luck in getting it to FA status. Below are some suggestions/questions for further improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The process of shipping the submarines by rail involved breaking the submarine down into what was essentially a knock down kit."
  • "The boats were equipped with compensating tanks designed to flood and offset the loss of the C/06 torpedo's 1,700-pound (770 kg) weight, but this did not always function properly ...".
  • Randomly butting in here - I'm 99.9% sure Malleus means your tenses don't match. "compensating tanks" is plural, "this" is singular. Same with the "submarines" vs. "the submarine" comment above. Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the Type UB Is' first year of service ...". Surely the type is singular?
  • "After Italy had entered World War I ...". Called it the First World War earlier in the article.
  • "During their trials, the Type UB Is were found to be too small and too slow, and had a reputation for being underpowered". They had a reputation for being underpowered during their trials?

Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. I'll also be looking for replacement sources to them.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with White Shadows over the reliability of Uboat.net as a source. As Bellhalla has shown, that website is used as a reference by the authors of several printed books. I see no good reason why that source cannot be used in this or any other relevant article. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing that uboat.net complies with WP:SPS (it has not been established that the author is an established expert on the topic); I suggest someone raise this at WP:RSN to get a definitive reading, since the fact that it got by previous FACs is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide. We haven't yet gotten an answer on why the published books weren't consulted instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mountain of evidence against you Sandy, Bellhalla's page, the ACR, the FAC. In fact, the ed17 was the one who told me about the site in the first place and told me that it was trustworthy. Several dedicated editors of this topic have told you and provided evidence on this site's reliability and yet you continue to shove OTHERSTUFF down their (and my) throats while claiming that "It is not at all clear to me that this site [Uboat.net] meets the requirements of WP:SPS". I'm getting rather tired of you trying to throw this FAC off track with your position of power in this process and I'm beginning to think about requesting input from the other delegate or the FA director. All of us cannot be dead wrong on this issue and comments like "I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide" really are like spitting in the face of the members of WP:SHIPS and WP:MIL who edit these articles. There is enough sources in Wikipedia alone, much less the books that have cited the website to show that this site does indeed meet WP:RS.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re which sources are used, the fact that a published book exists is not the same as having that book to hand to check the info -i.e. if you haven't got the book, then you can't use it as a source, whereas the website is accessible online by all. Suppose a book is used as a source, and you don't have that book, then how can you tell if it has been used accurately or not? You can't, can you, but you can easily check the website if it is used. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highest quality sources are required for Featured articles, and editors here have yet to establish that the authors of this website are published experts in the field, per WP:SPS-- there seems to be some misunderstanding here of the requirements for high quality sourcing in Featured articles, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SPS, and the accessibility of a source (online vs. book) is most certainly not how we judge our best sourcing. I've entered an inquiry at WP:RSN, as editors have delayed here for several weeks on doing that. We need independent review of ship articles, but we get ship editors consistently supporting ship articles, with little independent review-- sourcing still needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that Ships editors generally support ship articles is because most of the major issues from our perspective have been dealt with at our ACR. I agree that fresh eyes are needed for outside perspectives, but I think that your own perspective may be distorted by the fact we may not comment at length in comparison to outside reviewers. I know that I've certainly delivered some drive-by supports for ship articles, but I reviewed them at our ACR. I reject any imputation that Ships editors automatically support ship articles; if it were otherwise then this discussion would not have begun as it would gotten the requisite number supports from project members. That it hasn't speaks volumes from my POV; you may disagree. I'm not so foolish to claim that our ACR is flawless as the quality of each review depends on the reviewers, but it certainly does eliminate many issues that may commonly arise with articles from projects that don't have an ACR process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not at all clear to me that this site meets the requirements of WP:SPS, and the fact that it cleared previous FACs is neither here nor there (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Could we please get some independent views on how this site meets WP:SPS, particularly because so much of the article depends upon it. As SPS says, if the information were reliable, surely better sources would have picked it up; if the author is indeed an "expert" (that hasn't been established), and if his info is reprinted in other books, why aren't those books cited, rather than a dubious website? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I'm going to have to put my foot down on this one. I see no reason to remove Uboat.net as a source to this article and quite frankly, I refuse to do so. If this source leads to the downfall of this FAC, then so be it. The fact that the site is used extensively (while technically falling under OTHERSTUFF) in another FA, SM U-66 is enough proof IMHO that the site has and continues to meet WP:RS.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, standards for sourcing for FAs have risen in the last few years. Two, I suggest that "putting your foot down" isn't the best method of persuading others to see your side of things. There's a perfectly sensible solution, go look up the books that uboat.net uses and use them. I'm not minded to oppose over the sourcing just yet, but a cooperative attitude is definitely helpful in keeping folks from opposing. The fact is that it is a SPS and nothing I'm seeing shows that it's by an expert. I'm glad to be shown wrong on that, but the page Sandy linked to doesn't inspire confidence that the people putting out the site are experts. All over Wiki, standards of sourcing are rising, and while it may mean more work for writers, it's an important and useful thing for the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all you're expected to do is to answer SandyG's question. The reason that the type name (Type UB 1) isn't hyphenated is that it might cause confusion with the submarine UB-1, or some such. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a bit further on that? Thanks.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the comment. I'll send in a request for copy-editing in terms of comma usage :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed Support. Sourcing at issue.

