Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2011
- 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 00:03, 28 April 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Meadows of Heaven (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because i've been working on this article with some other users and i think it's already a good example of an article about music stars. Meadows of Heaven (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I appreciate your efforts but do not feel that the article meets the FA criteria at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples: "with a support classical tour" should be "supporting"; "Since childhood she always had a talent for music, which was first noted by her mother, when, at age three, she sang for the first time during a family party, performing the song Enkeli taivaan" is awkwardly phrased; "Her teacher, Plamen Dimov, later explained that he just had to give her one note, which she immediately understood, while with other pupils he always needed to practice a couple of times" is unclear as to what's being described
- WP:OVERLINK - don't link common terms like website, don't repeat links in close proximity as you do for My Winter Storm
- What makes this a reliable source? This? This? Check for others
- Too many promotional sources - need more third-party sources
- Reference formatting needs to be more consistent
- Magazine references need page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal Article has not had a peer review and there are many problems that should be worked on. Also suggest going through the Good Article process before returning to FAC. This article is not ready for FAC. Brad (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a very significant contributor I am not yet done with the article. I would like the nomination to be postponed. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (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 16:56, 25 April 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Taxiboy277 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the article is based on a very important club that is a part of the Indian Premier League.The Indian Premier League is the most followed tournament in the cricketing world and is one of the biggest sporting events in the world.The Chennai Super Kings have also won the Champions League Twenty20 which makes them the top domestic club in the planet.I have added references and removed many unwanted statistics to improve the quality of the page than before.Please suggest changes to the page rather than opposing the nomination right away.If those are minor and feasible they can be incorporated. Taxiboy277 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- This article is still lacking sufficient references, and those that are part of the article are still formatted poorly, including only the title of the reference, providing no author, publisher or date information.
- Furthermore the quality of the writing and the article as a whole is below the standard required for FA status. (For example, "Matthew Hayden has planned to set up a youth academy in Chennai and wants to take the help of Rahul Dravid and his Super Kings coach Stephen Fleming in the venture."
- There is significant overlinking throughout the article.
There are more issues, but suffice to say that this is not anywhere near featured article status at the moment. I'd recommend taking it away, putting it through a copy edit, a peer review, probably taking it to Good Article first, then probably another peer review. It'll be a long process, but worth it if it can come back at the right standard. It should also be noted that the proximity of the three pretty quick fails will give the article some negative attention if it is to come back again within a few months without huge improvements. Harrias talk 11:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal no indication that the two main contributors have been consulted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Referencing is insufficient for a featured article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - major problems with referencing in particular. Please see WP:V, and include at minimum one footnote per paragraph, usually more. Also, web references need publisher and access date. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I believe that there is quite a problem with referencing, but working on referencing will bring more information and hopefully reliable sources will be used. --Another Type of Zombie talk 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose References are not formatted (ie: no publisher information, access date etc). There's a definite issue with sourcing. For example the second paragraph of the history section is unreferenced and the main chunk of the 2008 season section is referenced to this which doesn't mention anything about the impact of Oram, Hussey, and Hauden leaving. The article also suffers from some pretty poor prose ("The side had finished third at the league table with 16 points", or how about "CSK started their IPL 2011 campaign with a thrilling win against Kolkata Knight Riders in Chennai by just 2 runs but lost their next game in a thriller to the Kings XI Punjab ... This match was followed by another thriller against Mumbai Indians". Repetition of the word "thriller" and variations thereof suggest problems with POV to boot). Attention also needs to be paid to the correct use of tense; there's at least one case where the 2010 season slips into the future tense. In short, the article is a long way from being ready. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2011 (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 16:56, 25 April 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(This is my first foray in FAC territory, so let me know if I've done anything wrong). I'm nominating this article for Featured status as, having worked on it extensively for the past while, I feel it meets all of the criteria. Whilst not a hugely important film, I feel that the article itself does a fine job of conveying all of the necessary information about it in the right amount of detail. Contemporary and modern sources have been used to put together an article which addresses the film objectively from different points of view, and gives a tremendous amount of information without being too heavily reliant on trivial information or cruft. I have kept the scope as wide as one article will allow without becoming too focused on any one aspect, and feel the subject is covered with a suitable broadness. The article has passed Good Article status within the past few weeks, and has been further expanded and improved in this time. It went through Peer Review before being nominated for GA, and all of the points raised at this time were addressed. After its promotion, it received an informal second review via its talk page from members of Wikiproject: Film, and any concerns raised in this were also fully addressed. As such, I feel the article is ready to be reviewed for FA, and if any concerns are raised during the review process, I am confident I will be able to address them with little delay. Thanks for any time you spend reviewing this article. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency. Spotchecks not done.
- Ref 1: retrieval date?
- Compare ref 3 to ref 5 (for example) and note differences in formatting
- What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
- Ref 28: publisher?
- Be consistent in what is italicized when, what date formatting is used, etc
- Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed and replaced everything identified as unreliable, added retrevial date to Ref 1 and publisher to Ref 28 (was there, but I made a typo in the template), templated Ref 3 to match Ref 5. Have fixed any italics inconsistencies I've spotted, though let me know if I've missed any. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Manhunter_michael_mann_film_poster.jpg - FUR needs work; it's written as if the image is a cover, when in fact it's a poster
- File:Manhunter-colours.jpg - would it be possible to provide time references for these screencaps? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the poster, I took a look at the rationale for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and took the same approach to their poster, by cropping the logos out of it. FUR has been re-done to match the image. As for the second, times could be given but I would need to recreate the image to do so, noting the times as I did. I can do this tonight. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not notice that before, but you cannot crop out copyrighted information like that. You can crop out people and show a closer version of the image you want because they have nothing to do with the image itself, but you cannot crop credits and copyrights from posters. Just like if an image had a watermark you cannot crop it out so you can use the image, because clearly the people displaying it did not want it reused. Posters need to be full scale. The problem with the FUR is that it is not addressing all 10 criteria in the rationale. These are all the criteria, which you can put in that rationale template you have. You need to make sure that criteria #8 is worded to fit this page, as that is the criteria of "why is it used here". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I must have misunerstood the rationale when I looked at other examples. I'll restore the poster to a full version then. Sorry about that. Have also added the criteria you've supplied. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not notice that before, but you cannot crop out copyrighted information like that. You can crop out people and show a closer version of the image you want because they have nothing to do with the image itself, but you cannot crop credits and copyrights from posters. Just like if an image had a watermark you cannot crop it out so you can use the image, because clearly the people displaying it did not want it reused. Posters need to be full scale. The problem with the FUR is that it is not addressing all 10 criteria in the rationale. These are all the criteria, which you can put in that rationale template you have. You need to make sure that criteria #8 is worded to fit this page, as that is the criteria of "why is it used here". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Canada Hky (talk)
- The prose could use some work. The tenses in particular. I'm not going to point out all the examples, but the "Pre-production" section is where I first noticed some issues.
- Some inconsistency in how the characters are referred to. It seems like you started referring to characters/people by their full names at the first mention in each section? If so, in the "Themes" section, there is a stray "Dollarhyde". If this is your intention, please check for other instances. If you were intending to go all last names after first overall mention, then there is other cleanup needed.
- Excellent image to show the use of colour. If the caption could identify the main characters in each portion, I think it would be helpful.
- I am not sure if this has been previously discussed, but I would suggest that when referring to the film character, it should be spelled "Lecktor". "John Lithgow, Mandy Patinkin, and Brian Dennehy were all considered for the role of Hannibal Lecter (spelled "Lecktor" in the film)..." Canada Hky (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up the tenses to all be past tense for the production sections, for uniformity. Expanded that stray Dollarhyde to Francic Dollarhyde. Added a few lines to the image caption naming both characters and describing the tones used. And I've replaced the book spelling of Lecter with the film's Lecktor, but kept the pipe links. GRAPPLE X 03:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Citation numbers 16, 17, 36 and 46 use user edited iMDB as a reference. I don't believe that website is a reliable source as according to Wiki criterea. DeWaine (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been trying to find replacements for 16 and 17. I've removed 36 as it was redundant to 35. 46 is just a list of crew for the film, Should a DVD or the like be cited for that instead? GRAPPLE X 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why the DVD can't be used. The closing credits in the film display a scrolling image of the cast and crew, and the box cover artwork might also display some of that information too. As far as the release dates and awards; the DVD might also contain release date information. If it doesn't, then try to find an entertainment website thats not user-edited. Or try a novel. For the awards, try going to an offical website and search for a link to previous nominations and wins for other years in the past. DeWaine (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have changed to the DVD for Red Dragon's credits. The Manhunter DVD has no release information but I'll try sourcing that elsewhere. As for the awards, unfortunately the relevant festival has been retired and the website contains only a farewell message. Some scouring of French-language sites did turn up this though, thankfully. GRAPPLE X 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why the DVD can't be used. The closing credits in the film display a scrolling image of the cast and crew, and the box cover artwork might also display some of that information too. As far as the release dates and awards; the DVD might also contain release date information. If it doesn't, then try to find an entertainment website thats not user-edited. Or try a novel. For the awards, try going to an offical website and search for a link to previous nominations and wins for other years in the past. DeWaine (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry. The prose is not polished to FA status, and the article requires copy-editing from top to bottom. There is redundancy, as in "in order to", wrong tenses, as in "walking as though she was blind" (subjunctive needed), short forms of words such as "ad" and "lab", and numerous colloquialisms ("knocking out"). The prose lacks logical flow, hence the need for "whilst", which is overused in the article. And, there are grammatical errors, such as "to explain of his past breakdown". The reader has to have seen the film to understand this sentence, "The pair return to Dollarhyde's home, where he watches film footage of his planned next victim with the oblivious Reba." Has Reba been filmed together with the next victim? This nomination is premature, eighty or so edits are not enough to elevate an article to FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I'm working through a copy-edit now, although some of those colloquialisms (such as the "knocking out" you mentioned and some other of Petersen's phrases) are in direct sourced quotes, so there's no point in changing them. I got rid of any that I saw elsewhere though. I've also reworded the sentence about Graham explaining his breakdown to his son; and clarified the one about Dollarhyde and Reba watching videos. GRAPPLE X 15:07, 21 April 2011 (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 16:56, 25 April 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): GDuwenTell me! 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC) --Gunt50 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating again this article because it went under major fixes after the first nomination. All the concerns that the reviewers expressed were fixed, including the completion of source templates, copy-editing and matters of style such as dashes. The content of the article is complete and detailed, and covers well the aspects of Connelly's career and life.--GDuwenTell me! 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry to do this again, but I still don't feel the article is ready. Here is another sampling of concerns:
- WP:OVERLINK - very common terms like immigrant and advertising don't need to be linked. Also look at WP:EASTEREGG - why does "ACM" link to "AMC", for example?
- Still needs copy-editing for grammar (ex. "Publications...included her in its rankings"), clarity (ex. "she was named the face of Balenciaga's advertisements" - do you mean she represented Balenciaga or she represented their ads?), and flow (ex. "Connelly was raised in Brooklyn Heights, near the Brooklyn Bridge, and attended St. Ann's private school focused on arts,[4] except for the four years the family spent living in Woodstock, New York")
- Use a consistent date formatting
- Referencing format is inconsistent - for example, compare current refs 28 and 67, or 20 and 59
- What makes this a reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to fix the issues. The sources listed were replaced, that "Easter egg" was fixed, the reference format of the marked sources was corrected and I will start to work on the copy-edits. --GDuwenTell me! 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just butting in on one point. Nikkimaria, I'm not seeing inconsistencies in the date formatting. Could you point out one or two so we can identify the pattern you are referring to? Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple dates were using leading zeros, but they seem to have been fixed already. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I found and fixed one of them. Someone else must have caught the other(s). Finetooth (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took care of the copy-edits that were pointed out.--GDuwenTell me! 15:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I found and fixed one of them. Someone else must have caught the other(s). Finetooth (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple dates were using leading zeros, but they seem to have been fixed already. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm afraid this is not quite there yet. There does not seem to be the level of comprehensiveness required for a FA.
