Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 24 October 2009 (archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 2009

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 18:13, 24 October 2009 [1].

Hampshire County Cricket Club

Nominator(s): HampshireCricketFan (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...

  • It is the most comprehensive page on an English County Championship team.
  • It covers most of the key historical points surrounding the club, from it's early pre-formation years with the Hambledon Club, through to when it was awarded first-class status (twice) and takes in the history of the 20th century and most recent in the 21st century.
  • It is well researched and referenced. With exception to the clubs pre founding in the 1770's which has been lost to history.
  • It has some of the most comprehensive statistics to be found on any domestic cricket team page on the whole of wikipedia

HampshireCricketFan (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Mainly technical stuff.

  • Not liking the separate "Hampshire Facts and Feats" "trivia" section. The two facts could easily be integrated into the article, and I might do that soon.
  • Consider changing the URLs in publisher fields in citations into actual publisher names. (Thankfully, the citation date formats are consistent.)
  • I don't like the uses of "we"; I changed one of those uses as an example.

--an odd name 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, this article is quite unready for FAC and should not have been brought here at this stage. I appreciate that it has a lot of useful information in it, but it is nowhere near to meeting the featured article criteria. Of the many issues that need addressing, here are just a few examples:-

  • The lead section needs to be rewritten as a proper summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. It should not be a miscellany of minor facts. And do we really need to be told that Hampshire County Cricket Club represents the county of Hampshire?
  • There are at least two major published histories of the club (Arlott/Altham and Peter Wynne-Thomas). Why is neither used as a source for this article?
  • What criteria did you use to list some players as "notable"? For example, Cardigan Connor, a West Indies test player who is evidently the county's leading List A wicket taker, is not listed, while Dominic Thornley, whoever he might be, is.
  • Prose: needs lots of attention (unnecessary cricketspeak, "it's" for "its" etc)
  • MOS: unformatted on-line references, numbers under ten written numerically, etc

I could go on and on, but the best advice I can give is withdrawal, then (after further work) over to peer review for some serious article-building. I do apologise if this sounds harsh, but please remember that featured articles should be examples of Wikipedia's "very best work". There is no reason why this article shouldn't become exactly that in time, but there's a lot to be done meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Undue weight on the last 10 years (more than the 20th century) and also the 20th century section is quite skimpy. Even then half the 20th century section is for 1979-2000. Also, between 1922 and 1961, the only information is about an individual record and nothing about the club. Also, cites go before the punctuation among other things YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very surprised to see this here and I would disagree strongly with the view that this page is "is the most comprehensive page on an English County Championship team". Nowhere near: see Yorkshire, for example. What strikes me immediately is far too many redlinks and an emphasis on statistics, which I detest, rather than on text. One of the greatest feats by this club was its championship title in 1961 but where is the coverage of that? I disagree with Brianboulton above about his recommended sources, although to use anything by Arlott is fine but by no means essential. ----Jack | talk page 04:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Having just read the article again after it appeared in my watchlist, I must strongly agree with YM above that its main failing is that has fallen into the recentism trap and I have tagged it accordingly. You would think Hampshire is a 21st century club preceded by a few pioneers who dabbled in cricket during past centuries and are worth a cursory mention. The bulk of an article like this must be about the club's history, but where is it? Cases in point are players like Phil Mead and Derek Shackleton, far greater players than anyone the club has on its books at present, who are mentioned once each in the narrative and briefly at that. ----Jack | talk page 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, but this is not of FA quality. In addition to all the things pointed out above, there are entire sections (eg "other grounds") which are completely unsourced and lots of text issues (eg the section on May's Bounty doesn't mention the surely fairly significant detail of what town it's in!). Suggest the nominator withdraws and slowly works the article up to genuine FA quality -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the above, not nearly ready. I might even question if it is B class right now given the lack of references.
    • The lead needs to be expanded and copy edited - its prose is below the quality I would like to see in a FA. The rest of the article needs it also.
    • There are numerous citations placed before the punctuation, where they should be after it. In fact it appears that nearly all of them are before the punctuation.
    • Agree with above, expansion of the early history needed.
    • Great swathes of paragraph remain uncited.
    • What is the criteria for "notable players"? Hopefully not OR.
    • The records section is good
    • Hampshire Facts and Feats is essentially a trivia section and needs to be removed. The info needs distributing around the article.
    • A small number of the references aren't displaying as much info as they could, and one is just a url.

I don't know if you can snow a FAC, but I would recommend a good peer review before trying again. SGGH ping! 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Don't like piling on, but the unreferenced parts of the history section are enough on their own for me to oppose. These are the kinds of things that should be handled long before an FAC nomination, as are many of the comments from the other reviewers. To offer a comment unique from those of everyone else, the images should have alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (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 17:47, 20 October 2009 [2].

Snuppy

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel the article is interesting, well written and meets all the FA criteria. It is not involved in any edit wars or similar and is a stable page. Although it may seem short, it stays on topic and provides a complete and concise description of the topic. Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1c (by an odd name)

As this was both a short article and a fairly important event in (medical) history, I decided to check if there were more sources. Sure enough, this article only uses web sources, even though searching snuppy clone on Google Books yields 84 results, none of which are referenced in the article. Seek peer-reviewed academic journal sources as well, because news sources and even popular books often (intentionally or otherwise) distort findings. Expand the article and replace the web sources with the books and journals where you can—featured articles thoroughly draw from high quality reliable sources, where appropriate, but this doesn't yet. It does otherwise look decent (consistent date format, prose is not bad, etc.).

--an odd name 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I wrote most of the article; expanded it for DYK and got it through GA, and it was a bit or surprise to see it nominated for FA. A lot of the sections need expansion and, honestly, most of the sources are web-sources found via Google (reputable sources such as Time, BBC etc. I didn't use any ol' thing but, as AnOddName mentioned, this could be improved). So, not ready for FA yet in my opinion but good luck. ♣ Ameliorate! 14:41, 19 October 2009 (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 17:47, 20 October 2009 [3].

Tropical Storm Christine (1973)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. I have used all available sources, including those from Google Books and Scholar and the article has undergone a thorough review from Juliancolton (talk · contribs). All comments welcome as always. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Overall, the article is relatively well sourced but the first paragraph has some claims that need to be verified. In addition I have found several spelling errors that need correction and the writing itself needs to be smoothed out a little bit. The article basically meets WP:GACR but needs work before reaching featured article quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 October 2009
The lead wasnt what he was reffering too, the first few sentences were not sourced, i sorted it out earlier though as well as giving it a small copyedit.Jason Rees (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose: It seems there is a trend developing in which short storms-related articles sourced from preliminary NOAA reports and local newspaper stories are being nominated as FACs. Hurricane Grace (1991) was a recent example. Like the latter, this article is poorly sourced. The map is very poor; no latitude/longitude information, no date/day/time information, not even a scale that tells us how many miles or kilometers we are looking at. Tracking Christine was one of the highlights of the US Skylab 3 mission of 1973 (mistakenly referred to as Skylab 2 in the text, although other references apparently make the same mistake). Nothing about how those measurements were used to garner more sophisticated information about the storm is mentioned here. Google Books, alone, has some 30 references on Christine, most of which have not been acknowledged in the article, and Google Scholar has another 10. Sorry, this needs work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, these maps have never had an issue at FAC before, they have been the same for years and since I am not the creator of the program, I am unable to do anything about altering the tracks other than changing what storm (or storms) is shown. As for the referencing, that basically sums up how all cyclone articles are written. We use NOAA and newpaper reports to make the articles, and books if available for older storms. As for the books, just because there are 40 some-odd available, most do not have useful information. I'll search into the Skylab numbering issue and see what I can pull up for that. Lastly, can you expand upon your claim of the article being poorly soruced? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a hurry right now, but why can't you use (i.e. trace) the map in Hebert and Frank? It is has much more information. We don't need the color. I'm happy to do that for you, but it may be a few days before I can find the time. (By the way, the name of the author is Hebert, not Herbert.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objecting to a map system that has been utilized for thousands of articles is better done as part of a more broad meta-discussion, not a particular FAC. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, withdraw the article, conduct your meta-discussion and come back when you have a useful map. There is nothing in the FA criteria that says that flawed convention trumps comprehensive information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw an FAC over a single image? That seems overkill to say the least I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acctully the maps are usefull as they are IMO and yes it is overkill to say the least to withdraw the FAC. Also i do not think adding lattidue and longitudes would be any good as i think it would make the maps look messy and horriable esspecially when you have several islands such as Fiji, Guam, French Polynesia etc to fit in. If you dont like the maps maybe you could suggest an alternative map that could work in ALL basins of the world. Also your scholary and journal searches are flawed as there is more than 1 tropical storm Christine. Jason Rees (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most are about the 73 storm, not the 98. The map in Hebert and Frank, p. 281 is not messy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, BTW, Jason Rees, can you tell me which of the 50 references (40 in Google Books and 10 in Google Scholar) are not to the 1973 Christine? I just went through all of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acctully it would look very messy in the article and wouldnt be able to clearly see when it reached TD TS etc, or the longitude or lattidue postions which is the only thing wrong with the maps as far as i can gather - Also why should we change the map software when none but you has a problem with it. On another note i dont have time to go through all 50 odd references that you have found and anaylise them but i am sure not all of them relate to tropical storm Christine of 1973 as there was one in 1964 as well as 1998. Also if you really were going through all of these books im sure you would of realised that there isnt much in them that isnt in the article already. Jason Rees (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Jason Rees) That was a sort of rhetorical question. All 50 refer to the 1973 storm. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←As I said earlier, how many of the of those sources you've mentioned have useful information that isn't already in the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are suggesting that there aren't any or asking me (in a spirit of cooperation) to provide a list of references and material to be included in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'ved checked through the ten articles from Google Scholar and none of them have any additional information for the article. I'm in the middle of checking the other 30 you have mentioned. I'll get back to you once I have read through them Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've checked through the remaining articles, none of them have any information that is not already in this article. Many of them have duplicated information concerning Skylab 3 watching the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe pages 242–250 in the reference "Oceans and Atmosphere" do have useful information that can be included in the article. You need to expand your section on how the Skylab data was used to get more information about the storm. In my opinion, you are attempting articles that are at the level of sub-articles in a featured list, not featured articles in their own right. If you are seriously making the case that the article cannot be expanded, then withdraw the article and submit a joint article on "Hurricane Ava and Tropical Storm Christine (1973)." Since both storms were tracked by Skylab, you will have more references, and more meat in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why withdraw it though? With all due respect, it'd be frankly ridiculous to merge two articles on two entirely different storms that were connected only by similar observations. The additions you're suggesting are trivial at best in my opinion and offer no further comprehensiveness to this page. I'm not sure why you maintain your objections when you haven't tried to refute the nominator's argument that the article requires no further information. Where is the article lacking in its coverage or depth? Without addressing specific issues, editors have no way of determining what, exactly, needs to be fixed, so suggesting that this article be withdrawn without much of a rationale for making such a suggestion seems little more than sweeping this issue under the rug. That you disagree with nominating this article for featured status is a valid concern, but shouldn't be the focus of opposition. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there truly isn't any more information available about the storm, then the storm is not notable enough to be a featured article. If you say that notability is not among the featured article criteria, I say that it implicitly is. Otherwise, we can all produce an article (and I have a few) which are immaculately sourced, comprehensive, and well written, but are barely two paragraphs long. Should we be submitting them to FAC review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...then the storm is not notable enough to be a featured article" - Please review WP:WIAFA; nowhere do the criteria require, let alone advise, that featured articles be "notable". If an article meets the usual inclusion standards, it's eligible to become featured. See Tropical Storm Erick (2007), a featured article on a storm that lasted two days and didn't have any impact (also see its FAR and AFD, listed on the talk page). –Juliancolton | Talk 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between "implicit" and "explicit." Sorry, my oppose stands. You can argue that it is inactionable, if you wish; however, at the very best the author needs to summarize the contents of pages 242–250 in the reference cited above. There is no way that an English literature article could get away on FAC with such poor sourcing. This is my last comment here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the difference, but we can't make stuff up and pretend that it's implicitly listed somewhere in WIAFA. If there are sourcing issues, then yes, that needs to be resolved; if there is a lack of comprehensiveness, yes, that too needs to be addressed. But if you oppose, you still need to explain how the article fails to adhere to the criteria so other editors can work to amend it. Your comments don't seem to do that. Furthermore, it isn't appropriate to refuse further conversation if your oppose is to remain; FAC is a discussion, not a vote.

That said, I'm not sure why you're comparing this to an "English literature article"; this is a science article, and therefore it's not going to have the academic sources that a literature article would. Apples and oranges I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesnt have poor sourcing issues, also the contents of pages 242–250 in the reference cited above is pure triva and not relevant to this article and thus wont get put in.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Source comments Dabs and links fine.
  • Current refs 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 are missing the publishing date.
  • Current ref 8's publication needs to be St. Petersburg Times (i.e. remove the "h")
  • Current refs 9, 18, 19 are missing both the author name and the publishing date.
  • Current refs 10, 11 need a book citation template which should include the page number and (ideally) the ISBN on top what is already cited.
  • Current refs 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 have exactly the same Google search link even though the citations are for different pages.

RB88 (T) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some outstanding issues myself. RB88 (T) 20:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have time to review this article fully, but "The only effects from the remnant system in Florida was possible squalls on September 7 and 8." is awkward and grammatically incorrect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too short, and despite small size has writing problems ("originated from", "During its passage through the Leeward Islands, Christine produced torrential rainfall, peaking at 11.74 in (298 mm) in eastern Puerto Rico."???) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:WIAFA before objecting to nominations, thanks. As I've explained to you before, "too short" is not a valid concern. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've explained to me before, and I was just too dumb to get it, surely you'll only be wasting your time "explaining" to me again. No? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder whether the active editors at the appropriate WikiProject(s) can get together and review the list of FAs at this stage. As a body, they are a considerable achievement, but most of the low-hanging fruit appear to have been harvested, at least for individual storms. Is it not possible to explore opportunities for future FACs that are not based on single storms? What themes might provide new avenues for beefier (= longer) FACs?

Just thinking from the position of an ignoramus (I've been called that today), might there now be expeditions into thematic territory based on the where and the when, so we have available excellent accounts from a more distant point of departure? Might there be sufficient secondary sources now that talk in terms of how storms of various types have been changing over the past few decades (presumably in connection with global warming)? I'm unsure, but it's worth fishing. Tony (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (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 16:51, 18 October 2009 [4].

Sociology

Nominator(s): Tomsega (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article has been greatly improved over the last two months. It is highly detailed and well-written. 2-3 more references are needed here or there, and shall be added within the next few days, but otherwise I believe it is worthy of featured status. Tomsega (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. 2-3 more references? Sections on "Epistemology and ontology", "Key figures" and large elements of "scope and topics" are completely unreferenced. I would suggest (firstly) a complete overhaul of this referencing. Second, things like "emphasized the reciprocity in how cultural texts and mass-produced products are used, questioning the valorized division between 'producers' and 'consumers' evident in earlier neo-Marxist theory." are completely undecipherable to the laymen; we write for lay readers, not for expert sociologists. See Law as an example of a "general topic" FA and make a note of the language used there. I would suggest you might be best going through GA and the Peer Review process to get feedback first; this nomination is premature. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, more like 10-12 references. I shall add references to the 'Epistemology and ontology' section, and tighten up the 'Scope and topics' section, within the next 48 hours. As for the 'key theorists', it'd be very difficult to find a reference for that as such. The page has moved forward considerably, however. Perhaps it has been nominated 2-weeks or so too soon, but this way I hope attention is drawn to it. Input appreciated. --Tomsega (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A place for input to be drawn to it is Peer Review, not FAC. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:-
    • The article is under-cited throughout.
    • What criteria, if any, were used to select the "key figures"? Are they all really "key"? This rather turgid listing of around 100 names has little purpose, given the link to a list of sociologists.
    • I agree with the above comment, that article-building should not be done here. The sensible thing would be to withdraw this nomination and list it for peer review.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose While it is great to see an FAC on a really big subject for a change, this is seriously under-referenced, and some of the short sections need more added. The great big lists should either be spread through the text with indications of what makes the people significant, or left for a list article. Not ready yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (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 Dabomb87 00:49, 18 October 2009 [5].

Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Nominator(s): Secret Saturdays (talk)


I am nominating Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics because this article is chock full of information withut going overboard, is currently a GA-class article and 121 links. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Even though I didn't significantly edit this article, I have permission from TonyTheTiger.

Comments:

  • As to the 121 links, many are incomplete or bare urls or dead links.
  • As far as I can see, the only edit to this article by the nominator is this deletion of one paragraph. As to Tony, his comment "Feel free to nominate. I don't think it has a great shot, but go for it. The effort will likely raise the quality of the article. Ping me when it is up so I can watch it (and maybe help out a little)" doesn't sound promising to me. Now, let us get things straight here (please keep this page for a while). In the last few weeks, User:Secret Saturdays has nominated lots of others' work (none of his own) for DYK, GA, Featured Picture, and now FA. Most nominations were technical errors (reviewing his own submissions, etc) and took time to review and clean up. The user put History of the flags of Romania as his GA achievement, despite having zero contribution to its writing or review. Please don't take me rude, but to make things clear, I would appreciate if Secret Saturdays stated his motives behind all that activity, including this nom. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to question the wisdom of nominating an article that the primary contributor doesn't think will pass FAC. FAC is not a place for a free article improvement drive - we expect that all nominations are serious and that all nominators believe their articles meet the criteria. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To be honest, you pretty much lost me at the start with "Madrid, Spain; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Tokyo, Japan". Tony knows what he's talking about when it comes to FAC, even though I don't always agree with him, and if he says it's not ready you can pretty much take that to the bank; there are far too many rough edges here. Parts of it were obviously written by someone expecting the bid to succeed, and haven't been rewritten to reflect the fact that the bid was rejected. ("Other events such as the Chicago Marathon will also play a part in Chicago's Olympic-planning process".) There's also some outright NPOV-violating boosterism; the Sports culture section, for instance, says nothing that couldn't be said about any large city but makes it sound as if Chicago's somehow unique. (To put those ten professional sports teams in context, London has twelve professional soccer teams alone.) This isn't a bad article, but there's no way it's yet at FA level. – iridescent 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Major concern in the prose is frequent uses of past tense in describing a former bid, and there are a couple pressing image and sourcing concerns as well.
  • Images now require alt text in FA-level articles.
  • I doubt the 1959 Pan American Games poster would be considered acceptable fair use in this article. How does its presence improve readers' understanding of the bid?
  • Bid details: "22 of the 27 Olympic venues will be in four clusters within 15 km of the Olympic Village." This obviously doesn't apply anymore since they lost the bid.
  • Financing: The caption to the right of this reads, "have been instrumental in securing funding commitments." I assume this should now be past tense ("were instrumental...").
  • Venues: "The Cycling hub will be in Madison, Wisconsin." Again, needs to be past tense now.
  • Cite tag present in Bid factors.
  • Refefence 116 is a bare link with no publisher information. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (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 23:13, 17 October 2009 [6].

Brooks–Baxter War

Nominator(s): The_stuart (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have been working on this article for quite a while and it was just promoted to GA. I know some of the refrences need page numbers still, but I was going to nominate it anyway to get some more general feedback for what it needs to be come a FA. The_stuart (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed alt tags for images. --The_stuart (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is added (thanks), but I'm afraid it needs quite a bit of work on two main grounds. First, alt text should not repeat what's in the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. Second, alt text should contain only information that can be verified by a non-expert reader who is looking only at the image; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. For example, the alt text "Photograph of Powell Clayton, Governor of Arkansas 1868-1871" both repeats the caption (which says "Powell Clayton") and consists mostly of information ("Powell Clayton, Governor of Arkansas 1868-1871") that an ordinary reader can't verify merely by looking at the image. Pretty much all the alt text has these problems, so it all needs to be rethought. I suggest starting by reading WP:ALT#Portraits, since 3 of the 5 images are portraits. Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to fix the alt text for the images. --The_stuart (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. One more pass should do it. First, could you fix the punctuation and spelling? The usual punctuation is an optional (capitalized) followed by optional sentences, with a period separating the noun phrase from the sentences if both are present. E.g., "Noun phrase. This is a sentence. This is another." Some grammar/spelling problems include "clouds the background", "four ground", "horse back", "middle age man", "thinning hair long mustache", "viewer, he is", "In front to of", "to the viewers left" (twice), "to the viewers right", "an armed plain clothesed men". Second, please remove "Black and white Photograph of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took almost a year to get anyone to review it for GA Status, so I doubt a peer review would ever happen. I know that the page numbers are lacking but thats the only issue I know of, if it is in fact an issue. I have been working on this article for going on 4 years. I think if I can just get a little constructive criticism this can be a featured article. --The_stuart (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed access dates, which other dates are issues? --The_stuart (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed broken ref tag. --The_stuart (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: 1c). History article with no bibliography. Reliance on primary sources. Tertiary sources cited without article written over name. Dubious that Arkansas Historical Association's publications were peer reviewed at the time. Where's the high quality reliable sources other than Driggs (1943)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bibliography although is seems redundant to me. These are not all primary sources. Driggs is probably the most peer reviewed one, it's a dissertation, but Harrell is considered the authority on the subject and is always cited as a source on this subject. There are other books in there as well that are good secondary sources. --The_stuart (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Bibliography (which I corrected the spelling on for you) has items that are not used as references, and lacks sources that ARE used as references. Also needs to be alphabetized.
I didn't include all of the newspaper articles, should I source that as just Arkansas Gazette issues x-x? --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your newspaper article sources are not easily verifiable. You should at least give a title for the article with a page number. Also, your newspaper titles should be in italics.
Those old newspapers are only available on microfilm, and somewhat frustrating to source because they don't have authors or titles to the articles. The Gazette only had two or three pages at this time. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Moneyhon ref lacks a publisher.
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10 (Commentaries...) is actually a published book hosted on Google books and should give a page number. The url currently just goes to the title page of the article, and as the work is 713 pages, you need to be more specific in what exactly is being used as a source here.
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picky, but relevant .. you need to be consistent in your date formats in the references. Some of them are missing commas. Along with that you're inconsistent with your capitalization and other issues in the references which makes me feel like the article wasn't copy edited well before nominating.
Please be specific, I don't know where these issues are. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 13 through 18 ... some are Month Day, Year others are Month Day Year. Also, the newspaper titles here need to be italicised. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does current ref 9 (the Green ref) not give the page number in the References section but does in the Bibliography? Same for current ref 20 (Corbin).
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Herndon ref doesn't list page numbers, which again, as the work is over a 1000 pages, it should.
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Debray ref lacks page numbers, and it's 218 pages
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 24 lacks a publisher (Elisha Baxter...)
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the publisher is run into the link title, it should be separate to conform to the rest of the references.
  • Uncited opinons in the article include:
    • "Clayton used various tactics to pay for the for the needed infrastructure changes in the state under his administration. Most of the south was in desperate need of infrastructure and was way behind the rest of the country. He raised taxes, tried to fix the state's bad credit by repaying and issuing bonds, and flooded the state with paper script. All of these tactics failed and drove up the state debt."
This is simply the lead to that section, this is all explained in the next paragraph. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the end of the third paragraph of "Mistrels.."
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "So, the issue of re-enfranchisement of Confederates was central to the election."
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Harrison decision also resulted in the dismissal of the Brooks case as well."
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, The Minstrels would soon turn on Baxter for not following the party line."
Foreshadowing the rest of the section, which is cited. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Baxter was about to erode his Republican base out from under him."
More Foreshadowing. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Governor Baxter was now being supported by the Brindle Tails, re-enfranchisers, and the Democrats; whereas Brooks was finding support among the Claytonists, northerners, Unionists, the Minstrel Republicans, and they began taking up his cause."
Summing up what has already been said. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, Grant's decision would soon set in motions Brooks' demise."
More foreshadowing. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The bar of the Pulaski County Circuit court also met and issued a resolution that stated that Judge Wytock had acted independently, and his decision did not represent the court. The trial had been deliberately unfair for the defendant Baxter, and furthermore the Supreme Court had already ruled that, under the state constitution, the court had no jurisdiction. They rendered Judge Wytock's decision null and void."
Fixed --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to echo the concern about primary sources, a large number of the sources used are either primary, barely adequate (from museum websites), or are at least 50 years old, with a large number being over a 100 years old. How historians work has changed a lot in the last 100 years, and relying on older works can be a concern about bias and comprehensiveness. I point this out for other reviewers to consider. The article isn't quite uncited enough for me to oppose, but it's getting close.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 1http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png6:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Wonderfully written, neutral, and most importantly, gives adequate definitions of political jargon terms. I am a bit worried about some things though.
  1. Robert Newton was mentioned as a commander in the info box and never mentioned again. This seems odd to me.
Added what I could find about Robert Newton, and referenced. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some of the word choices are a put off, such as "devious" in the section Brooks loses favor.

Nezzadar (speak) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "devious" to "undemocratic". I think a coup de ta could fairly be described as undemocratic, but will change it if there is a better suggestion.--The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. This was very interesting. Although I know there were a lot of shenanigans and a great deal of skulduggery going on... I'm not sure this article is ready for prime time, though.

:* bibliography should be alphabetized by last name of author. (I tried to do this, but my computer crashed)

Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* standardize capitalization on titles of articles and books, in both footnotes and bibliography. Yes, a bib is redundant, but it is necessary. Your teachers should have told you that.

Fixed, I think. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* standardize capitalization within the text. Northern Democrats and southern ...It has to make sense. "...still controlled by The Minstrel faction..." still controlled by the Minstrel faction. Your English teacher never told you to capitalize "T" in the in the middle of a sentence. Possibly The Bible, but even now, most copy editors will change it to the Bible. Reconstruction should be capitalized. Clayton became governor during Reconstruction. There is an MOS somewhere on this, but I always use CMS (Chicago Manual of Style). Fixed thes and other capitalization issues. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, the Gazette would be the proper way to write it within the sentence. The Gazette would be the proper way to begin a sentence.  !! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* just plain clarity. "Pulaski County exceeded the number of registered voters." How does a county exceed the number of registered voters. Perhaps: The return of votes in Pulaski county exceeded the number of registered voters by X%, suggesting voter irregularity. The registrar, who controlled the distribution of ballots, admitted that he had given ballots to voters from other counties if they could show him a valid registration certificate. Similarly, in Jefferson County, ..... In addition to significant election fraud, both sides alleged voter intimidation: armed parties had been stationed on roads to keep voters away from the polls.[citation needed] General Gillem, commander of the military district that included Arkansas, wrote to General Grant that it would take months to sort out which side had committed the greater election fraud.[citation needed]

Fixed to your suggestion, all of this info comes from Driggs, so it's sourced. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, looks good.

::*this statement needs clarification. The presence of armed troops throughout the south was part of radical Reconstruction. Arkansas was an "occupied" state.

Not sure what your talking about here? --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • this also ignores the reality of life in the South during Reconstruction. The stationing of armed troops throughout the south to guard the polls was not unusual, and their presence did not necessarily mean that there was intimidation going on. It would be important here to emphasize that these were ad hoc groups, not militia or regular army, and that they were not federally sanctioned, but were part of a broader movement of voter intimidation.
Your suggestion fixed that. Reads "Armed Parties" not troops. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* a few pov issues. "but Baxter also had support because of the devious way he was removed from office." First of all, it was very unclear to me if Baxter had support that allowed him to be devious, or because his support required his opponents to be devious. Second, devious is one of those judgment words, so if you use it, you really explain why your source says it's devious, not just that you think it's devious.

Fixed per another editors suggestion already. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* how was kidnapping the judges going to prevent the court from making a decision. Who was going to turn them over to the military, and why, and how did they lay hands on them, or were these the same people who had kidnapped them, in which case, what was the point?::

Rephrased and added another source. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* " including the disenfranchised confederates and the freed former slaves" freed slaves, or former slaves. disenfranchised confederates? First, it should be former Confederate soldiers (capital C, one of those pesky capitalization problems again), and second, weren't they all reenfranchised by constitutional act with all the other former Confederate soldiers? I forget which one. If they were disenfranchised, then wasn't the election illegal. If these were indeed disenfranchised confederates (or Confederates), then this definitely needs a source.

I think you don't understand what was going on. The 1868 constitution disenfranchised those who had worked in and were associated with the Confederacy, not just former soldiers. Yes, it was illegal and that's why the Democrats boycotted the election. Baxter reinfranchised the former Confederates, who subsequently voted the Republicans out of office in the next election. This was one of the major issues and is discussed several times in the article. I did capitalize Confederates for you. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the point, isn't it. I should understand what is going on from your article.

:* governors seat. Should be governor's seat. You've got a lot of these kinds of problems.

Fixed that issue. Where are the others your talking about? --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed a few sentences in the 1868 Constitution section to reflect your suggestion to make it more clear that the 1868 constitution was illegal. Bare in mind that since the Republicans managed to do it anyway means that it's legality was is in question. It's merely the opinion of the Democrats that it was illegal, and the article reflects that. --The_stuart (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
from here down, not really dealt with yet, in particular the prose issues and the summary sections. You've still got some clarity issues, but it is improved. I went through and made some suggestions, up to the part on Infrastructure. As I wrote yesterday, you've done a nice job with this, but you need to crank it up a notch in terms of clarity and precision of prose. I've added some links, for example, to Freedmen, which was the term I think the Radical Republicans used. If I understand this right, Clayton was an RR, right?
The stuart -- I went through the article and corrected many grammatical errors, some spelling errors, and some punctuation errors. I also tightened some of the text, used stronger verbs, etc. I have questions about the conclusion, however. Suddenly Clayton returns. But what happened to Baxter and Brooks? You are missing some citations from a couple of paragraphs -- they are completely unsourced. Also, your concluding paragraph is weak. Be specific about what you mean to say please. `Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;dropping the ball So what?--this still needs to be addressed

  • "Note that despite this reporter's claims, not "all" African Americans supported Brooks, there were even numbers of African Americans on both sides.." This is a key point in the aftermath. It deserves more than a single sentence. It deserves also a clearer sentence, if you'll insist on only one. Even numbers? do you mean there were 100 on one side, and 104 on the other, or do you mean equal number: 50 on one side, and 50 on the other. Or do you mean, actually, that Baxter and Brooks both had the support of Freedmen? Despite the New York Times claim that all Africans supported Brooks, freedmen actually supported both candidates.[citation needed] and then tell us more, please. What does this source say about why there were Freedmen on both sides of the dispute, which I think is a very interesting feature of this political dispute? Not only why, but so what?
This part was added by another editor, and I don't know why. I will probably just remove it all together. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::*well, you could summarize here, why this wasn't a clear cut case of Radical Republicans and Freedmen against old Confederates. It wasn't that simple. Your sources allow you to do this, surely. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources that exist it is very difficult to tell who or how many people were actually on what side in broad general terms. There are lots of politically charged guesstimates that I have seen that conflict widely. I have kind of avoided a lot of discussion about this because it's simply beyond the scope of the article. It would take some deep research into primary resources to see exactly what was going on. Possibly a discussion about the scarceness of reliable data on this issue might be necessary? --The_stuart (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • last paragraph. WOW. And so....what does this mean? Be specific. What does your source say about this? Why is it important? Is Arkansas becoming a red state? what does this mean?
I don't understand what you mean. After the Brooks-Baxter war, which was between Republican factions, there were no Republican Governors for 90 years. How can I say that is a relevant fact with using POV? --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, why did you put it in? By simply implying it is relevant, you leave it up to the imagination of your reader. Is it relevant or not?
I have changed the paragraph to try and and take into account what you've said. If this doesn't work please let me know. --The_stuart (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;More MOS stuff

  • left aligned image under 3rd level heading. Isn't there something in MOS about this? I think it has to be at the right. I know, left right left right, but this is one of those cases....
Fixed, I think. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

:*Bibliography. I checked in Worldcat and few other places. While there are few monographs on the topic — Harrell's seems the most prominent one — there are other more recent treatments of the case: George Thompson, Arkansas and Reconstruction: the influence of geography, economics and personality, 1976. Earl F. Woodward, "The Brooks-Baxter War in Arkansas 1872-1874," Ark. History Quarterly, 1971, Winter, 315-336. Just right off, this is what I found....Otherwise, your bibliography is pretty good, considering the age of this quarrel, and its lack of coverage.

  • what is the difference between these two sources?
  • House, Joseph W. (1917). Cypert, Eugene (ed.). "Constitutional Convention of 1874 - Reminiscences". Publications of the Arkansas Historical Association: 238. Retrieved July 31, 2009.
  • House, J.W. (1917). "Constitutional Convention of 1874 - Reminiscences". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 4: 238–239. Retrieved July 19, 2009.
Not one, fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Support. This is a very interesting article, and I'd like to see you make improvements so that it can pass to FA. At this point, I don't think it's ready. I'll change my oppose if you can bring it up to snuff.Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post-closing note: although Antieruth55 did not sign, the Oppose was changed to a Support after the FAC was archived.[7] Please, folks, remember to sign your declarations with a time and datestamp. The Stuart, please give it at least a week or so to resolve anything else, and bring it back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (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 23:13, 17 October 2009 [8].

Ram Narayan

Nominator(s): Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I nominate the article because I think it fulfils the criteria and the topic of Indian music is underrepresented in featured and good content - this is my first FA nomination. A note about dabs: jhala is stated to be a disambiguation, but really isn't because all the info of the seperate articles is on the very page. Hekerui (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg: Iran has not signed the URAA edit: has no copyright relationship with the U.S. and so the video is not copyrighted in the U.S. and can be used because it's also public domain in Iran according to this guideline.
  2. File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg and File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg are in the public domain in the source country and I can't strictly verify for either that they are in the URAA date. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2009 struck down the constitutionality of URAA in keeping content in copyright in such cases.[9][10][11] I found a Commons discussion on the case that advises tagging with a template, which I did. Is that enough? Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg and replaced File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg with File:Udaipur-citypalace.jpg. I'd still like a response about whether their inclusion is okay because they illustrate the article well. Hekerui (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dcoetzee left a comment on the inclusion of the removed images here. Hekerui (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going to strike my oppose here, because there is a bit more that I want to read up on copyright law and the URAA, and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing a proper image review. Perhaps you could ask Stifle (talk · contribs) if he would be willing to continue the image review? Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point on the question of the constitutionality of the URAA isn't especially relevant to us. The WMF is headquartered in California (9th circuit) and the servers are in Florida (11th circuit) so the 10th circuit ruling doesn't apply to it.
  • Because the USA has no copyright treaty with Iran, anything published there doesn't attract a US copyright. It's WMF policy to respect Iranian copyrights regardless, but as long as something was published in 1978 or earlier it's PD in Iran and that's enough for us. File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg is therefore valid.
  • File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg is still copyrighted in the USA unless it was first published in India earlier than 1936.
  • File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg is also still copyrighted in the USA. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Federal law is not confined to circuit regions I'd say but the last two were taken out/replaced, so the images are all fine now. Hekerui (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source comments Dabs and links fine.
  • Current refs 1, 4, 15 need their detail put in the bibliography section (since this has one) because they are used more than once. The citations can then be simply left as author and page number.
  • Current ref 2 can also be simply left as author and page number since the book is cited in the bibliography.
Regarding the first two points: Bibliography isn't meant to be part of the references but as a section about his contribution to a written work. I had looked at other FA articles, like J. R. R. Tolkien's, where the Bibliography means a list of works by the author distinct from references, and modeled this accordingly.
Oh I see, this came up just this week on Ethan Hawke. In that case, to stop confusing some readers (like me), change it to something else like "Writings". My first reaction was that it is part of the ref section (in this case it is I guess as it IS used in the citations). RB88 (T) 13:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to "Writings" - his contribution to the book was giving Sorrell information about music theory and recording a performance of Raga Shri that was added to the book in a cassette, but this makes him a co-author.
  • Current ref 73's publisher can be simplified as only Hindustan Times.
The Indo-Asian News Service is something like the AP, they produced the content and Hindustan Times published it. I will add a link the Indo-Asian News Service to bring it in line with how this is handled with the AP in, say, John McCain's article.
  • I see a mixture of dating conventions. Pick one and stick to it.
Done. I had originally used ISO, have now made the use of the Indian standard d-m-y uniform.
  • Aside, it was a nice read. If only I had more time to do a proper review. :(

RB88 (T) 12:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wrote in the intro that it's not really a disambiguation because it leads to two redlinks but has the content of both terms on the page. If I were to add the redlink the explanation would be gone. Hekerui (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have enough information on the dab page to stubify those redlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, dab pages are created only when there are three or more subjects that could be associated with that link. When there are two, use a hatnote such as {{about}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, done. Hekerui (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (expect to support)Support, with mostly style comments:
  • "Narayan served him..." - a strange choice of words. What is meant here?
See below.
  • "Narayan had performed the ganda bandhan, a traditional ceremony of acceptance between a teacher and his pupil, with Prasad and another teacher who gave him a few lessons before he left for Lahore, but never had the ceremony performed again" This is a cumbersome sentence, and unclear. Who left for Lahore? What is the significance of the ceremony not being performed again? And who never had it performed again: Narayan, or Prasad? Needs general re-phrasing and explaining.
I clarified the ceremony part and why that includes service using the Sorrell source. The 1987 Bor source also mentions Narayan "serving [Prasad], ..."
  • "Mattoo made Narayan play sarangi, upon which he was employed as an accompanist for vocalists" I think this can be stated more simply - would "Mattoo instead employed Narayan to accompany vocalists on the sarangi" do?
Done, that he was hired indeed makes clear that he succesfully auditioned.
  • Is "repertory" the right word, rather than "repertoire" in this context?
The New Grove dictionary uses "repertory", so I began to wonder if it's more common and changed the wording, but I checked Sorrell again and he writes "repertoire". I changed it back, it's common as well (and it's also called "repertoire" in French and German).
  • "jhala" style is given a brief bracketed explanation, but "khyal" is not. I think it would be better it an explanation was provided.
Khyal is now explained where it first appears.
  • Some issues with tense in the "Style" section. It begins in present tense, then later we have "Narayan was associated..." Then there is the even more confusing "his performance style is not strongly connected to it and was described as eclectic". The last one can be improved by replacing "was" with "has been", but the section might benefit from a general review of tense.
I clarified the formulation, the Kirana gharana still exists. I think the tense is okay now, but I read that section often so perhaps I'm blind in case any issue is left over.
  • "Narayan received the three national Padma Awards". What is a Padma Award?
I trimmed this down, it's redundant and the awards are all mentioned.
  • Not sure the last three sentences (beginning "He dismissed modern Indian film music...") belong in that section, but might be better in the "contributions and recognition" section.
Agreed, I reorganized the sections.
Otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my points have been addressed, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2009 (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 17:30, 17 October 2009 [12].

Supernatural (season 1)

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it has been brought up to the standards of a featured article. Ophois (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComment: I have to say, nice work here, I'm a big fan of this show and am excited to see this article at FAN. Anyways, I don't see many issues. Here's some things I caught with the images and refs:
  • In ref 76, "SUPERNATURAL" needs to be changed to "Supernatural" per here.
Done. Ophois (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Boateffect2.jpg - is this supposed to be a work in process with CGI or an actual screencap? If the latter is true, then it shouldn't be black and white as the series is produced in color (unless that scene used that tint as an effect, I don't remember the episode quite well).
That's the way the scene appears in the episode, with not much color. Ophois (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Like I said, I haven't seen that specific episode in a while. I've stricken that opposition. The Flash {talk} 13:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of the refs switch from "October 14, 2008" to "2008-10-14." Please choose one or the other for all the refs per here
Done. Ophois (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Flash {talk} 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: File:Supernatural S1 DVD.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 and the fair use rationale on File:Boateffect2.jpg needs to be beefed up. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but DVD images serve the same purpose as a film's poster. It's the cover art that the studio had used to represent the "season". It's standard to use it in the infobox, just like a film poster is for a film. Would you fail a film article's poster simply because it doesn't "provide 'Contextual significance'"? I doubt it; I only say that because you didn't bring it up here. I've fixed the fair use rationale for the boat effect image though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted, but I maintain my position that readers don't need to see the image to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely understand, and one could easily argue that we don't need a film poster to understand the film Wall-E, or any film for that matter. I'm merely saying that the DVD cover art is a TV show's "poster" (unless of course you actually have a poster...then that's the poster - but that doesn't typically happen).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Stifle as the situation stands. IMO that it can easily be rectified though by simply providing some sort of commentary about the DVD cover (e.g. a description of the photo/graphics) somewhere. This idea should be followed for most, if not all, non-free images, including those in infoboxes. RB88 (T) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you're asking for is a shake up of the entire TV project and Film project for infobox images, and something I think should be discussed there first. You cannot single out this page when every other page (both FA and below) work this way. DVD cover art and posters have been the standard in film and television infoboxes for illustrating a main topic. It's been this way for a long time, and you cannot single out one article for it when it's such a large scale action.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're not here to review all the other articles. We're here to review this one based on current policy, which changes rapidly and wildly sometimes. WP:ALT is a recent case in point. I'm sure most FAs before this year don't have it but it doesn't mean that they do not have to have it. RB88 (T) 23:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • True, but WP:ALT didn't happen on one FAC and then magically start appearing everywhere. It was something discussed in detail, then decided upon, and now retroactively added to FA articles that didn't have it before. It's not like someone saying, you don't have any text describing the image for those who cannot see it.."oppose". Posters and DVD cover art (which is used to supplement posters when they don't exist) have long been standard imagery for article subject representation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I personally wouldn't oppose based on that. I doubt Stifle will be, and I was simply giving advice to pacify. I do a lot of album articles and I would also say that infobox product art is a special case of sorts. Having said that, I do make the effort to detail every non-free media piece for good authorship, even if it is just one sentence describing it. The question for me is, regardless of policy: "Do you want that little bronze star to shimmer with perfection every single time, or are you simply going through the motions to churn out as many FA articles as you possibly can?" (Same thing applies with having kids weirdly enough lol). RB88 (T) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If stuff existed on that kind of non-free image, then I would be one to promote it's inclusion, but you'll rarely (if ever) actually find commentary on how a poster (or DVD cover art) looks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not everything has to be cited, especially if it is blatantly in existence and also in the article itself. A sentence doesn't hurt. "Supernatural (season 1) DVD was released on such and such date with such and such cover". Problem solved and everybody's happy. RB88 (T) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm lost, because the DVD release section kind of already does that. If you're looking for something else you're going to need to help me out because I don't know what it is specifically you'd like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments: Oppose, largely on 1c (suggest withdrawal) Way too many non-notable (and non-reliable) sources in my book. The whole DNA of this article is based on a large chunk of these sort sources, I'm afraid. Needs extensive new research.

  • I'm now happy with the source quality. I've left one out for reviewers to have a look at. I have more ref nitpicks to come, but good job on surviving your baptism of fire. I hope to see your future FACs hermetically sealed with good sources. RB88 (T) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not counting all the retailer sources like Amazon and websites which just about met notability and reliability through decent About Us pages.

Then there's two interviews on websites that need their reliability ascertained:

There's other nitpicks, but in the grand scheme of things, they are pretty unimportant. RB88 (T) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the sources you listed are related to the DVD releases section. That's pretty much all there is to find on the DVD's, so the only other option is to delete Region 4-related information. And also, what is considered "reliable" for a review article, as Monsters and Critics is for the reception section? Ophois (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well, the Futon Critic and TVShowsOnDVD.com have been used in other featured articles such as List of Smallville episodes, so I don't see how it's unreliable. And how is a local news website unreliable? Ophois (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the criteria that sources need to fulfil to be considered reliable: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. If they cannot, then they cannot be used. For this article, it would mean a major research task for new sources, hence my advice to withdraw. I'm always open to being shown they're reliable based on the dispatch criteria. Saying they're used in other FAs won't cut the mustard though. Each article and nomination is largely taken in isolation, unless a source was explicitly considered reliable in those other FAs. RB88 (T) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay if I just removed the information cited for the DVD articles? Ophois (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all the sources I've detailed above are removed, then I'll strike the oppose. But then you'll get film experts who'll point out that it is not comprehensive and/or lacking in source depth. It's up to you. My advice for withdrawal stands. It's probably better to work at it some more and maybe give it another peer review before coming back here with good quality sources. RB88 (T) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of the challenges. Even the dispatch page says that it's about the context in which the source is being used. Most of these sources are being used simply to cite a release date, or acknowledge special features on a DVD boxset. The special features are on the back of the box, which acts as its own source. That said, having a third-part source--even one that you'd not likely be able to use for anything else on the source--is merely a courtesy. It's like a plot summary. The episode itself is the source, we don't actually need an in-line citation or third-party source to verify it because viewing it can verify it (so long as it's it's available to view). It's my opinion that anything used to verify uncontroversial, DVD boxset info is perfectly fine so long as it's not making any claims.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, simply cite the DVD cover instead of using these poor sources. Solves everybody's problems. RB88 (T) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd prefer "<ref>Information provided by the back of the DVD boxset</ref>" over a website that provides a third-party verification of the exact same process?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One is reliable as it is produced by a multimedia production company, and the other is not. RB88 (T) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More source comments

  • Current ref 1's publisher needs to be USA Today (in italics).
  • Current ref 6's publisher should be abbreviated to "Slant" to stop any confusion with print media.
  • Current refs 14, 15 need italics on the publisher.
  • Current ref 16's publisher needs to be The Boston Globe.
  • Current ref 74 needs the publisher capitals removed.
  • I see a mix of citing authors (John Doe and Doe, John). Pick one style and stick to it.
  • All the Knight references can be simplified to "Knight, p. xx".

RB88 (T) 15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says that IMDb can be used for cast and award info. Ophois (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What policy?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches Ophois (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:V and WP:RS's comments about using "the most reliable source" supercede, and citing someone more reliable is best. IMDb should be the last resort, which is insinuated on the dispatch page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a last resort. No other reliable sources could be found on the subject. Ophois (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources I just brought you above?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rafablu88 called it into question, and I was unable to find anything that made it a RS. Ophois (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Mania.com was cleared because it's owned by Demand Media?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was. Ophois (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2006 Saturn Award link is from Mania. And the 2006 Teen Choice Award link from The Futon Critic is a press release. Didn't Rafablue say just cite those as Template:Cite press release?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were from other sources. Ophois (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go back up to the top, where he first lists The Futon Critic. You mentioned that the source was a press release, and he said to cite it as such (hey also provide the template for it all filled out).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Saturn Award link was from HuntingtonNews, and the Teen Choice Award link was from the French site that you provided. Ophois (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links I just gave you (2006 Saturn Awards, and 2006 Teen Choice Awards) are from Mania and TheFutonCritic. Mania was cleared outright, and the FutonCritic link is a press release which you can use the template I just provided to cite it with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lol. Sorry. I thought the links you gave were to the IMDb site. Thanks, I'll change it. Ophois (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Futon Critic one only gives info on one of the awards for Teen Choice Awards. Ophois (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I found another one that supports both.Ophois (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what happens now?Ophois (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (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 17:30, 17 October 2009 [13].

Battle of Villers-Bocage

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because i believe it meets the FA criteria.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation / Sourcing issues per applicable project WP:MILMOS#SOURCES Fifelfoo (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
War Diaries for 4rd County of London Yeomanry September 1939 To July 1944 No provenance data on sourcing. warlinks.com isn't the archive of the UK. Full citation required.
The website is only hosting the war diary and have nothing to do with it otherwise; what further details are needed?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source without provenance. War Diaries tend to be held by the military organisation responsible, national archives, or published by either previous, or a third party respectable publisher. Published in that format it is not credible that the content is the War Diary. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does present such a problem it can be simply removed, along with the partial sentance it supports, to the external sources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the Battle Magazine (2006). Issue 132. After the Battle Magazine. After the Battle. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help) incorrect citation type, if you're citing the entire issue, it would generally be a feature issue with a title. Where's the location of the magazine publication? Its not a journal, so it requires a higher level of citation (Publisher's location, for example). Why aren't you citing the article of interest? See also the citation "^ After The Battle Magazine 132, p. 34" This is part of an authored article, no?
I dont understand how this is an "incorrect citation type"? It is the same as used for any other published source, this one just happens to be a magazine. The relevent issue and page number has been provided so why is there need for section name within the magazine? To note i do not own the magazine it was added by other contributors. Likewise i am uncertain why this one source needs publication locations while the others do not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines are not identical to books, are require a different citation standard. Academic journals keep one name for a long time, and do not require publication location information. Popular magazines, as constantly in flux, require clear indication of the publishing group and that group's location. When a magazine does not have Authors, it is more typical to cite the relevant articles "Article" Magazine. Location: Publisher, Pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will contact the relevent person and see if they respond, however they do not often contribute to the project. Do you know where i will find the required template?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The query has been sent to the contributor but i do not know if and when he will get back to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, i have adjusted the article accordingly. hopefully it should now suffice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delaforce, Patrick (2003) [1999]. Churchill's Desert Rats: From Normandy to Berlin with the 7th Armoured Division. Sutton Publishing Ltd; New edition edition. ISBN 0-75093-198-1. word duplication "Edition"
Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^ a b c The Sharpshooter Newsletter 2003, p. 18 Not in bibliography
It is already listed: The Sharpshooters Yeomanry Association. "The Sharpshooter Newsletters". http://www.sharpshooters.org.uk/Newsletter/Newsletters. Retrieved 2008-04-01
Incorrect citation: plurals. Is this a sole authored newsletter, if not, article name and author? Publication location and publisher please.Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed for you. As an association newsletter, it should really include the contact point for the association as the location. Given you're only citing the 2003 issue, its fixed, and set to the article in question.Fifelfoo (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^ 4CLY War Diary Not in bibliography.
Likewise this is already listed, however i have reworded the inline citation to make it more clear.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why didn't this go through Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history A class first? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of us have worked on multiple articles and have nailed down pretty well what we need for an FA class article. I believe this article is at that, or pretty close to that, state; enough not to warrant moving through, imo, an unneeded level of bureaucracy in this case.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the above has to do with this. You need to either use all the {{citation}} family or all the {{cite}} family. Citation uses different formatting than the cite family does, and mixing them gives inconsistent formatting between citations. I don't care which is used, but they need to not be mixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well i used one way of formatting the inline cites and the for the reference section - the same ones ive used for other articles i have worked on. However in the above discussion Stifle raised that the newsletter and magazine should be formatted differently.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "War Diaries..." lacks publisher, author, publisher and last access date. What makes this a reliable source?
    I can provide the access date but there is no publisher information just a website that has uploaded the transcript. No information is provided to who within the regiment was responsible for keeping the diary up to date so the author would only be the regiment itself.
    As for is it being a relibale source or not; it is only used to provide supplement information to a modern published source. It claims to be the war diary and adds an air of authencity to it by the use of the correct equipment, placing the battle in question on the right date, stating the correct commanding officer and noting a new CO the following month after the former was captured, talks about equipment this regiment used i.e. Cromwell tanks over the more popular Shermans etc
    But as stated above, if it will provide too much of a problem i have no problem relegating it to the external links and removing the few words it supports.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ill remove it now then.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not happy yet with the prose. Here are examples from the top.
    • Remove both commas from the opening sentence.
    • Long snake: "Although the British reached the town and a nearby ridge, the unexpected presence of strong German armoured forces caused considerable disruption, and having first abandoned Villers-Bocage under pressure of German counterattacks, the division was ultimately withdrawn." And I'm wobbly on why you say they reached the occupied town and a nearby ridge; what was the significance of the ridge? Were the German soldiers on the ridge too? The lead should avoid readers' having to ponder these questions, even if they're explained eventually in the body of the article.
    • "hotly-contested battle". Please see the MoS on hyphens. And is there a better word that "hotly"? "Fiercely"? But your "embroiled" seems to do it anyway.
    • Paras one and two both start with "intended to", "aimed to"; then there's "in an attempt to" and yet another "intended to". There's a lot of dithering? Just checking that this is OK. It leaves open whether this was actually done.
    • Can "Meanwhile" be binned? I think it works without.
    • Query what "attributable" to Wittman means. Tony (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'd bin that sketched image now. Please revert the green map I enlarged if you don't like it. I can still barely read the text on it. Is it your map? If so, the text could be enlarged. Camouflaged tank image could be on the right and larger—the interest is in the guys and the camouflage, and I need a magnifying glass to see anything. Tony (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a second ce pass, and others have tweaked things too. Hopefully the prose is generally clearer and tighter now. Any dithering still in the text is pretty much intentional; much of the battle can be summed up in "the best laid plans of mice and men..." :) Re the map, it's one of mine. I suppose could increase some of the smaller text, but I think it might then run the risk of overcrowding. What do you think? EyeSerenetalk 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have enlarged the sketch map as requested however using the same parameters we used in the Charnwood article appear to not make much of a difference. To be fair however the image of the tank hidden, the intrest is on the hidden tank not the men and the focus and size of the image reflects this.
Was a change made in the MOS regarding the size of images bar maps etc ?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's perhaps longer than average, but it's a long article :) The lead follows the pattern of para 1: broad overview; subsequent paras: summary of article content. It's difficult to see what could be cut without reducing context to an extent that will leave the reader wondering. If you have any suggestions though, they'd be welcome. EyeSerenetalk 07:52, 14 October 2009 (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 17:30, 17 October 2009 [14].

Well Dunn

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all criteria for a Featured Article. It recently passed a GA review, and I believe that its comprehensiveness and verifiability make it an excellent FA candidate. A few notes about the sources:

  1. Because of the lack of published sources about match results on mid-1990s wrestling television shows, I have used "cite episode" references for several details. I got the results from Graham Cawthon's The History of WWE website and checked videos of each of the broadcasts to ensure the accuracy of the information. I do, in fact, have all of these events on tape and I have dug through the boxes in my basement to verify the information.
  2. Speaking of Graham Cawthon's website, it has not previously been accepted as a reliable source. I believe that its (relatively sparing) use in this article should be considered acceptable because (1) as stated above, the information on the website is consistently accurate, (2) the website's feedback, as seen here shows that it has received positive reviews from many industry experts, including wrestlers and wrestling journalists (book, magazine, and website); several of these authors, whose work is considered a reliable source due to the publications for which they write, refer to The History of WWE as a valuable resource, and (3) Graham Cawthon's status as an industry expert is supported by his position as a writer for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which is considered a reliable source.
  3. I have also used Online World of Wrestling for three minor facts. I believe that the nature of these facts, one of which is a wrestler's height and is not likely to be disputed, and the the other two of which are simply used to bridge a short gap in the article and are also not likely to be challenged, should not be seen as a hindrance to Featured Article status because they (as uncontroversial facts) are essentially superfluous and are included only for ease of reading. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Since little seems to be happening here, I thought I would stop by to offer a couple of prose comments. As it turns out, that's how many you're getting:

While I'm here, I remember the previous batch of wrestling articles at FAC had features like real-life names of wrestlers and explanations of jargon elements. I see some jargon explanations, but only the ring names of non-Well Done wrestlers are included. Did the project change their consensus on that recently? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the project changed consensus about the need for real names (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 71#Another pay-per-view related thread and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 71#Real names). I have tried to explain several terms when it could be done without disrupting the prose and left others wikilinked, as is common in other recently promoted Featured Articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (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 15:51, 13 October 2009 [18].

Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate

Nominator(s): –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... well, because I think that it meets the criteria. :) Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate passed a good article nomination back in June and was featured in DYK earlier that month. I've put a lot of work into the article, and feel that it is ready for this step. A few comments/clarifications for reviewers:

This article was tough to find good images for. Since it doesn't have an actual "box cover", being a download-only game, I just took the "placeholder" box art for use here. I also feel that having one screenshot is justified in most VG articles, and the current one was the most appropriate I could find with relation to the text itself.

The reliability of citations to the Neverwinter Nights 2 Vault has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Neverwinter Nights 2 Vault (permalink), with consensus appearing to lean towards its being OK in its current use here. Most other sources are considered reliable per WP:VG/S. Just RPG is not listed there as reliable or unreliable, but I feel that it is reasonable to include because of the amount of time that the site has been around and from looking at some of the site's "about us"-type pages. However, if this last source needs to be removed, I won't object too much; it's only being used in the reviews box as-is anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Initial comments: I'll have to look into the reliability issue later, because it's not just that they be reliable, but that they be high quality... anyhow, I don't see how File:Neverwinter Nights 2- Mysteries of Westgate wererat encounter.jpg meets WP:NFCC and FA image criteria. The graphics aren't the subject of substantial critical commentary in the reception section, and the wererat really isn't that important to understanding the topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:VGIMAGES guideline does say that "Screenshots are great for enhancing the comprehensiveness of articles, and all computer and video game articles should have at least a couple. Do not go overboard, because excessive placement of fair use images has been known to spark controversy and objection, especially with Featured Article candidates." and "Screenshots of video games should be used to identify as many unique or notable elements as possible, and keeping the number of such shots to a minimum." I feel that this particular image illustrates as many notable elements as possible (read: I couldn't find a good screenshot which would illustrate more), and it is only a single image. I feel that there are few cases when more than one screenshot can be well-justified, but a single screenshot to illustrate some gameplay element which is mentioned in the text and to show the game's general graphics passes NFCC. Finally, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all, but I still think that this is worth mentioning: most VG FAs do have one or two (or more!) screenshots, and (from the ones that I looked at), the rationales on those aren't real grand, either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • VGIMAGES is, of course, a guideline, which means it's subject to WP:NFCC policy. I'm not disputing that the image shows many different elements, and that's a good thing, but I don't feel it's met the criteria that removing it would be detrimental to our understanding, especially considering the gameplay is referring readers to another larger article anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good points; the reference to the main article does lead to a (better) screenshot of gameplay. I'll remove the screenshot, and look around to see if I can dig up any free image that would make the article look less bare. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you comment on your choice of sources in the Reception section? Why have you chosen a Russian language source? I have nothing against foreign sources, but you've used no actual input from the source other than the score. The same can be said for some others in the review table. Does it really add to the reception? - hahnchen 14:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I found that reception for this game was very limited; these are all the reliable reviews that I could find, presumably because the game is download-only and an expansion pack. The two aggregator sites which are only used in the reviews box are mainly there just so that there is more than one; additionally, the scores are different enough (unlike with most games), that it seems interesting. The Absolute Games review is also used to cite the system requirements (it was actually the only good source there seemed to be on the requirements from a secondary source). The GameStar review is also used in the text of the reception section. The Just RPG score I included mainly so that there were a few more reviews, but the reviewer didn't really say anything significant that wasn't already included in the section, IIRC (although I guess that means that having the review linked is kind of pointless. Hmm...) So I guess that Just RPG could be removed, but all the others seem important to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need a secondary source for a requirements reference. The game should provide this. The only occasion I'd see it being a problem is if the requirements are woefully understated to trap users into buying it. These are just observations, I'm not making a call on the article one way or another. - hahnchen 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I've switched to using a primary source (which has different requirements listed, oddly), and have removed the two "extra" reviews from the review box. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GameZone is listed at the video game sources guideline as being reliable, specifically citing this evidence for its reliability. It seems to be mostly published by a set of employees, not just any joe off the street, and has also been in existence for 13 years (no small feat for any website, and even more unlikely for one which seems unreliable).
GamesRadar is likewise listed at WP:VG/S as a reliable source because it is in the same network as PC Gamer and Computer and Video Games. It is published by Future plc. Discussion of GamesRadar's reliability is located here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks good to me, just a couple of issues:

  • Is the system requirement box necessary? If it is, could it be auto-collapsed? I personally don't think they're necessary, but I guess other PC FAs would provide a precedent. Thoughts?
  • Does the ESRB rating in the infobox need an inline? The rest of the infobox does without.
  • Where exactly in Faerûn is Westgate?
  • Who is the player character, and what led them this mask? Where was the mask discovered?

Keep up the good work. — Vantine84 (t – c) 03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; I'll work on some of these today. On the system requirements box, a number of VG FAs do have them already, so I was really just following by example (I don't have an opinion one way or another). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In-game, is the PC's origin intended to be a mystery? — Vantine84 (t – c) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source indicates what the PC's origin is, and I don't have a copy of the game, but I'd assume that if you import a character then you can just use the same backstory and that you can create a new storyline for new characters, just including the "finding the mask" part. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support
    • One pet peeve I have is reception sections that list publications but not critics. It's generally individual critics who review games, not an unnamed staff member, and it's better to credit them since it's their opinions.
    • I feel like there should be more of an attempt to introduce the characters and mechanics, especially as someone who doesn't play D&D and has no idea what anything in it is.
    • I went through and performed a copyedit, you should check my edits.
    • In the lead it says Atari asked Ossian to develop the game, but the body states the reverse.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I feel like an ogre (ha!) for being nitpicky, but I believe the prose is not up to the FA standard. One major reason is the overabundance of the passive voice. For example: "Characters are moved and commanded with the mouse." To make it active voice (which is preferred), the subject of the sentence should be doing the action. Thus: "The player moves and commands characters with the mouse." This problem shows up in a number of other spots as well. (Also: WP:ELLIPSIS indicates that no brackets are needed around ellipses, except in one rare circumstance.)

Another concern: I haven't done the necessary research, but this statement seems implausible: "Mysteries of Westgate's storyline is unrelated to Neverwinter Nights 2 or its other expansions." Is there really no connection at all? If not, the reader deserves some kind of clarification — why not release it as a separate title? Also, the lead begins by saying it's a computer role-playing game, but then indicates that it's an expansion pack. I don't see how it can be both. (If, as I suspect, the "computer role-playing game" phrase is provided for the purposes of the wikilink, then we can just pipe that link to "computer role-playing" and follow it immediately with "expansion pack".)

The "System Requirements" box seems odd without a colored bar as the header. (It looks like an image was deleted from that space.) Is this standard? Can it be tweaked so that section doesn't look so odd?

The primary editor(s) have clearly done a lot of work on research and composition; this is a good-looking article overall. But I feel that the above work still needs to be done before I can give it my support. (I also wish I had the time and not-being-sick-ness to offer a copyedit of my own, but alas — I do not.) Scartol • Tok 16:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review; I will try to work on these issues and I'll leave you a note on your talk page when I think they have been fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the statement you asked about, I believe that it is correct. It is sourced, and the very nature of Neverwinter Nights 2 allows it to be expanded upon without connection to the "original" storyline. As an "adventure pack", Westgate is designed to have a stand-alone storyline, whereas the two official "expansion" packs are (IIRC) connected to the main tale. Westgate is unconnected from the main story the same way that all of the user-created levels for NWN2 are. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have the time today to work more on the active/passive change; I'll try and do the rest tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of your questions, except for what I mentioned above, has been resolved, I think. I had some trouble with the passive → active change, but I think I got all the spots which stood out to me. If you notice any others, please let me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better, but there are still problems: "the content of these quests depends on which faction was sided with" and "other distributors were added" are two examples that appear at first glance. Other sentences concern me too: "When Miranda was asked why the game was made available only through download, he replied..." Is this necessary? Either we should learn who asked, or just get to the point he was making. Also: "...but it was further delayed. It was finally released..." This repetition isn't too groovy.
These are just examples; I think the whole article needs another coat of copyedit paint. I believe you've had an independent copyedit, but I think another is needed. (And again, I wish I had time to offer to do it myself.) Scartol • Tok 23:49, 12 October 2009 (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 15:51, 13 October 2009 [19].

Attachment theory

Nominator(s): Fainites, Jean Mercer


I am nominating this for featured article. It has undergone a comprehensive peer review by Delldot and a subsequent check-up. It is a huge subject but I hope this article conveys the essentials. I am aware it is somewhat long - but it's not alone in that. Fainites barleyscribs 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to a co-nom to include Jean Mercer.Fainites barleyscribs 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I've just seen the bit that says "do not edit above here". Sorry.Fainites barleyscribs 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Piaget. Will do alt text. Fainites barleyscribs 07:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Alt text.Fainites barleyscribs 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll have a lot to say about this article, but would like to start with some initial impressions. First, the coverage of the ideas of proponents is impressive. The prose is a bit puffy in many places -- a copy-edit with the aim of tightening it would benefit the article. Some important things are missing, for example the Strange Situation Protocol, the predominant test of attachment in young children, is mentioned but not described, although it is extensively discussed in the companion article Attachment in children. More importantly, the article does not pay sufficient attention to the empirical data concerning the validity of the theory -- it is discussed only in a cursory way. Also, the shift in the nature-vs-nurture debate over the past two decades has given rise to a great deal of interest in the biology of attachment, which is treated very incoherently in the article. In fact, the historical section only comes down to the "1980s on". Finally (for now), let me point you to a lengthy new review by Marco del Giudice that just appeared (with commentary) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, and can be downloaded in PDF form here. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with your comments in turn; firstly thanks for the kind words. Secondly - I will add a brief description of the SSP. Thirdly, I'm not clear quite what is wanted on empirical data. There's masses of it which is why I went for the Rutter quote that the tenets have braodly been supported by empirical research. Do you want an over view of the types of research? Fourthly, I will add a section on biology but I'm a bit twitchy about getting into neuroscience because it's all so new and untested.Fainites barleyscribs 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I feel that "tenets are broadly supported" is not enough info for an article like this. The really important tenets (as I see it) are that (1) attachment in infants is primarily determined by the behavior of caregivers, and (2) attachment during infancy has consequences for personality that extend into adult life. These are both generally supported by the existing data, but remain controversial. Another key point is that attachment is measured in different ways at different points in life, so there is a question of whether the same entity is being measured by all of them. Here the data are limited and not all that consistent, as I see it. I agree that you shouldn't get into neuroscience. Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Measurement of attachment is a whole 'nother issue. I started adding to an article on that at Attachment measures that previously just outlined the SSP and the AAI but it needs alot of work. I'll try and add a synopsis of the measurement issues.Fainites barleyscribs 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief description of the SSP, added some material on biology and amalgamated it with what there was in a new section and moved the passage on effects of insecure classificationas on children to a more prominent position under Attachment patterns. Will look again tomorrow.Fainites barleyscribs 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "significance" section to deal with consequences of attachment patterns and beefed up the material on that and on the SSP and difficulties of measurement.Fainites barleyscribs 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also added a brief passage on the adaptive changes in attachment insecurity patterns in middle childhood and some more on long term effects.Fainites barleyscribs 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The test is that 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. I think the picture fulfils this criteria, but the article could survive quite happily without it if necessary. Pity though.Fainites barleyscribs 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the image meets NFCC #8, but we do need to have the source and copyright holder. Without that information, we can't include it, no matter what the decision is on NFCC #8. Awadewit (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has this image been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source and copyright holder have still not been added. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no response from the uploader and although the image is easily available on the web there's no clue as to the copyright holder. There are even videos on YouTube of KL and his geese. I have an alternative image from commons of an elk I can use for now until I can track down the necessary details - which I can probably do if I get a moment to get to a decent library some time. Pity.Fainites barleyscribs 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The captions for the various images are uninspiring. Not only that but they cover rather the same as the Alternative text does, something which is discouraged if I'm not mistaken. Captions such as "Ready to explore" are actually un-encyclopaedic. At the moment the simplicity and lack of care on captions is discouraging further reading the article. Which is a real shame, because it looks as if it tackles the subject in real depth and with quality writing. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions gratefully received.Fainites barleyscribs 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. My first suggestion is to cut down from the two pictures currently in the lead to just one. Preferably a picture of a family, something could be said of how attachment will develop probably first between parents (as pictured) or similar. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll try that Eskimo family in the lead. I've had a go at the other captions too.Fainites barleyscribs 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly improved. I may have a few more issues (pending a thorough read of the article that time at the moment doesn't allow for), but my issue of captions is resolved. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Fainites barleyscribs 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Measures of attachment: I just want to point out that the weakness of the Del Giudice article is the citation of so many different measures for school-age children. There is no dominant measurement method for that age group, so any discussion that depends on events during that period will be quite tricky to assess. In addition, a question here is, "historically speaking, what exactly is attachment theory"? At what point did Bowlby's theory end-- or has it ended? It might be wise to state limiting dates for the subject matter covered here-- then perhaps have a section for updates as they come along. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I amalgamated history and criticism and ended up with sections marked 70s and 80s. Controversies came and went. Currently attachment theory survives. Probably because it's adaptable.Fainites barleyscribs 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Current ref 4 (Schaffer) needs page numbers done

  • Likewise current ref 34 (Ainsworth...)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 35 (Ainsworth...)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 44 (Goldberg...)(now 46)gone - replaced with new section
  • Likewise current ref 60 (Fonagy...)refers to whole book
  • Likewise current ref 75 (Suttie...)refers to whole book
  • Likewise current ref 78 (Fildes...)refers to whole book
  • Current ref 84 (Spitz...) is lacking publisher and other bibliographic details.done
  • Current refs 93, 98, 99, 100, 101, 107 (Bowlby...) is lacking a page number changed from cite to ref except for current 101 - done
  • Likewise current ref 104 (Tinbergen...)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 116 (Freud...)refers to whole book
  • LIkewise curent ref 122 (Craik....)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 123 (Johnson-Laird...)done
  • Likewise current ref 141 (Harris...)done
  • Likewise current ref 142 (Pinker...)done
  • Likewise current ref 143 (Kagan...)done
  • Likewise current ref 145 (Schaffer...)done
  • Likewise current ref 159 (Sable...)referencing whole book as an example
  • Likewise current ref 161 (johnson...)referencing whole book as an example
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there was me thinking I'd done page numbers. I'll strike them as I do them OK? Fainites barleyscribs 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just put a little done after them when you've done them so I can strike. You actually did well, with the number of refs you have, you can expect a few glitches just because we're all human. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now I look at it there is a category error with some of these. For example where Bowlby read and used someone else's work the reference should be to where Bowlby or a secondary source says he did, not to what he read. That should be in a bibliography or refs. I'll sort this tomorrow.Fainites barleyscribs 22:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support

It has been many years since I bought and read Bowlby's Attachment and Loss trilogy (and then half-read the control system book referenced in Loss), so I'm delighted to see such a comprehensive article on Attachment Theory. I do have a few concerns though.

  • You are unlikely to find a more sympathetic reviewer than I for such a topic, but even I found the article difficult to read from start to finish. You might consider reducing its length.
  • I felt that the first third (up to the end of section 4) was very well written and comprehensible, even though it used the technical terms of the field, so were sections 6 and 8. However, I tuned out a little in Section 5 (Attachment in Adults), Section 7 (Biology of Attachment) and Section 9 (Practical Applications). I will leave the authors to decide if these sections need reworking or reduction. This is about all the time I have. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I think Bowlby's 1951 WHO book was sold in the UK and the British Commonwealth as Child Care and the Growth of Love. Or maybe it was a popular spin-off of the WHO book. You might want to mention it in the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed! I agree it's long. I keep trying to reduce it but the damn thing keeps expanding. The attachment in adults section may reflect my own complete lack of interest in that topic. Anyway - I will look again with fresh eyes. You are right about Child Car and the Growth of Love in that there was a spin off for public consumption.Fainites barleyscribs 07:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome. One approach to reducing the text would be to create a section, "Biological foundations, extensions, and practical applications," in which you could summarize in three or four paragraphs the contents of section 5, 7 and 9, and provide links to main articles. You would then have four sections of well-written but technical material, the reader would then get a breather with the history section, and the article would conclude with this new section. Such a change, in my view, would not make the article less comprehensive. (Just a thought.)
A couple of other things came to mind as I was reading the article. Do you really want to use the word "dummies" to describe Harry Harlow's mothers? I vaguely remember the "felt" and "wire-mesh" mothers. I wonder if the more explicit description might be more informative to the reader. Also, on the nexus between modern psychoanalysis and attachment theory, I (like many) have wondered what similarities there might between Heinz Kohut's maternal (mirroring) self-object and Bowlby's attachment figure (caregiver), and between Kohut's "transformation of narcissism" and Bowlby (healthy) separation from the mother. A few minutes ago, I Googled the two and a 2005 paper abstract of a study of seven papers: “Selfobject” Needs in Kohut's Self Psychology: Links With Attachment, Self-Cohesion, Affect Regulation, and Adjustment, showed up. Also showing up was, Peter Fonagy's book, where he (explicitly) talks about this: Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis. I wonder if you think a sentence or two about this might be worthy of inclusion. (I'm guessing this is how the article attained its current heft!  :)) You don't have to agree to any of this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Harlow actually talks about "surrogate mothers" and "mother surrogates" so I've put that in instead. Another kilobyte. I'll read up a bit on the psychoanalysis angle again to see if there's any way of encapsulating it - unless you can think of something pithy? The article does deal with Fonagy a bit (in developments somewhere I think) with mentalization providing a sort of bridge.Fainites barleyscribs 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support - In general, this looks like a thorough and well-written article. It is taking me several days to thoroughly review the article, though. I will weigh in further when I have finished my review. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not be able to finish my review as I have a herniated disk and can't easily sit at my computer. The article is sourced to sources of the highest caliber and all images except the non-free image pass inspection (see above). I, too, think the article could be reduced in size a bit by reducing some repetition of topics - this is what I was working on suggesting, but I cannot finish that now. At the sentence level, I think the prose is good. I did some copyediting as I was reading and the "puffiness" in the writing, while there, is not serious and is very difficult to remove (I've left some examples at the article talk page). I should say that I am not an expert in this field at all and broadly skeptical of it, so I appreciated when the article explained the competing theories and mentioned when theories were not fully supported by evidence. There were a few places that I thought this could have been done more, but I can't go into this now. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful views, pointers and copy-edits so far Awadewit. I've had a go at puffiness, as have some other helpful editors. Now down to 121 kb instead of 126 overall. You just concentrate on getting better.Fainites barleyscribs 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Fainites, I feel the article is too long, and there are problems with the writing -- and those issues are connected, in that a good tightening would go a long way to resolving the length issues. Just looking at the lead -- too many words; first paragraph: "needs a secure relationship to" is poor, as is "was originated by." You say Bowlby was ostracized but you don't say why. Some sentences read as though they come from a social work department trying to justify its own existence, and it's not clear what they really mean e.g., "Attachment concepts have been incorporated into existing therapeutic interventions and used to found attachment-based interventions. There are current efforts to evaluate a number of interventions and treatment approaches based on applications of attachment theory. Attachment theory concepts have also been utilised in the formulation of various social and child-care policies."

    I would copy edit it, but I'm worried I'd remove key terms that I don't understand the importance of, and the citation templates would make copy editing quite difficult. Ideally, someone knowledgeable on the subject needs to go through the article and remove every word, sentence, and paragraph that doesn't have a clear function within the text. If you'd remove the citation templates and insert short refs instead (<ref>Smith 2009, p. 1.</ref>), it would make editing for flow a lot easier. I'd also try to keep technical terms to a minimum, partly for the reader, but also partly for the writer, because an over-use of technical terms can serve to obscure that the text is less meaningful than the author believes.

    The writing apart, my memory of this research is that infants become attached to any primary caregiver, not only to a sensitive or adult one, as the lead says, though it's been a very long time since I read any Bowlby so I could be completely wrong. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SV. Dealing with the points one at a time 1) the article is being copy edited as we speak. The lead has aready been copy-edited and simplified by two editors in the course of this FAC. If you're concerned about copy-editing some meaning away, could you make some copy-editing suggestions here so I have a better idea of what you mean? I think on the concepts bit I could just remove the middle sentence which would be a start. (I've just managed to remove a kilobyte by removing extraneous words.)2) Sorry but I don't understand what you mean about the refs. I have used short refs for where I am referring to books and papers more than once. 3) yes the attachment system is robust but for attachment at least some response is required. I'll see if I can word it better.Fainites barleyscribs 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About 2, did you know they just added a feature to Template:reflist that lets you put the whole ref inside the template, just leaving the little <ref name="blah"/> in the body? I just learned this and about died of happiness. delldot ∇. 06:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that delldot.Fainites barleyscribs 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Hi there, i'm giving the article a pour through. I'll leave comments as they come. JoeSmack Talk 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Need refs in the opening few sentences. I'm not going to take your word on the official definition of attachment theory without it. Put some in the ainsworth-third-paragraph in the lead too.
  • "Theorists extended attachment theory to adults." in the lead. If you can't tell me who the theorists are in the lead (and i suspect you don't want to overwhelm people) then you need to remove the sentence, or just say, 'which was later extended to adult attachment refrefrefref'.
  • Pick three or four sentences in the last lead paragraph and toss or move the rest. Like people have said, this is a wordy article. The lead should focus the topic, not broaden it. Also the last two sentences of the lead I don't believe without a reference. (I bet you can see i'm an empiricist by now, huh.)
There's nothing in the lead that isn't referenced in the article. I can easily reference it - but does everything in the lead (a summary) need to be referenced?
Not everything, but if you say something definitive it should be clear who defined it. A definition of attachment theory counts. Mentioning a paragon in the field like Ainsworth for the first time - ref that sucker. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done some reffs. Not too many though.Fainites barleyscribs 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reason is inherent in the theory which proposes that the need for safety and protection, paramount in infancy and childhood, is the basis of the bond." - That sentence needs to be more clear. The theory of attachment espouses the reason behind such bonds is the need for safety and protection, especially important in infancy and childhood. Something like that. Also you can't give the definition of attachment without a reference. Also you need to explain what/who is an attachment figure. I know that is a primary caregiver, but other editors might not.
It is referenced. No.10. Have reworded and added "caregiver".
Is it a quote? If so put quotes around it. If it can be changed around for gosh sakes do it, because the first 10 words are a trainwreck. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Its now ref no. 13.Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost from the first, many children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour." What is attachment behavior? It looks like you wait until the next subsection to explain it, but you use the term here. I'm seeing the use of figure here now instead of attachment figure or primary caregiver or parental caregiver. Carer? Is there going to be consistency throughout?
OK. Have reworded some caregivers/attachment figures, but they are not always the same thing! As for explaining "behaviours" - I need to explain attachment and attachment behaviours as it is a behavioural system. One has to come first! I thought it might get a little messy if I started explaining behaviours in the middle of explaining attachment. Do you see the problem? I'll try a few things and see how it looks.
I know, but you start to ask me (the reader) to keep a LOT in my head, and when stuff switches around it just gets jumbly. If you start talking about attachment behaviors before I know what they are it'll alienate me. Just sayin'. You'll find a way. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added the briefest description of early attachment behaviours possible.Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the "Attachment" section should probably be two. The later part, which is where you are explaining rapprochement i believe (in fact, why don't you just call it that?), should have it's own section and be spelled out simply, perhaps with an example. Even an illustration would be kickass, cause it is really important to grok for attachment theory.
Done - but which bit do you mean by the rapprochement bit?Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current 2nd/3rd paragraph in 'Attachment' is a description of rapprochement. At least I was always taught that term for it, secure/insecure base, the start of attachment patterns et. al. JoeSmack Talk 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a psychoanalysis thing really. Mahler.Fainites barleyscribs 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth paragraph can be shorter. Like: babies form attachments with sensitive primary caregivers, which is usually the mother (ref). It actually can be anyone who acts in a sensitive mothering way, but it is usually mom. Research shows it is the quality over the quantity of time spent with the child that is most important (ref). Done.
Done (ish).Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clear-cut attachment develops in the third phase, between the ages of six months to two years." Um, suddenly we're talking about phases? You don't mention one and two directly (you don't say phase one is this, phase two is this). It may be helpful to subsection this or illustrate a timeline with a graphic or table or something.
Done.Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Tenants" subsection is overwhelming, but the topics are obviously important. Just having a list isn't the best solution though. Some can be just mentioned (i.e. robustness of development) and/or wikilinked to their own article (i.e. adaptiveness and critical period) as opposed to bullet-pointing. Some should be moved all together (internal working model is probably better for the sig of attachment or adult attachment sections). Some of it is just too indepth for a general article on attachment honestly, and should be in a subarticle on a branch of the topic (i.e. monotropy).
Hmmm. Tricky. Some people think monotropy is the big thing and there's a lot of misinformation out there about ATheory. I'll have a think about this.Fainites barleyscribs 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just how unhappy are you with the tenets section? The thing is, attachment theory is at once both simpler and more complicated than many think and a lot of work went into trying to set out clearly what it's basic tenets were and the extent to which they have been supported or modified where that is known. I really don't want to make the tenets section any more general or lose any clarity there.Fainites barleyscribs 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried turning the tenets section into an ordinary section here. What do you think? Fainites barleyscribs 21:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced list with more conventionally writen section.Fainites barleyscribs 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'm going to stop right there for now. I don't mean to be carping or picky, i'm just a thorough guy. JoeSmack Talk 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get onto it - although I should say, having refs in the lead is a bit of a controversial topic. I can easily put them in - but someone else will probably want them out! Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I never like saying something with weight without having a supportive ref. Especially with psych stuff. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just recently told to take refs out of the lead in a GA nom. The rationale was that the lead should be a summary, so the info should be ref'd within the article. If there's something in the lead that's not in the body that's a problem. delldot ∇. 01:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says? I think it should be a summary too, but if you can, why not ref it? The numbers are distracting or some such? JoeSmack Talk 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia said to me before citations in the lead on quotes, hard data, or anything surprising or likely to be challenged.. That was in relation to attachment therapy being responsible for the deaths of 6 children.Fainites barleyscribs 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess put me in the surprised/challenging category. ;) JoeSmack Talk 16:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) I just want to say, you're doing a fine job on this FAC - I appreciate your dedication, diligence and most of all patience. Psych articles are among the hardest to push through to GA/FA. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Psych articles can be a bit in the "nailing a jelly to the ceiling" category. Fainites barleyscribs 18:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - According to MoS - Section headings, the title of the article should not be repeated in the section headings as the section headings should be unique. Thus to conform, the section heading "Attachment theory" should be changed, as the whole article entitled Attachment theory. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the MOS says should preferably be unique within a page but it's probably best to change it. Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
Issues resolved, Ben MacDui 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long - especially paragraph 4.
The only bit that can be sensibly cut is the section on criticism but the the criticisms can't be easily summarised in one brief sentence. What would you suggest? Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it down just to mention there is criticism from a variety of disciplines. The various criticisms over the years have been built into the articles.Fainites barleyscribs 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attachment
"Within attachment theory, attachment means a bond or tie between an individual and an attachment figure (usually a caregiver). I do not believe the second italics is merited for attachment figure.
DoneFainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenets
"The human evolution" - surely no need for the "the".
" the environment of early adaptation" - of the child or the species? I think you mean the latter.
" Experience as essential factor in attachment:" Better as "an essential factor"? Ditto " Social interactions as cause of attachment:"
" they do so in ways shaped by relationships, not by individual experiences." On a first read, this made no sense to me. I think it may be better as "not by the individual child's experiences."
Done.Fainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes in attachment
"Young children's attachment representations are typically assessed in relation to particular figures, as it appears there are limitations in their thinking limiting their ability to integrate relationship experiences into a single general model." Clumsy duplicate use of "limit"
"During middle childhood, some children may begin to develop a generally consistent representation of attachment relationships, although this may not occur until adolescence." I don't know what this means.
"Relationships formed with peers influence the acquisition of social skills, intellectual development and the formation of social identity. Classification of children's peer status (popular, neglected or rejected) has been found to predict subsequent adjustment; however, as with attachment to parental figures, subsequent experiences may well alter the course of development. " If, in general, "the evidence suggests peers do not become attachment figures", why are these sentences relevant?
Its a different point. Peers as attachment figures as opposed to attachment status making a difference to peer relationships. I've put it in a separate paragraph. Rest done.Fainites barleyscribs 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attachment patterns
Where is "the Ganda" (poss Canada, Uganda…)
Old name for part of Uganda. Uganda will be fine though.Fainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
Re alt text:
General comment: we can't know the adults are parents/ a mother/ a father
The picture description says they're parents.Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Young couple - how can we see it's a park? The dominant feature of the image - the woman's hair - is not mentioned.
"Road to Catastrophe" should be in italics, not quotes.
Khmer boy - we can see he is of Asiatic origin, but we can't know he is Khmer.
The picture description says they're Khmer.Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALT being relatively new I can't be certain about this, but my understanding is that the idea is describe only what is seen, not to interpret it and add facts from the description. Ben MacDui 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DoneFainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done alt texts Fainites barleyscribs 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long article and I have run out of steam. I'll try and conclude soon. Ben MacDui 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Correction - this is a very long article. Here are a few more comments;[reply]

When I started re-reading at the Attachment patterns section my immediate impression was that it contained material already mentioned above. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well there's attachment as such and then within that, different patterns of attachment. Is that what you meant?Fainites barleyscribs 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Robert Hinde expressed concern with the use of the word "attachment" to imply that it was an intervening variable or a hypothesised internal mechanism rather than a data term...." You may be unsurprised to hear that I am not a psychologist. I did my best, but I could not grasp the meaning of this paragraph and Mr Hinde's doubtless important insights.
OK. Will reword.Fainites barleyscribs 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Fainites barleyscribs 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinical practice in children
Although attachment theory has become a major scientific theory of socioemotional development with one of the broadest, deepest research lines in modern psychology, attachment theory has, until recently, been less clinically applied.." This may mean that it has been less rigorously applied or perhaps applied less often in clinics, or both. I wasn't sure.
OK. It means they haven't used it. I'll reword.Fainites barley Done.Fainites barleyscribs 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)scribs 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression - there is no question you get full marks for comprehensiveness. My main query is simply that after two goes, I still haven't finished reading it - I skipped a chunk of the formulation section. Neither brevity nor holding my interest are requirements for an FA, but I can't support an article I have not even read all the way through. If I have not replied by Saturday, feel free to badger me. Ben MacDui 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Fainites barleyscribs 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for dealing with the above. Final comments - trivialities:

The link to behaviourism is in italics - I don't know why.
You could link to the wikipedia article on Homeostasis rather than the wiktionary definition.
Unless it has become very commonly used in the English-speaking world, amae should probably be italicised. Ben MacDui 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Fainites barleyscribs 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address my comment above about the fundamental MoS heading violation. It is important. According to MoS - Section headings, the title of the article should not be repeated in the section headings as the section headings should be unique. Thus to conform, the section heading "Attachment theory" should be changed, as the whole article entitled Attachment theory. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed some 14 hours ago and I replied to your first mention of it above.Fainites barleyscribs 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not tell, in all the comments. Thank you. That is an improvement. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have anything to link "internal working model" to in the lead? It is a specific idea that is a common theme in psychodynamic psychotherapy.
Unfortunately not. I've tried this before and all that comes up is the attachment pages or engineering stuff and a few weird and wonderful ideas on working memory. It probably is worth it's own article someday.Fainites barleyscribs 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Internal working model" could be linked to the brief article on Kenneth Craik, to whom Bowlby attributed the idea. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which then leads to...oh dear - Mental model needs a bit of a spit'n'boot polish...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.Fainites barleyscribs 08:26, 7 October 2009 (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 15:51, 13 October 2009 [20].

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly improved since the prior PR and the building is now complete which should resolve some of the prior issues. I have removed a lot of the restaurant detail and created a separate article. The detail in this article is exemplary. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The alt text is very good, especially considering all those images. One suggestion, though, the alt text for the infobox map doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map, e.g., that the Trump Tower is on the north side of the river, facing southeast over the river, and overlooking the river's final ten-block-long straight passage east to the lake. Could you please reword it so that it says something along those lines? Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate all the images this article has, however I don't think they are utilized all that well. There are 21 images in the article, making the entire thing rather cluttered. I wouldn't have a problem with this if the images seemed to connect with and reinforce the passages they are inserted into, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I also don't think the article needs 10 images of the building's construction, especially when many of them look incredibly similar to one another. I am also not the biggest fan of the images' captions. They do little to actually engage the reader and explain their significance. I am less interested in where the photo was taken and what peripheral buildings are present and more interested in what the photo is telling me about Trump Tower and why. Also, "Zoned schools" shouldn't be a section if there is only one sentence about it. --TorsodogTalk 20:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed a four redundant images, rearranged several others and moved the school text. Do you have a problem with the two images of the spire being placed atop the building? If you would like one removed state your preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the delayed response. I don't normally comment on FACs. Anyways, I think two images are overkill. They both essentially show the same thing from the same view. I would prefer if there was only one image, but I do not have a preference about which is removed. --TorsodogTalk 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate my reply to Tony on my talk page, I'm either awaiting his changes (such as "check with Raime") or unconvinced by the statements. I'm looking for reasons why they are reliable, that aren't sourced to the sites themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-image review comment: There are far too many images currently used within the article, many of which are repetitive and don't add anything to the article. I would recommend that you try to cut down the images to ones that are only used to illustrate a particular important point, and have only one image for each point. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am having trouble distancing myself from the article enough to remove further images.
      • I would agree that one more of the helicopter should be removed, but am not sure which one it should be.
      • I think the image of the Sun-Times building help to show the neigboring features discussed in the adjacent text as well as other text.
      • I think the panorama helps show the neighborhood the building is in.
      • I think three construction photos is reasonable given all the detail presented in the text about construction.
      • The images of Ivanka are discussed in the text.
      • The tall image with the elevated tracks is so picturesque that I think it should stay for perspective.
    • I am requesting advice on further removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nuke asked me to take a look at this. I've removed what I felt were excessive images, giving my reasons in the edit summaries. Tony, it would be nice if, in the future, you tried to address this problem before FAC. I remember this issue of over-illustration being raised in other FACs you've brought. I realize that it is very difficult to get away from one's own work, but when we know our own weaknesses, we can also find a way around them, such as asking for help before FAC! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying over my comment from RSN: I think you're in uncharted territories. I support it's inclusion. It's like our exceptions to the OR policy with regard to images. To comply with the NFCC, we have to take what we can get. And, that map looks like it was made using professional data, not someone on a bike. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (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 15:44, 13 October 2009 [21].

Malaysia

Nominator(s): BejinhanTalk 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that this article meets all the criteria for featured article status. This article has been a FA candidate before but was not given FA status. Since the last nomination, major work and expansion has been done on this article. BejinhanTalk 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refs mix ISO-style (YYYY-MM-DD) and Day Month Year dates pretty evenly. Pick and use one for all of them. There's also a bunch of "bare" URL citations (no title or other info) and I noticed that ref 84 says "Retrieved December."—on what day and year? --an odd name 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the date-format issue but the other citation problems (and there are many of them) remain. Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done BejinhanTalk 03:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid it's not done. No alt text has been added, although some captions have been modified. Please read WP:ALT: it describes the difference between alt text and captions, and what should go into alt text. Eubulides (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started adding alt texts; there are still lots to do. --JN466 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. The numerical data given in the lead differ from the data given in the infobox. (I would suggest that most of the numerical data in the first paragraph of the lead are not required; but at any rate, editors have to decide which figures are more up to date, or more reliable.)
  2. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not have more than four paragraphs. Perhaps the fourth paragraph, giving details of Malaysia's population, could be integrated in the first, which also mentions population. (Something like "The majority of its population of 27 million is formed by ...")
  3. It seems to me the lead may contain too much detailed information, with the result that the reader is a little overwhelmed with detail and "can't see the wood for the trees." I'd suggest going through the lead and scrutinising it for what is essential for a general overview, and what is expendable, given that the body of the article goes into all the details. --JN466 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected I've removed the paragraph about the Malaysian population because the information given there is the same as the information in the 'Demographics' section. BejinhanTalk 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are several wikilinks to disambiguation pages: [22] These should be rerouted to the specific pages containing the most appropriate information. --JN466 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected BejinhanTalk 02:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Terms like Sabah and Sarawak should generally only be linked at their first occurrence, rather than being wikilinked each time they occur. (For further guidance, see Wikipedia:Wikilink#Repeated_links.) --JN466 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected BejinhanTalk 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected and cleaned up this article following the above suggestions. BejinhanTalk 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In the lead we now say the landmass is 329,845 sq km, as we do in the infobox. It is good that the figures match between lead and infobox. But in the lead, we still cite the CIA World Fact Book, which says it is 329,847, as well as Article 1 of the Malaysian Constitution, which, at least in the version we have in Wikisource, does not give any numerical figure at all. The value given in the infobox is wikilinked to 1_E+11_m², where the area (unsourced) is different again (329,750 km2). The area ranking in the infobox, 66th in the world, is linked to List of countries and outlying territories by total area, where the area (unsourced) is once more different, i.e. 330,803 km2. In the absence of any cleverer ideas, I suggest choosing one value and one source (i.e. 329,847 km2 per the CIA World Facts Book, since this seems to be the only source actually cited in any of these articles for Malaysia's area), and sticking with it. --JN466 17:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The first three paragraphs in the Prehistory section are unsourced. Could you add the sources the material is taken from? JN466 13:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A great article, but personally not quite FA standard yet; several paragraphs and sections are without citations and there are some more minor issues. A few things:

  • Lead:
    • "term that is similar to King", shouldn't this be "position" or "title"?
  • Etymology:
    • "He favoured the former.", awkward, please incorporate fluidly into the previous sentence or drop it.
  • History > Prehistory:
    • What does "island Southeast Asia" mean exactly?
  • Early history:
  • Oppose — There is a huge problem with the citations. There are not enough of them and large parts of the text are not sourced. Taking a quick look at the references. Refs 4 and 8 are footnotes. Reference 23 is weird, to support the statement, "Anthropologists support the notion that the Proto Malays originated from what is today Yunnan, China" a long, long list of badly formatted and often incomplete sources is given. Reference 16 no longer exists. References 20 and 21 give no publisher or date. I would like to know what makes Sabrizan.org (refs 26-28) a reliable source. Ref 41 requires a subscription. Ref 51 needs to give more details and ref 70 is badly formatted. In the sources only one ISBN number is actually given and there are only six of them in the references proper (most of these are pairs that refer to the same source). This is a very poorly prepared candidate and I suggest withdrawing to allow time to address these serious issues. Graham Colm Talk 09:34, 11 October 2009 (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 15:44, 13 October 2009 [23].

2006 New Jersey State Government shutdown

Nominator(s): Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a stable GA for over a year, and I see little chance of additional facts or sources coming up in the future. I have recently made some minor changes to update date formats and alt text for images, but other edits have been minimal. I should have nominated it earlier, but was on a rather long wikibreak for a while. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered more descriptive text for the photos used. Hadn't read all the way through WP:ALT. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's getting better. A few more suggestions; please remove the two phrases like "Photographic portrait of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Remove the phrase "Bally's Atlantic City" as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Transcribe the headline of that notice's text, as per WP:ALT#Text. Describe a bit what Corzine looks like (like, he's got a beard, he's balding, he's wearing a black coat and tie), as per WP:ALT#Portraits. The basic idea here is: if the reader can't see the images, what would you tell them over the phone to briefly describe the images? Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Three deadlinks in the link checker tool.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links have been cleared, except for one that I can only find behind a pay wall. Will change to print reference. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - At this time, the issues with the article have been addressed and corrected, I'd now like to officially say I support this article. --ZeWrestler Talk 01:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an issue of preference with no right answer, but on the Comprehensiveness requirement... this article seems to go for the "sleek summary that gets to the point" style. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't help but feel a little more detail wouldn't hurt. The "Causes" section doesn't detail much about the budget problems, or the politics behind them, other than "Corzine wanted a tax increase, Legislature Democrats dragged their feet." I'll grant that most readers would find that legislative wrangling extremely boring, but perhaps a little more in executive summary style? Most notably, I'd be tempted to move some of the info from the "political influences" section to the causes. Yes, the shutdown may have affected the Senate race... but I expect the legislators were far more concerned about their *own* election (since Florio did get kicked out of office in 93, after all, and it was the exact same issue - a raise from 6% to 7% of the sales tax...). Feel free to ignore me or say the current setup works better, but my two cents. (Also, since I looked it up: The last ref "N.J. Budget With Tax Increases Likely To Influence U.S. Senate Race" is to a dead link. Not that this really matters. Couldn't find an archive.org archive either, alas.) SnowFire (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superb thoughts toward improvement, and I have spent some time trying to determine how it could be achieved. I found, and updated, an archive.org copy of one of the WNBC articles, but not the others. I found new references to replace the others, and have updated them as well. Regarding the other comments, I am having trouble finding sources that make such critical conclusions. While the sources we have support some of the results, and I am sure sources could be found on more of the causes of the crisis at the time, trying to get into a causational relationship in this article would require us to violate either WP:SYN, WP:OR, or both. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased support - As a hater of New Jersey politicians and I live in this dumbfounded state, I will support this article for the FAC criteria and the fact that its a good shot in the face. Also, I have one slight issue. Certain links in citations are used more than once (The NY Times, State of New Jersey). Also, AP Online should be spelled out, even though AP is a common name. Anyway great job with our dopey politics.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 01:59, 7 October 2009 (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 15:44, 13 October 2009 [24].

Ethan Hawke

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for featured article status because I have expanded the article and have brought it to GA status and one peer review process and has since been copy-edited. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Current ref 80 deadlinks [25]
    • Replaced with cite journal.
  • Current ref 75 is cited to "The Broadway League" when it is imdb.
    • Removed.
  • Current refs 8, 62, 70, 79, 84, 93, 94, 99, 100 have a different citing convention to the others, i.e. they make use of "p." to show page number.
  • Current refs 36, 56, 62, 73, 77, 80, 83, 92 have a publisher citation whereas all the other ones don't. Pick one style and stick to it throughout for uniformity, especially since all works are notable.
    • I removed the publisher stuff for consistency.
  • Consider merging refs 99 and 100 into one citation, using page number "1–2"
    • Wouldn't that be a problem when trying to find the cited info?
  • Having Hawke's bibliography above the references section is a bit ambiguous. I initially thought it was books used in the article. Consider moving it or naming it something different like "Writings".
    • Done.

RB88 (T) 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to supportSupport: This is probably the best of the actor biogs from this editor. It seems to be comprehensive, the tone is neutral and the writing is clear. I have a few points for consideration:-

  • In the lead, second line, we have "the supporting appearance". Surely this must be "a"?
    • Done.
  • Henry IV could be pipe-linked to Henry VI Part I. Hawke played Hotspur, who doesn't appear in Part II, having been killed in Part I
    • Done.
  • There are five very recent photographs of Hawke (three for 2007, one from 2008 and one from 2009), which produces a lack of variety in the images. The fact that photographs are available doesn't mean we have to use them; are there any possible replacements, perhapd from earlier in his career?
  • In response to an earlier reviewer the "p." from page numberings have been removed. Unfortunately, with the proliferation of numbers in the reference section it is now very difficult to establish what are page numbers and what might be something else.
  • In earlier actor biographies I have complained that too many critics' comments have been quoted verbatim, when some could easily be paraphrased. There is a tendency towards this fault in this article, too. Where the reviewer's language is original and striking we need the quote to get a proper feel for what was said, but when the comment is pretty ordinary it should be briefly paraphrased.
  • Is it possible to use the occasional synonym for "mixed" in "mixed reviews"? Could some be "varied", "assorted" or even "ambivalent"? It would be nice to see some alternative to this stock phrase which appears over and over again in film, book and music articles.

Altogether, however, an attractive and informative article which I don't think requires massive work to get into the top category. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half-way with getting your concerns, but I'll get them. Thanks for taking the time to read the article over. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've dealt with most of my concerns and I have upgraded my comment to support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I found the structure of this article somewhat repetitive, particularly in regards to Hawke's film appearances. However, each presentation is clear and succinct.

  • Though Hawke aspired in high school to be a writer, he developed an interest in acting. - This sentence does not make much sense. I'm not sure why it begins with "though" - there does not seem to be a connection between the two facts in the sentence such as "Though Hawke aspired to be a writer, he gave up his dreams to pursue acting".
  • Hawke later described the film's popularity as critical to his decision to continue acting: "I didn't want to be an actor and I went back to college. But then the [film's] success was so monumental that I was getting offers to be in such interesting movies and be in such interesting places, and it seemed silly to pursue anything else." - Is it the popularity of the film that prompted him to keep acting? The quote seems to suggest that it was the intriguing opportunities that prompted him to continue acting.
    • He says that after filming it, he didn't want to continue being an actor and wanted to go back to school. Following the release of the movie, he was getting offers and believed that being an actor would be the way to go.[26] I don't know if I answered your question. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of separate "Personal life" sections. It separates connections that otherwise would be clear, such as how Hawke met Thurman. However, I did recognize that this is a common practice in these articles. I do think that we should mention the Thurman/Hawke connection earlier in the article.
  • I'm a little worried that some of the material in the "Personal life" section is verging on the trivial.
  • Do we need to say he is a fan of the NY Knicks?
    • Removed.
  • How important is it that Hawke endorsed Democratic presidential candidates?
  • The last paragraph of "Personal life" seems like an assemblage of random facts about Hawke's family.
    • I removed some of the info. in the paragraph, but kept the last sentence.
  • I'm unconvinced of the need of the "Further reading" section - if these sources provide so much helpful information that we need to recommend them to readers, shouldn't they be used as sources for the article?
    • Angelina Jolie and Maggie Gyllenhaal, both FAs, have the Further reading section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not particularly good reasoning. Do you have a rationale for the inclusion of these items in a further reading list for this article? I imagine that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of magazine articles about Hawke that could be on the list; did you have reasons for choosing these particular ones? If not, it might be best to drop the list as unnecessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason for including those links were because of the interviews he gave. I'll admit that all the sources talked almost about the same thing in his film career, sources that are used in the article, but there was info. he gave toward his roles. I thought it would be helpful to have the section. But seeing how it's a problem, I've removed it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted my review a few hours ago - I'm not sure what update you would need from me. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry :) Just scanning on first pass, didn't check dates :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [27].

WALL-E

Nominator(s): Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because this has to be one of the most detailed article on a Pixar film I have seen (the closest to this is Ratatouille, but it's not that detailed). This article is kept nicely and hasn't experience an edit war for a long time (I don't think it ever had an edit war). Bottom line is that this article should be nominated as a featured article. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Even though I didn't significantly edit this article, I have permission from Immblueversion, who has.

The Artical looks fine for a FA if it is worked a bit more:

Oppose

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Oppose, largely on 1c Again, too many non-notable and non-reliable sources used in a pop culture article. Just about stopped short of suggesting a withdrawal beacuse of the nice shape it was in at GA [28]. What happened??

There's other ones which only meet the guidelines by the skin of their teeth. The film has had major international coverage and to use such quality sources is a pretty much a crime in my opinion.

  • There's major formatting issues, too, but they are largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. RB88 (T) 22:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hugo Awards website? You're challenging the website to the actual award? Box Office Mojo has been deemed a relaible source for many many years. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources and Their About Us page. Quick question, are you looking at the sources you're pulling or just grabbing every website-based source on the page? I don't mean to be rude, but some of them have "About Us" pages that would quickly answer any reliability issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Hugo Awards was a blank page/deadlink. Must have mixed it up with other points I jotted down and the sources bit. The Box Office Mojo page does not establish too much. It's basically saying "look how great we are". Ideally, we need third-party reliable sources using their material or covering them. And I take your comment as a bit of an insult. I went through every single link one by one and scouted all their contact/about us pages. There were other ones I could have added, too, but decided otherwise as I concluded their reliability to be marginally OK. RB88 (T) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But here is the problem. Some of the sources--like BOM--have been around for years and their reliability firmly established. What you are saying is that either every single article that cites BOM, or every single FAC, will require additional sources just to verify that BOM is notable enough to cite? BOM has been around film pages for as long as I can remember, and it's hardly every considered unreliable for box office information. Especially when it's often cited in the news, and it's own by IMDb, which is owned by Amazon, which satisfies the issue of a major company owning the source and it not being some independent party.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • All you needed to do is provide those links. I said I was open to changing my verdict provided the proper information is seen. Also, it now means that there's precedent so that it does not have to challenged in the future. RB88 (T) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Challenged by who? You're the first person I've seen in a very long time challenge BOM, as its reliability has been established for years. Is there some central hub that provides a list of reliable sources, some list that BOM was never put on? If not, then it technically doesn't clear it from any further scrutiny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • A central hub is not a bad idea. I do keep a diary with all the reliable entries as I find out in discussion. User:Ealdgyth does the same I believe. So, I guess it won't be challenged by us but maybe in the distant future by some other upstart source editor. Who knows? But at least, you have the sources ready and this discussion to use. RB88 (T) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [29].

Kerry slug

Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it fullfils all FA criteria. If it would pass, then it will be the first FA article of all gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I do apologize if this nomination was a bit premature, I did not know it was planned. As Snek says, this is the very first of all of our WikiProject Gastropod articles to attempt to reach FA status, and because of this we don't know much at all about the process, sorry. Thank you to everyone who is reviewing it for your patience and your helpful suggestions. We will try to bring all of the deficiencies up to standard immediately. Best wishes and thank you, Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I just now made alt text for all the images. Let me know if this aspect is OK now or needs more work. Invertzoo (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good , except please remove phrases like "Black and white drawing of", "Black and white drawing showing", "A line drawing of", "Colored drawing showing", "Photo shows", etc., as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all that extra unnecessary stuff in alt text, thanks for pointing that out to us. Invertzoo (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose
    • The only English-speaking country with this animal is Ireland, so why is it written in US English?
That is the most unimportant thing. There is no one British speaking active member in the whole Wikiproject gastropods. I am sorry, but nobody will appreciate this comment, because 2 of 3 authors of the article are not native English speakers. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find someone who is a first language English speaker. it's not that difficult to change spelling anyway, I've written one FA entirely in AE, despite being a BE user. Also, currently inconsistent - dark-grey in color - "grey" is BE, "color" is AE. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jim, are you first language English speaker? You have no Babel boxes on your Userpage. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text has now been converted to British English. Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were several "color" missed, I've fixed them, or removed if redundant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the extras. It's hard for me to see all of them because I have lived many years in both countries, and get the spelling confused. Invertzoo (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • All the redlinks are messy, just lose them
Red links useful. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you actually intend to write all those articles? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can help you Snek to create stub articles for all these red links. Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will start turning the red links into blue links this evening. Invertzoo (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that red links are not considered a valid oppose rationale (I understand there are other issues here, just saying). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple red links are rapidly disappearing and hopefully all should be gone in a couple of days. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image captions should not include the species name
??? Yes, captions of course should include what is on the image. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption is that images are of the organism that is the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. "Drawing" seems superfluous too, and illustrator's name is not needed in captions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions are not for encyclopedia, reader have to be sure. The same is valid for the type of the image. Adding of illustrators name depends on writers consideration/importance, and so on and I did considered rather to put the name to provide interconnexion. It for example shows what researchers were associated with this species. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrator's name is arguable, but putting article name in caption is unacceptable, for the same reason that it's not used in section headings. This isn't my idea, it's standard practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to fix all the captions. I hope they seem OK now. Thanks for explaining this to us, we did not know, sorry. Invertzoo (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other points
    • Geomalacus maculosus, commonly known as the Kerry Slug or Kerry spotted slug - start with article name, don't bold binomial - The Kerry Slug or Kerry spotted slug, (Geomalacus maculosus)
Bold binomial of the subject of the article is completely OK. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this. I hope it reads OK now? Invertzoo (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Inconsistent capitalisation of the name
Captalization in the text of the article is now unified. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Not all units are given Imperial conversions
I think those are all present now. Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Lead section is completely inadequate, nothing on taxonomy or conservation, for example
Of course that there is its taxonomy there. Metioning of protection is added now. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is now much more complete. Is this adequate or does it need more work? Please let me know. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


      • Some more points
    • Taxonomy tells me nothing about the classification of this slug, which seems strange
Classification updated. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded this section, I am not sure but is this more like what is needed? Invertzoo (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added more to it this afternoon, hope this is helpful. Invertzoo (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Feel free to improve phrasing. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but it's your FAC. If the authors are mainly non-first-language English speakers, all the more reason to get a good copy edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If it is really so, then I do not want this my something. Goodbye. --Snek01 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Casliber wrote, that it is "Clearly written, in good prose ...". --Snek01 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through this afternoon improving prose, and will go through again this evening. Invertzoo (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the technical sections this evening fixing them up a fair amount. Invertzoo (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Let me know if this is not enough, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Taxonomy. Why have you given meaning of maculosus but not Geomalacus? Why is this species in a separate subgenus?
Explaning of word Geomalacus is on the article Geomalacus. I do not know why it is in separate subgenus, respectivelly I do not know how subgenus Arrudia differs from this one. The first place where this infomation should be mentioned is article Geomalacus.
I think it should also be explained here. this seems to suggest that the other subgenus is sometimes given full species status. can that be relected here if that's correct? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source you linked suggests nothing about what you have written. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This evening I put a brief explanation of the meaning of the name Geomalacus into the taxonomy section. Invertzoo (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • You've linked common words like Ireland (more than once, although strangely not at the first occurence), but assumed your readers understand "subdorsal" and "shagreened"
The reader should be familiar with the word "subdorsal". Word "shagreened" is explained and wikilinked now. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to make sure today that wikilinks are now only on the first use of the word. Invertzoo (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain every piece of obscure terminology this evening. I hope I have made it a lot clearer. Invertzoo (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • similar to the genus Arion, and other references to the genus, are unhelpful to non-specialists
Arion is wikilinked now. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explained that Arion is the type genus of the family, and thus is used as a comparison. Invertzoo (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That misses the point. in an FA, you need, for example, to describe the digestive system, it's not adequate to say it's like the rest of the genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you demand can not be expanded. 1) There was never published nothing more about another parts of digestive system of this species except of jaw and radula, which are described in this article in very detail. 2) Even comparison with other species could be original research, because we do not know in which aspects are similar. 3) Describing anatomy of other genus or of other species is out of scope of this article. Imagine that for example in featured article Red-billed Chough is NOTHING about internal anatomy and compare it with internal anatomy of Kerry slug article... --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed div formatting below, shouldn't be used in FAC reviews. I'm confused. If the digestive system is unknown, the sentence is pointless. How can we know it's similar to other Arion, but not know in what ways. Either we don't know about the digestive system, and the sentence should go (as you point out, it's not essential), or we do, and it can be described.
Your note is annoying. (By the way, the alimentary canal is not the same as digestive system so use at least proper terms.) If we wrote for example: "The alimentary canal of tiger is similar to alimentary canal of lion.", then it is valuable information. We so know, that at least one human was interested in this thing and he/she found no differences here. For example we then know, that he/she found there no special things on this. But the way, these structures are usually not species specific, so this information is sufficient and adequate. --- I am trying to explain it for you, because there will be MANY more things like this in coming many more 60.000 species of not well known gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) saying The alimentary canal of tiger is similar to alimentary canal of lion. is equally useless if there is no description of either, as in this article. You cannot assume your readers are experts on gastropod biology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • References "in English" is unnecessary, many of the references are incorrectly formatted esp with regard to italicising binomial and page numbers, and you have mixed cite and citation templates - you must stick to one style.
Mentioning English in references removed. That one italicization is removed. All is unified. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1,4,8,9, 13, 16, 18 have binomial incorrectly italicised, several non-English references have the language repeated, what's the date of 15, ref 17 has pp. 15 pp., page 12, at least three different date formats used - this is all obvious stuff that should have been addressed before FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Yes, that is OK, according to the guidelines the titles shoudl not be italicized. That is not against rules to have marked non-English references like this. The template does not allow to do it promptly with the template only, how to do it? Dates formats are now unified. --Snek01 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, it is the binomial name that needs italics in the refs, not the title. You don't need both "(Spanish)" and "in Spanish" in the same ref. problems with refs 15 and 17 also still not addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not chosen standard for bibliographic referencing on wikipedia. Binomial names in titles of journal articles could be italicized, but this is not mentioned in guidelines(!) - so you can not demand this unless it will appear in guidelines. But what to do with binomial names in titles of books, which whole titles of books are already italicized? Is it OK? If there is not unification in guidelines, then you can not demand unification in articles. So do not bother with this in the article. The only demand for references is to be "consistently formated". If there are not rules how, then any chosen consistent formating is OK. --Snek01 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a binomial is in text which is already italicised, like a book title, the binomial is in Roman. This is standard writing technique for showing italics within text that is italicised for other reasons. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


      • arbitrary break
Sorry to come in a bit late in this process, I did not know it was going on until last night. I have now done the following improvements:
1. Enlarged the intro, to include all the topics covered in the article.
2. Given one first sweep through the whole article itself improving the prose and clarifying.
3. Added an "alt text" to all the photos except for the taxobox one which already had it. (I have never done alt text before so I hope these are good enough.)
4. Added more imperial measurements to match metric measurements as needed.
I hope to do more improvements soon. Invertzoo (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Added one.Invertzoo (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In my opinion, the prose needs some work to bring it up to a "professional standard", and the article needs a MOS overhaul. I'm more inclined to give it a copyedit myself than list every detail that needs to be fixed here, if that's alright with the noms. That can be undertaken later, after some issues with the content listed below are addressed: Sasata (talk)

I would certainly welcome some help with copyediting, thanks very much for the offer. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "William Andrews sent material he had found ..." Who is William Andrews?
OK, explanied. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Geomalacus maculosus is the only species in the subgenus Geomalacus. " How about a sentence to explain what distinguishes what characterizes subgenus Geomalacus?
This should be in Geomalacus article. The same question is written above. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Kerry slugs can also elongate themselves within crevices up to 12 cm (4.8 in).[4] Because of this, Kerney (1983)[5] gives slightly different measurements for the species: 6–9 cm (2.4–3.6 in)." Does the source actually say that the different measurements is due to this "crevice elongation factor", or is this your interpretation of the differing measurements? As a bystander I would guess that the slightly different measurements are just due to sampling randomness.
It seems to be OK by me, but feel free to verify it in the reference. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed this problem now, let me know if it does not seem OK yet. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "The body is glossy, covered on each side..." Side meaning left and right side?
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "longitudinal rows of polygonal granulations." what's a granulation?
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • re: subdorsal... I had to look it up.
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "The shield is about a third of the length..." This is the first mention that's made of a shield; could use a few words to explain its general function in slugs.
No, this is an well know feature like eyes or an head. This could be wikilinked to a slug article, but there is nothing about it yet. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "....it is very pale and somewhat expanded, with indistinct lineolation." eh?
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "... and bearing the usual eye-specks at their summits." are eye-specks eyes?
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "The internal shell resembles that of land slugs of the genus Limax." I'm confused, these slugs have a shell on the inside?
Yes, do not be confused. A reader reading this have to know that Limax have an internal shell (or a reader can use a wikilink to read more) in the same was as a reader reading about birds have to know, that wings are used to fly. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "...and with the nucleus near the front." the nucleus?
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "... but with a projecting granular film in front." huh?
Fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • What is the function of the suprapedal gland and Semper's organ?
Wikilinked to newly made articles. --Snek01 (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • The entire internal anatomy section is rather dense and difficult to follow for this non-specialist. Take for example the following sentence: "The pharyngeal retractor is, as usual, furcate for attachment to the rear of the buccal bulb, its root being fixed on the right side of the body, just behind the point of fixation of the right tentacular muscle." This is characteristic of the section as whole, and indicates that work is needed to make the prose more accessible to a general audience.
Tried to fix this up last night. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • The behaviour section seems terse... is there nothing more that can be said about the slug's behaviour? Why are Irish slugs more active during overcast days? Are Spanish slugs not also active during overcast days? Does it interrupt their siesta?
Funny, yes it's a siesta thing. Actually I tried to make this section clearer last night. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, you are right, there is more known to its behaviour. There is more details about mating in Platts & Speight (1988), but User:Casliber have comptelly removed this information(!) [30] and he in the process of so called rewording or improving the phrasing replaced "Eggs are deposited" with "Breeding occurs". There is completelly need no knowledge about the language and everybody can see, that such changes are devastating for the article. EVERYBODY SHOULD TRY TO CONSIDER WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE encyclopedic ARTICLE. IF IT'S FACTS SHOULD BE WRITTEN AS EXACTLY AS POSSIBLE OR IF IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN THE SMOOTH PROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If nobody from reviewers knows nothing about the subject of the article, then the review is completelly useless, because it will not help to improve the article at all. Reviewers can add such pitiful details like wikilinks or formats of references by themselves, because they can improve any other things. If this change: "In Spain, always low number of individuals were observed on numerous localities." -> "In Spain, individuals were never observed in numbers on numerous localities." is the best what can one of recommended English speakers and recommended FAC reviewers do, that there is no need no FAC process and not GA nominee, because articles can be improved more easily and more preciselly without these processes. --Snek01 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snek, don't get frustrated. The people who don't know a lot about your subject who can make constructive comments that you — as an expert —won't have considered. You know what all these organs and structures and behaviors are. Most reviewers don't. Many readers won't. And if your article is too difficult to read, with too many things they can't understand, they'll give up. And that's not good for anybody: the reader, WP, the project... Don't assume that people who don't know things don't WANT to know these things. Add a brief sentence or two (or link them to the appropriate article) to help them understand! MeegsC | Talk 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, errorneous edits made by a reviewer were corrected. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say one of those edits was made by me Snek, so I apologize, in trying to make it clearer I altered the meaning, I apologize. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "This species has an unusual defensive behaviour" Why is this unusual? Wouldn't one expect a slug to contract and curl up when threatened?
LOL, yes, this is unusual. Slugs and snails contract a little when they are in danger, but only this one species contracts in a ball. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Expanded and explained. There could be possible to avoid the word "uncommon" if we could find out a reference mentioning that this is "unique" feature or that it is only in this species worldwide. I have found only reference for Ireland and for Arionidae. It will be tough or impossible to find this. --Snek01 (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make this section much clearer. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "opalescent - link or define
OK, linked. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Climate change will probably affect the Iberian populations more seriously." Why?
It is well known, that the slugs require humid conditions. That is not necessary to write. This is in detail described in the ecology section also. Feel free to read these two sentences directly in the reference and try to suggest a better formulation of this highly controversial theme. It is in the raference written very carefully already. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make this clearer today. Hope this reads OK now. Invertzoo (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No, it is not. --Snek01 (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. The image's description says My name (Bernd Haynold) must be clearly visible close to the picture. And it's not. So it's currently in violation of its licensing agreement! You'll either need to find another picture, or add his name somehow. And since WP doesn't tend to use watermarked pictures, or those with the photographer's name in the caption, you will probably have to find another picture. MeegsC | Talk 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Today's featured article has a caption attribution. Though I consider them borderline excessive, I see no reason one can't be added. --an odd name 11:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see this has been fixed now. Invertzoo (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment I've made these changes They are a start to cleaning up the references, mainly removing repeated language links and italicising genus and species. I did'nt do anything with the citation-style refs since they should be replaced by cite-style. Only one style per article please. Also note that although the text from Taylor is out of copyright, and may be used, it may not necessarily be considered as outstanding prose. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to improve Taylor's prose a little. Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments -
  • Current refs 3 and 17 (the Conservation Status Assement report...) the publisher is actually the National Parks and Wildlife Service of Ireland, right? That should be listed instead, as what is currently listed is the "work" the source is contained in.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references .. I noted "EUNIS" which is totally opaque to the non-specialist.
  • Current ref 18 (Checklist...) lacks a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these three references tasks fixed. --Snek01 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly in the toolbox are they to be found? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first link, which says "Disambig links". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Snek01 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archiving note: this is an excellent start for the Project's first FAC, but there is enough going on here that the FAC will have a better chance at promotion if it is brought back, fresh, in a week or two. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 10 October 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [31].

Mega Man 2

Nominator(s): Lumaga (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the article meets the featured article criteria. It is a well cited and comprehensive account of one of Capcom's best selling games. The primary editors have made great strides bringing this article up to A-class, and I feel that it deserves FA status. Lumaga (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the reliability of the three sources:
  • I concede that Siliconera is not the best video game source as far as meeting WP:RS, but the page used in the article is an interview with a developer of one the Mega Man games. I believe the developer certainly meets WP:SPS. The interview was also duplicated on video game website Gamasutra, a video game developer-oriented website that serves as the online sister publication to the print magazine Game Developer.
  • In this case, I'd rather see a slightly more reputable source putting out the interview, even if at second hand. Even if we used the original, we'd be indirectly relying on the fact that Gamasutra reprinted it to make a borderline reliable source reliable enough. The only concern would be if Gamasutra didn't have permission to reproduce the information... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the dead link with an archived one. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Done Lumaga (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment: I really think there should be a picture and description of the end of the game when Wiley turns into an alien after being partially defeated. This is an important part of the game. —mako๛ 04:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be against adding an image, it wouldn't aide to the readers' understanding. I don't like the image of the teleporters either. Adding text the way you described would be misleading. Wily doesn't turn into an alien; he operates a holographic projector to pose as an alien. Jay32183 (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree an alien image is not really needed. Very few references even mentioned it and I think further highlighting it would be undue weight. Of all the images, I agree the teleporter image is the weakest. If you think it should go, feel free to remove it. Also, File:Megaman2 box.jpg should be reduced in size. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments I'm inclined to oppose based on what I've read. I don't think the prose is not up to 1a level yet. Also, the development section is rather thin. Some examples:
    • "and in North America and Europe the following years." Years? What does that mean? '89 and '90?
    • "Critics focused on the audio-visuals and gameplay, and commented that it was an improvement over the first game." Sentence structure is more awkward than it needs to be. Tighten it (something like "critics praised the audio-visuals and gameplay as an improvement over the first game").
    • "Mega Man 2 has received high praise by many publications as the best title in the series as well as one of the greatest video games of all time" Switch to the active voice here, and I think yourself with a much stronger sentence.
    • "began to become more involved in the production process" What does that mean? Be more specific. Also, "began to become"?
    • "Due to the limited amount of cartridge space available for the first game, much of the leftover design elements were transferred to Mega Man 2." I do not understand this sentence...does leftover mean concepts that were cut from the first game? If so, please be more clear.
    • "A second difficulty setting was added for the North American release." Rather jarring to see this in the middle of this particular paragraph...
    • "offered some explanation for this saying that even in 1995" wordy. (why not just "explained that in 1995,"?
    • "much of the leftover design elements were transferred to Mega Man 2." "some design elements, however, were lost in the transition" Can't we be more specific here?
    • What's the timeline in the development section? When did work commence? How long did it take to develop? At some point, I assume the game must have transitioned from a hobby employees' to a funded product, no? TwilligToves (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TwilligToves- I did some tweaks to address the issues above. To answer some of your questions.

  • "Following years" does mean 1989 for North America and 1990 for PAL regions. The details should be in the infobox, but they are hidden by default. I don't necessarily agree with hidden release dates, but is such detail necessary for the lead?
  • If the details about development were available, they would be in the article.

I'll be honest with you. I do not believe the prose will improve beyond what is already there nor will the development section be expanded further. I'm an above average copy editor at best and I took the article as far as I know how to a number of months ago. I looked through a number of print and online sources (both old and new) and did not find beyond what is in the article. If the article warrants opposition from you, then please do what you feel is necessary. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Refs mix ISO-style (YYYY-MM-DD) and Month Day, Year dates. Use one for all of them. I suggest Month Day, Year. --an odd name 17:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Found a few more, but I think that's all of them. --an odd name 18:00, 30 September 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [32].

Anarchy Online

Nominator(s): Sebquantic (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria after a 2nd peer review, and a month of improvements. Its about a long-running role-playing game with a checkered, and I think interesting, history. Gakon5 was kind enough to copy-edit several sections. Sebquantic (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name

Date formats are consistent in article text and in refs, and it's definitely got lots of facts about the game, so good job. I made some small changes and think the prose could be better:

  • This troubled launch, often echoed by modern reviewers, serves as a juxtaposition to the generally positive critical reception of the game and its expansions. Not least was the Shadowlands expansion which was given several Editor's Choice awards after its release in 2003. This seems a bit long; try This troubled launch, often echoed by modern reviewers, contrasts with the generally positive critical reception of the game and its expansions. Not least was the Shadowlands expansion that earned several Editor's Choice awards after its release in 2003. I think it could be even simpler but not sure how.
Went ahead and replaced this with your suggestion. Sebquantic (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Plot synopsis" and not just "Plot" for the first section?
This section header has morphed a lot over the last few months. It started as "Story", then "Story synopsis", shortened to "Synopsis", and finally another editor added "Plot synopsis". I'm not sure which one is preferable. Sebquantic (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to edit this sentence further, but it's unclear if the difficulty is given by the player or by the game's mission system (I've never played AO).
Fixed this. Sebquantic (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may list more above, but consider finding a second copyeditor to look over the whole article. It can't hurt. --an odd name 06:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! I'll see if anybody at the copy-editors guild wants to have a look-over. Sebquantic (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make up for my prior laziness, I'm going through some of the article. --gakon5 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by gakon5 (talk)
I copyedited the Release, Rendering upgrade, and Free Play program sections. In terms of broad issues, I'm finding that not enough context is always given with regards to when things happen. Some examples:

  • The Free Play program was originally set to last one year, but its length has been extended every year since then as of 2009 Since when?
  • The original four-year story concluded soon after, although it has since been extended. Soon after what?
  • Two months later, Anarchy Online began offering free trial subscriptions, now common practice for other games in the MMOG genre. Two months after what?

I guess that's it for that, but there may be other examples elsewhere in the article. A few other issues:
Release

  • Despite a public beta test that had been conducted for two weeks before launch, the first month of the game's release was marked with many stability, registration, and billing issues. There's some POV in here, suggesting that the beta should have resolved any technical issues. In addition, your source only affirms that the beta exists, and doesn't link the beta and the launch issues to each other.
  • Looks good. The whole "despite x, y happened" thing is POV unless you have a developer who said that. (see Development below)
  • Community manager Tor Wigmostad stated that "things did not go as well as we had planned," adding that the problems "could have been avoided by an extended release date and better planning." Give some context for when this was said.
  • The last paragraph about RP events and player protests feels out of place in this section. I don't know where else it could go, though. Also, it starts with "The official role-playing events", and I don't see where the context is for what these RP events are. --gakon5 (talk)
  • I agree it does feel out of place, but I couldn't think of where else to put it. I figured it might as well be placed chronologically in the history section like it is. Reworded first sentence here, and added a brief explanation of what the events are in the Development paragraph about the story. Sebquantic (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major expansions

  • The first three expansion and booster packs, most significantly the Shadowlands expansion, helped promoted the game to a wider audience. 550,000 new customer subscriptions were created between 2002 and 2004. I don't see where this is backed up in the about.com article linked to: [33]
  • Replaced the second ref for this sentence that got misplaced somehow. There were 150,000 total subs in June 2002, then 700,000 total subs in June 2004. I just subtracted to get the 550,000 figure. Does this count as OR by me? Sebquantic (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOR, under the section "Routine calculations": "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." Doing math isn't against the rules, but you can't link the release of Shadowlands to a spike in subscriptions yourself. --gakon5 (talk)
  • I don't know, it just being there implies some association. If there isn't any, then you've got a few misplaced quips about sales data in your expansion/booster section. The last two sentences about subscription numbers and revenue could stand to be elsewhere, although you have no dedicated sales section; most of that stuff is intertwined with other parts of the article. It will make a short section even shorter, but to compensate you could turn the list of expansions/boosters into a paragraph of prose. --gakon5 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Play program

  • The original four-year story concluded in 2005, although it has since been extended. This sentence is out of place, between two sentences about the game's decreased public profile.
  • Most of the first paragraph is unsourced, but it looks like the two refs you do use in the first sentence cover most of this. Sprinkle those around. Also, you need to back up the term "froob".
  • A quick skim through the game's dev blogs and it seems to me like public-facing employees actually go out of their way not to call them froobs, even though it's a common term with players. No sources found, removed it. Sebquantic (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other online games have since offered indefinite free play with restricted content. Suggests that Anarchy Online influenced the free-to-play-with-ads model, but you don't back that up with a source.
  • Despite the changes, Changes to what?
  • That works. I was interested in what these changes were that, despite them, the game remained steady and profitable. You may want to add that, despite a smaller profile and the Free Play program, AO remained profitable. Although, that's most likely POV, considering the word "despite" is used, similar to the beta/launch issues thing above. --gakon5 (talk)
  • The source you use there [34] doesn't seem to reference the game being "steady" and "profitable" despite the changes, however. --gakon5 (talk)
  • Added more refs here. Its an ugly string of 4 inline references, but I guess it's needed. All the available financial reports between Q4 05' and Q3 08' describe it as "steady", "stable" or something similar. Sebquantic (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, if you want to say "despite this, this happened," you'll need a developer/producer who said that. It can't be just you. --gakon5 (talk)

Development

  • Your link to IGN about Funcom leads to the game page for NBA Hang Time. I can't tell if it's intentional or not, since the game was developed by Funcom, but makes no reference to the "critically successful" Speed Punks.
  • Godager and many other developers saw the idea as "crazy," and he described the project as "very ambitious". Unlike Anarchy Online's science-fiction theme, existing games in the genre were based on a traditional role-playing fantasy theme. Maybe switch the positions of these sentences. The first sentence doesn't explain why AO is a crazy ambitious project.
  • The number of developers employed to the project slowly increased, reaching "over 70" by its release date. Increased from what?
  • The game software uses a system named "Sample-based Interactive Music", in which samples -short clips of music- are mixed together to form the continuous soundtrack. named → known as, the continuous → a continuous; use proper dashes (WP:DASH); I would say the system creates background music, not a soundtrack.
  • The Gamasutra article about the music of AO you link to does not reference the term "Sample-based Interactive Music".
  • Sorry, didn't see that. The second sentence in that paragraph needs rewording, though. --gakon5 (talk)
  • Also, if the game's music is dynamically generated, what does it mean that Morten Sørlie, etc. composed it? Did they create the musical elements that mix together, or is there an official soundtrack out there as well?
  • Added sentence about the released soundtrack on CD, but I'm not sure if vgmdb.com is a RS? Their "about us" section makes it sound like all the entries are reviewed, and a lot of the Japanese video-game articles the site as a ref (one Good Article), but didn't find any FA articles that use it. Sebquantic (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- gakon5 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the plot section...
Plot synopsis:

  • They tried in vain to fix the problem, but discovered they had gone too far; the planet would soon collapse. If I recall correctly, the Xan were drilling into the planet. Explain what "going too far" means, and why the planet will soon collapse.
  • Their scientists' tinkering with the mutating effects of notum on the colonists in a quest for efficiency lead to huge numbers of failed experiments; these survivors Survivors of the experiments, I presume?

Skill System:

  • I'm finding the same problem with this section I found in PR, and that has to do with skills. I see there are D&D-style Strength, Agility, etc., there are weapon proficiencies, and there's this third group of other random things. And, of course, the game has abilities of some kind. A single-target heal. A crowd control maneuver. A rez. Are these also called "skills"? The reader is left wondering what it means that any class can use any skill, or what "putting points into skills" means. I can only assume the following, having not played the game:
  • Every character, regardless of class, has Strength, Stamina, etc.
  • Each class has a specific set of weapons they have access to.
  • Utilities, I don't know.
  • What are the 83 skills? Are they 83 different castable abilities? Do they include Utilities? Do they include anything else? Do you put points into individual skills to improve their effects? If there are any other terms that can better differentiate between skill types, by all means use them. Also, once you've introduced 3-4 types of skills, you can't just use the generic term "skill", unless it really pertains to every skill type. Example:
  • Any character can access and use any skill. The character's profession, however, provides unique "perks", "alien perks", "research", and "nano programs" that put additional points into certain skills.

Combat:

  • After reading this section, I now get what "abilities" are, or at least I think I do: nano programs. And maybe also perks and research? Perks sound like passive abilities, but I suppose procs can make things active anyway.
  • Combat between two or more human players, colloquially known as "player vs player combat" PvP is a pretty common term, used by many MMO developers. Is it really only a colloquialism (slang) in AO?
  • Generally, this arbitrary percentage approaches 100% in major cities Wikipedia's own page on Arbitrariness says that it is "a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion." It implies that less thought went into deciding gas levels than actually did. It probably wasn't random, since it's used to mitigate PvP in certain areas like cities.
  • This type of fighting can take place in areas approaching 0% suppression gas What type of fighting?
  • Another example are the "battle stations" I had to back up in the text to figure out what you were giving examples of: PvP-dedicated areas. At the end of the third paragraph (or at the start of the fourth), give some context for what you're about to delve into.

Dynamic missions:

  • Can you better back up the idea that dynamic missions are one of AO's most unique elements?
  • Each mission has a visual theme based on its location: the interiors of mission areas involving an alien mothership, for example, will all share the same theme. The second part of this sentence doesn't expand on the idea that each mission has a visual theme based on its location.
  • I don't know about AO, but quests are a core part of most MMOs. There may not be much more to say about them, but they only get a passing mention in this section, and not anywhere else. Perhaps you can introduce quests farther up in the text, and then in the Dynamic Missions section show how they're different from those.

--gakon5 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templates should be sorted now. Sebquantic (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it has to be "science-fiction-themed". There's a similar glitch in "science fiction-setting"—a type of fiction setting? Please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A.
  • The second sentence is a flow-on and needs a semicolon instead: "This troubled launch, often echoed by modern reviewers, contrasts with the generally positive critical reception of the game and its expansions. Not least was the Shadowlands expansion in 2003 that earned several Editor's Choice awards."
  • As The Guardian's" online style guide says, "very" is usually very redundant.
  • Again, a triple compound is created but not hyphenated: "one-thousand-year lease". Why not remove "one" to avoid the triple? Hyphen audit required throughout.
  • Why is US$ linked? And "US$1 million" would be easier, yes? Why is "AD" linked?
  • Newly-arrived: see the hyphen link above.
  • After 8 years: see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.2A.
  • The Xan were "perfect", but "greedy and arrogant"? I think you need to say "initially perfect" ...(?)
  • Why is "peacekeeping" linked?
  • "A billboard in the Omni-Tech controlled game zone"—hyphen issue? You can always reverse the order ... "A billboard in the game zone controlled by Omni-Tech"? And there's another one: "an in-game advertising supported business model". This is a feature of someone's writing style, and should be moderated. Please minimise the gobbledy compounds. Let me know if you don't understand what to do.
  • Are the FU images all OK? I doubt it. For example, is the Omni-Tech image necessary for the readers to understand the article? Is it necessary to have as many images? I'm pinging User:Black Kite.
  • Captions: final period required if there's a semicolon internally. See MoS on "Images".

An independent copy-edit would be good: it's not too big a job. Tony (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed all your concerns above. A lot of the hyphenation was removed or reworded after reading your hyphen guide.
Of the five images, The gameplay and billboard screenshots I think are the two most necessary. The first helps illustrate many concepts in the gameplay section. The billboard shot illustrates the concept of Anarchy Online's in-game advertising, which is a major part of its history and has its own subsection.
The two dynamic mission screenshots I think help illustrate one of the game's most unique gameplay features, and gives the reader an idea of how the it was developed.
The Notums Wars box art picture probably doesn't add much, and could be easily removed in my opinion.
-- Sebquantic (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to do a full assessment of the article, so I won't support or oppose. However, I noticed that the Reception section was a bit thin. There are a couple of reviews for the game over at the Online print archive that should probably be included. I saw that the article quotes an article that quotes PC Gamer's review out of context, in regard to the "next great MMORPG" line. PC Gamer actually said, "When we say Anarchy Online is the next great MMRPG, understand that we mean it will be sometime in the future — not at this very moment. As the office resounds with the cacophony of angry gamers venting their frustration about crashed games and terrible lag, it’s clear that there is some serious work to be done before Anarchy Online fulfills its potential of being an EverQuest-killer. But it will become just that." You can see this and more in the full review, found in the Online print archive. Also, Game Informer's review of the game is available on their site. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [35].

John Christie (murderer)

Nominator(s): Wcp07 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is sufficiently well-researched and provides an informative overview of the subject, John Christie, a notorious British serial killer. John Christie is considered particularly controversial because of his involvement in the trial of Timothy Evans, whom he helped convict and for whose crimes many believe Christie had in fact been responsible. I have put this article through a peer review and had it copyedited by Ukexpat. I believe it would make a welcome addition to the range of featured articles on Wikipedia. Wcp07 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The lead image lacks alt text. As per WP:ALT#Portraits it should briefly describe what Christie looked like in that image. Eubulides (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added ALT text, but it's still not coming up... Could there be a formatting problem? Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was a problem in the template; I fixed it. Eubulides (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -

* Current ref 1 (John Christie...) lacks a publisher and last access dates. Also, this is a wiki page (granted, from the National Archives, but still editable by anyone...)

Done. Reference removed and replaced with one which is WP:RS. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Current ref 48 (Mary Westlake..) lacks a publisher and last access date.

Done. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* If a work is used as a reference/footnote, it shouldn't be listed in further reading ...

Done - further reading section removed. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* What makes http://www.10-rillington-place.co.uk/index.html a reliable source?

Done. Reference and section that it cited has been removed. Wcp07 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a head's up, normally at FAC we let the person making the comments strike them when they feel they are dealt with. I'm not going to be anal and remove your strikes just to put them back, but for the next time, now you know. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, didn't realise. Wcp07 (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No great worry, and welcome to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight oppose, but also encouragement:Comments: I peer-reviewed this, and saw extensive improvement then. There are, however, numerous issues still to be resolved, including prose, uncited statements, and MOS violations, particularly misuse of hyphens. I have done some additional copyedits during the course of this review. I have not looked in detail at the later sections of the article but a quick glance indicates that there are similar problems there, and that more work is required. A copyedit from fresh eyes would do no harm. These points rom the early and middle parts of the article:- *Early criminal career: I'm a bit puzzled by: "....when the woman's husband returned from the war and found out about the affair. He went round to her house, discovered Christie there and assaulted him." To say "He went round to her house" is an odd way of describing a soldier's return to what was presumably his own home.

The sources are unclear on whether the soldier's wife was, at the time of Christie's assault, living in a house owned by her and her husband, or in her own (rented) accommodation. Kennedy's book states that she lived in a "room near Rillington Place", which suggests it was the latter. The other sources give even less information than this. I've said it was a "house where she was living" because of this ambiguity. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First murders:

**"Following the murder, Christie resigned from the police force at the end of 1943" makes it seem that his resignation was a consequence of the murder. As the murder has been previously dated, the words "Following the murder" are redundant.

Kennedy does indeed suggest that the murder contributed to Christie's decision to resign, because "the strain on an undiscovered murderer of working among men whose job was to discover murderers must have been well nigh unbearable". I've rephrased the sentence to point this out. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**"As Eady continued breathing, she inhaled the domestic gas, which soon rendered her unconscious from the carbon monoxide. Once Eady was unconscious, Christie raped and then strangled her. He buried her alongside Fuerst's body in the back garden." These statements require citation.

Done: citation added. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later murders

**Citations required in second part of the section's first paragraph.

Done: required citations added. Wcp07 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**"All three of them..." - "of them" not necessary

Fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**"...he had modified" - delete "had"

Fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Another redundancy: "With his last three murders..."

Fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**More wordiness and slightly awkward phrasing: "When Christie invited his victims back to his flat, he seated them in the kitchen and would release the clip on the tube and let gas leak into the kitchen." Suggest simplify to "He seated his vicitims in his kitchen, released the clip on the tube and let gas leak into the kitchen."

Sentence rephrased to suggested version. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Arrest: Can we have a present-day-equivalent for £7.65 in 1953?

There are a number of sites on the internet which offer historical currency conversions. I'm not sure how reliable they are though. Two sites I have used have calculated that £7.65 in today's money is around £143-149, which seems more than one would have expected.
If MeasuringWorth was one of your sites, it has impeccable academic credentials. As to the current value of £7.65, this indicates that the UK average weekly wage for a railwayman in 1953 was £8.94, so the £140-odd update looks reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've ended up using Wikipedia's own inflation template, which calculates the figure to £154, so it looks like we're in the right range. For UK prices it references Measuring Worth so it seems reliable enough. Wcp07 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Trial and execution: perhaps "Conviction and execution" a better title? (up to you)

  • Controversy and pardon
    • Convoluted sentence, needs splitting and must be cited: "Christie confessed to murdering Beryl Evans and although he neither confessed to, nor was convicted of, the murder of Geraldine Evans, public opinion at the time widely considered him guilty of both murders, casting doubt on the fairness of Evans's trial and raising the possibility that an innocent person had been hanged."
Fixed: sentence split in two and citation added. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement: "This in turn cast doubt on the fairness of Evans's trial and raised the possibility that an innocent person had been hanged" is still uncited. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Required citation added. Wcp07 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done considerable further copyedits in this section, but the prose still looks a bit untidy, and there are other citation issues.
I have added some more citations to the text. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*MOS: Page ranges in references need ndashes not hyphens, and there is misuse of hyphens in the text: "premises - both", "Pierrepoint - the same" and others.

Hyphen misuse corrected. Wcp07 (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has come a long way since its initial drafting. A little more work should bring it to a promotable standard. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I have struck my "slight oppose" on the basis of these responses. I still want to check for missing citations and other small fixes and will comment further when this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: All three paragraphs of the "Later developments" section end with uncited sentences. The third of these reads like an editorial opinion and should probably be deleted. It should not be difficult to cite the others. I would like this dealt with before removing the condition; otherwise I think all my issues have been settled. Also I would like to know that the image issues are resolved to Elcobbola's satisfaction. Have you contacted him about this? Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to have addressed your remaining issues and contacted Elcobbola about the images in the next day or two. Wcp07 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all your remaining citation issues. Offending sentences have been either cited or removed. I'm awaiting Elcobbola to get back to me about the image problems. Wcp07 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion 3:
    • File:Christie.gif - Image does not have a verifiable source required per WP:IUP. "New Scotland Yard" is not sufficient; how can date or authorship be verified? License also contradicts the provided information. If this photo was taken in 1940, the pma claim of 70+ years would not even be possible until 2010, and only then assuming the author died the year the photo was taken.
    • File:Timothyevans.jpg - Image has no information about copyright holder (NFCC#10A) and has no rationale for use in this article (NFCC#10C). How does seeing what Timothy Evan physically looks like assist a reader's understanding of John Christie in any significant way (NFCC#8)?
    • File:Timothy Evans Grave.JPG - Image does not have a verifiable source required per WP:IUP. Эlcobbola talk 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photograph was uploaded by Adebarry, a Wikipedia user who has not made a contribution since December 2007. Contacting him/her to amend the photograph licence does not seem a likely prospect. Is this necessary though? It seems clear that this person intended this photograph to be used freely on Wikipedia. Wcp07 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is, of course, zero percent chance that they'll amend the summary if not even contacted. It's not a question of intent. We don't have a source (for self-made photos, usually a statement of authorship) to determine whether the uploader has rights to the image. Did they take this photo themselves, or did they crop an image they found on Flickr or in another source, believing that modification gave them rights to the new image? I'm not saying the latter is the case, only that policy requires an explicit statement. The "source" and "self-made" examples sections of this dispatch might be helpful. Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Johnchristie.jpg - minor issue with the statement "Copyright of this photograph lies with the people who run the website". I rather doubt AETN UK existed while Christie was alive (how then could they have photographed him?) and I rather doubt the copyright holder would have transferred rights to AETN. It's better to say copyright holder is unknown than risk a misrepresentation. Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 7 October 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [36].

Nintendo DSi

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


I think Nintendo handheld is a pretty cool device. eh, has a camera and doesn't afraid of anything. Except vandalism and link rot, help me check the recent history to make sure I didn't miss reverting anything. :) « ₣M₣ » 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help me with a referencing issue here? Template talk:Cite conference#Cite conference grievance « ₣M₣ » 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullet 1: Can you please explain to me more about mixing? I'm kinda confused when comparing it to Turok: Dinosaur Hunter.
Bullet 4: Iwata Asks is an interview and I would like to treat it that way instead of using cite web. Is this okay?
Bullet 6: About page What stood out was this "...in 2005 became a fully professional online publication" as well as their acquirement by Dennis Publishing.
Last bullet: I've moved all those refs after ...will differ based on user preference. to avoid repetition, can I not do that because of the ref 65 splice? « ₣M₣ » 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You need to credit the Iwata Asks as published by Ninento, however that is done. I'm not sure what you're saying with the last one. Every quotation needs a citation to a source directly on the quotation, that's a requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think everything is done. « ₣M₣ » 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly has been done? Have the Kotakur refs been replaced, and if so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←)In order of bullets not stroked-out: Deadlinks replaced with those published by Nintendo, I've used the callsign=(Nintendo) field for Iwata Asks (after what I said about bullet 4 earlier), all instances of Kotaku was replaced with IGN, all remaining fields filled out with ref 59 replaced with IGN [38][39], all refs moved directly onto their respective quotation. « ₣M₣ » 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on a cursory look. I thought some of the statements were a little wonky, so I went intetigating. For example: "Most reviewers cited similar strengths and weaknesses of the cameras. The cameras were criticized for their quality, especially for having lower resolution than that of mobile phones. The DSi's photo-editing software was seen as entertaining by critics, particularly the facial recognition technology, although some considered it a gimmick." is sourced only to [40]. That is one critic, not enough to make such assertions as in the text. Then there's "The concept involved focusing on making the device "My DS"—one console per person instead of its predecessor which was shared among multiple members of a household."; [41][42] barely mention the My DS thing and don't say anything about consoles shared among multiple members of a household. With such extrapolation going on in just these spot checks I think the article should be withdrawn and checked thoroughly. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like remnants of misplaced sourcing after summer copyediting, which was on those two sections you brought up, so I basically moved around some references. Although you did say "for example", I'm inclined to believe those are the only cases. Wonky? Some stuff in there may hint at "Nintendomination", but can be traced back to this page.« ₣M₣ » 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an actionable oppose unless you say what the article is missing. Please clarify. Mm40 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (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 19:12, 10 October 2009 [43].

York Park

Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Launceston, Tasmania's main sporting stadium. Hosts regular Australian Football League matches. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: Does anyone fell it necessary that the history is the first section? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: The history section should come before the events section. Lines were drawn on paper and foundation was laid before anyone walked on to the pitch nd touched a ball. It makes more sense chronologically to express that in the flow of the article. From a structural (both the actual facility and article layout) stand point, the history of the physical building should take precedence over the events hosted there. I am a huge fan of milestones being represented through the different events but they are in addition to the history. Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force#Structure is a decent outline. I believe the task force is dead but it is still a good resource. Most GA and FA pages I have come across have events after or intertwined with the section discussing the construction.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Throughout its history, York Park has hosted major pop concerts and other entertainments" - but almost all the examples in York Park#Other uses are from the last decade. I appreciate you have the Ike and Tina Turner show and the Billy Graham revival listed from earlier times, but were there any other major cricket or rugby matches, concerts etc from pre-redevelopment? If it only started to be used for other sports etc after the redevelopment, that probably warrants mentioning in itself. Also, is "the North Launceston" correct as a name? (It may well be correct - I know nothing about Tasmanian football - it just looks like there's a "club" or "team" missing.) – iridescent 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (note that I pointed this out in the last FAC in Feb).
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited one of the acres should be converted into metric YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What template should I use? Can't find one. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have people made comments about how the nature of the ground affects the play? eg, wide ground promoting flank attacks, windy conditions therefore encouraging handballing instead of long kicks and all that type of thing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have, but there's nothing I can find that has been sourced. It's also the biggest ground in the AFL (larger than the Melbourne Cricket Ground, but I can't find anything... I had a book from about eight years ago that had something but dunno where it is. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pity YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Haven't read this in-depth yet, but I did notice that a couple of problems mentioned in the first FAC have not been addressed: the use of Google Maps to cite the first sentence of Transport and the use of Wotif.com, which was questioned by Karanacs. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkin discusses the geometry and how it affects tactics and style YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, interestingly reducing the ground size didn't work. I was going to add this months ago but wasn't sure if it was notable enough. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
all you have to say is that up until 2009, it has such ans such a reputation. And then if nobody has said anything since the change, just write down teh scoring stats YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the change was only for the 2009 NAB Cup match, which isn't really notable. The boundary line has been moved back again. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well in that case, the perception that the geometry promotes turgid play is still relevant YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit. Aaroncrick (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs an independent copy-edit and MoS check.

  • "Sports ground" linked? That link-target says "A playing field is a field used for playing sports or games." Do you think it's useful?
  • Try to pick up close repetitions like a radar beam: "Beforehand, only North Launceston and state football games were played. The area was originally swampland before becoming ...". -> "Until then, only ...". (which is more appropriate than the vivid "beforehand", anyway). Consider removing "originally".
  • "Within two years" ... might be just "in two years"; preferable unless misleading.
  • Infobox: "Architect: Various". This is where infoboxes need to be either dumped or tweaked. That wastes the reader's time and enlarges the size of the box, and probably irritates readers. There's "m" for million, and "m" for metres. I think the MoS wants "M" for million, unspaced as you have it.
  • "Australian rules football has been played at York Park since 1923, with other sports such as cricket, tennis, bowling, cycling and foot-racing also staged." The "with" is a trigger for examining whether two sentences would be better, or even a semicolon. Do we "stage" sports? Hope not!
  • What do you suggest we change to? "Australian rules football has been played at York Park since 1923; other sports such as cricket, tennis, bowling, cycling and foot-racing have been held." "Australian rules football has been played at York Park since 1923; other sports such as cricket, tennis, bowling, cycling and foot-racing have [also?] been held at the ground/venue." Or a sentence completely different? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue concerning the linking of ideas in a sentence: "The Tasmanian Government has a AU$16.4 million, five-year sponsorship deal with Hawthorn, meaning that four home and away season games and one National Australia Bank Cup pre-season match will be ...". "Meaning that" is a little awkward; try "under which", which draws a more precise relationship between the ideas, yes? Another niggle: see "Precise language" at the concise MoS. Was this deal struck ... in 2007, or when?
  • You can drop the [,...] (and remove the halting comma) when a quote winds nicely into the grammar of WP's sentence: although Alderman Salder noted that, " [...] Launceston was well known

That's just at the top. Tony (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – 1a. I finally got a chance to give the article a through reading, only to find numerous prose problems and other issues.

  • "Australian rules football and other sports such as:". Remove colon?
  • Why is there a need for two AFL links in the lead? Anyone interested will have clicked on the one in the first paragraph. I'd suggest de-linking the second.
  • History: "Despite cricketers being in 'full [...] praise' of the ground". This is an awkward structure, and would be better presented as "Even though cricketers were in 'full [...] praise' of the ground".
  • "with the winner receiving $20." This is similar to the structure above, and should be searched for throughout.
  • World War II seems like a very common subject and might not need a link. Most readers will know what that is by now.
  • "not to resume until the 1945 season. The 1945 season...". Very close repetition here. Try to recast the second sentence to avoid the redundant use of "the 1945 season".
  • In this same sentence, NTFA really doesn't need a second link in one section, and it would be good to see the initials in parentheses after first use, to prevent any confusion readers may have.
  • "Three years later, twelve Ornamental tree were planted in their memory." Should it be "ornamental trees"?
  • "The $6.4 million re-development completed in 2000, was the first major phase of developing...". Just having one comma here causes to flow of this sentence to be sub-optimal. I recommend adding another after "re-development". I won't pick out every punctuation use I disagree with, but this is another area that should be inspected throughout, since it is crucial for professional writing.
  • "this meant that almost the entire seating area was protected from the weather." For a better read, consider "this meant that almost all of the seating area was protected from the weather."
  • "The insurance payout from the fire will determine whether the venue is expanded." I assume this hasn't been resolved yet? Both of the sources are from March 2008, so I thought that was worth asking about.
  • On a quick scan of Other uses: Who are the Socceroos? This should be explained for those unfamiliar with the Australian soccer team.
  • Formatting note: References from printed publications (like ref 20) should have the publisher in italics.
  • Reference 48 (update: now 50) has no given publisher (Sporting Pulse).

I must echo Tony is asking for you to do more than just fix these issues; the entire page should be given a third-party copy-edit. Nominators can easily become too close to the text to spot flaws, and a single reviewer can't spot everything. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did a second round of copyedit. My copyedits of others' articels always seem to not work :( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issues you've noted are all fixed I think. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check towards the end:
"York Park is an oval-shaped grassed arena surrounded by several different stands"—You could remove "different", unless there's some point in highlighting the difference between the stands (it's not obvious).
Free ad for Gunns, mentioned four times in three sentences; is that everyone's favourite "f... the environment paper mill" Gunns? Forget I said that. "17.15 (117)"—Perhaps I should read more closely to work out what is being converted to what.
"once they [a team] chipped wide out there"—this is a quote; even if it comes directly from a printed secondary source (it's just a ref number, not an explicit "as reported by the blah newspaper"), I'd make it "once [a team] chipped wide out there". That's what square brackets are for.
"the highest crowd since the fire"—so they sat on the top seats only? Perhaps "the largest crowd" (you were thinking "highest level of attendance").
"The stadium's lowest AFL attendance is 12,465, recorded in a match between St Kilda and Fremantle on 3 April 2005." I think "was 12,465, for a match ...".
I've reluctantly struck my Oppose. Is Giant satisfied with the recent work? Tony (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS A small point: the panoramic pic (really good one) at the bottom leaks over half the table to its right unless I widen my window significantly. Any way this could be a "center" image? Possibly first in the section, with the text wrapped against the table? Tony (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2009 (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 17:11, 6 October 2009 [47].

Jack Harkness

Nominator(s): ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that after a near-successful nomination two years ago the article has improved by leaps and bounds. Its focus is on real-world information without detriment to its succinctly discussed plot content and draws heavily on sources from news articles, reviews, creator interviews and academic publications. I believe any shortfalls can be addressed rapidly with the added impetus of the FAC nomination.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole article seems to be made up of really huge paragraphs. You may want to split many of them up for ease of reading. Reywas92Talk 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will split up some paragraphs as needed in an edit soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph splitting requires some (largely cosmetic and minor) restructuring, which to do properly I'll need a day or so. You can see how that's going on my sandbox in the meantime and I'll be submitting it in one large edit soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Aaaaand fixed.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great article, though I agree with what Reywas92 said about the long paragraphs. You'll need WP:ALT text for the images too. Provided that the citations check out, Support. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide those soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text provided.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there are some redlinks in your citations where you have linked to publishers that don't have articles. They aren't in the main text so don't look ugly, but maybe you should delink them. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - redlinks are useful, and whether they are in the main text or not they should only be removed if there is no prospect of an article being created. ϢereSpielChequers 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify to what you're referring?~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whitehorse1 (talk · contribs) has addressed this[48].~ZytheTalk to me! 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will identify them and try and find internet archive or newer alternatives soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Adding another layer to the character is a vague backstory which is gradually revealed as both programmes progress. I understand that the backstory is described in detail later in the article, but the lead should at least mention what kind of a backstory he has.
  • What would you suggest? It seems difficult to really go in and summarise what is a 2,000 year fictional history? I think to say it's vague is pretty much all we as 1) viewers and 2) editors and 3) following sources, can suppose.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I was thinking along the lines of "as a conman and as a hero" ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...ok... ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character returned in 2006 as the star of the spin-off series Torchwood, where he leads the Cardiff-based Torchwood Three, battling alien threats. , Three, battling -> Three in battling. Also, this is just personal preference but unless the battling is open warfare, I would use "combating" instead.
  • The audience also comes to learn Jack was once a prisoner of war,[13] and was an interrogator who used torture. Are we talking about the auidience or his team here?
  • In "Small Worlds",... Its not clear that this is an episode-better would be "In the episode "Small Worlds",...
  • Jack mourns her loss, now as an old woman. This sentance is confusing.
  • Before departing, Jack's speculation about his never-ending aging and reminiscence of his youthful nickname suggests to the audience that he may one day become the mysterious "Face of Boe" You should breifly describe what this Face of Boe is, like "...the mysterious "Face of Boe, a markably old creature of great age."
Yes really, if one is not familiar with the show they will have to follow the wikilink to find out what exactly the face is (this wouldn't be a problem if there was an image, but from previous discussions it seems that there were copyright problems wih it so ok). ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a description in the article itself, where said description is relevant. Knowing it's a recurring character revelation is necessary for appearances but the description in "Development" is sufficient enough, I should think! The worry is bloating the Appearances section with trivial/repeated detail.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "The Stolen Earth", Jack is summoned alongside fellow companions Martha and Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) to face the threat of the Daleks' creator Davros (Julian Bleach). What is the Daleks'? Please wikilink or describe.
    • The Daleks were wikilinked above, with the context making them "an enemy". Won't it be kind of laborious to specify an "alien-mutant-cyborg race"? We know it's in space, the future, and they're an enemy species
  • The next episode sees him part company from the Doctor once again, with Martha and Mickey (Noel Clarke) in tow, having helped save the universe from destruction. How did he save the universe from destruction?
  • The novel also explained that during the events of the Doctor Who episode "Boom Town" (which was set in Cardiff), Jack placed a lockdown on Torchwood activity so as not to create a paradox. A paradox? Of what kind?
  • In a similar vein to The Torchwood Archives but from a real-world perspective, Russell's The Torchwood Encyclopedia (2009) will expand on "every fact and figure" for Jack and the Torchwood world. Is Russel's a publishing company or an author?
OK :D ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first series of Torchwood, the Torchwood website located at torchwood.org.uk recounted some adventures by Captain Jack through... add a "," after website and before recounted.
  • In addition to the paperback novels, Jack also appears in Torchwood audio books, the first two being Hidden written by Steven Savile and narrated by Naoko Mori,[67] Everyone Says Hello written by Dan Abnett and narrated by Burn Gorman, released February 2008,[68] and In the Shadows by Joseph Lidster, released September 2008 and narrated by Eve Myles. Isn't it three then?
  • John Barrowman himself was a key factor in the conception of Captain Jack. Who is John Barrowman? A producer? The actor?
OK, but one wikilink for an important and not-everybody-known person is not enough, I generally think that they need to be linked a couple of times or so. ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character's introduction served to posit him as a secondary hero and a rival to the series protagonist, the Doctor... I'm pretty sure posit is a spelling mistake :)
    • Posit
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest.
3. To place firmly in position.
Not sure, do you think I should use a DIFFERENT word?~ZytheTalk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? I thought it was a spelling mistake. Didn't realize it was a real word :O. I'de use positiob though but OK. ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? T? ...OK... ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussing Jack's brief romance with his namesake, the real Captain Jack (Matt Rippy), academic critics have noted that "The Captain Jacks both share the same name and are quite similar in physical appearance, thus literalizing the homo-ness of the situation. Academic critics? Isn't it show critics?
Wierd but OK. ResMar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this is your first "serious" review. Whoo that was long. Didn't realize this article was so long whn I started. However once all of the above issues are resolved I am ready to support.

Also, can you do me a favor, and review/vote MY current FAC, Loihi Seamount? Thanks, ResMar 19:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will and I'll start addressing these. Ones not yet refuted will be fixed.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, addressed them.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still have problems with the article / are you ready to support yet? :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still disagree on a couple of issues, but I'm ready to support. Oh and thanks for the Loihi vote, it pushed it into closable :) Cheers, ResMar 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the others, 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. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. From what I know personally, the cites use reliable sources themselves and aren't simply popular blogs but I'll take a look for some very soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lookover. Should I give the RS noticeboard a go on some in particular?~ZytheTalk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, and the RS qualifications, I feel that the websites qualify as reliable for the sources which they provide. For example, the Popculturezoo is a transcription of a Comic-Con interview which they express sufficient qualification to report on. End of Show and Pop Culture Zoo have similar levels of within their sphere credibility. That is to say, they're not Reuters, but they're far above the levels of forums and user blogs.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I'm kinda dubious on them. FA isn't just meeting the bare standards of Wikipedia but trying for the best possible sources, and I'm not sure these meet that standard. However, that's more for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it's a case of scraping the barrel. I think it's more a case the necessary information being reliably attributed. It's a shame that the SciFiWire link went dead but SciFiPulse is a suitable source in its reproduction of some of that original information. Are there any more links I haven't gotten to?~ZytheTalk to me! 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a terrific idea for an article, and long over due. Captain Jack is a fascinating character, and his sexual orientation, and the openness of it, creates interesting plot twists and cultural comments. That said, I've read the first 3 paragraphs, and am finding prose problems in nearly every sentence. Could we please fix some of them before plunging further ahead? in the lead:

Jack goes on to become the central character in Torchwood, ... Jack becomes....
'...hands-on solution to the problem at hand.' ???
the character becomes immortal, a lasting change throughout his appearances in both series.
The popularity of the character amongst multiple demographics directly influenced the development of the spin-off series Torchwood, in which Jack is the lead amongst an ensemble cast. ... and how can there abe a lead in an ensemble?
Jack is a former "Time Agent" Although he poses....Jack is actually...
unwittingly responsible for releasing a plague during the Blitz. Or a plague in London...
matures into an heroic character? how do we know? What makes him an heroic character?
He is then left behind by the Doctor and Rose, who depart Satellite 5 in the TARDIS. The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series of Doctor Who was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored.[7] Who depart from Satellite 5...next sentence is incredibly awkward. has nothing to do with the story, but rather the rationale for the story, so doesn't belong here anyway. OR, even better: The doctor and rose leave him behind.
The character returned in.... you are in the present tense...returns.
a changed man, Jack became immortal after his resurrection and spent years on Earth waiting to reunite with the Doctor. Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles) to his team. Confusing. How about...His resurrection by Billie has made him immortal, and immortality has changed him. He has spent years on Earth waiting to reunite with the Doctor who, he hopes, can explain his immortality.

This is just the first 4 paragraphs, as I've said. I think part of the problem the depth of detail you're trying to do, rather than stepping way back and simply summarizing the character. Also, once you get past the initial plot and character summaries, it improves dramatically. Much less confusing, repetitive, or awkward. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the lead and the first part, do you want me to put it on the talk page and you can decide whether you like it or not? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the prose does appear awkward then I would like to put that down to attempting to cover broad, detailed content in a sort of general overview. I am satisfied with your edits, although I think saying meeting Estelle "lays the groundwork for future complications" (which of course it does) isn't stated in a secondary source which makes analysis slightly reaching. Apart from that, I personally do not have a problem with your edits at all, and I would be happy for you to submit them to the article to earn your support!~ZytheTalk to me! 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
go ahead and incorporate what you wish, and then drop me a line, and I'll reread the whole thing for measurement against FA guides. Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll do this later (I'm not as prompt as I'd like to be because of my uni work). I'm not going to copy your edit entirely because I find it removes some of what I think is essential detail for the reader (such as clarifying early on that the Doctor is the central character) but I think you make some great simplifications that never occurred to me. Hopefully you'll be happy! I should think (and hope) so.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's starting to look better. A "couple" (dozen?) things:

  • this sentence doesn't belong in the character appearances section, because it's a production decision--it goes later in your article. "The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series of Doctor Who was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored. Also, it's poorly written. Whereever you put it: Jack's absence from the 2006 series of Doctor Who was a character and story decision; the series creators preferred to explore the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose. if it must stay where it is, please use ( ).
  • ...."2006 as the star" Jack Harkness isn't the star, he is a central character.
  • ...where... should be in which
  • ...became....sb Jack has become immortal ??
  • ...Jack mourns her loss, now as an old woman. this is reaaallllly awkward. Jack mourns her lost youth. (her loss= her loss of her cat, or her handy...) Or he mourns losing the young woman he knew; she is now very old, and he is still very young.
  • ...to the audience ... actually, the audience may speculate, but his reminiscence suggests to the Doctor and Martha....
  • ...they have moved on without him.... awkward.....they have continued the work without him.
  • ...a young Jack (Jack Montgomery) lost his younger brother Gray (Ethan Brooke) during an alien invasion after releasing his hand .... young Jack (no "a") lost his brother... , after releasing his hand.
  • ... features flashback scenes... more flashbacks
  • ...Gray (Lachlan Nieboer), who, after a lifetime of torture, returns with a vendetta against Jack. After Gray kills T and O, Jack is eventually forced to places Gray in cryogenic stasis, and while somewhat repairing his friendship with Captain John, must also mourns the deaths of teammates Toshiko (Naoko Mori) and Owen (Burn Gorman) at Gray's hand
  • ...Jack is summoned alongside with former companions of the Doctor (someone who doesn't know the story won't understand "fellow companions") Or the Doctor summons Jack and other former companions Martha Jones and Sarah...
  • ...to face the threat of Davros.... To fight Davros and his creation, the Daleks.
  • ....The next episode sees him part company from the Doctor once again, with Martha and Mickey (Noel Clarke) in tow, having helped save the universe from destruction. .... confusing... does Jack have Mickey and Martha in tow? or does the doctor? He parts company from the Doctor in the next episode, having saved the universe from destruction. The presence of Mickey and Martha is superfluous to Jack's story here.
  • ...The third series of Torchwood (2009) is a five-part serial titled... I still don't like this wording but at least use the word "entitled" .... Even better, Torchwood's third series (2009) is a five-part serial entitled .... Or In Torchwood (2009): Children of the Earth, or In the five part Children of the Earth, the third Torchwood series (2009)...
  • .....puts a hit on Torchwood to cover a conspiracy. Your 9th grade English teacher would be unhappy. .... orders a hit on

*....Jack is killed in an explosion, but reconstitutes from an incomplete pile of body parts in less than a day..... you've made the case that he is immortal, so he cannot be killed. Jack is blown apart in an explosion that destroys Torchwood's Cardiff facility, but reconstitutes himself from a pile of body parts in less than a day.

  • ....The 456 demand ten percent of the world's children, and flashbacks reveal Jack's involvement in the original sacrifice of twelve children in 1965....The 456 demand ten percent of the world's children. Flashbacks reveal Jack's involvement in a previous visit, in which he handed 12 children to the aliens, on the secret orders of the government. This time, however, Jack will not hand over any children.
  • you've lost an important element here, and I'm not sure if I did that in my suggestions, or not. But the conspiracy has to be mentioned. The enemy is not only the 456, but also the government, which wants to hand over 10% of the world's children, but cannot decide which 10%. Jack, Gwen and Ianto must fight not only the 456, but also the government. It is unclear who is the more diabolical enemy.
  • ...In the final part,... in the season finale
  • ...leavea Earth behind
  • ...Doctor Who, which also....

It's much better though. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm going through this on my sandbox right now and and will use this as a handy checklist! I don't think the edits need to be too drastic, actually, as I'm comparing your draft with the current version. I'll announce here when I've done this (hopefully won't be too long) and hopefully you can evaluate whether or not it earns your support! :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've updated the mainspace with new prose which addresses your concerns. Thank you so much!~ZytheTalk to me! 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking and a few other matters

  • Some readers may take offence at the assumption that being gay or bisexual is exotic or relatively obscure. I see in the lead links to "bisexual", "non-heterosexual", "gay". Even grade-school children know what these words mean. It's not "dirty" any more: it's normal.
  • I really think we could drop the idea of linking "fictional character". And "narrative", "demographics", and "ensemble cast" are all plain English words our readers are expected to know, too. If a reader barely speaks English, they can use a dictionary or type the item into the search box. Please direct wikilinking to the valuable targets or they will be swamped.
  • After the lead, the problem is not as evident, and most of the links are valuable. I do see "prisoner of war", which isn't very focused on this topic; and "Christmas Day" (what is THAT?). "Executive producer" and "head writer" seem clear enough—do they need to compete with the guy's name-link, which surely explains those items in better context? "Infatuation" is a normal word.
  • There's a link to "heterosexual"; "pansexual"; even "sexual orientation". One such link in the whole article would do, preferably not in the lead. And maybe "Queerness", although I note there's resistance in the MoS to the linking of items without quotations (not a ban, though). "Sexual identity" and "societal views of homosexuality" right down further might be just enough by themselves. But "Bisexual erasure", piped to "dismissed or overlooked"? LGB will mean nothing to most readers; must they divert to the link target? "Toleration" is a normal English word. "Bisexual stereotyping" linked? I mean, we get it by now, don't we? I rather think the article places too much emphasis on his homosexuality in terms of the space given over to it, e.g., in "Critical reception and impact".
  • Ellipsis dots: please see "Ellipses" concerning the spacing.
  • Link to "human evolution" (piped "evolved"): can it be a more specific link, perhaps to a relevant section or daughter article?
  • Some fans were displeased by Ianto's death scene and the end of the relationship, and some even accused one the writers of "deliberately egging on the shippers'."—The "displeased by" pipe is opaque: why not "Ianto's death scene"? "Shippers" is a good link, although you might consider saving some readers the journey to that article by inserting in square brackets a brief gloss of the term (if it's possible to be brief—otherwise not). Tony (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I am going to clean up the overlinking issues you noted and some of the piped links, however I don't think it's a fair statement to say there is "too much emphasis on his homosexuality" [homosexuality?]; this is where a lot of the real-world notability and critical observation centres. It's hardly as if it gets entire sections, it gets appropriate paragraphs where necessary, and is a fundamental trait of the character.~ZytheTalk to me! 09:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may well come over as obsessive. What is the secondary-source evidence that it is a fundamental trait of the character? (More than just one person's published opinion.) Whatever that outcome, the number of links to sexuality-related pages is excessive, especially given that they probably chain to each other, and the repeated references, even in unlinked, are a bit much. What is the big deal? Why don't we run around inserting signs of heterosexuality into articles on fictional characters? Tony (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sources that are discussed each assert what makes the content notable. In fact, if something specificially about a character's heterosexuality was groundbreaking or commanded media attention in some way, then it certainly would be included. To say that I have "run around inserting signs" of homosexuality into the article is at best, frankly, shocking. The wikilinks refer to unfamiliar terms to the average user. In cases where the words are common English or parlance, or an obscure piped link, they will be de-linked.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated the article to address simple English links. Occasionally, in one or two cases such as "pansexual" and "bisexual stereotyping" where these definitions are complex, important and/or the wording unavoidable, the link has been retained. The ellipses have been fixed to suit the MoS. I hope this is more to your liking.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Support Zythe, it's much better now. I've added a couple of tweaks using the invisibility markup. Mainly it meant taking a few words out here and there. I think in the lead you don't need to refer to jack as bi-sexual, since you're already talking about him as non-heterosexual... I also agree with Tony that the links are over done, especially relating to the LBG terms. Got to give people some credit for brain power. Once the linking is worked out, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, are there still any links which offend?~ZytheTalk to me! 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Moni3 until the following is reconciled.

  • Give me and the other readers who are woefully impoverished of the backstory of Dr. Who some context. The most I ever watched of Dr. Who were five minute stints of episodes from the 1970s just for their guffaw-inducing special effects and props. State in the lead and Television section that it's a science fiction show and define what a companion means, please. What is a Time Agent?
  • Why would he bring a bomb onto his ship?
  • Should this appear on the main page, it should be accessible by readers who are completely unfamiliar with Dr. Who lore. I find the Television section to be bordering on jargon, and an insider's preknowledge of the show and its functions necessary to comprehend the article. I don't understand this sentence: having spent years on Earth waiting to reunite with the Doctor. Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles) to his team of experts after she discovers them;
  • This too: Jack explains he returned from Satellite 5 to the present day by travelling to 1869 via vortex manipulator, and lived through the 20th century waiting for the Doctor
  • So Torchwood is a person? Or group of something?
  • By the third paragraph in Television I admit, I am out to sea not sure weather to laugh at the article or weep at my own ignorance because the words sound quite funny put together this way without my understanding of what they all mean.
  • I skipped down to Concept and creation: the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph: does it need five cites? Persuade me. If not, consider creating a Notes section. This will clear up the weaselish wording in A number of television critics
  • This sentence is too complex and should be re-punctuated: John Barrowman describes the character in his initial appearance as "an intergalactic conman" and also a "rogue Time Agent" which he defines as "part of a kind of space CIA" and alludes to the moral ambiguity of having "done something in his past" and not knowing "whether it is good or bad because his memory has been erased".
  • Writer Stephen James Walker finds that similarities between Jack and Angel, the heroic vampire from America's Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, have been noted; Does this mean that Walker notes that others have noted it? Or is it a redundancy that should be fixed?

Ok. I'm going to stop here. There is enough for me to oppose, and I tend not to go on and on in FACs listing all the problems to fix. I am willing to assist on the talk page, however, if you are interested in my opinions on how to improve the article. My general recommendations for now are to re-read the article as if you had never seen the show and ask if the elements in explaining Harkness would make sense, and print the article, read it out loud even to yourself and ask yourself in each sentence if what you are trying to say can be streamlined. Make no mistake; I think the article has potential and there are some interesting elements to it. I think it would do very nice on the main page when it gets there. Drop me a note if you wish for further input. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refs mix ISO-style (YYYY-MM-DD), Day Month Year, and even a few Month Day, Year dates. Use one for all of them. I suggest either ISO-style (the most common in this article's refs) or DMY (MDY is used more in the US than the UK). --an odd name 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will address. Back at uni now, but will get a good look at soon. The problem with the context has been not bloating the whole thing (a major possibility with science fiction), as well as satisifying other editors' requirements for immense detail, and whatnot. Some of the other things are minor or are correct but could do with being more clear.163.1.167.161 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2009 (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 17:11, 6 October 2009 [49].

Chadderton

Nominator(s): --Jza84 |  Talk  10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello all. I am nominating this for featured article because I'm confident this article passes the FA criteria (or at least will by way of addressing any of your concerns here). I've taken simillar articles through the FA process before, and of course, Chadderton has also been through the GA process, successfully. Thanking you in advance, --Jza84 |  Talk  10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed that the Harvnb template for ref 31 isn't working. Mm40 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me. What problem are you seeing? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he means the one that's currently ref32 - it links to "Sellers 1991", but there's no book by that name in the bibliography. – iridescent 14:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I'm not sure where it came from to be honest. There's three other references in there to back up that particular area, so all's good still I think. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are eleven occurrences of "Chadderton" in the lead alone, many others throoughout. Can some of these be lost or glossed?
    • Historically a part of Lancashire would be more in context at the end of the opening sentence of the article
    • Were the mansions actually ancient in the Middle Ages as stated, or are they ancient now?
    • nationally by way, why not nationally and a comma?
    • latter of whom - last of whom?
    • marked by its landscape of surviving red-brick cotton mills lose surviving? couldn't really have a landscape of non-existent mills
    • link listed building perhaps?
    • once marched along it, why the comma?
    • Cockersand Abbey surely an religious institution, not an order?
    • John Ashton and Thomas Buckley of Cowhill and Baretrees respectively better as John Ashton of Cowhill and Thomas Buckley of Baretrees
    • minor fixes
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 17:11, 6 October 2009 [52].

Interstate 68

Nominator(s): Algorerhythms (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This was a previous FA candidate a few months ago. I've tried to address the concerns that were brought up then, and I'm bringing it back for another go at it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is present and of good quality (thanks!) but two images lack alt text. Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review article. One of these two images, File:Circle sign 857.svg, should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. The other, File:Interstate 68 map.png, needs alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "link" thing to the CR 857 image, but I don't know how to add the alt text to the map, as it's placed by a template. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map_alt=I believe.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, now I've added alt text to the map, too. - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The cities parameter of the infobox has been deprecated per a previous discussion at WT:USRD.
    Removed.
  2. The alt text for the US 48 shield needs some work as it needs to physically describe what the image looks like.
    Changed.
  3. When using Template:Inflation, add {{Inflation-fn|US}} as a reference for the inflation amount.
    Changed.
  4. Why are the mileposts for the Maryland exit list rounded to the nearest tenth. The HLR gives mileages to the nearest hundredth.
    I've changed them to hundredths.
  5. Reference 36 comes up as an Error 403 Forbidden. Dough4872 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the site I was linking to has disabled external linking. So I've commented out that link. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My issues have been resolved. Dough4872 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes(I noted AASHTO but there are others...such as JHU Press...)
    I've spelled out all the abbreviations I've found in the footnotes. If I missed any, let me know.
  • Pick either last name first or first name first for your references, and stick with it. Right now you've got some of both style.
    I've changed them to first name first since most of them were already that way. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 16 September 2009 (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 17:11, 6 October 2009 [53].

Effects of Hurricane Georges in Cuba

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to work the system to get those images, they were all gotten by a now retired user. According to the recent FAC for Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana those images were fine. Also, thanks for the images review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it and replaced it with a much more reliable source Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (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 17:11, 6 October 2009 [54].

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Nominator(s): ATC . Talk 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am re-nominating The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie; after User:Truthkeeper88 fixed prose and WP:MOS with a copyedit. I and Truthkeeper88 both think it meets the criteria and I am nominating it. If you detect one or two minor problem's with prose or MOS, Truthkeeper88 told me, that the user will be fixing those requests that you make below. ATC . Talk 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. The lead image needs alt text as per WP:ALT. Please fill in the |alt= parameter of the {{Infobox Film}} template at the start of the article. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per request from Truthkeeper88. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good. Eubulides (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All About Jazz appears to be an e-zine with a managing editor. Am having trouble connecting to redherring.com but will check that site as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the Nickkacapress source as their is already a reference to the same information. Also, as Truthkeeper said, AllAboutJazz.com/ is typed by and editing manager, so it is reliable. Also RedHerring is a news article source and is reliable. ATC . Talk
Do you mean that Red Herring is by a news organization such as CNN, or a newspaper? Also, is All About Jazz actually sustained by subscriptions? Do other sources consider it reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All About Jazz does not appear to be sustained by subscriptions, but it does have a masthead. The text sourced by All About Jazz is can also be sourced with this if that's more acceptable. That John B. Williams played in a band with Michael Wolff doesn't seem to be controversial, so if All about Jazz and Amazon are not acceptable I can try accessing some databases for news articles if you'd prefer. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the information is available here in the San Francisco Chronicle. That's the best source, I'd reckon. Sorry about the multiple posts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted and replaced http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/musician.php?id=11494 & deleted http://www.redherring.com/Home/22486 as per ATC's consent. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - The only image in the article, which is fair use, meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems pretty solid to me.
  • The band features lead singer-songwriter and keyboardist Nat, drummer Alex, guitarist Josh, keyboardist David, cellist Thomas, and manager Cooper. John B. Williams is responsible for signing the band to Who's The Man Records, the label that brought the group to fame. The film begins with the band performing "Motormouth" at the Hammerstein Ballroom. - fix the grammar problem(s), plz.
Rewritten. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After watching the media talking about the band's split on television, Nat writes a song about it, titled "If There Was a Place to Hide", and fans gather pleading for the band to reunite. - comma after gather
Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! ceranthor 00:25, 6 October 2009 (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 17:11, 6 October 2009 [55].

I Look to You

Nominator(s): Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is the of the highest quality. I have taken personal responsibility to ensure that only the most credible of sources are used and that the album has clear fluidity in its format. The infobox is amongst the best that i have come accross with many articles (it was sourced recording information, properly formatted dates and credible reviews). The lead section summarises exactly what has been achieved with the article.

Follwing the lead section is a background section which clearly sets out the tone for the concept of the album using quotes from Houston. The music section uses a neutral tone to give readers a flavour of what the album contains, how its songs are different to Houston's previous releases. The releases and promotion section explain how the album was not rushed and clearly sets out how the album recieved a lot of critical reception before its release. It also incorporates a very brief summary of the singles. This is followed by a track listing and full set of credits sourced. Charts, certificates and successions are clearly set out, where possible links have been added for the charts. The article ends with a comprehensive release history.

I personally believe that this is the future of what good album pages will look like. It was and is alwas challenging to incorporate the vast volume of information that was available. however with clever headings and a logical fluid format i believe the information is streamlined and all credible & relevant. Overall this should be a featured article for its strict continuity and as a tribute to Houston. Compared to a lot of her previous albums this page offers much more depth and insight into the background, history, success and release of the album. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose, suggest withdrawal: This album was released less than a month ago, and has not even been released yet in all territories (for eg: UK, which I learn from the first sentence of the lead). All the same, the article needs polishing, and could do with a thorough copy-edit or two. Also, consider restructuring the article, and removing some stuff to make it more readable. (That sentence that indiscriminately lists 13 recording studios is particularly tiresome to read) indopug (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (mainly on 1b and consequently 1c). Suggest withdrawal. I echo what Indopug said. Too close to the release date and hasn't even been released in all territories. Albums should be left till after the end of the year before coming to FAC anyway, because end-of-year lists and awards are not compiled till then. Also, you need that sort of material as well as long-term sales data to place the article in context. There are other things that I could comment on, but they'll be redundant. On a final note, take it to GAN first and then peer review. RB88 (T) 06:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Rainbows/archive1. The GAN and PR was simply advice. I'd like to get as many album articles to FA, but not before they're even been technically released, especially in a territory of the English Wikipedia. The reasoning is that current events, which this wholly is, should not be at FAC until everything has transpired. For album articles, this means all releases, end-of-year awards and nominations, sales, maybe even tours which could be linked explicitly to it (tours for this could even last years!). McCain and Obama are inapplicable in this case as they born in 1936 and 1961. The election was a footnote in their half-century lives. The release of an album in a major territory is a whole chunk of its comprehensiveness. I stand by my verdict. To use a nice quote from the In Rainbows FAC: "Surely its impact on the music world has not been entirely decided on yet? Let us give the album more than four weeks to have an impact on other artists, shall we? Also, let us at least wait until all versions of it have been released. What happens if a CD release has a wildly different impact (for whatever reason) - that would drastically change the article." RB88 (T) 08:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that neither previous GA review nor peer review are required for FA nomination. Rafablu and Indopug, can you comment please on how comprehensive the article for what has been published on this topic? In the past, articles have been promoted to FA even though we knew that there were events coming that would impact the article (for the most prominent examples, see John McCain and Barack Obama). Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes request above. Please review. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose, 1a; also suggest withdrawal Lines such as:

  • Davis told Warren, that she had "written one of her great copyrights.";
  • Despite never being official released the song charted at number 25 on the U.S. Billboard Hot Dance/Club Chart Chart.; and
  • Robert Kelly (R. Kelly) contributed two songs to the album, "Salute" is a conceptual song in that it is militaristic, with its marching beat and R Kelly has his vocals featured in the chorus where he can be heard in the background ("Eh eh eh").

are cause for concern. I also fixed a close paraphrase, but the article has enough run-on clauses and sentences and reads in such an iffy way that I suspect there's many more. As Indopug said, give it several copyedits and more time in general. Withdraw it, fix it at your own pace, and bring it back after a few weeks and a good deep breath. :) --an odd name 21:45, 5 October 2009 (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 22:29, 3 October 2009 [56].

The Ex-Girlfriend

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. The article has passed GAn a few weeks back and has since been through a peer review and has been copy-edited by one and a half copy-editors. Hopefully, this will be the Seinfeld WikiProject's first FA.--Music26/11 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. Here are a few observations from the top, which indicate that an independent copy-edit is required. Music2611, I think your writing will improve with practice and focus: it's worth cultivating. (You might consider tackling this page and few of its siblings. Let me know if they help (or don't help).

  • Is there a plain English alternative to "commencement"? I can think of one right away.
  • Why is "United States" linked? Please see WP:LINK.
  • "Later on, however, he realizes" -> "Later, he realizes".
  • "after realizing that he finds her just as annoying"—careful of too many "thats"; here, it can be removed. It's the second "realizes/ing" in three seconds. Remove another "that' bottom of first section. Audit throughout?
  • "The episode was inspired by one of Larry David's personal experiences, and contained various cultural references." Every TV program and movie contains "cultural references". I snagged on this because of that trigger "various", which usually means something is wrong.
  • "at CBS Studio Center in Studio City, Los Angeles, California"—this is a sea of blue: isn't it a chained link? If you click on "CBS Studio Center", you'll get a links to "Studio City" and "LA" anyway (so the first link is quite enough). And in any case, LA is not normally worth linking, like New York City and Washington DC. Same with "Hollywood": isn't it covered by the previous link?
  • "she tells him that Jerry and her can still be friends,"—oops. "to tell George that he his dating Marlene"—is that a typo?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2009&oldid=321793813"