Updated comments:

This is savable, but needs work. Here are examples from the top.

I know it was an empire; "who" is used for people. "The German Imperial Navy subsequently ordered an additional pair of boats to replace two sold to Austria-Hungary, who ordered a further three boats in April 1915." Isn't it "which"? Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I probably shouldn't have bothered you with this. Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess many readers won't have a clue how to visualise what happened. A map of northeastern Europe at the time, with arrows, etc? But this is beyong the call of duty; just a thought for the future. Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. Tony (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've become accustomed to seeing the uboat.net web site used as a reference in these submarine articles and I believed that it had been accepted as a reliable source. That the editor-in-chief, Guðmundur Helgason, is not a professional naval historian is not a matter of concern to me; he is in fact described as a naval historian in at least one article published in the Journal of Military History. What does concern me is that there's no indication as to where the information on the uboat.net web comes from. In this particular article I'm also concerned that it over-relies on uboat.net even where there are equivalent sources published by university presses, such as Fontenoy's Submarines: an illustrated history of their impact published by the University of Hawaii Press and available on Google books. On the other hand, I think it's quite likely that the information on uboat.net is accurate, so I'm not prepared to oppose because of sourcing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main thing to remember here is that about a year ago, sourcing requirements for FAs went from "reliable" to "high quality reliable". So while uboat.net probably meets RS, it may not meet the high quality side. Note that I generally don't get that involved in the "high quality" evaluation, because that varies according to the subject of the article. What's "high quality" for a medieval bishop (peer reviewed journal articles, books by university presses) isn't possible in say horse biographies (the next peer reviewed horse biography article I find will be the first). Every reviewer needs to evaluate the sources in a particular article against the "high quality" criteria themselves ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition, five of the German Type UB Is assigned to the Pola Flotilla" is followed by a list of just four subs.
There were only 4 U-boats in Pola (as stated earlier in the article) not five. I've fixed that.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions that one sub was interned by the Dutch, can you check for more info on that incident? I would have thought that such a breach of Dutch neutrality would have been covered.
There is quite a bit of repetition for example "becoming Podvodnik No. 18" in slightly different wordings is in three consecutive sections.
Too small and too slow. In what way were they too small? Also some info on typical speeds of target ships would be helpful context.
Ships sunk, damaged, or taken as a prize. Any chance of an expansion on this such as which theatres, any tonnages and whether these were military or civilian targets. Also with only a deck machinegun I'd be very impressed if they'd taken anything as prizes.
Crew of 14 - any info as to how that breaks down?
I'm afraid not. There was a captain but other than that, I'm not sure about any other crew positions/rankings within the submarines. I can take a crack at trying to find out if you want me to but don't be surprised if nothing turns up.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking - FA only requires us to go as far as the sources go. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the 33 second dive time relate to? I'm assuming it isn't the one hour that the sub could travel submerged. Also do you know how long they could stay submerged for before running out of air? ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 33 second dive time refers to how long it took for the sub to reach the regular test depth of 50 metres. Would you like a mention of this or do you think this is too obvious to include and goes against the "don't go into unnecessary detail rule"?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest either a link to an explanation of that test or a footnote. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Delegate note: I've made a request here for more eyes on the sourcing issue as I am conflicted on how consensus is leaning in terms of WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have mixed opinions about sourcing from uboat.net. Generally, I am comfortable sourcing to an amateur historian who has developed a good reputation and is widely cited in published sources. The problem is that I can't tell from looking at pages on uboat.net, where that information is sourced from. I would be more comfortable if uboat.net and other such sources used on Wikipedia had more meticulous references for where it gets info, and that you could follow the sources. I would feel the same way about a published book that lacks meticulous sourcing, unless perhaps the author has stellar, beyond-a-doubt expertise, and don't care that in this case, it's published online. For example, here, where did he get that information? Can you find another more official or reputable source to back up this information? I think this article over-relies on uboat.net as a source. Used more sparingly, perhaps I would support this as a featured article. Right now, I can't support but not going to oppose, either. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen more and more of these submarines go through GAN, and I'll admit, the reliance on u-boat.net has made me stop and shake my head once or twice. Might be why I've never chosen to review any of them; I know I'd get into an argument on the site's reliability. Their sources page, [79] lists a good number of sources, but one sentence that concerns me, "We also have a number of things here that are not available anywhere in print." So where are they getting their information from? Who is fact-checking everything? Are they conducting original research? Here they are soliciting writers. What kind of credential verification are they doing for those writers to keep an enthusiast who has never seen the inside of a university library from doing their writing? This honestly doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the head's credentials. Then I see pages like this one on UB-9. What did she do for four years? Was she only operational for a week, as that's how long she's listed as having a CO? The page seems quite incomplete. I won't oppose over it, but it does seem like there are better sources available, though one may have to read German to understand them. Courcelles 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about uboat.net - I understand we are asked to accept uboat.net as a WP:RS based on the following:

Nevertheless, per WP:V:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; [...] In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Although I can see why the site's mention in published works lends it an air of respectability, I'm currently unable to see that WP:V recognizes that as a principle determining reliability of a source for a Wikipedia article. PL290 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of these surveyed? Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to incorporate these sources into the text...if I spoke German or had access to them. I'm in no position to get them and what 1-2 books on that list I can read on Google books, is in German.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading through the comments above, I can sense the reluctance of editors tackling the question of uboat.net's status. On the one hand, Gudmundur is clearly a devoted student of the boats and appears to have taken considerable care in his work. Ditto White Shadows. Further, that website has been relied upon for various articles at GA (I understand) and no-one wants to see the quality status of a series of articles potentially unravel over a discussion only now taking place. I can also hear myself thinking "how will we ever consistently get English-language FAs on non-English subjects if we insist on consultation of non-English language books?" (I hoped to one day get Art of Iceland up to this standard, and own almost all the English-language books on the subject, but can see that ambition fading...)
So. There seem to be two issues mixed together here: whether the website is a "high quality reliable source"; and whether a comprehensive survey of the lit. has taken place in the absence of reference to major German-language books on the subject. I am not commenting on the latter question. On the former:
  • None of the editors / contributors appears to have relevant qualifications. Like Malleus, I agree that this in itself may not be necessary to establishing reliability, but it may influence judgement about "high quality" reliability.
  • The fact that there is a general list of sources, but no sourcing on the individual pages, I think counts against the site's quality.
  • Is it just me, or is there another factor here, in that we are relying consierably on what is in fact a tertiary, not a secondary, source? What Gudmundur has created is essentially the U-Boat Encyclopedia. Note WP:RS includes: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." (emphasis in original) Yet Gudmundur has used the secondary sources (acording to his sources page) to create what is now a tertiary source.
  • The strongest argument in favour of uboat.net's favour is its reputation amongst other writers. Slp1's list at the discussion here is germinal in this regard. However, the list isn't as impressive as it first appears. The first link: it certainly receives high praise from writer Gordon Williamson, though as Malleus has noted, that is in the context of online resources. Second link: didn't work for me - no relevant content. Third link: not sure that any claim to reliability can be made in the context of this particular book (on a very tangentially-related subject). Fourth link: Intute, an online resource for which I could find no evidence of its own reliability. Fifth link: a list of links appended to a commercial TV documentary webpage. Sixth link: a book about using online sources to teach critical thinking skills. I don't think the authors are frankly qualified to comment on whether the site is good or not (not that it stops them from doing so). Seventh link: A university website listing links to WWII resources: but it explicitly puts quote marks around the assessment of the site, indicating it is not the site's author's own assessment. Eighth link: Listed in a book called "The history highway 3.0: a guide to internet resources". Describes the site as "A comprehensive study of the German u-boat", which is simply inaccurate, calling the source into question. Ninth link: The Naval Museum of Manitoba's list of links that describes uboat.net as "very accurate and complete".
  • My feeling about the endorsements / praise for the site from most other sources is that they have done less fact-checking than anyone here, with the possible exception of Gordon Williamson. His alone is the only endorsement out of all the above that I feel can be trusted as coming from someone competent to reach a view. The rest are too tangential or themselves unreliable for us to use them as an assessment of whether the webpage in question is a "high quality reliable source".
  • Having said all of that, I would also comment that the dominant use of the website is for some fairly bare facts - launch dates, commissioning dates, and ultimate fate. Not sure whether this should be a factor in our deliberations about the extent of reliance on the site.