- The early life section is a little sparse. Are there any more details?
- "Connelly started her career in newspaper and magazine advertising, then moved on to television commercials." Could this be expanded? What did her "career" involve? Working for the newspaper? Modelling on features? Modelling for advertising?
- "Between 1986 and 1992, she appeared in several issues of Seventeen magazine..." Doing what?
- "...and in December 1986 recorded the pop single "Monologue of Love", which she sang in phonetic Japanese." This half of the sentence has no connection with the first half. And I think it should be explained why she was singing in phonetic Japanese (and how does this differ from non-phonetic Japanese?), as it is the obvious question that jumps out when you read it!
- And what is "message of love"?
- "Her frequent appearances as a model led to movie auditions..." How? Did someone spot her? Who?
- Why did she not graduate from Stanford?
- "Connelly gained public recognition with her next picture..." What sort of recognition? People knew who she was? They acknowledged her as a good actor? This needs to be more precise.
- "She then starred in several obscure films..." Who calls them obscure?
- The remainder of the careers section is too much of a list of films. There are lots of repetitive sentences (She... She... She... In XXXX, ...).
- There should be more robust comment on her performances from film critics; critical comments so far are limited to eight exclusively positive one or two sentence comments, including one which says "Critics acclaimed the individual performances, especially those of Connelly..." yet is linked to just one review. Are there no better reviews and have all comments on her been positive? What about print sources?
- The personal life section seems trivial; should an encyclopedia article say that she was "once a vegan", or her part in the attempt to stop construction of a sanitation garage? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should that really be considered trivial?. In my opinion, the vegan part describes an aspect of her personality, while the sanitation garage thing is an example of her activism on the area she lives. I don't see why those are not relevant to the article. --Gunt50 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently there are not any more relevant details from her early life, the information of most of the reliable sources describes only details of her early career mentioning barely some facts of her life prior to her modelling career. I clarified some of the previous points (involvement in newspapers, magazine and TV advertising, work in Seventeen magazine, Monologue of Love/Message of Love single, recognition and auditions, and Stanford), and I will work on the rest.--GDuwenTell me! 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been trying to correct the style issues and added more critics for her most important movies.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2011 (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 16:56, 25 April 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying again for FA. The article has only expanded a little since the FAC. The new content is primarily about new titles related to the series. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Image review
- "Keeley Hawes performed voice work in four Tomb Raider games, more than any of her predecessors" - source?
- File:Angelina_jolie_lugar.jpg - source links are broken
- File:Toby_Gard_-_E3_2005.jpg - what's the copyright status of the background image?
- File:Lara_Croft_star,_Walk_of_Game.JPG - what's the copyright status of the star itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
- I guess the caption is technically original research on my part. However, I do not believe the statement is contentious because it is easily verifiable.
- Shelley Blond: Tomb Raider (1996 video game)
- Judith Gibbins: Tomb Raider II and Tomb Raider III
- Jonell Elliott: Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, Tomb Raider Chronicles, and Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness
- The hand held games did not use voice work to my knowledge.
- Some of foreign language voice actors did more games, but they aren't her predecessors.
- I added archived links to the Commons page.
- The background is not in complete focus and Gard obscures most of the poster. I'd argue that any copyrighted content to it are incidental and de minimis. The only identifying information to the poster is the logo, which I believe is trademarked but ineligible for copyright.
- I'm not sure what the star would be categorized as because it is part of the sidewalk, but it was intended to for viewing. Does that qualify it as artwork? If yes, would it be acceptable to move it from Commons to Wikipedia under fair use?
- I guess the caption is technically original research on my part. However, I do not believe the statement is contentious because it is easily verifiable.
- Hope that addresses your concerns. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- FYI- I added File:Neneh Cherry 2008.jpg, a free image, to the article at the top of the "Development history" section. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- New image appears unproblematic. As to the star, I believe it does qualify as artwork and thus as eligible for copyright protection, so should be hosted locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the star image for now. I'd like to get a second opinion on whether or not it belongs on Commons. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to get it moved. So if it can be avoided, I'd like to. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- New image appears unproblematic. As to the star, I believe it does qualify as artwork and thus as eligible for copyright protection, so should be hosted locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI- I added File:Neneh Cherry 2008.jpg, a free image, to the article at the top of the "Development history" section. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc
- Newspaper and magazine names should be italicized
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- Formatting for refs 60, 65? In general, reference formatting needs to be more consistent
- Date for refs 78, 85, 86 and similar?
- Guardian or The Guardian?
- Be consistent in how editions and editors are notated, whether you provide locations for publishers, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
- Can you elaborate on the wikilinks?
- Unfortunately, the inconsistent formatting of the magazine and newspaper names is because the
{{Cite book}}
and{{Cite web}}
templates format the publisher parameter differently. Some of the references are from a print source and others are from a online source, resulting in a mix of the two. - I believe I fixed the author names. Let me know if I missed one.
- Added the date
- Fixed to "The Guardian"
- This is similar to the template problem above. The template adds in the "ed." part. I believe that the templates format the references in accordance with our manual of style. So I'm inclined to keep using them. But I'm not sure how to deal with the issues you brought up. This sounds like a recurring complaint with the Cite web template.
- (Guyinblack25 talk 20:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- For example, you wikilink "IGN" in ref 11, but not in ref1 or in subsequent refs. In contrast, GameStop is linked on every occurrence.
- Why are you using cite book in this case? Cite news or cite journal is probably a better option
- The template adds the "ed." part, but you add for example "18" vs "2nd". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
- I see now. How about I only link the first instance?
- Whoops, you're right. It is
{{Cite journal}}
and Cite web. Sorry for the confusion - Thanks for the clarification. I fixed the edition part to "18th".
- (Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Nikki- Do you prefer that I wikilink only the first instance of a publisher in the references or every single one? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Responses:
Comment. Overall the info seems good, but the organization seems rather odd to me. Basically, I take issue with the appearances section, which seems unnecessary and disruptive to flow. The video game appearances are already covered in the development history section, which also provides evolutionary information on the character, while I do not think it makes sense to discuss spin-off appearances before establishing the character and how she came into being in the first place. I'm not ready to call it a flaw just yet, but I am curious as to the logic here. Indrian (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic was that some basic information about the character and the franchise she stars in is necessary for comprehensiveness as well as context for the rest of the article. That section was originally further down the article, but I found myself duplicating content; introducing it with proper context in "Development history" and then explaining it in "Appearances" along with some of the introductory and context info again. By moving it up, I was able to trim the article.
- However, I admit that this is not perfect, and share your view on the spin-offs. But I feel that I gained more by placing it before the development content. One idea I've toyed around with was moving about half of the film adaptation content to a new sub section in "Development history" to discuss actor portrayal. That would trim the "Appearances" section and consolidate history content. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article; it might take me several days to get through it, but I'll try to get it done by the weekend.
I notice that you use "Lara Croft" throughout, instead of abbreviating to "Croft", as I would have expected. Is there a style guide at work here? Any reason not to use "Croft"?"Other appearances include video game sequels, printed adaptations, a series of animated short films, feature films (portrayed by Angelina Jolie), and merchandise related to the series": I'd prefer to see something like "the character has also appeared in"; the current formulation is jarring to me because an appearance is not a video game sequel.A link to reboot (fiction) would be helpful for readers not familiat with the concept."after poor reception to the 2003 sequel": not quite ordinary usage of "reception", to my ear -- should be more like "after the 2003 sequel was received poorly" or something along those lines."and altered her physical proportions and capabilities to interact with game environments": how about "altered her physical proportions, and gave her additional ways of interacting with game environments" (assuming it was an addition). As it stands it's easy to read this incorrectly, so that "physical" attaches to "capabilities" as well as "proportions"."meteorite fragments that imbue supernatural powers to humans": wrong direct object of imbue, I think; shouldn't this be "that imbue humans with supernatural powers"? "Endow" might be better than "imbue"."an ancient warrior that works with Lara Croft": should this be "who works with"?I found the first few sentences of "In film adaptations" confusing. I think the problem is a combination of two things: the films are not named and dated till several sentences in, and the backstory changes predate those of Legend, which is mentioned before the dates of the films. I think the sequence should be something like: "Lara Croft has been portrayed in two feature films by Academy Award-winning actress Angelina Jolie. The first, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, was released in 2001, and was the first depiction of Lara Croft to change the backstory from the version in the early games. In the films, Lara Croft's mother died in a plane crash and her father disappeared in Cambodia; in the games, both parents are alive. This backstory was adopted in 2006 in Legend." Not very polished, but the sequence is clearer to someone who is unfamiliar with the history.A separate issue: can the mention of Paramount's acquisition of rights be moved to the top, in chronological sequence? I don't insist that everything be in chronological order but I think it's a natural ordering and there ought to be a reason to vary from it. How about "Paramount Pictures acquired the film rights for Tomb Raider in 1998, and ultimately produced two feature films in which Lara Croft was portrayed by ..."? In fact, everything from "Paramount acquired" to the end of the paragraph logically belongs at the start of the paragraph, doesn't it? And then you could cut the first sentence from the next paragraph, making it "Jolie had not been a fan ...", since you would have named her in the middle of the first paragraph, not right at the start. If none of this is making sense, I can post a draft rewrite on the talk page if you like."West did not anticipate Jolie doing her own stunts, and was surprised along with stunt coordinator Simon Crane at her performance ability": I don't this perfectly reflects the sources you cite. West says he didn't cast her with the expectation that she'd do the stunts, but she became willing to do them and then trained to do them; and Crane admired her for her gusto but there's no indication he was surprised. How about "West had not anticipated that Jolie would do her own stunts, and was impressed, as was stunt coordinator Simon Crane, by the effort she put into them."?Shouldn't "Pandora's Box" have a lower-case "b"?You mention Levin re the second film; you name him as a producer for the first film, but don't tell the reader his involvement with the second film."Despite the second film's poor reception, Paramount remained open to releasing a third one. By 2007, Jolie was still optioned to play the character in another sequel. The actress, however, had commented in 2004 that she had no intention of reprising the role again" This is a bit fragmented; how about "Despite the second film's poor reception, Paramount remained open to releasing another Lara Croft movie. Jolie was still optioned to play the character in a third film as late as 2007, though she had commented in 2004 that she had no intention of reprising the role again." That also gets rid of a "however"; you have two "however"s within a couple of lines in that paragraph."Back-story" is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not."Eidos's desire to coincide release with the 2003 Tomb Raider film": how about "Eidos's desire to time the game's launch to coincide with the release of"?I think you should explain to the reader that Crystal Dynamics is a subsidiary of Eidos.Is there a suitable wikilink for "character controls" or "character control schemes"?- "Crystal Dynamics updated the character model to add more realism, but retained its caricatured design": I don't follow this; can you clarify?
Is there a suitable wikilink for "mechanic"? It seems to be a specialized term.Suggested rewrite of last three sentences of the second para of "Developer switch": "The design changes were retained for the next Lara Croft game, Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first game. In Tomb Raider: Anniversary the designers aimed to portray Lara Croft with more emotional depth, focusing on the character's desire to achieve the end goal of the game, culminating in killing one of the antagonists. The designers used the death to evoke guilt in Lara Croft afterward and illustrate that shooting a person should be a difficult choice."
More as I have time. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike- I've addressed some of your comments in the article, and will make further edits and respond to your questions hopefully today. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Responses:
- I used "Lara Croft" because I was unsure if I should refer to a fictional character the same way as a real person. My first drafts of the article stuck with "Lara Croft" and "the character" until a couple editors added some pronouns. If you don't see a problem with "Croft" for most of the article, I'll gladly change it.
- I don't see a problem, and I think it would really help vary sentence rhythm. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied your suggestion about appearances in the lead
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked reboot in the lead and the first instance in the main article
- I used "Lara Croft" because I was unsure if I should refer to a fictional character the same way as a real person. My first drafts of the article stuck with "Lara Croft" and "the character" until a couple editors added some pronouns. If you don't see a problem with "Croft" for most of the article, I'll gladly change it.
- Responses:
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied your suggestion about poor reception in the lead
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied your suggestion about proportions and capabilities in the lead
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched from "imbue" to "endow"
- I tweaked this a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched from "ancient warrior that" to "ancient warrior who"
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I applied your suggestion about the film backstory. But I switched to "This backstory" to "A similar backstory" because I'm not sure if the developers drew directly from the film and there a still differences between the newer games and films.
- In regard to your suggestion about reorganizing the film content, I made a suggest to Indrian above that is somewhat related. One idea I've toyed around with was moving about half of the film adaptation content to a new sub section in "Development history" to discuss actor portrayal. If not a subsection, then maybe a separate section depending on the size. That would trim the "Appearances" section to just information about the film plots and consolidate history content. Any thoughts?
- I don't think that much surgery is necessary. I'll have a go at a draft rewrite of this para on the article talk page and we can see how that looks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied your suggestion about West's comments
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch "Pandora's Box" to Pandora's box"
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "Producer" before Levin's name in the third paragraph
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied your suggestion about Jolie's third reprisal
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Backstory" is now used throughout the article.
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Applied your suggestion about the Angel of Darkness's release with the second film
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a mention that Crystal Dynamics and Core Designs are subsidiaries of Eidos.
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unaware of a suitable link for "character controls". It is a type of game mechanic were players input commands to control an avatar. I haven't seen a Wikipedia article about that specific topic.
- How about a redlink? Seems like something an article could be built around. Or would it just be part of the game mechanics article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lara Croft had a caricatured look when she debuted: big chest, big hips, tiny waist, cartoonish face, etc. When Crystal Dynamics took over, they moved towards a more photo-realistic look. The character still had caricatured elements though, especially the face. How about "Crystal Dynamics updated the character model to add more realism, but retained caricatured elements."
- I think the problem is not necessarily with this sentence; it's that there was no prior reference to the fact that the character initially looked caricatured. If you say earlier on that her design was rather caricaturish (or stylized, or cartoonish, or simple, or whatever the sources will support) you can make a reference to it here and it should work fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone else wikilinked mechanic with game mechanics.
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Anniversary content, how about this?
- "Crystal Dynamics retained the design changes for the next game, Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first game. The designers aimed to aimed to portray Lara Croft with more emotional depth, and focused on the character's desire to achieve the end goal of the game, culminating in killing one of the antagonists. The developers used the death to evoke guilt in Lara Croft afterward and illustrate that shooting a person should be a difficult choice."
- Yes, that's better; I went ahead and used your version in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Crystal Dynamics retained the design changes for the next game, Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first game. The designers aimed to aimed to portray Lara Croft with more emotional depth, and focused on the character's desire to achieve the end goal of the game, culminating in killing one of the antagonists. The developers used the death to evoke guilt in Lara Croft afterward and illustrate that shooting a person should be a difficult choice."
- Thanks for the comments. They really tightened up the article. Let me know if you have any more. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I will try to go through the rest of the article tomorrow or over the weekend, and will redraft the para mentioned above on the talk page. Glad you like the comments; it's a pleasure to work on good articles -- I remember reviewing Marble Madness some time ago and I enjoyed that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the extra comments.
- I'll shorten a few "Lara Croft"s to "Croft" for variance.
- No need to draft a paragraph for the films. I agree with your changes and will implement them. I just thought I'd run an alternative by you first.
- That looks good; I've struck the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if "character control would be the best term. That's just a descriptive phrase that came to mind while I wrote that section. Also, I don't think there's much sourcing out there for a separate article, so imagine it would be covered in either game mechanics or gameplay.
- OK; I'll strike it. Not a big deal, just an idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see about adding in "caricature" somewhere though. Not sure how or where exactly. I use to have an image of her first appearance in the article, but that was removed during the last FAC. :-\
- Hmm. That's a pity; if there's something that can clearly illustrate a sourced comment comparing the two images then I think you have a decent fair use case. The main point is to add in something to allow the later reference, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks for the extra comments.
- I will try to go through the rest of the article tomorrow or over the weekend, and will redraft the para mentioned above on the talk page. Glad you like the comments; it's a pleasure to work on good articles -- I remember reviewing Marble Madness some time ago and I enjoyed that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments.
- "interaction with the press, especially those in Europe, resulted in less clothing depicted in promotional images": this is a very odd statement -- can you clarify? Does it mean that the press reaction to images with more clothing was negative?
- "Ian Livingstone, Eidos's product acquisition director, commented that the company declines most merchandising proposals. He stated that Eidos primarily focuses on game development and views such promotion outside video games as exposure for the character": the second sentence seems to be a non-sequitur, or even to contradict the first -- wouldn't they want exposure?
- "Lara Croft's likeness has been a model for merchandise": This is a topic sentence for the paragraph but it doesn't quite work, because not everything mentioned depends on her likeness. How about: "Much other Lara Croft merchandise has been produced."?
- The next sentence has "first to do so" unnecessarily separated from the noun it modifies; how about "The first action figures were produced by Toy Biz, based on the video game version of the character."
- Generally it might be good to add dates for these product releases if you have them.
- "Core Design sought an injunction against the magazine to protect the character's image": per the reference they were granted the injunction, so how about "Core Design were granted an injunction against the magazine to protect the character's image; Playboy was ordered to place stickers on the cover of the issue to conceal the reference to Tomb Raider".
- You say Alison Carroll is the current model, but then you say that Crystal Dynamics has discontinued use of models, which seems inconsistent.
- In the Cultural impact section you start with her overall cultural impact, and follow with reception and then a section on Croft as a sex symbol. This is a minor point but the overall impact seems a more natural way to end the article, and it might be good to move that to the end.
- However, the whole cultural impact section troubles me. Correct me if this impression is wrong, but it looks to me as if you've done the research to find many different comments about Croft and her cultural impact and reception, but you don't have a source that summarizes all of this. Hence when you assemble all the material into a single section it's not easy to find a way to structure it without original synthesis. The result is that you have long sequences of comments which are directly attributed to their authors, and which generally seem relevant, but which feel disconnected and listy. I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm going to post at WT:FAC and see if I can get some feedback on this point.
- I also think some general copyediting is necessary, but I will try to find time to do that myself.
-- Incidentally, I'm fine with you interspersing your replies in with my comments, if you'd prefer to do that -- might be a little easier to follow threads that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor detail, but is there a picture of Alison Carroll that doesn't make her boobs look so big? It's kind of distracting. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...
Facepalm. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, I actually have a rationale for the image choice. Of all the pictures of Carroll as Miss Croft, the one in the article is one of the few without a large poster in the background (I figured the artwork would be incidental, but didn't want to take any chances). It is also a vertical picture, which fit well with the other model photos. After applying the first two criteria, this was the only one with her posing in character; the others look to be pictures of her being interviewed.
- Others I considered are:
- File:Alison Carroll 2.jpg doesn't show the costume at all, which I thought would be good because that version was not pictured in the article.
- File:Alison Carroll 3.jpg isn't much different from what I picked, but lacks the black background, which I thought made the person pop more visually.
- Cropping File:Alison Carroll 20080927 Festival du jeu video 03.jpg for a vertical image, but the edge of the gun lines up with a photographer in the background, which I thought would look awkward without alterations to remove them.
- Cropping File:Alison Carroll 20080927 Festival du jeu video 04.jpg also, but it doesn't show the costume as well. It shows less boob, but at the expense of more butt.
- I'm open to suggestions (particular about the cropping of the 2008 festival photos) and am happy to discussion the decisions made in the article, which I actually put a lot of thought into. I understand the concern of such a picture being a distraction, but the character's sex appeal (and even boobs) is mentioned in the article. So as silly as it comes across as I type this, such a picture seems to fit with the topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Hmmm ... I think you're right, the current picture does fit with the sex appeal discussion. Works for me, as the alternatives aren't as good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what's wrong with cropping the first 2008 festival photo to remove the photographer; cutting a bit of the gun isn't a big problem IMO. I really like that 2008 pic. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... I think you're right, the current picture does fit with the sex appeal discussion. Works for me, as the alternatives aren't as good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:40, 21 April 2011 (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 16:56, 25 April 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This season "doesn't just push the envelope; it knocks it off the table" and was seen as "coming pretty damn close" to being a "perfect" television series season". I am nominating this for featured article because I think it passes wp:FA?, and hopefully all the issues can be fixed easily. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues
- "Business Wire" is not a journal and should not be italicised
- Consistency required over provision of book publisher locations
- Page numbers should be given for journals and newspapers where there is no online link
- Give web publisher names, not website names. Thus the publisher of ref. 43 is TCM or Turner Classic Movies, not "tcmuk.tv" The publisher of 61 appears to be the Montreal Gazette, not "communities.Canada.com"
- Who is responsible for http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews4/southparks1dvd.html and why is it considered reliable?
Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed all the issues you have pointed out. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image and deadlink check
- Good - Article has two images; one properly licensed on Flick and another with good non-free rationale.
- Good - No deadlinks and CorenBot shows no plagiarism.--NortyNort (Holla)
Oppose on prose and MoS issues at this time.
- Article needs a thorough copy-editing for grammar (ex. "It resembled the style of the later series more closely became popular and widely shared, both by duplication and over the Internet"), flow (ex. "Television critics gave the season mixed reviews, ranging from assessing the show as to being so offensive..."), and clarity (ex. "prompting him to start using a bodybuilding supplement (Weight Gain 4000) that makes him grow fatter instead of stronger" - it's not clear whether he knew the supplement would make him fatter)
- I think I've fixed these. Are there any others? Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Some further examples: "The site made the episodes available for download $2.50 for a two-day download and $4.95 for a permanent copy"; "It was one of the first experiments with making television videos available for download, making South Park one of the first television shows made legally available on the Internet" - very repetitive; "when Internet buzz began to generate about the two original shorts". Please note that these are examples only - the article really needs a thorough copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed these. I am not sure how fair is that conclusion, since the article has been repeatedly improved through a FAC, two PRs (1 and 2), and a few people not directly involved in the article. Yes, the prose can always be improved upon, but are you sure it is not as big of a deal (in the current state) as you make it sound like? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Some further examples: "The site made the episodes available for download $2.50 for a two-day download and $4.95 for a permanent copy"; "It was one of the first experiments with making television videos available for download, making South Park one of the first television shows made legally available on the Internet" - very repetitive; "when Internet buzz began to generate about the two original shorts". Please note that these are examples only - the article really needs a thorough copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed these. Are there any others? Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The two discussed filming a three-minute short film involving a boy who befriended a talking feces named Mr. Hankey...Parker and Stone originally conceived the idea of a South Park-like show with four children characters, but with a talking stool named Mr. Hankey as the show's main protagonist" - I'm confused; the latter is phrased as an original idea, but it seems to be a continuation of the former
- removed "originally" the second time which I think fixes the issue. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MoS edits needed - numbers under 10 should be spelled out, check dash/hyphen use, etc
- I found only one occasion for numbers, and I have no idea about which dash/hyphen usage you are referring to. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OVERLINK - don't link terms more than once, especially not in close proximity, and don't link common terms at all. Examples: CableACE Award, Warner Home Video are repeated; diarrhea and Ethiopia are common enough to not link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- removed quite a few links. Nergaal (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think "diarrhea and Ethiopia" should both be linked, especially here. How much knowledge of Ethiopia can we assume in the typical reader of an article on South Park? I always link all but about 20 countries - starting at Belgium and Argentina perhaps. No doubt knowledge of diarrhea is more widespread, but perhaps not how to spell it, which is different in the UK btw, perhaps itself enough reason to link. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose seems rather a cookie-cutter job. Prose does need a good going over - too many commas opening a clause that are missing one to close it. Spot the "which" (not "who") referring to persons. I'm not going to quote some examples so you just say "Ok, fixed those!" - it needs a full going-over by some one who can do this well. No coverage at all of international tv sales, except a mention of Canada. The article almost merits a "worldwide" tag. "Reception" section not very deep - coverage in the main South Park article is in some ways better. There must be tons of academic reasearch on this after 13 years - only 1 guy quoted. It's not too far away from FA standard, but the nominator needs to realize it isn't there yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 16:47, 17 April 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a complete overhaul in November and regular refinements since then (including copy-edits by Geoff B), I am confident that the article now fulfills all the FA criteria – so I'm giving it a shot with the nomination. The GA review mentioned that actual reviewer names rather than publications are encouraged for the reception section, though I felt that, with the immense amount of reviews referenced in prose, including the names would make the section more confusing and difficult to read than need be – so I'll leave it as is at the moment and hope it will not cause any problems. Anyway, thanks in advance for your reviews. Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- "The characters' real-time polygonal models are superimposed over pre-rendered still images" - what on earth does that mean? Needs to be explained in article text
- Per Wikipedia:Music_samples, fair-use music clips "should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter". Assuming the listed time of 1:50 (110 seconds) for the original song is correct, the clip you use is too long. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "movable" to better explain the difference between the models and the still images. Replaced sound sample with shorter version. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tending to oppose The reception section looks excessive; surely 3 paragraphs is enough to summarise everything said about the game? And that review-infobox! The legacy section, usually meant for a retrospective look at the influence and importance of a game/film/album, is strangely a detailed discussion of the RE2 storyline continued in other games.—indopug (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think this is an actionable opposition. Three paragraphs of the reception section cover the most important positive and negative aspects of the game as criticized by major review outlets, with another paragraph addressing the reception of ports. Two additional paragraphs are focused entirely on the notability of the game, showing its commercial success and how important the game is in comparison to other titles. Altogether, this is the standard length for featured video game articles that received a comparable amount of critical reviews (such as the recently promoted Tales of Monkey Island). You have to be more specific about what you think is wrong with the infobox. The legacy section is required to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion of the FAC, and shows the title's impact on the continuation of the game series and its storyline, as well as the company's future business decisions.
- If you do not agree with something in particular, please mention the passage in question. I am open to criticism. Prime Blue (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reread the legacy section, I think your problem with it might have been the plot summary of the second drama album, which I also found to be too extensive in retrospect. I cut it down to the bare essentials. Prime Blue (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I agree with Prime Blue that the Reception section is not excessive. Its a seminal title that received a significant amount of coverage; why skimp? It's not like the section's a chaotically-structured, 15-paragraph monstrosity or anything. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reread the legacy section, I think your problem with it might have been the plot summary of the second drama album, which I also found to be too extensive in retrospect. I cut it down to the bare essentials. Prime Blue (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig/External Link check - There are no dead links but there is one dab link in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The dab link is in the video game infobox, I requested it to be delinked in the template code. Prime Blue (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article is very comprehensive, and the prose is in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me.
- Media
- The number of non-free media in the article seems kind of excessive, but the commentary provides strong support for them. I'd say the weakest one is File:Resident Evil 1.5.png because of similarities to the main gameplay image.
- Re: I oriented myself on comparable featured articles (Tales of Monkey Island, Chrono Trigger etc.) and tried to make the non-free use rationales as strong as possible – if you insist on removing the 1.5 image, I will do so, though I really think with the level of commentary provided on the version, it improves the readers' understanding as to what the version was like and why it was canceled.
- For consistency, I think File:Resident Evil 2 Raccoon City.ogg should use
{{Non-free use rationale}}
like the other files.- Re: Done.
- Maybe consider adding File:PSX-DualShock.png to the "Re-releases and ports" section. File:N64-Expansion-Pak.jpg might be another idea, but I think the dual shock would be better
- Re: Done.
- The number of non-free media in the article seems kind of excessive, but the commentary provides strong support for them. I'd say the weakest one is File:Resident Evil 1.5.png because of similarities to the main gameplay image.
- Structure and prose
- "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Biohazard 2" should probably be in boldface since they are alternate names and likely search terms.
- Re: Not done per WP:BOLDTITLE: Resident Evil 1.5 is not a synonymous title, Biohazard 2 is not normally used in English.
- I think the plot goes into a bit too much detail and could be trimmed.
- Re: Usual word limit for plot summaries is 700 words (with even some leniency applied for more extensive works, such as RPGs or graphic adventures). Current plot section is at 682 words, even though it also describes the setting of the game. I cut unimportant characters and scenes as well as the alternate story paths, while still maintaining the most important subplots not to confuse people who did not play the game.
- Maybe split "Development" into two subsections to break up the large amount of text. "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Redesign" or something similar. Your call.
- Re: Done.
- Reception
- I originally thought the same thing others said about the "Reception" section, but it was a quicker read than I anticipated. However, I think some consolidating would be good still. Some of the comments are slight variations of each other and are just too similar in my opinion.
- Re: As far as I can see, everything included in the section addresses separate points of criticism (that's what I initially set out to do). The only thing I'd qualify as remotely overlapping are the two sentences about the writing, and I still wouldn't consider that unduly detailed or extensive.
- The last big paragraph wasn't a quick read though. I think you could split it in two. The Game.com portion is already separate, so I would split it at the Dreamcast version instead of the Game.com version.
- Re: Done.
- The comments here should be attributed to the author. For example, Ryan Mac Donald of GameSpot or Computer and Video Games' Paul Mallinson. This may bulk up the section, which is even more reason to trim and consolidate.
- Re: Done. Though I highly suggest this to be added to the guidelines if people continue to point it out as mandatory at an FA nomination – so far, it isn't mentioned anywhere and can become a major nuisance.
- Review table
- Excluding the aggregates, scores from fourteen publications in the review table is too many. Trim it to at least half that.
- Re: Done.
- I don't it is quickly apparent what the abbreviations are, especially to non-gamers. I suggest including the abbreviations in the first instance of the console name in the prose. For example, Dual Shock Ver. (DSV) and Dreamcast (DC).
- Re: Done. Added the abbreviations to the rereleases and ports section as they do not corrupt the flow of the prose there (they seem unfitting for the lead).
- I assume GCN is the Nintendo GameCube. Why isn't it NGC or just GC?
- Re: GCN is the abbreviation for Nintendo GameCube normally used on Wikipedia (also the official one, NGC is Japanese-only).
- Excluding the aggregates, scores from fourteen publications in the review table is too many. Trim it to at least half that.
- I originally thought the same thing others said about the "Reception" section, but it was a quicker read than I anticipated. However, I think some consolidating would be good still. Some of the comments are slight variations of each other and are just too similar in my opinion.
- Maybe rename "Legacy" to "Related media". Seems like a more descriptive title.
- Re: Renamed.
- "Resident Evil 1.5" and "Biohazard 2" should probably be in boldface since they are alternate names and likely search terms.
I'll take a look at the references later. The article is in good shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Replied in-line with "Re:". Prime Blue (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked over the above changes, but will probably over the weekend.
Source review - Here is my review of the sources.
- Ref 38, the press release from Capcom. Is there a link for that anywhere?
- Re: Can't find it anymore, replaced with another source.
- Ref 55 and 60 from the magazine Total!. Are the issue numbers really "11/99" and "8/99"? If so I think you can forgo that info because the citation also has the publication date.
- Re: They didn't number their issues, removed.
- Ref 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, and 132 from VGMDB. Is this a reliable source? If not, then you should remove the link. The remaining information is sufficient for citation purposes.
- Re: As stated in the GA review, the album booklets itself are cited – the VGMdb links were just there for easier verification as they provide booklet scans.
- Ref 88 from Famitsu. Similar to the above ones. Is Geimin reliable?
- Re: See below.
- Ref 90 also from Famitsu. I don't believe that fs.finalfantasytr.com is reliable. Do you have the issue info?
- Re: Included as previous FAs had no problems with Famitsu score archives (e.g. The World Ends with You, Killer7), don't consider this contentious information.
- Ref 108 from Official UK PlayStation Magazine. Do you have the feature title?
- Re: No, that was added by another editor.
- (Guyinblack25 talk 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Conditional support. I vaguely remember this game from when I was younger, so I'll go ahead and review it. I'll be giving these comments as I read through the article.
- "The second installment in the Resident Evil series, its story takes place two months after the events of the first game and is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community whose residents have been turned into zombies by the T-virus, a biological weapon developed by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella." - way too long for a sentence in the lede
- Re: Split.
- I notice there are several links that are redirects. You might want to look through them again to make sure they go where you want them to.
- Re: Everything leads to where it should (redirects covered by WP:NOTBROKEN).
- I was getting a little lost in the plot section, particularly halfway through the second paragraph. Some things just sound rather sudden and unexpected in the plot, such as "Ada shows up again and sacrifices herself to rescue Leon, confessing that she fell in love with him". It just sounds out of the blue and... IDK, rushed? I had to stop, however, when I read this - "now mutated into a massive blob". Surely there is a more encyclopediac term than "massive blob"
- Re: Mentioned her emotions in an earlier sentence so it does not jump at readers (though with the word limit, it is kind of hard to accurately portray the buildup of character-driven mystery thriller plots), also explained the pendant deal better as it might be confusing still. I think the main problem with the second point was "massive", but reworded the rest as well to give a better idea.
- One thing I'm wondering, what sort of corporation does Umbrella claim to be?
- Re: A pharmaceutical company (well, as mentioned in the article, they really are, the additional biological weapons business is done in secrecy).
- I just have to say, I really like how the plot section is sourced. Other video game articles say "the video game is the source", but I like how you show the quotes and whatnot. (nothing actionable here, just saying I like it!)
- "The development was handled by a group of about 40 to 50 people that consisted of more than half of the original game's staff" - just to make sure, you mean that the original staff would've had 80 to 100 people? I'm surprised that a sequel would have so many fewer people involved. Unless, do you mean the redesign was handled by that number of people?
- Re: Good thing you brought this up as that's not what was meant: Among those 40 to 50 people, there were half of the original game's staff, the rest being rookies. Reworded it.
- "Another 810,000 copies of the Dual Shock Ver. were shipped until March 1999" - two things. Does "were shipped" mean the same as "were sold"? And what does "until March 1999" mean? Does it mean "as of March 1999"?
- Re: At this point in time, it certainly does – but the source should mean only "shipped" rather than "sold", which is why I kept that wording. Changed "until" to "as of".
- Just a little quibble, but you use this phrase twice in the article - "though criticized for its controls, voice acting and some of its gameplay elements"
- Re: Reworded.
- The paragraphs in "Adaptations and Sequels" are unnecessarily long
- Re: Split.
- "The second installment in the Resident Evil series, its story takes place two months after the events of the first game and is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community whose residents have been turned into zombies by the T-virus, a biological weapon developed by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella." - way too long for a sentence in the lede
- All in all, I think it's really good, and I'm willing to give it a conditional support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prime Blue (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm happy with it (sorry, too lazy to cross my addressed comments out). You're lucky I have an FAC up too or else I wouldn't have seen it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prime Blue (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is balanced. The lead does not include any material from the Music section. I imagine a sentence or two on this subject would fit in quite nicely with the second paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Joined a comment about the music with the redesign. Prime Blue (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who reviewed the article and gave comments so far! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsI am reading this through and make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning!) and will jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Gameplay section, I think the section would be more accessible if the first sentence was relegated down to the second last in para 1. I think it'd read better to explain in plain english what the game was about before shifting to technical detail (we then have a flow of basci --> more technical info).- Re: Done (put it at the end not to interrupt the explanation of the gameplay mechanics).
- ...
transformed into zombies...(I changed 'turned' into 'transformed') - quibble here: are they zombies or merely zombie-like creatures? As they are alive and mutated rather than dead as such?- Re: Primary and reliable third-party sources refer to the creatures as zombies (some came back from the dead, but most were infected alive).
you are using "psychotic" to mean crazy here I hope....- Re: Yup, basically driven crazy and acting irrationally because of the circumstances.
- ok.
- Re: Yup, basically driven crazy and acting irrationally because of the circumstances.
Otherwise looking pretty good actually. There might be some more prose which can be massaged a little but I'm not otherwise seeing any clangers. I've only played RE4 so nice to read some background :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your copy-edits! Prime Blue (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm unconvinced by the prose quality and there are some things that ought to have been picked up on by now, such as the ordering of citations at the end of this sentence: "The minigame 'The 4th Survivor' depicts the successful G-virus retrieval mission of Hunk, one of the special agents sent by Umbrella,[26] whereas 'The To-fu Survivor' and 'Extreme Battle' are stand-alone missions that bear no relevance to the plot of the game.[28][12]" There are many similar examples throughout the article. And how exactly do you "bear relevance" anyway? Here are some examples of the kind of prose problems I see, but bear in mind that they are only examples:
- "In this version of the story, however, Umbrella had already been closed down due to their illegal experiments." Are you certain that "due to" is correct here? (Hint: it isn't.)
- Re: Changed these, but it would be helpful if you pointed out what was wrong with them, this is the first time I see a complaint about "due to". I usually keep footnotes in the order they source something in a sentence. Changed as well, but is there a MoS guideline on the order of citations?
- "A noun is 'due to', a verb is 'owing to'". Thus "Umbrella had already been closed down owing to their illegal experiments". If your footnotes aren't sourcing everything in the sentence they follow then they're in the wrong place. Malleus Fatuorum 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oxford Dictionaries considers the prepositional use "part of standard English" and "common in all types of literature" now, but thanks for clearing up the difference. The footnotes are sourcing everything in the sentences, I meant that they previously followed the order they source something in a sentence itself (e.g., if fact 1 is backed up by reference [2] and fact 2 is backed up by reference [1], I would source the sentence "fact 1 fact 2" with [2][1] rather than [1][2]). That's why I'm asking if the ascending numerical order is dictated by a MoS guideline, it just made more sense to me the other way around. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:Manual of Style (footnotes): "It is generally expected that footnotes will be labeled in the order in which they occur in the text." Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that refers to the "older system of template-based footnotes". Prime Blue (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:Manual of Style (footnotes): "It is generally expected that footnotes will be labeled in the order in which they occur in the text." Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oxford Dictionaries considers the prepositional use "part of standard English" and "common in all types of literature" now, but thanks for clearing up the difference. The footnotes are sourcing everything in the sentences, I meant that they previously followed the order they source something in a sentence itself (e.g., if fact 1 is backed up by reference [2] and fact 2 is backed up by reference [1], I would source the sentence "fact 1 fact 2" with [2][1] rather than [1][2]). That's why I'm asking if the ascending numerical order is dictated by a MoS guideline, it just made more sense to me the other way around. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A noun is 'due to', a verb is 'owing to'". Thus "Umbrella had already been closed down owing to their illegal experiments". If your footnotes aren't sourcing everything in the sentence they follow then they're in the wrong place. Malleus Fatuorum 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Changed these, but it would be helpful if you pointed out what was wrong with them, this is the first time I see a complaint about "due to". I usually keep footnotes in the order they source something in a sentence. Changed as well, but is there a MoS guideline on the order of citations?
- "The development team sought to retain the level of fear from the original game ...". They couldn't possibly have "retained the level of fear", as that's an emotion felt by the players, not intrinsic to the computer programme.
- Re: That was their intention and the reasoning behind the character change, as explained in the source. Whether they accomplished or even could accomplish that is a different issue.
- "... Elza Walker, a college student and motorcycle racer who came to Raccoon City to look for an acquaintance". What does that mean exactly? She was searching for someone she vaguely already knew, for whatever reason, or she was trying to make a new acquaintance?
- Re: Reworded.
- "The amount of polygons used in enemy models was far lower ...". Far lower than what? It should be "number of polygons" rather than "amount" anyway.
- Re: Paragraphs talk about differences between initial and final version, added a reminder.
- "In the initial stages, producer Mikami often intervened due to disagreements with Kamiya ...". Another one of those "due to"s.
- Re: Reworded.
- "Shortly after, however, Resident Evil 1.5 was scrapped at a development stage of 60–80 percent". Seems to be running around the houses a bit there. Does that mean it was scrapped when it was between 60 and 80 percent complete? That's a pretty wide range in any event. Didn't they know how complete it was?
- Re: Would seem so, but that's the range mentioned in the sources.
- "The old story Mikami tried to end the series with was criticized by supervisor Yoshiki Okamoto who found it to be too conclusive to allow for future installments." Needs some punctuation and preferably rewriting.
- Re: Reworded.
- "At a time when the team did not make any progress on rewriting the scenario, Okamoto was introduced to professional screenwriter Noboru Sugimura ..." Strange choice tense in "when the team did not make any progress". How could "when" be anything other than "at a time"?
- Re: Removed "when". Don't know what's wrong with the tense, should it be past perfect?
- "The title was shipped with a playable preview disc of the new Resident Evil 2 version, both to promote it and to apologize to the players for its belated release." The "both" is obviously redundant.
- Re: Removed.
- "... the principal locations in the final build were made to look more high-flown and artistic". What does "high-flown" mean?
- Re: Reworded.
- "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because her movie model could not be finished in time." This is inherently ambiguous. It could mean that Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, or the only one not to appear because her movie model couldn't be finished in time.
- Re: Reworded, though I don't see the ambiguity.
- Do you not see the difference between what you wrote and "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, because her movie model could not be finished in time"? Malleus Fatuorum 09:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, no, I honestly don't. If it only meant "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene", then the subordinate clause would not be there. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me try again. There are two possible subjects in that sentence: main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene and main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because their movie models weren't completed in time. Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess I figured out the wrong interpretation: "Out of the main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, Ada is the only one not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because her movie model wasn't completed in time". Prime Blue (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me try again. There are two possible subjects in that sentence: main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene and main characters not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene because their movie models weren't completed in time. Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, no, I honestly don't. If it only meant "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene", then the subordinate clause would not be there. Prime Blue (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not see the difference between what you wrote and "Ada is the only main character not to appear in a pre-rendered cutscene, because her movie model could not be finished in time"? Malleus Fatuorum 09:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Reworded, though I don't see the ambiguity.
Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not involved in this nomination, but I thought I'd advise you to tone down the pedantic attitude. For example: "Are you certain that "due to" is correct here? (Hint: it isn't.)". For FAC nominators, opposition is a huge pain already; you don't need to make it worse. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice. I'll be sure to file it away in the appropriate place Jimmy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the recent disruptions, I think I've addressed Malleus' individual concerns above, and he also provided additional copy-edits to the article. If you find more mistakes to be addressed by copy-edits, please point them out. Prime Blue (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is certainly better than it was, but it still needs some work IMO. I'll offer a few more examples:
- "Developed with a team of about 40 to 50 people ...". Why "with a team"? Wasn't it developed by a team?
- yep. changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Meant something like "by using a team" rather than "by a team" before.
- "... Resident Evil 2 was ported to Microsoft Windows, the Nintendo 64, Dreamcast and Nintendo GameCube, and also received a modified 2.5D version for the Game.com handheld." What on Earth does "received" mean here? And what does the "also" add?
- removed "also". Not familair enough with gamer nuances to think of a better verb so will leave that to nominator. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Common expression used when games are ported to other systems, but reworded as "received" is used in the next sentence.
- "A survival horror title, the game's objective is to explore different locations while solving puzzles ...". That's not the objective of the game, that's the objective of the players.
- ok fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Each of the two playable characters is confronted with different puzzles ...". Should be "confronted by".
- I'd think "confronted with" is fine here, especially as the object (puzzle) is inanimate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One could certainly reasonably argue that, so I'm happy to withdraw that objection. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Development on Resident Evil 2 began one month after the completion of its predecessor ...". Should be "Development of".
- yep, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: "Development on" and "development of" are basically interchangeable.
- No, they're not. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just judging from what I've come across in all sorts of sources, would be a big surprise if it happened to be an actual mistake creeping into respectable publications. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happens all the time. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just judging from what I've come across in all sorts of sources, would be a big surprise if it happened to be an actual mistake creeping into respectable publications. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they're not. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... a man named John, who was later implemented into Resident Evil 2 as gun shop owner Robert Kendo." Are you sure about "implemented into"? I'm most definitely not.
- implemented --> incorporated (maybe a still better option though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Maybe "included in ... as"?
- "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in a change of the characters' polygonal models." Reads rather awkwardly: "change of the characters' models"? What about something like "Costume changes and wounds inflicted by enemies were reflected in changes to the characters' polygonal models"?
- yeah, that's better too. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, the content seems fine to me, but you need to recruit a good copyeditor. And after JimmBlackwing's outburst above that won't be me. I'm afraid that until the whole article is reworked I won't be supporting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see what a statement by an uninvolved party has to do with whether or not you copyedit the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I just hope my next nomination won't cause as much drama as this one... Either karma or bad luck. I'll ask on the project's talk page for a copyeditor, maybe someone will volunteer. Prime Blue (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have another lookover later today and see what else I can massage prose-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much appreciated, thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have another lookover later today and see what else I can massage prose-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose and readability issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern mountain community" - midwest what? This is linked to midwest US later, but you shouldn't assume that the term is familiar to non-Americans especially
- Re: Reworded.
- "Depending on certain requirements" is quite vague and seems a bit awkward
- Re: Reworded. Can't go too much into details because of WP:GAMEGUIDE.
- "two months after the mansion incident" - I've never played this game, so I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to
- Re: Reworded.
- "for the purpose of masking the development of the new G-virus" - awkward phrasing
- Re: Reworded.
- "one such G-virus mutant" - does this refer to an infected human or a mutated version of the virus itself? If the former, should also make it clear that humans become bioweapons via mutation as opposed to simple infection
- Re: Reworded. "Mutating" and "monster" should be enough connectives to make readers understand what this means.
- I'm finding the storyline quite hard to follow. Is Birkin associated with Umbrella? Was Sherry infected/mutated? etc
- Re: Provided additional information. Though again, the word limit makes it hard to explain everything in great detail (especially when another user thinks the plot section is too detailed already).
- "Claire is reunited with Sherry and discovers that Birkin has already implanted her with an embryo" - "her" being Claire or Sherry?
- Re: Reworded.
- Citation-needed tag needs to be addressed, some citations in Reception especially should be bundled where feasible
- Re: Original research addressed with revert. I don't think the citations in the reception section currently hurt the readability of the article to warrant otherwise unconnected groups of references, so I'll hold back on that until more users consider this a problem.
- What's a "support partner"? What do you mean by "inexperienced"? What is "ported"? Article needs to be more accessible to non-gamers
- Re: Explained "support partner" and "inexperienced". I don't think there's a simple, natural and non-gamer-friendly alternative to the word "port", so I wikified it.
- Two sentences discussing "Real-world influences..." seem misplaced
- Re: That paragraph mostly talks about character and environment designs, so putting those two sentences (the real-world influences being one aspect of the design process) somewhere else would be detrimental, I think.
- "Though he was initially consulted on a trial basis, Okamoto was impressed with how easily Sugimura came up with solutions" - "he" being Okamoto or Sugimura? Check for similar issues
- Re: Reworded.
- WP:OVERLINK - PlayStation Network is linked twice in three sentences, common terms like piano need not be linked, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Delinked some more general terms.
Withdraw: Obvious that it won't pass. Thanks to everyone who collaborated on making this article better, it's back to peer review for now. Prime Blue (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 20:39, 16 April 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as a featured article because it is an interesting topic about the nearest star system currently known to have a candidate planet. The page has undergone a peer review and is rated as a good article. I'll try to address constructive concerns, but please be specific.
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- File:Eridanus_epsilon_location.png should have a retouched template
- File:System_Epsilon_Eridani.JPG should have the full photo credit from the source
- File:View_epsilon_eridani_c.png should be described in the caption as a rendering, not an illustration
- File:Ssc2008-19a.jpg - source link is broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to address your concerns. Let me know if I misunderstood. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Perhaps these should be looked at by someone knowledgeable in this field. Certainly, to me they seem to be high quality and reliable, and there are no format issues that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- looking over now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Epsilon Eridani is both smaller and less massive than the Sun - interesting - normally succinct prose would identify the "both" as redundant here...but I am torn as I do feel it ties the two attributes together nicely, so I am just
ramblingcommenting really....
- Epsilon Eridani is both smaller and less massive than the Sun - interesting - normally succinct prose would identify the "both" as redundant here...but I am torn as I do feel it ties the two attributes together nicely, so I am just
... making it the nearest extrasolar system with a candidate exoplanet.- do we gain anything by using "candidate" over "possible", "probable" or "likely" here? The adjective always reminds me of politics....- 'candidate' is fairly common parlance in astronomical journal articles. It seems pretty neutral to me and it doesn't require deducing odds.
- ok, i'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'candidate' is fairly common parlance in astronomical journal articles. It seems pretty neutral to me and it doesn't require deducing odds.
This observable movement implied a relatively close proximity to the Sun,- why not "This observable movement implied it was relatively close (or near/nearby) to the Sun," (just trying to use shorter words for longer ones if possible as there are alot of long words :))- Fixed.
...excess infrared emissions...- think about where you wanna link "infrared" to and link...and delink subsequent mention in article- Fixed.
as novae explosions- wierd use of plural in adjective - surely it'd be "as explosions of novae" or "nova explosions"?- Fixed.
close proximity of this star- tautological - why not just "proximity" or "closeness"?- Fixed.
m sin i- link to sine (?) or subheading within?- Linked.
given we're talking about planetary habitability etc. I do think the age is worth mentioning in the lead.- This is already mentioned in the third sentence.
- ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is already mentioned in the third sentence.
Otherwise looking pretty good....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the nominator—As there haven't been many comments after two weeks, I'd like to request that this FAC remain on the list for a while longer to see if any other issues get captured. Thank you kindly.—RJH (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RJH, might I suggest posting a neutrally-worded request for review at a relevant WikiProject, or on the talk page of a subject-matter expert? This would help with more specialized review, and would address Brian's post above about having sources reviewed by someone more knowledgeable in this field. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our usual practice, I did post a notice on WikiProject Astronomical objects back on March 4th. But I think that those members who are going to comment on the article already did so during the PR and GA processes. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy would get more eyes on this? Also, even if editors have reviewed the article at GA and peer review level, there is nothing wrong with asking those editors to take another look, particularly if there have been changes since they last looked at the article. Even just a note from them saying that they support per the reviews they did earlier, and that they've looked at the changes and support the changes, would help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most participants are members of both projects. If this is to go down for lack of support, then so be it. I do appreciate the time people spent reviewing the article; that was my primary goal in the nomination. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy would get more eyes on this? Also, even if editors have reviewed the article at GA and peer review level, there is nothing wrong with asking those editors to take another look, particularly if there have been changes since they last looked at the article. Even just a note from them saying that they support per the reviews they did earlier, and that they've looked at the changes and support the changes, would help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our usual practice, I did post a notice on WikiProject Astronomical objects back on March 4th. But I think that those members who are going to comment on the article already did so during the PR and GA processes. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 1
[edit]Comments
- This article uses both British and American spellings, and should be standardized on one or the other (see WP:ENGVAR)
- Sorry but I'm not seeing what you mean. Could you be more specific please?
- For example, "kilometers" is the American spelling, whereas "millimetre" is British. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I'm not seeing what you mean. Could you be more specific please?
- "with a lower enrichment of elements other than hydrogen or helium" - meaning not clear. Do you mean it has a lower level of other elements than the sun?
- Yes. I added clarification.
- In general, this article could be made more accessible to non-specialist readers.
- Is the problem with some of the technical wording? It's hard to know how far to take that; the links provide more information and many of the technical terms used do also include an explanation.
- Technical wording, and also what you assume the reader already knows - which in my case, unfortunately, isn't much. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the problem with some of the technical wording? It's hard to know how far to take that; the links provide more information and many of the technical terms used do also include an explanation.
- Wikilinking needs work. Don't link very common terms, link potentially unfamiliar terms on first appearance, and don't relink terms in close proximity. Also, even when a term is linked it's often helpful to provide a brief explanation for the benefit of the non-specialist reader
- I cleaned up some of them, but I think most are still needed. See previous answer.
- Manual of style edits needed, particularly hyphen/dash use
- As far as I could see, the hyphen/dash use is correct. The script has been run through BrighterOrange's script. The only error I could find was due to a template, which I attempted to fix.
- Unfortunately scripts aren't equipped to pick up on nuances of usage. For example, ranges expressed with prepositions (like "from 1980–2000") should not use a dash. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you perhaps mean "Luyten 726-8"? Sorry but this is the standard Luyten catalogue nomenclature; it's not really a range. All of the numerical ranges use en-dashes. I did find one negative number that was using a dash instead of a −, so that one is fixed.—RJH (talk)
- No, I mean "from 1980–2000" and similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are all of the ranges used in the article: 1881–3, 1980–2000, 700–850, 35–100, 0.10–0.15, 0.5–1.0, 0.6–1.4, 35–75. Those all comply with WP:ENDASH because they all use en-dash to stand for to or through in ranges. I remain unclear about what issue you are seeing. Perhaps there is a font issue with your browser? They all look like en-dashes to me. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
- No, I mean "from 1980–2000" and similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you perhaps mean "Luyten 726-8"? Sorry but this is the standard Luyten catalogue nomenclature; it's not really a range. All of the numerical ranges use en-dashes. I did find one negative number that was using a dash instead of a −, so that one is fixed.—RJH (talk)
- Unfortunately scripts aren't equipped to pick up on nuances of usage. For example, ranges expressed with prepositions (like "from 1980–2000") should not use a dash. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I could see, the hyphen/dash use is correct. The script has been run through BrighterOrange's script. The only error I could find was due to a template, which I attempted to fix.
- "with Nova Cygni 1975 being used as the timer" - what does this mean?
- Clarified, I hope.
- "The following year, this star was proposed as one of the targets for Project Daedalus of the British Interplanetary Society" - what came of this proposal?
- It was only a paper study, so I tried to clarify that.
- "with its chromospheric abundance of iron estimated at 74% Solar" - phrasing
- Clarified.
- "The spatially averaged magnetic field strength of this star" - meaning?
- I clarified the wording.
- Provide conversions for metrical measurements
- Do you mean to old English? Metric is the scientific standard. Please see WP:UNITS: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." Otherwise, I'm not sure what you need here.
- The introduction to that section specifies that metric appears first (the primary unit), but also "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just starting to look at this article, but there are some instances where conversion makes little sense, particularly if the unit is a modern one. In the infobox, for example, there is little sign of conversions, and I think that is a good thing. Requiring everything to be expressed in two units can be taken too far. Also, it could be argued that in astronomy, English-speaking countries don't use different units here. Everyone uses metric, and I think you would struggle to find star distances and radial velocities (for instance), commonly expressed in imperial units. It is far more common to express them in metric units or in units specific to the field (e.g. AU or parsec or light-year). Would it help if all the instances of units were listed somewhere to be discussed? Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in astronomical articles it has just been a convention to only use Old English units in situations that the reader might directly experience. Thus, Fahrenheit is used for Earth-like atmospheric temperatures, but you would never use it to describe the surface temperature of a star; at least not in a scientific article. Anyway, if I put conversions in there, past experience has shown that they would likely get stripped out later.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just starting to look at this article, but there are some instances where conversion makes little sense, particularly if the unit is a modern one. In the infobox, for example, there is little sign of conversions, and I think that is a good thing. Requiring everything to be expressed in two units can be taken too far. Also, it could be argued that in astronomy, English-speaking countries don't use different units here. Everyone uses metric, and I think you would struggle to find star distances and radial velocities (for instance), commonly expressed in imperial units. It is far more common to express them in metric units or in units specific to the field (e.g. AU or parsec or light-year). Would it help if all the instances of units were listed somewhere to be discussed? Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The introduction to that section specifies that metric appears first (the primary unit), but also "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean to old English? Metric is the scientific standard. Please see WP:UNITS: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." Otherwise, I'm not sure what you need here.
- "The structure of the belts and the dust disk suggests the presence of three planets in the Epsilon Eridani system" - okay, but you've previously only mentioned two potential planets, where's the third? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also alluded to in the "Epsilon Eridani c" section. I modified it to say "more than two planets" as the actual number remains uncertain.—RJH (talk)
- Thank you for the review.—RJH (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 2
[edit]Comments
- The names of the various researchers mentioned lack context. The reader currently needs to click through to the individual articles to see the nationality or profession of the researchers. "US astronomer Artie Hatzes" and "German celestial cartographer Johann Bayer" and "English astronomer John Flamsteed" and so on, all read better to me than just the bare names.
- In the 'Properties' section you say "With a declination of −9.45°, Epsilon Eridani can be viewed from much of the Earth's surface." - this is something I was expecting to see in the lead - where on Earth can you view this star from, and roughly where in the celestial sphere it appears relative to other constellations. Not everyone will know where Eridanus is.
- Actually, I think the map at the top of the article does a decent job of showing the location. The information on viewing Eridanus should really be on the constellation article. Is that reasonable? Even the FA'd Sirius article doesn't provide a viewing "how-to" in the lead. I think it should probably be left to astronomy guides.—RJH (talk)
- Is it possible to say anything about prehistoric observations of this star? Do we know for sure whether it is one of the stars included in the ancient forms of the constellation Eridanus?
- Unfortunately not. It just isn't a prominent star visually, so it never appears to have accumulated much mythology. The star only became notable during the modern era.—RJH (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 'Kinematics' section, I was trying to work out from the figures provided, its orbital speed in km/s around the Milky Way's centre. Does it make sense to provide that figure or not? To help people work things out, could you also say whether it is moving in the plane of the Milky Way, up or down, and whether it is moving in the same direction as the Sun around the Milky Way? I think the "(U, V, W) = (−3, +7, −20)" answers those questions, but it would be nice to unpack that and explain it a bit more. i.e. build up a mental picture of how this star is moving relative to our Sun, and how both are moving relative to the rest of the Galaxy. Also, it is common to talk about how the Sun has orbited the Milky Way x times since it formed - have any sources calculated similar things for this star?
- Ah, well, giving a net velocity through the Milky Way based on the space velocity would require a calculation by us. Unfortunately the source didn't give the maximum distance out of the Milky Way plane, nor the number of times it has traveled about the galaxy. I think these two would also require calculations on our part. While interesting, I'm not sure that including these would be appropriate without a source.—RJH (talk)
- 'Dust disk' section: "Observations with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope" - it would be good to give the year here. Or if the year is not certain, say when the research was published (I assume 1998). If there are other areas of research that can be similarly dated, that would help give the narrative some flow.
- Added.
- The two notes appear to be calculations. Are these calculations you have done or are they calculations that others have done? If the former, are the calculations allowed by WP:CALC?
- Only the second note is a calculation. For ease of confirmation, I provided full details of the calculation and a citation for the formula. For me it is a routine calculation and the numbers and results were checked during an earlier review. If you feel it necessary, I can remove it and the computed net motion. This would just mean the reader would have to deduce it from the two components of proper motion.—RJH (talk)
May have more comments later, as this is one article I'd like to take the time to read through thoroughly. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Updated: 08:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review thus far. Please let me know if there is anything else I might address.—RJH (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 3
[edit]Comments
- I'm confused by the first paragraph of the lead (which is fundamental to describing what it is). 'Epsilon Eridani is a star' (singular) followed by 'it is the third closest star system (plural?) visible to the naked eye. Is Epsilon Eridani the name of the system or a single star? The redirected piped link goes to a list of stars not systems, perhaps that article needs clarifying? Are the system stars visible to the naked eye or just the one star?
- I'm not the nominator (I'm another reader of the article), but I too am not sure what is meant here. I can, however, see the potential for confusion when using the terms "star system", "stellar system" and "planetary system". One of the sources here uses the term 'stellar system' as in "Project Daedalus - The ranking of nearby stellar systems for exploration". The 'Properties' section says "ninth nearest stellar system". This article uses the term 'star system' several times: in the lead, in the 'Kinematics' section, and in two of the footer templates - the term is also used in one source ("The One Hundred Nearest Star Systems") and in an external link ("Astronomers discover a nearby star system just like our own Solar System"). The term 'planetary system' is used in the article and in one of the sources here ("Closest Planetary System Hosts Two Asteroid Belts"). I had always personally used "planetary system" to refer to the planets and other bodies around a star, "solar system" to refer to the Sun and its planets and other bodies, and "stellar system" to refer to other stars and their planetary systems if they have them (the logic being that you replace 'solar' with 'stellar'). Things like double stars and so on, I suppose could be star systems, but I'd never heard of them referred to this way. I suppose a lone star without planets could also be a star system, but it seems simpler to call it a star. Having said that, I doubt any star lacks other bodies orbiting it, so in some ways it makes sense that all stars are part of a star system. Indeed, our article on 'star system' says "Star system may also be used to refer to a system of a single star together with a planetary system of orbiting smaller bodies." As far as I know, Epsilon Eridani is a single-star star system. Obviously if the sources use terms in contradictory ways (I hope they aren't doing this), then you can't avoid confusion, but the article text should be consistent. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many stars are known to be in the system? 'Only 10.5 light years away', seems a long way to me! Needs to be put in relative terms. How bright is it? Magnitude or brightness does not seem to be mentioned in the lead, I see it in the infobox but that could/should be described in words somehow as a descriptive feature of what an observer might expect to find.
- Would Spectral class K2 mean that it is orange in colour? That link could be anchored directly to the K2 section of that article could it not? Seems to me that the lead needs to be generalised for the lay reader or use the technical terms plus an explanation.
- I've not looked at the rest of the article, I have experience of astronomy and would like to help more in this area of WP, assuming that I don't get my head bitten off here! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question this is the third closes star, and probably among the 10 brightest ones... and there is no actual picture of it???? Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but, given current technology, all you're going to see at present is a faint point of light. (For example.) There is a submillimetre shot of the debris disk, but I had concerns about the licensing.—RJH (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that an image that looks like a star might enhance the article. Googling around did not give me anything licensed for our use. The Hubble site has no telescopic images of this star. The more scientifically important image could be the one at http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/pressroom/1998_epseri mentioned by RJHall. This image shows the star and its dust cloud in the submillimeter radio spectrum. A person who might be able to release it is Jane S. Greaves of the University of St. Andrews. She has a web page at http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~jsg5/ which includes an email address. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yes, I have that article linked in the External links section.—RJH (talk)
- I cannot believe that there are no decent images of this star. Its apparent magnitude of 3.7 is gianormously bigger than the likes of Haumea (apparent ~17), which do have some pictures. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There were none that I could find, besides the above. Images of Haumea may be available precisely because it was so hard to find, and because they show the moons and/or the current position. It would require much higher resolution to show the planets, if any, around Epsilon Eridani, and the star doesn't move anywhere near as much. Therefore, the images of this star are less interesting.—RJH (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot believe that there are no decent images of this star. Its apparent magnitude of 3.7 is gianormously bigger than the likes of Haumea (apparent ~17), which do have some pictures. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yes, I have that article linked in the External links section.—RJH (talk)
- http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_profile.cfm?Star=105? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's an "image". It doesn't appear very interesting and is somewhat ugly.—RJH (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since it is such a close star, I would be interested to see a separate section on proposed exploration (besides that done by telescopes). Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm set against this idea because the same information applies to multiple nearby stars. Whatever could be said on the topic is already covered by the Interstellar travel article; or should be. This article already mentions of the star being one of several nearby candidates of interest, so I think that is more than sufficient.—RJH (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is tasty.
"Its rotation period is a relatively rapid 11.2 days, although this varies by latitude." If the rotation period varies by latitude, then how can it be definitively described by one number? Perhaps "Its average rotation period is a relatively rapid 11.2 days, although this varies by latitude." ?- Okay.
"In addition, Epsilon Eridani harbors an extensive outer debris disk corresponding to the Solar System's Kuiper belt." I don't think "corresponding" is the right word here. How about ", similar" instead?- Well, 'corresponding' means having the same relationship; 'similar' would mean the two are nearly a physical match, which they aren't.
I think the lead should mention the star's potential for supporting life, as that is one of its most interesting features.- I added a mention in the same sentence as 'SETI', which seems appropriate.
The lead should also answer the question: "How long have we known about this star?"- I added a sentence about when the star received its name.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 4
[edit]It is likely that Epsilon Eridani is of most interest to both astronomers and the public due to the possible planets. I suggest that the lead could be revised to pull that information into the first paragraph, per don't bury the lead. Here is what would happen if the star's technical details (in pgph 1) were swapped with the planet information from pgph 2. I have highlighted in green the material that got moved forward in this draft:
- Epsilon Eridani (ε Eri, ε Eridani) is a star in the constellation Eridanus. At a distance of 10.5 light years (ly), it has an apparent magnitude of 3.73 and is the third closest of the individual stars or star systems visible to the naked eye. Its age is estimated at less than a billion years. The motion of this star along the line of sight to the Earth, known as the radial velocity, has been observed for more than twenty years. Periodic changes in this data yield evidence of a giant planet orbiting Epsilon Eridani, making it the nearest extrasolar system with a candidate exoplanet.[1] This unconfirmed object, conventionally known as Epsilon Eridani b, was formally announced in 2000 by a team of astronomers led by Artie Hatzes.[1] Current data indicate that this planet orbits with a period of about 7 years at a mean separation of 3.4 astronomical units (AU), corresponding to 505 million kilometers.[2] However, the existence of the proposed planet is not universally accepted because the radial velocity data contain a high level of background noise from the star's magnetic activity.[3]
- Because of its youth, Epsilon Eridani has a higher level of magnetic activity than the Sun, with a stellar wind 30 times as strong. Its rotation period is a relatively rapid 11.2 days at the equator, although this varies by latitude. Epsilon Eridani is both smaller and less massive than the Sun, with a lower enrichment of elements other than hydrogen or helium compared to the Sun.[4] Astronomers categorize it as a main-sequence star of spectral class K2, which means the energy being generated at the core through nuclear fusion of hydrogen is emitted from the surface at a temperature of about 5,000 K, giving the star an orange hue.
If this were done, some reorganization should be attempted as well. In our article on the possible planet Epsilon Eridani c, the star is called an orange dwarf. Is that correct? The star is not called an orange dwarf here. I suggest that 'conventionally known as Epsilon Eridani b' should drop the 'conventionally', which adds no information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... From my perspective, putting information about the primary topic of the article second would would be burying the lead.
- I understand the natural enthusiasm about planetary systems and possibility of extraterrestrial life, but really the article is about the star and that should be presented first. If reviewers are enthusiastic about the topic of extraterrestrial life, then I would recommend that they try to bring that article up to FA standard rather than seeking to use this article as a promotional page. :-)
- The use of "orange dwarf" is rare and is not proper astronomical parlance. It is better to call it a K-dwarf, a K-type dwarf, a K-type main-sequence star, &c. The orange hue is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph, where it is attributed to the temperature. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 5
[edit]Support with comments following. Caveat: I'm a planetary person rather than stellar, and I'm not an exoplanet specialist. I would suggest asking User:Mike_Peel to take a look; he does galactic, but he might be aware of some other folk who work on stars who could look it over.
Lead Structure is good.
- "Because of its youth, Epsilon Eridani has a higher level of magnetic activity than the Sun, with a stellar wind 30 times as strong." Is a comparison to the Sun valid for a K2? Could just say its activity is 30 times higher than the Sun at present.
- I changed it to say "the modern Sun".
- Probably leave the rotation period and its latitude variation to the body text, where it can have a fuller explanation.
- Okay.
- "has been observed for more than twenty years." If that does make it one of the longest-observed stars, mention that as an interesting point.
- This may be difficult to determine and properly reference. To me it only seems interesting because it spans multiple orbits of the candidate planet, presumably reducing the error margin.
- "outer debris disk corresponding to the Solar System's Kuiper belt" While this statement is correct, could probably just say "of remnant planetesimals from the system's formation" to keep it more general for the lead.
- Okay.
- Worth mentioning its origin in an open cluster? ie. it began life in an open cluster and is now part of the UM Moving Group.
- Done.
Observation history
- Break out the debris discovery into a subsection, since SETI is also sectioned.
- Done.
- Aggressively trim down the SETI material. eg. Habitable Planets for Man could be much shorter. This section is overly long and needs to be more succinct: eg. discuss that the star has been monitored by SETI searches in radio at 21-cm and in microwaves. Less telescope detail.
- I did some trimming, but I'm reluctant to make further cuts because of past interest by other editors.
Properties
- Intrigued that its metallicity is < solar if it's younger than the Sun. Any comment? Also, how does its metallicity compare to the other members of its Moving Group? No chemical studies made?
- Yes I also found that interesting, but I only found one study that attempted to address it. The abundance of iron in the UMa group is reported as below solar,[9] although not as much as for this star.
- Actually, the discussion of metallicity seems a little scattered. Consider if there's a way to pull that closer together.
- The metallicity is in two parts; the first discussing the physical properties of the star and the second discussing the age anomaly. I'm not sure that bunching those together would help the flow, as the sections are organized at a higher level.
- Clarify the first two paras of Magnetic activity. If it's a BY Drac, say it is a BY Drac variable because of... and pull together the magnetic information - it just needs better sequencing through there, though some of the prose phrasing is nice.
- Okay, I re-organized the material.
- "At its estimated distance from the Earth, this astrosphere would span an angle of 42 arcminutes" clarify as "If visible to the human eye, this would span" or suchlike.
- I removed the "would".
- "Luyten 726-8 may penetrate a conjectured Oort cloud about Epsilon Eridani, which could gravitationally perturb some comets with long orbital periods." Rephrase. "If e Eri has an Oort cloud of comets, Luyten 726-8 could perturb..."
- Fixed.
Planetary system Halfway through this - will revisit to conclude review. Looks very nice so far, excellent explanation of m sin i and the accompanying issues. Iridia (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review thus far.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding my comments picking up where I left off...in Planetary system. Iridia (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Icalanise that the order in this section now feels awkward. I would place the dust disk subsection before the planets section. That will preserve order in things like the explanation of resonance, which is otherwise first introduced baldly at e Eri c.
- I would not say that objects in the 3:2 resonance are plutinos. Those are a distinct dynamical population in the Kuiper belt. They do not necessarily map to an extrasolar system.
- Will leave off until you've made the changes to the last para of Dust disk. These aren't too major changes: a section rearrangement and followthrough on the suggestion by Icalanise to incorporate the new paper published this March (during this FAC!). Delegates: I'd recommend continuing the nom at this stage. Iridia (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing this as a major rework of the article. It will require time to perform this properly and the article will need another review cycle. Ergo, it will need to be taken back through PR and then through FAC. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RJH, I'm unclear what you're saying above-- are you withdrawing the nomination or disagreeing with the reviewer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia, please withdraw the nomination. Implementing these suggestions may result in significant changes to the article, which I expect will then require another pass through the review cycle. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RJH, I'm unclear what you're saying above-- are you withdrawing the nomination or disagreeing with the reviewer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the minimal distance": does "a minimum distance" work, or is "minimal" more common in astronomy? - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, 'minimum' is closer to the correct meaning. I changed it.
- There's an active merge suggestion in Epsilon Eridani#Epsilon Eridani c, and I see you support the merge. Has that information been added to this article yet?
- That activity is independent of the FAC. I've been treating it as still under discussion.
- I don't see it as independent, for two reasons: we generally don't promote when there are active tags on a page, and if this article needs to have material it doesn't have (for any reason), then it doesn't meet FAC's "comprehensiveness" criterion. Can you at least take a guess what material you want to include, and try to include it, even if you self-revert afterward? - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That activity is independent of the FAC. I've been treating it as still under discussion.
- Otherwise, I'm finished with copyediting, and plan to support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and the edits. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to delegate: the request to merge material into this article was recent; if possible, give RJH a little time to work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a good faith effort to merge all of the significant material that was properly sourced on the planet article. (Most of the remaining material is already in the Epsilon Eridani article, and the remainder is unsourced.) This allowed me to remove the merge tag from the nominated article. I'll move the useful unsourced entries to the talk page for future processing. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These (plus one) were my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - coming at this from a primary interest in exoplanetary systems. Icalanise (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nearby star Luyten 726-8 will have a close encounter with Epsilon Eridani in about 31,500 years when they will be separated by about 0.93 ly." — Luyten 726-8 is a binary star system. Maybe worth mentioning that one of the components is UV Ceti, a designation which may be somewhat better-known than the designation for the system as a whole.
- Added.
- "system includes two debris belts composed of rocky asteroids: one at about 3 AU and the second at about 20 AU, whose structure may be maintained by a hypothetical second planet, Epsilon Eridani c." — I suggest taking a look at Reidemeister et al. (2011) [10] - this is not as clear-cut as was initially made out in the Spitzer news release. Note this paper is currently cited as reference 82 in the debris disc part of the article (although its implications with regard to the two asteroid belts model are not discussed), currently with a reference only to arXiv, this should be updated now the paper is published.
- Yes that does potentially throw a bucket of cold water on the whole multiple asteroid belts concept. It may take a fair amount of rework to properly fit this into the article, at least within the time remaining. At this point I think the FAC should be rejected so this issue can be properly addressed. Thanks for pointing this out. I did address the citation format. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Epsilon Eridani b, it should probably be mentioned that the Benedict et al. (2006) results used astrometry as well as radial velocity.
- I'm not clear what this would add to the article, since the reference is only being used to cite the predicted planetary properties rather than discuss how they were derived.
- Well there is a discussion about the mass/inclination degeneracy that limits radial velocity detections in the article. Therefore it is probably worth mentioning that astrometry resolves this degeneracy so you can get the true mass of the planet. Icalanise (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not clear what this would add to the article, since the reference is only being used to cite the predicted planetary properties rather than discuss how they were derived.
- "Thus, a terrestrial planet would be subject to bombardment similar to what happened to the Earth during its first 600 million years with the Late Heavy Bombardment." — the reference at the end of this sentence deals with dust ring morphology and doesn't seem to have anything to do with impact rates in the inner system.
- You're right. It appears that the Aguilar and Pulliam (2008) news release discussed the possibility of a Late Heavy Bombardment, but they did not directly connect it with the proposed ε Eri c planet.
- I disagree that potential habitability (and hypothetical future exploration, which is also included in the section) should be discussed before the debris system, it is as though this speculation is more important than the genuinely observed properties of the system, but maybe that's just me.
- Well I agree with you and that was the original arrangement of the two sections (Possible planets/Dust disk). However, it was subsequently re-organized by another editor so I think this would first need to be discussed on the article talk page.
- "However, the presence of a large planet with a highly elliptical orbit in proximity to the habitable zone of the star reduces the likelihood of a terrestrial planet having a stable orbit within the habitable zone" — given the uncertainties in the orbit of candidate "b", how relevant this is may not be so clear-cut.
- I pulled the paragraph, since, per the earlier point, it might be WP:SYNTH.
- "The nearby star Luyten 726-8 will have a close encounter with Epsilon Eridani in about 31,500 years when they will be separated by about 0.93 ly." — Luyten 726-8 is a binary star system. Maybe worth mentioning that one of the components is UV Ceti, a designation which may be somewhat better-known than the designation for the system as a whole.
Thanks for the review.—RJH (talk)
Sources Sorry, I realize Brian gave this his ok above, but I can see some formatting inconsistenices that could be cleaned up; this is just a sampling, but the references should be scrubbed for similar formatting issues throughout: Sasata (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there's a mix of sentence case and title case for the journal article titles—this should be consistent
- similarly, should be consistent about whether the month is given with the year published
- I added additional date information where available.
- The archive id for ref #6 (van Leeuwen 2007) is not working. Why are the volume/issue/pages not the same as indicated in the Bibcode link?
- Fixed.
- spacing between author initials is not consistent
- Fixed (single instance).
- (re: ref 12, Saumon 1996): what's the point of giving links to both the doi and the arXiv when they both lead to the same page? (other refs have same issue)
- It is possible the destination for the doi may change, depending on the publisher.
- issue # is not always given when available (see for ex, refs 14 &16, among others)
- I fixed it where I could find it.
- publisher location for Boyle 2009? Belkora 2002?
- My understanding was that the location is needed if the ISBN is not available.
- Retrieval dates not required for web-versions of print sources (like Google Books, ref #29)
- Book scans are sometimes removed from Google.
- Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2011 (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 00:24, 16 April 2011 [11].
- Nominator(s): Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the article in question meets the criteria to be a featured article. It's been quite awhile since i've seen a sports related FA and with the article well sourced and formatted, i believe it meets. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, suggest GA or PR - not to be discouraging, but you might want to consider WP:GAN or WP:PR, as the article does not seem to meet the FA criteria at this time. Large sections of the article are unreferenced (a good starting point would be to have at least one citation per paragraph, usually more), there are a number of one-sentence paragraphs and other prose issues, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nikkimaria. This appears to be a way off the mark; there's a lot of referencing still needed here. As noted above, every contentious or factual statement needs citing in reference to a reliable source, and to be done consistently and clearly. There are plenty of citation templates available which will make that job a lot easier. Good luck. Seegoon (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid that I too have to agree with Nikkimaria's assessment. In many ways it's a nice article, but it's very obviously insufficiently cited to meet the FA criteria, or even the GA criteria for that matter. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal – Agree with the others that the level of referencing isn't close to what a featured article requires. My advice is to add citations to the whole article, pruning what can't be cited, then take it to peer review to gain outside views before another FA or GA attempt. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:07, 15 April 2011 (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 00:24, 16 April 2011 [12].
- Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... Actually, I need help figuring out what I need to do in order to get this to FAC status. I know your rules state that I should go through Peer review first but it's been there forever. They just don't seem interested in helping me. Anyway, the article recently passed GA nomination, if that helps convince you guys to take a look. Thanks in advance for your time. Any constructive criticism is appreciated. Red marquis (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Just looked over the GA assessment of this article and I had similar problems when I nominated Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) a few months back so I believe I may offer some suggestions on how to improve this page. Simply put, it needs a healthy section on its Development, Composition, Release (+cover art and formats subsections), Promotion and singles, more extensive Critical reception section, Accolades (if it had any) and finally, a brief synopsis section on the Grotesk Burlesk Tour. Charts and certification is already completed. To achieve FA status, we'll just have to add a Recording and production section under Development." Well, i saw this sentence at GAOG album page... so, i believe we already have everything in the article, because the recording and production section is already in there. User:Salgado96 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Im sorry but this article should not have passed its GA review, i failed it the first time and i dont believe this is near GA status let alone FA. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abuse of WP:NFCC, why are 6 music samples needed? one, maaaybe two are needed at most.
- Reduced the number of music samples to 4. Please check to see if it is acceptable. It may be possible to take off another one. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As i said i think 2 will suffice, the two under "Promotion" dont add anything, please remove them. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reduced the number of music samples to 4. Please check to see if it is acceptable. It may be possible to take off another one. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS violations in references, incorrect use of italics, incorrect work/publisher fields.
- Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS date violations, use 2000-12-01 or Dec 15 1999, not both, choose one; YYYY-MM-DD or the written form.
- Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OVERLINK in the references.
- Please expand on where I overlinked so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completely addressed this issue. -Red marquis (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expand on where I overlinked so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEAD violations, no references in the lead as there should be nothing in the lead that isnt cited in the rest of the article, thus no need for references in the lead.
- I haven't looked at this article, but just a general note: WP:LEAD does not say *no* references in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Its understood that music articles should avoid references in the lead as there should be nothing in the lead that isnt apart of the body of the article :P - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still incorrect. Again, I haven't looked at this article, but if a music article said something like, "This is the best-selling song of all time", that would be cited in the lead, as an example. Data or opinion that may surprise the reader in the lead would be cited, and citations in leads are quite common. I just don't want the meme "no references in the lead" to be propogated at FAC, since it is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you guys know, I've reduced the amount of refs in the lede to just two. Please check to see if it is acceptable. -Red marquis (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still incorrect. Again, I haven't looked at this article, but if a music article said something like, "This is the best-selling song of all time", that would be cited in the lead, as an example. Data or opinion that may surprise the reader in the lead would be cited, and citations in leads are quite common. I just don't want the meme "no references in the lead" to be propogated at FAC, since it is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Its understood that music articles should avoid references in the lead as there should be nothing in the lead that isnt apart of the body of the article :P - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked at this article, but just a general note: WP:LEAD does not say *no* references in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg is not corrected licensed.- How is it incorrectly licensed, so I could fix the problem. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an image expert, but I don't see a problem with the licensing here - it's fair-use and has an FUR. Lakeshade, could you explain the problem(s) you see? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the history would have cleared this up :P When i review it this is how it was licensed, it has since been corrected. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an image expert, but I don't see a problem with the licensing here - it's fair-use and has an FUR. Lakeshade, could you explain the problem(s) you see? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it incorrectly licensed, so I could fix the problem. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article structure issues throughout, one sentence is not a paragraph.
- Please note each structural issue so I can fix each problem. I've been looking at this article for so long, I fear I've developed a sort of tunnel vision. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abuse of WP:NFCC, why are 6 music samples needed? one, maaaybe two are needed at most.
Im sorry but im opposing this article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your assessment Lakeshade. Could you expand on your points (ie. where I violated MOS in references and dates, where I overlinked and where in the lede I failed to reference) so I could address them immediately and retain GA status as well as possibly achieve FAC status. -Red marquis (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I didn't upload File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg but how is it not correctly licensed? -Red marquis (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I promoted this article to GA, which has seemingly caused some dissent here. If I've missed the mark, I apologise; for what it's worth, I believe it was ready for GA, but perhaps a little short of the stringent criteria of FA. I've contributed to it enough that I don't feel distanced enough to comment on its readiness for FA, but there was literally no grace period between it passing GA and being nominated here. Despite that, it's not a long way off and I can only wish luck to Red marquis. I believe the shortcomings (CK)Lakeshade pointed out have been addressed, and there's not a lot more that can be done to it. Seegoon (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, with no comment on the process or the article's GA status. