Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2014: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 2
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive1}}

Revision as of 23:32, 12 April 2014

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 GrahamColm 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Uncle David

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British avant-garde independent film about an abused man who finds solace in his uncle on the Isle of Sheppey. It attained GA status many months ago and has since gone through FAC twice, each time getting neglected. The last time it failed was on 31 December 2013, but User:Ian Rose suggested that it might be third time lucky, and permitted me to re-submit it before the usual fortnight was up. So, that's precisely what I'm doing... and third time lucky ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 comment

I did the GA review on this article. Per my usual practice, I just pick the article that has been waiting the longest. So far history has been repeating itself, with no review during the first two FA nominations. Whether it is to pass or fail, this article deserves to get reviewed. Please do! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments
  • Sorry I didn't get to the last nomination. I'll give you a review now.

Image review

Text review

Many thanks for your comments, Crisco 1492 – they are much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose comment per User:Tony1's excellent writing guide, "with" is a particularly awkward additive link (ctrl+F for "With as an additive link"). You should recast the relevant sentences as suggested there.—indopug (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, indopug. I have looked up Tony1's page and am proceeding to replace many of the uses of "with" as an additive link in this article. Thanks again! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- @Midnightblueowl: It looks to me like Sturmvogel 66's most recent comments haven't been responded to, nor have there been any additional reviews since then. I'm loathe to close this for lack of interest, yet again, but there's not much else to do after almost two months, even allowing for the usual holiday period slowdown... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian Rose, I've responded to Sturmvogel's comment (apologies that I missed it). There's clearly a majority support here (albeit a majority of one); does not that mean that it should pass as a FA ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, you probably should take Sturm's advice and review more FACs -- although it's unwise to become too focussed on numbers of supports (consensus to promote is not based on that alone by any means) a minimum of three is required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the ping. I'm really more of a GA reviewer than a FA reviewer, but will give it a try. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 review

First my disclaimer. (see above ping) I've done a lot of GA reviews, (including the one for this article) but this is my first FA review. Would appreciate any critique from experienced FA reviewers. For FA I think that I should be tougher than I was for the GA review and will do so. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing an interest, User:North8000, I'll respond to your queries now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review discussion
  • Could you add a couple words explaining what "region free" means? Even the linked article does not explain it. Or maybe explain it at the linked article? :-) North8000 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. In the lead it mentions that it was shot without a script, but that is not covered in the article. And related to that, regarding article completeness, I think that there should be some coverage of that important & interesting aspect in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the lead is too short and incomplete. Most notably, there is very little in there from the entire "Production" section and it's two substantial ("Background" & "Development") subsections. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info box said that the budget was £4000 and a quote in the article said that the budget was under £1000. Could you reconcile or clarify this? North8000 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I can gather, £4000 is the total budget of the production, whereas £1000 was the budget for filming. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally, I'd be saying that this is important info, and also presume that the sources that came up with those two numbers would say what they covered. But since the numbers are so miniscule, 9we're talking about only a £3000 "disparity", and allowing for differing things to be included in the figures, I consider this to be a minor point. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify the following phrase: " while same-sex pornography starring Ashley plays on the television set." Is that referring to Ashley Ryder, the real world actor, or Ashley the character in the film? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It said that Boy George contributed a musical track for the film. It does not say whether it was just allowing use of one of his existing songs, or whether it was created for or debuted in the film. I think that this would be good info. Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one sentence in the article regarding the movie playing in theaters, which was a sentence on it's original release. The rest of the "release" section segues into and is about a discussion regarding potentially making a musical. Is it possible to add more on it's playing in theaters? North8000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could find no evidence that it was ever screened commercially in different cinemas. I think that it only played at a few film festivals, and then was released on DVD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like an important aspect for a movie, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing that covers the film's degree of commercial success. Is there any of this info available? North8000 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any plot info available on whether or not the Ashley character was an adult vs. a youth? The plot summary refers to him as a young man, and presumably the actor (being a porn actor) is an adult, but then a reviewer discussed the movie being about a paedophile "grooming" him; with that term usually meaning a youth as a target. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Results on meeting Featured Article criteria

  • 1b: On a "0 -10" scale, I'd call the prose an "8", and would consider that to be sufficiently good. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: I have some concerns that there are certain key aspects where info is not included and probably not available. It seems that there are little or no "overview" type sources which would cover for example, whether or not the movie even played in theaters. I think that the editor(s) probably did a good search for these and that they are probably not available. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: I think that the article certainly meets the second half of this criteria. Everything that is in the article is sufficiently sourced and cited. Regarding the first half, please see my notes under 1c. I think that more "overview" sourcing is needed to make this article ideal. If such exists, then more research was needed. If it doesn't exist, then sufficient research was done. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a: Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b: Meets this criteria. Structure looks appropriate for the size and content of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c: Appears to meet this criteria, but I am not a good judge of the smaller formatting details. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: Meets this criteria. Has 5 images. The two non-free images have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Meets this criteria. Certainly not over-sized or overly detailed. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: My thought is that that is the end of my comments. As I understand it, it is not my role to say "pass" or "fail". And again, I was the one who did the GA (Good Article) review and passed this one. I did not plan to do FA reviews, but I got pinged and felt that this is owed a review. I applied a tougher standard, but do not have a FA reviewing perspective. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North8000! It is much appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose - i thought this was very well put together. i do have a couple of other queries, though.

  • What establishes the significance of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website. Is it even a reliable source? I note it isn't wikilinked, which raises a question about how important it is.
    • Hmm. Fair point. I mean, it is an established website devoted to horror films, with a large number of reviewers (see this) but at the same time it does appear to be self-published. Any advice from other users who are more knowledgeable in this area would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the small number of sources, if anyone could check this, it would be great - Google Scholar indicates that the film is referred to, but I don't know if the reference is of any consequence.

Nice article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

while Ryder portrayed a misbehaved nine-year-old. - hmm, I'd say "while Ryder portrayed a misbehaving nine-year-old".

Closing comments - Sadly, after an extraordinary time here at FAC, I don't think the prose is up to scratch. I made one edit to help tighten the writing but clunkiness remains. The use of "the latter" is often a sign of non-professional prose and should be avoided. I suggest recruiting a good copy-editor who can bring a fresh pair of eyes to the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (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 Ian Rose 15:58, 9 April 2014 [2].

Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)

Nominator(s): Me5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 animated series Napoleon Dynamite. I have improved this article substantially and it is now a Good Article. I believe it is now ready for featured article status. Me5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Curly Turkey

This article seems awfully short for an entire TV series, even if there were only six episodes—is it really that comprehensive? I can't see the "Home media" section flying—only one sentence, and the "sources" are the retailers' websites? Does that not fall under Original Research? Ditto "International broadcasting". I also noticed some spelling errors—obviously this thing should be in American spelling, but I see "cancelling" in the final paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used every source I could find that had new information on the subject, I don't think there is anything else to tell, at least nothing that could be verified. I don't see how I could make the home media section any longer, there is no other information. As for the sources for the home media section I used featured article The Wire as one of my example articles to help write Napoleon Dynamite, if you look at The Wire's DVD section it uses Amazon as source for the Region 1 and 2 DVD releases, so I thought the sources I used would be all right. Does The Wire article contain original research as well? Essentially ditto for the international broadcasting section. I thought "cancelling" was the correct spelling, it is even listed in the oxford english dictionary [3], but I'll change it if it is needed. I looked over the article again and couldn't find any other spelling errors, please bring them to my attention. Me5000 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cancelling" is correct Commonwealth spelling. American spelling tends not to double final consonants when the final syllable is unstressed. Why? Ask an American—I'm Canadian.
    I'm definitely not asking for a longer list—I'm wondering if it's truly notable if nobody but the advertisers and retailers bothered to note it. Either way, a one-sentence section is hard to justify—it's unlikely the info in it couldn't find a home somewhere else in the article, if it is indeed included at all (to be honest, the info seems pretty trivial to me. If I were the one editing this article I'd simply drop it). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from Tezero:

  • "Some critics thought it translated well to animation, while others did not." - Kind of a cliche sentence. Either talk about why they did or didn't, or rephrase the sentence to something like "Critics were divided on how well the source material translated to animation."
  • "averaged 4 million" --> "averaged only 4 million"
  • Mention something in the intro about the show's unusually short run of six episodes.
  • "2004 cult film of the same name": Remove "cult"; it was a pretty high-grossing film and, at the very least, its status as a cult classic isn't relevant.
  • "get sick of the characters": A little informal. What about "tire of"?
  • "Guest voices included Amy Poehler, Jennifer Coolidge, Sam Rockwell, and Jemaine Clement.": Relevance? It's a one-sentence paragraph, and these actors are all listed later.
  • "Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Staten Island Advance gave the show negative reviews, as well as neutral reviews": Mediocre grammar. Change the "as well as neutral reviews" to "while it received neutral reviews from" or something.
  • You should probably add citations to the character lists. Tezero (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did everything. Also realized the reception section was kind of bad and expanded it. When sourcing the character list I had to cut down some of the info because I couldn't find sources for some information. Me5000 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per addressing of my and Curley Turkey's comments and the article's (partially resultant) high quality. Nice! Tezero (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Given the relatively meager number of reviewers and the fact that there's been no activity for about a month, I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (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 Ian Rose 15:58, 9 April 2014 [4].

Josh Hutcherson

Nominator(s): Gloss • talk 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American actor, currently in the off-season of his current major film projects. The article has received a major facelift over the past two months or so, and I'm nominating it because I believe it's well-written and well-researched, as it covered every notable aspect of Hutcherson's life and career. I attempted to bring this to peer review before it's GAN, but it received no comments after a few weeks. Since then, it's passed its GAN and appeared on the main page for a DYK, where a few other editors lent a hand in further improving the article. Any and all criticism is welcome! Gloss • talk 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Eisfbnore

  • "Along the way, he picked up four Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor, two of which he won." – the phrasing is a bit informal.
  • "In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series, based on an adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel series." – tautology
  • "Hutcherson's passion for entertaining people began developing at the age of three when he would watch television and think "how cool it would be to be like them." – 1) a bit verbose. Consider rephrasing. 2) to be like whom?
  • "For six years his parents had ignored his requests to pursue acting, however they realized that it could be something worth pursuing for Hutcherson and was not just a phase" – ortography: "; however, (at one point) they realized... [semicolons to separate independent clauses]
  • "In the animated film Howl's Moving Castle, he voiced the character of Markl alongside Christian Bale and Billy Crystal." – Presumably Bale and Crystal voiced other characters in the same movie, whilst Markl's voice was provided solely by Hutcherson. The sentence says otherwise.
  • "He also performed in 2004's The Polar Express." – really? Wasn't that an animated film? Suggest changing the verb.
  • "the reception was not nearly as positive as his previous films" – HUh? The sentence currently says that his previous films had been more positive than the reception for Red Dawn. Makes no sense. Perhaps something like "Later in 2012, he appeared in Red Dawn, a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. The film was panned by critics, achieving only a 12% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the lowest score of any film Hutcherson has appeared in.
  • "The day following the films' United States release," – misplaced apostrophe
  • "In 2013, Hutcherson voiced the character, Nod, in the animated action-adventure film Epic, alongside Beyoncé and Colin Farrell." –excessive use of commas
  • " He also has cited actor Jake Gyllenhaal as an inspiration." – word order

As you may see, the prose clearly needs some work, and I really think the article should have gone through peer review before landing here. However, English is not my mother tongue, so some of the above comments may be misguided. I wish you good luck. Eisfbnore (会話) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eisfbnore: No worries about the language barrier, your comments were helpful and I've made all of your suggested changes. Also, I did bring the article to peer review back in December, but it received zero feedback and was archived by a few weeks later. See the page's history. Thank you, Gloss • talk 18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

Before becoming a FA, here are some things I would do:

Early Life
  • Second sentence is rather lengthy. Try something like "He is a son of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyst Chris Hutcherson and former Delta Air Lines employee Michelle (Fightmaster) Hutcherson." and add "Mother Michelle now helps with Josh's career" right afterwards.
  • Last sentence is also lengthy, and would read better as something like "After ignoring his requests to pursue acting for six years, his parents started to listen and allowed him to pursue it."
Continued success through The Hunger Games
  • In the first sentence of the first paragraph, just use ref#28 (Los Angeles Times).
  • ref#40 (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis) should be outside of the parentheses (second paragraph)
  • Here's something you could use: (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|420000000|2013|r=0}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars).{{inflation-fn|US}}
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph should have spaced out from the ref's, and just use ref#43 (Rolling Stone)
Personal Life
  • Info on brother should be in "Early Life" section, right after bits on parents.
  • If including ethnicity, that should also be in early life section. Try to find a better source than EthniCelebs or remove altogether, as admins Acalamari and Kww have informed me that the site is known for having questionable-at-best reliability.
  • The info on Jake Gyllenhaal inspiration would probably be better in early life section, or perhaps make a section dedicated to his acting inspirations and styles with that in it.
  • Justin Timberlake info is trivial, I'd remove that
  • Regarding this comment and the one above it, there isn't enough information here to create it's own section. So combining it with his personal life seems like a reasonable compromise. And I disagree that the Timberlake info is trivial. He was a fan of his growing up, essentially the same as an influence (like Gyllenhaal) Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was an influence, that should be included rather than stating he was a fan.
  • Hobbies info is also trivial and should be removed
  • Favorite sports teams are also trivial and should be removed
  • Biographies are not simply supposed to be about the person's career. Personal life information has always included information like this. If anyone else has a concern with it, we can discuss it further. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For his relationships, find better sources than Us Weekly, Huffington Post, and People, or remove altogether
  • Not so much me disliking as it is me often noting poor support for basis (i.e. a recurring example of poor support they use is where a quote is followed by "according to sources" or "sources say" without giving the names of these "sources") and frequent inaccuracy
  • In the instance provided on poor support, what I neglected to mention is how they would have more merit if the names of the "sources" were provided rather than simply stating "according to sources" or "sources say". Also, unless I'm mistaken there are always accepted sources and sources that are considered to be even better. In this case, try to go with those deemed to be in the "even better" range (i.e. Boston Globe, Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Washington Post).
  • It was meant as more of a recommendation than pushing, though I'm sorry if it came off as pushing.
  • Remove the red link to "Straight But Not Narrow"
  • Interesting..... most times I've seen users avoid them whenever possible.....
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#57 (E!) at the end of the second-to-last sentence.
  • What I meant was, you don't need to include ref#57 twice in a row.
  • Find a better source than People (ref#59) or remove altogether
  • Only use one image if any of him with Vanessa Hudgens. I'd personally recommend the one of them on the beach if any as it gives a clearer view of their faces.
  • In this case, because one image doesn't provide a very good view of the faces.
Awards and nominations
  • Find a better source than ref#62 (IMDb) or remove altogether
  • Remove the red link to "Chlotrudis Awards" and "Best Cast"
  • Find a better source than ref#76 (Huffington Post) or remove altogether

I agree that this should've gone through a peer review before being nominated for FA after it got GA status, but wish you luck, Gloss! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- The nominator has done the right thing attempting PR, as well as GAN, before FAC and has responded in a timely manner to comments raised. Unfortunately this review has been open almost 6 weeks without attracting any support for promotion, and it doesn't look like it will any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (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 Graham Colm 13:47, 8 April 2014 [5].

History of KFC

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of KFC. I believe it is to a high standard, but I welcome suggestions as to how I can improve it. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I performed a thorough GAN review, and it has only improved since then. The article's prose is good, the images are used appropriately, the organization is excellent, and the lead is appropriate. In my estimation, this fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry

Support This was a refreshingly well-prepared and intriguing article. I was very happy to read this. Specifically, the prose is excellent, it's well-sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. No problems with neutrality or stability. I do have a few image questions that I'm sure will be resolved....

I have removed the personality rights tag now. Farrtj (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ky fried chicken.png - Claim of public domain by the "threshold of originality" doctrine does not work with trademarked logos--since part of the requirements for filing and protection under trademark law in the US is that they are original. Since it was a logo last used in 1978, you might have a case for it being free contact under the "abandoned trademark" doctrine.
Replaced with a different image. Farrtj (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ColonelHenry: - The threshold of originality for copyright is different than that for trademarking. Trademarking requires something to not be a reproduction of an existing design (i.e. be an original design), whereas copyright requires a degree of creativity (originality) before something qualifies. Hence why text logos like that for House can be trademarked but not copyrighted. That being said, I agree that this image added little to the article, and it's fine to remove it (unless an SVG is made, which can be bigger). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Colonel Harland Sanders in character.jpg - Are you really sure that's an verifiable "own work" claim? The information statement is a little sparse for me to sign off it. Not many 1974-era photos magically being uploaded so a redflag goes up for me.

Good work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

Without reading the article (which I probably won't do given that I commented on a couple of FACs for the KFC article and so would not be able to approach this with fresh eyes), I have a few concerns about the references here:

  • A number of references are to entire works (1 and 110) or to large groups of pages (eg, 14 - which is cited repeatedly, 23, 28, 49 (a normal length sentence cited to 13 pages) and 57). Please provide specific page numbers for each statement cited to help readers follow up these sources.
I believe this is a matter of preference rather than a requirement for featured articles. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty poor attitude to take to readers of your articles IMO and means that the article does not meet WP:V as it's not practical for readers to verify statements. For instance, reference 110 is 103 page long accounting document (I was unable to locate the statement this report is used to reference in it, but I imagine it's buried in the detail somewhere) and reference 14 directs readers to a 30-odd page chunk of Harland Sanders' autobiography for multiple different facts. There are several other such references. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Reference 1, it's a standard academic reference formatting style to not give the specific page for a journal source, but to instead just list the pages in which the article is located. Farrtj (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have given a page number to the 10-K reference. Farrtj (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on WP:V that says you need a specific page number for each reference. As a matter of fact, this was how the progenitor of this article (KFC) was organised, but after discussion, it was decided that it would be easier if the page numbers were grouped together. Farrtj (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Farrtj - The appropriate content guideline is WP:CITE, specifically WP:CITEHOW. On Wikipedia, it's usually best practice if you're quoting something specific to provide a specific page number. Academic rigour requires it specific information be cited precisely. In a journal article, it's acceptable to list the article's page range if you're adding a general statement (i.e. the thesis of the article or the lengthy discussion of a point within the article). However, specific facts require specific page numbers. when citing article for a specific fact, I generally will use the format: (author) (article title) (journal name): (page range for article), at (specific page number or numbers). i.e. for a specific fact: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, at 4. Or i.e. for a discussion of a certain point: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, from 4-7. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sanders was dissatisfied with the 35-minutes it took to prepare his chicken in an iron frying pan, but he did not want to deep fry; although a much faster process, in Sanders' opinion it produced dry and crusty chicken and cooked the product unevenly".
  • "The new method reduced production time to be comparable with deep frying, yet still (in Sanders' opinion) retained the quality of pan-fried chicken."
  • "Sanders adopted the name because it differentiated his product from the deep fried "Southern fried chicken" product found in restaurants."

The three above quotes are the first three sentences where I use Sanders' autobiography as a reference. As you can see, the first two are statements of opinion from Sanders, and it states so quite clearly in the sentence. The third reference is explaining why Sanders used the KFC name. Who else could explain that than the man who ran the business at the time? Farrtj (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanders autobiography references now have separate page numbers, as they originally did, before I was told on a review over at KFC to amalgamate together. Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual page numbers restored for the Dave Thomas reference. Farrtj (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to pre-internet era magazines and newspapers are lacking page numbers.
Unfortunately this can't be helped. I accessed most (if not all) of these sources through the LexisNexis database, which doesn't list page numbers. Besides page numbers can vary among various editions of the same newspaper, and listing them is not a requirement for FA status. I believe that the newspaper sources are still verifiable without page numbers. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to WP:CITEHOW, newspaper page numbers in references are optional. Farrtj (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One the main references used for the article is "Secret Recipe: Why Kfc Is Still Cooking After 50 Years", which is published by Tapestry Press. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? From my reading of its website [6] Tapestry Press is, at least in part, a self-publishing outfit though it states that it also acts as a traditional publisher for some books. The range of titles published by this firm [7] doesn't indicate that it has any expertise in editing or producing high quality books on business history, and the list of other books written by this author available through Google Books [8] also doesn't suggest that he has any particular expertise in writing business histories. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [9] Robert Darden is an associate professor of journalism at Baylor University. How is he not a reliable author? The book was also created with the help of Pete Harman, who is the virtual co-founder of KFC. Furthermore, there aren't a huge wealth of high quality KFC sources to choose from: you can't afford to be picky. Finally, perhaps the sole academic source about KFC, KFC in China by Warren Liu, sees fit to reference Darden. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was written by a non-specialist with the co-founder of the company and published by a lightweight press which is unlikely to have conducted any fact checking (assuming the book wasn't self-published through this firm) I don't think that this is a reliable source I'm afraid. Other editors may have different views though. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a second opinion on this, but until one appears, I will try to find substitutes for the Darden book. As such, I have removed all quotes and opinions from Darden. Some statements like KFC opening in Beijing in 1987 I have been able to replace with more than adequate sources. Others I have not, and have deleted the statement. Farrtj (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all Darden references now, and replaced them where I can find suitable sources. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Farrtj, Nick-D - Refer to WP:PSTS and related guidelines on this issue. A primary source can be used as a reliable source if the content of the article is relates to a recollected autobiographical detail that isn't dispute. (Example: if Liz Taylor said she had sex with Michael Jackson, we should assume that detail can be supported by a primary source. However, if she divorced someone because of infidelity, some newspaper articles on the case or an non-involved third-party needs to support that claim). In the cases where it is suspect, it needs to be backed by reliable second sources. A business book co-authored by a primary actor (i.e. a business executive) and a journalist or journalism professor should be treated as a primary source, per that guideline above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the specific references you take issue with? From what I can see, I disagree that this is an issue. In my academic background, one cites a journal reference's entire page range rather than the specific page in the journal. And I'm consistent within a style. And I don't think a page range of eg 14-40 is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 (company headquarters location cited to a 50 page range), 8 (five separate claims cited to a 26 page range), 32 (3 separate facts cited to and eight page range) and 38 (five statements cited to a three page range). I note that many other statements from books are cited to specific pages, so these are inconsistent with that referencing style, as well as not being very helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 sorted out. I don't think the other page ranges are unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the single page number references for the Ozersky source, so now the sole page range reference is the Bill Carey, with a 9 page reference, which I don't think is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment
    • In the lede, it is mentioned that KFC's venture into China was the first for a western franchise. However, this factoid is not reintroduced/sourced in the body of the article when it mentions the opening in Beijing. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Farrtj (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I updated the source to add the page that mentions this (127). - Floydian τ ¢ 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have thoroughly scanned the prose for flow and grammar, and this article meets my expectations. I was thrown back to find out that Dave Thomas was the top guy for KFC before starting Wendy's; very interesting! I have not done a source spotcheck, except for the lone fact I mention above this. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reading through now - will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Harman, the addition of KFC - was the acronym in use at this point? If not it strikes me as a bit misleading - maybe use "the addition of the name" ?
Actually you've mentioned about useing the name to distinguish it twice in about three sentences. If there was some way to fold this into one sequence it'd help I think.
I've cleared this up now I think. Farrtj (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KFC international sales boomed, with particular success in Japan -I'd change "international" to "elsewhere" - less repetitive and clearer meaning (I am in Oz)
Done. Farrtj (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the name change to the acronym as being a pretty big thing at the time - any other comments, especially looking back on it in later years, might be good to add. If there is nothing in the sources then this is moot I guess.
It was a big deal, and for this reason I researched it extensively. KFC don't appear to have given a solid reason for the name change at the time. Them eventually I found the KFC US President say they were trying to get away from the "fried" connotation. It dedicate three sentences to it, I'm not sure what else you're looking for? Farrtj (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure really...whether folks retrospectively thought it was a good idea. If there is nothing else really then never mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some additional information about the name change. Farrtj (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, leaning support - still thinking about issues such as history of advertising and slogans that are currently on the main KFC page, as well as some PETA/Greenpeace issues. Can you describe your rationale for what goes where? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful edits and comments. My overall aim is to follow User:Jerem43's lead with Burger King and create separate articles for Advertising and Controversies. The Controversy regarding PETA is definitely worthy of an article in itself, as it's enormously nuanced and complex. I don't want to repeat information here that will ultimately be in the Controversy at KFC article. Again, I feel that Advertising is better off with its own section. It's very difficult to tell what advertising has really had a major impact on the company etc. Farrtj (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • As this is looking like it will soon become the nominator's first FAC to be promoted, I'd like to see someone perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (unless I missed it above).
  • "In the early 1970s, KFC was sold to the spirits distributor Heublein, who were taken over by the R.J. Reynolds food and tobacco conglomerate, who sold the chain to PepsiCo". Seems to be inconsistency here. You say "KFC was" (the company being singular) but then "Heublein ... were" (the company being plural) -- which is correct in AmEng? Also is it standard in AmEng to treat a company as a personage ("who" instead of "which")? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited that section now. I hope that's better. Farrtj (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Midnightblueowl: Generally, this is a very good article, and it is clear that a lot of hard work has gone into putting it together. However, I am a little perturbed that it makes no mention of the fact that, for at least several decades, KFC has been the focus of harsh criticism from both health advocates and animal welfare and/or animal rights groups. It concerns me that this article does not even mention such criticism, which has often led to direct action protests at KFC outlets, many of which will have been reported on by the media and other reputable sources. Surely we should have some information on this aspect of KFC's history in here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a few comments about this from numerous reviews now. I've added a paragraph about increasing criticism of the health effects of fast food and some background about the KFC/PETA relationship. Farrtj (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - some concerns here

  • "After leaving the family home at age 12, Sanders passed through several professions, with mixed success" - given source supports "several professions" but neither age at departure (it says "seventh grade" but also "teenager") nor level of success
13 appears to be the correct age. Have amended this with a new source. The new source also details Sanders mixed success in various professions, by his own account. Farrtj (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he admitted to the use of salt and pepper" - source?
added reference to his "Celebrity chef" autobiography. Farrtj (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wearing a black frock coat" - source?
added a reference Farrtj (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pay four (later five) cents on each chicken sold as a franchise fee" - source?
Can't find a source for the four cents claim at this moment in time, so have amended to the sourced five cent claim for now. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use his name and likeness for promotional purposes" is a direct quote from the source
Changed. Farrtj (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Brown, Sanders had lost interest in the business operations of KFC, and suggested that Brown should buy the company" - not seeing this in the source
The reference says "Sanders, at 75, was losing interest in the business side of KFC", but does not mention that the sale was Sanders' suggestion, so I have removed that part. Farrtj (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Massey made the written offer, Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his office drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell" is very close to "made him a written offer. Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell"
Changed the phrasing. Farrtj (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending a thorough going-through of references and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest that you yourself undertake this task, or continue to oppose until someone else does the job? It would be a shame to see this article fail its nomination simply because no one will look through the references. It also implies guilt until proven innocent, rather than the other way round. It is my belief that I shouldn't have to prove that my references are above board: it should be up to others to prove that they aren't. Farrtj (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What specifically is wrong with them? Tezero (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note As there is still no consensus for promotion after three months here, I will be closing this nomination in a few minutes. Please wait for at least two weeks before re-nominating. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2014 (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 Ian Rose 08:00, 1 April 2014‎ [10].

Daboia

Nominator(s): Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 05:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Russell's viper, a common and highly dangerous snake species responsible for many human fatalities across its geographical range annually. The article is currently a GA level article. It is extremely well-written, focused, comprehensive and has many images. The article is also very stable - no edit wars or vandalism. Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 05:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal. I'm afraid I think this article is quite a way from ready. Here are a few comments.

  • The lead is short, and doesn't seem to well-summarise the article. The second paragraph is one line long, and I'm left wondering why there're so many references.
  • Your citation style seems inconsistent- sometimes you use in-text publication dates, but you mostly rely on footnotes. Items in the footnotes and bibliography are inconsistently formatted. (Date formatting, brackets, stray full stops, name formatting, locations...)
  • You've got a few bare urls as references, as well as dubious online sources. Ideally, we'd see these references expanded or replaced with better publications.
  • You have a massive further reading section- why not incorporate these sources into the main reference list?
  • You also have a number of external links of dubious value.
  • Are all those pictures adding anything? They don't seem particularly well-chosen/placed.

All of this comes from without really looking closely at the article text, so I'd be inclined to say that this article is not ready for FAC. I suggest you find someone with experience of taking biology articles through FAC and have them take a good look through the article; perhaps a nomination at PR would be helpful, too. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I have had a fairly close look at the text, and unfortunately it's just as problematic. I note the elevation to GA happened in 2007, making it well overdue for peer review if not a total reassessment. Not sure how it was concluded that this article is 'extremely well-written' while including the following among other issues:

  • "Apart from being a member of the big four snakes in India, Daboia is also one of the species responsible for causing the most snakebite incidents and deaths among all venomous snakes on account of many factors, such as their wide distribution and frequent occurrence in highly populated areas." --This awkward run-on sentence is the main body of the lead. No other characteristics of the snake are given. Even the snake's common English names, which are of primary importance (not least in helping the reader recognize they've got the right article), are relegated to an odd little tacked-on sentence under this.
  • The 'Common names' section includes an apparent attempt to collate every name the snake has across its range. This would be serious overkill even if the names weren't given in the languages in question with no English translation -- a major problem for readers of the English Wikipedia, for whom this section is thus rendered largely useless.
  • "Brown (1973) mentions that it can also found [sic] in Vietnam, Laos and on the Indonesian island of Sumatra" --These kinds of typos are the sort of thing that should be caught well prior to submission for FAC. And I'm having a hard time believing that there's not been more authoritative research conducted into the snakes' presence in Vietnam and Laos (let alone Indonesia) in the last forty years.
  • "Adults are reported to be persistently slow and sluggish unless pushed beyond a certain limit, after which they become aggressive." --Surely there's been enough investigation into the snake's behaviour that a detailed, authoritative description can replace this single vague sentence. For starters, the 'limit' needs to be defined a lot more precisely than that. And there's no description of feeding, mating or territorial behaviours, the basic building blocks of any zoological article.
  • "When threatened they... produce a hiss that is supposedly louder than that of any other snake." --Who's doing the supposing? And why are we giving them credence? Has this never been precisely measured?
  • "It seems that sexual maturity is achieved in 2–3 years." --Again, this is unsourced and 'seems' is unacceptably vague in a scientific article concerning a common and well-studied species. To echo JMilburn above, you've got a ton of reference material to work with, and almost none of it appears to have made its way into the article.
  • Suddenly in the 'Venom' section we get into all the well-cited detail that's missing in the rest of the article. Between this and the focus in the lead, I'm getting the distinct impression that this was originally written out of a fascination with how deadly the snake is, and the rest of the article hastily fudged around it.
  • Sorry, but no scientific article should be citing tabloids, let alone one as notorious as The Daily Mail.

I strongly second JMilburn's recommendation: withdraw the article from FA consideration, get it a thorough peer review, and only then think about resubmitting.Shoebox2 talk 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm not sure why this uses AE when India uses BE, but more concrete reasons for opposing include
  • A list of names in various languages without any explanation of their relevance to an English language article. This isn't a dictionary.
  • It is not restricted to any particular habitat, Oceans? Himalayan peaks (map suggest it occurs there, although it seems unlikely)?
  • Books don't have page numbers, some refs are bare urls

I don't know how this got through GA, I wouldn't have passed it, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 31 March 2014 (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 Ian Rose 08:00, 1 April 2014‎ [11].

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Nominator(s): QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fox Searchlight's 2012 motion picture The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I recently saw this article's accession to GA status, and have improved the article substantially from this point. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After viewing the accolades table for the FA film Fight Club, I am unsure as to whether or not I need to provide references for each, or any, for that matter, intercalation of the table. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - multiple {{citation needed}} tags and citation errors, needs cleaning up. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:QatarStarsLeague has a habit of nominating articles for GA and FA without even notifying the other article writers. I've warned him on numerous occasions for GA but taking an article like this to FA without notification is rather frustrating. Had I known about this I might have worked on it more, but I don't think the content really exists to promote it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- With very little activity over the past three weeks and fact tags remaining in the article, it's time to archive this and allow the nominator to address the citation issues away from the FAC process. Per guidelines, pls do not nominate this or any other article for FAC until a minimum of two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2014&oldid=603942736"