Dont know if that is any help. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1906-1921 By Robert Gardiner, Randal Gray, Przemysław Budzbon is a reliable source already used to a significant degree in the article. It appears to contain information that can be used to replace stuff coming from uboat.net in some instances. I note the WP article cites uboat.net in support of the first line in the uboat table. That line includes in the "fate" section: "Handed over to Italy as a war reparation and scrapped at Pola by 1920." Yet Gardiner p. 180 has this: "wrecked 4.6.15 and [broken up] 1918" as well as the subsequent handing over and scrapping in 1920 (p.343). Firstly, we should use Gardiner in preference to uboat.net; secondly, the wrecking is omitted from uboat.net's page. It looks to me as though a bit more can be drawn from Gardiner. This will also minimise the losses from the article that would occur if we avoided uboat.net as a source altogether. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of us (considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition) can agree that it is OK to use Uboat.net as a source as long is other secondary and offline sources are consulted as well. Uboat.net is great for those who do not have any offline sources available and can be regarded as a great online source but I understand that books always trump websites. I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject. Every single book on German U-boats coast at least 50$ such as Sokol's and as a result, the use of Uboat.net is sometimes needed to complete the article. It may appear that the article overly relies on Uboat.net but there are only a few instances where something is cited by Uboat.net and not another offline source. I did use it as a tertiary source for the most part but still fail to believe that the site is not of high enough quality to remove or degrade or a "filler" source. If need be, I can add in yet more pages from Conway's into the table but I honestly think that such a course of action is not needed. I will continue to use this site on any future works on U-boats that I undertake as I have yet to see someone who actually works on the subject questions the site's reliability.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition). I'm not seeing ten supporters (pls clarify), and there is plenty of concern raised by editors who aren't willing to oppose, but aren't convinced. Some of the supports are from WikiProject members who routinely support all ship articles, and Tony1 supports only on prose (I wish he'd consider all issues raised before supporting, but know from history to consider his supports only on 1a, and a 1a support from him is valuable, but limited). I'm also aware of other cases where high quality sources end up contradicting non-peer-reviewed online sources, so it is always a problem to rely on marginal online sources. These issues should be addressed; would it be possible to review the uboat.net sources and try to diminish the reliance on that source or replace them with higher quality sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, "delimited" would have been a more diplomatic term, particularly since I am distraught that you should seek to undermine my work elsewhere, and since I informed you that I would ignore you henceforth. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "delimited" would have been a better term; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I really appreciate the restraint shown by Malleus, Aude, Courcelles, Elcobbola and hamiltonstone in not opposing, and all the work they've put in to helping us decide the question. Taken together, their arguments are persuasive. uboat.net has been relied on too much for this article, and as currently sourced, it seems to me the article falls apart if you remove uboat.net. I'm not opposed to this article ever becoming an FA, but it's going to take more than a day or two to fix the sourcing problem. Btw, what's notable about this FAC isn't that SHIPS people are piling in to support, what's notable is that they aren't. TomStar gave a weak support, and his reviewing work is incredibly valuable, he always has perceptive things to say, but like Tony1, he's not expecting everyone to take his support as a clue that they don't have to do their own work, he works as part of a team. Everyone else who normally reviews and supports SHIPS articles at A-class and at FAC is notably absent. I've never heard a credible argument that SHIPS reviewers can't be trusted, and in my 6-month history at SHIPS, I haven't seen any articles pass FAC or A-class that shouldn't have. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I don’t consider it so much restraint as an attempt to avoid being unfair, as I’m uncertain of the extent to which the relatively new "representative survey of the relevant literature" verbiage requires consultation of foreign sources (although my personal view is that it certainly ought to; especially in cases such as this: non-English topic where a questionable source is being heavily replied upon). As a fundamental property of Wikiepdia is the ability to collaborate with geographically and culturally dispersed editors, however, I don't accept as valid issues of inability to read a given language and inability to access “foreign” works, whether cheaply or otherwise. Have any Germans (e.g. via Babel categories or Wikiproject Germany) even been asked to assist? KuK, for example, appears highly involved in Marine articles at de.wiki and has an English Babel level 3 (advanced). Has s/he been asked whether s/he has sources or could go to a library and get them? How much effort has really been put forth here? Эlcobbola talk 17:19, 8 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [80].

Dhaka Residential Model College

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tanweertalk 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working for this article from early 2009. From then the article has received two peer reviews and also been copy-edited. It was listed as a GA in early 2010. I've relentlessly contributed to this article with a view to making it a FA. It's now a comprehensive article about Dhaka Residential Model College, a high school in Dhaka which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. I would love if I'm showed the problems that may be act like impediments in this way. I am confident that it meets all the FA criteria and I hope you agree. Thanks for your understandings. -- Tanweertalk 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 2 dabs (President's Award and Viva voce; no deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues concerning dabs have been solved. Please let me know where in the article http://www.drmc-edu.org has been used. -- Tanweertalk 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last line of the infobox. Ucucha 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's given as the link to the college website (last entry in the infobox). The link checker currently reports no deadlinks for me, though I notice it says this link has a "Connection issue", evidently something to watch out for with this tool in future as I cannot in fact connect to the site from the infobox link. PL290 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such things can evidently depend on who is trying to get to a link. The drmc-edu.org link still doesn't work for me. Ucucha 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

With regards. -- Tanweertalk 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short the article has lots of unsourced stuff, or nominally sourced stuff linking to bogus cites. Many claims of great achievement link to sources that say no such thing, or to school sources. This article gives the perception of a puff piece, especially as all of the wrong/dubious information are positive claims and make the article more incorrectly POV, and there is nothing negative in the article YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition, the claim that "DRMC is one of the most competitive schools in the country" goes to this which says nothing of the sort. Another one is that the source for Mohamed Mijarul Quayes being a alumni does not mention it, so it's useless. The "Best College" source says "Best College- Eden Women’s College, Residential Model College, ...", which presumably refers to this one, and to multiply winners. Imagine the offline and other-language sourcing just as bad. As pointed out, sourcing is extremely shoddy, and the article should be stripped of its GA status. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Eden thing is in Barisal, another city, so someone else won. Yes this article should not be GA. It is a joke. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 10:52, 7 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [81].

Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

[edit]
Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series on the early history of London's transport system. An exceptional administrator, Stanley was running the Detroit tramway system at the age of 20, the New Jersey tramway system at 32 and most of London's railways, buses and trams by 38. From 1916 to 1919, he was a member of the British cabinet as President of the Board of Trade. In the 1920s he was the driving force behind the creation of London Transport and led it through its "golden era". For something to do in his spare time he was a director of the Midland Bank and ICI. DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1907, his management skills led to his recruitment by the struggling UERL which he quickly helped recover from a financial crisis and then managed during the London Underground's greatest period of expansion.
He was Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne from December 1916 to January 1920 and was President of the Board of Trade between December 1916 and May 1919.
Two questions spring out at me here: first, you don't say exactly when the Underground's "greatest period" was; and second, you don't indicate that he had a long career at the helm of things nearly until his death - long after 1919, the last date mentioned in the lead. All this is brought out eventually in the course of the article, but it's nice to have a quick summary at the start.
I think you could easily improve the lead in these respects with just one more sentence or so in the lead, nothing too elaborate. Cheers! Textorus (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When you know a subject well, it's sometimes difficult to see the obvious bits that others are likely to find important. Of course his dates need to be there. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know just what you mean. I just created the article Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad - which is not ever intended to be FA status. Still, if your time permits, you might give it a glance and tell me what obvious omission(s) I've committed. Grin. Textorus (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [82].

The Harbingers

[edit]
Nominator(s): d'oh! talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after a copyedit and a bit of a expansion since the last FAC, I feel this article meets the FA criteria. d'oh! talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right BGG is not a reliable source as its a wiki too I believe, but the reviews on BGG was used to show the reception of the game by gamers. WOF was the biggest fan website for the game on its release as such the creators did a few interviews with them. Only the interviews was used in the article. For footnote 6, the dead link was removed. I do have other sources for this game, like an article in the Business Review Weekly, which back ups most the other sources, but didn't add much more other than one piece of information, which is why it was largely left out. I also just added info from an article in the The New York Times. 15 years has past since this game was released, so sources was a bit hard to come by. Thanks for the comments. d'oh! talk 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WOF and BGG still won't work as sources, however, as you need to show a reputation for fact checking, etc. Right now the vast majority of the article is sourced to primary sources - the game itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WOF and BGG has both been removed. The use of primary sources doesn't appear to be a issue in other FA articles, but if its is a issue I will try and address that issue. d'oh! talk 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that particular FA was promoted 2 and a half years ago. I'll leave the last issue out for other reviewers to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK in terms of prose. A few points:

All done. The images should pass both #3 and #8, since both the game board and video is detailed in the article, and the images aid the readers understanding of the game. Trying to combine the two images or drop one will confused the reader and mislead them, into thinking the game is only a board or video game. Thanks. d'oh! talk 11:24, 7 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 08:28, 7 September 2010 [83].

Santana discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Taro-Gabunia (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Taro-Gabunia (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2010 (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 SandyGeorgia 08:20, 7 September 2010 [84].

Jack Coggins

[edit]
Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have just completed the implementation of most of Ottava's excellent suggestions after the last, failed FAC. At this point, I think the combination of the suggestions from the last FAC together with the critical review on the articles talk page, makes this ready once again to brave the rigors of FAC. -- Avi (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the lead fulfils its required function of providing a concise overview of the whole article, it doesn't really matter how many paragraphs it's got. Does it do the job? is the question. Personally, I'm more concerned about the scrappy nature of the "Biography" section. Such sections need to maintain a continuous chronological or near-chronological narrative. In this case we more or less jump from 1933–34 to his marriage in 1948. The actual biographical information is very thin throughout the section, with significant events such as his loss of an eye reported almost laconically. The sources for information on his early life appear to be two magazine articles, and I can't help doubting the accuracy of some of the information (for example, if he left England in 1923 aged 12, he wouldn't have been old enough to have attended an English public school). There are also prose oddities, such as "Jack was born in the Sydney's barracks". The article's milestone history shows that it hasn't had a peer review since 2006, its GA status dates from 2007 (re-confirmed 2009) and it has failed two FACs. At this stage, in all honestly, it doesn't read like a finished article. Definitely should have had a new peer review before coming here, and maybe that would still be the wiser route. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the talk page. This was subject to a detailed review by User:Ottava Rima in 2009. Whatever one may think of him, he had a fantastic eye for copyediting and prose. As for the articles, they are both well-fleshed out and perhaps the only extant biographical information outside of the obituary. Reliable sources are reliable sources. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying hard not to oppose this, but I find the above reply somewhat complacent. "Reliable sources are reliable sources" is a meaningless phrase; sources can be "reliable" in terms of WP definition but can still give incomplete or even inaccurate information. Sometimes it is necessary to dig deeper than the most conveniently available sources. Ottava's prose review of 2009 is very much weighted to the "Illustrator, author and artist" sections; the biography section comments are little more than nitpicks and don't address any content issues. There are significant matters to deal with in this section, including the accuracy of the information, the filling of lacunae and questions of balance—at present the loss of his eye gets the same degree of attention as the "meaningless" naming of his house. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 6 September 2010 (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 Karanacs 02:42, 4 September 2010 [85].

University of Texas at Dallas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Oldag07 (talk), Stan9999

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through enormous improvements over the last several months, and all concerns from past peer reviews have been met. Oldag07 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good points all around. The reliance university articles have on university websites seems to be a common concern. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that this is a very young school with only a division 3 athletics program. I would appreciate more opinions on this page before closing this nomination. Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments on "idiosyncratic capitalization of the definite article" below. It is very common to call this school "UTD". Less so "UT Dallas", but it is still pretty common. There is a need for consistency, but there is also a need to use different names for the same thing over and over. At a glance, "UT" is used just as much as "OSU" is used in Ohio State University and "UT" is used for the University of Texas at Dallas. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted there are around 40 outside sources referenced . UTD doesn't have the extensive rich history as some of the older universities, major long standing sports programs, extensive list of notable people and has only been admitting freshmen for 20 years. Due to the short period of existence outside published works are hard to come by.Stan9999 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
∗∗∗

A couple of notes:

  • "Waterview attracted a certain amount of controversy, being dubbed "the Dorm from Hell" in an April 2005 article in the Dallas Observer" was noted. I am unable to find anything else like that.Stan9999 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

―cobaltcigs 08:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the section called “==External links==” which I moved to the end but which previously was positioned much higher. ―cobaltcigs 19:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I am inclined not to go along with some pretentious insistence by a university, and even more by a "system", on the upper-case "The". This has come up before at the MoS. I see there's no "The" sticking out in "the Graduate Research Centre", etc.
  2. "With a number of interdisciplinary degree programs and over 50 research centers and institutes its curriculum is designed to allow study that crosses traditional disciplinary lines and students participate in collaborative research labs." This is a clumsy and over-long sentence. "More than" would be nice. A comma after "institutes" to avoid the jostling of two nouns in a longish sentence. The last clause doesn't flow from the previous clauses.
  3. Where there's more than one "and" in a sentence, and one is ranked more highly in a structural sense, a comma after it would be good: activity", and the
  4. "High research activity" is pretty awful out of context, anyway ... is it cloud research? Better a "high" level of research activity.
  1. Comma after "commencement" and after "alumni".
  2. Remove "located".
  3. "acres" is an epithet qualifying "industrial park", not a noun itself, and should be singular. Remove "located" again.
  4. Bad sentence: "Almost 600,000-square-foot (56,000 m2) of new facilities have been added from 2007 to the summer of 2010 with another 280,000-square-foot (26,000 m2) planned to be completed by 2012." No hyphens. Here, "feet" is the noun, so plural. "planned for completion".

On this basis, the whole article need urgent attention by unfamiliar copy-editors. Tony (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actively search for them: creates linkages with others who can be future collaborators. Try looking through the edit-summaries of the history pages of similar FAs and GAs to identify the word people. Tony (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Some quickies on the Athletics section:


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 Dabomb87 23:24, 3 September 2010 [93].

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter

[edit]
Nominator(s): Themeparkgc  Talk  06:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I have worked on this article to reach it to GA status. Most recently I requested a peer review which resulted in a variety of recommendations that I have incorporated. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are grievous grammatical errors and riotous rhetorical disasters in each of the first three sentences of this article. Please archive expeditiously.—DCGeist (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - this article is not ready for Featured status. A quick scan reveals immediate problems with structure, spelling and prose, such as:

PL290 (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I peer-reviewed this a couple of weeks ago; my comments are found here. In my review I refer to "the major overhaul and expansion that the article requires if it is to be considered as a FA candidate". There has been some expansion, and an effort has been made to tackle the specific sample issues I raised, but the extent of the work required to bring the article to FA standard has perhaps been underestimated. The prose is ragged in places, as noted above, and needs the eyes of an uninvolved editor. The existence of so many citations in the lead indicates that this section is not doing its proper job of summarising the main article content, per WP:LEAD – the citations should be in the article itself. The article has undoubtedly improved since I last saw it, but it still needs a lot of work, including an independent copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please end the pain: Several edits have been made to the lede. The first sentence is now acceptable. The rest is a minefield.

Suggest withdrawing and finding more reliable sources for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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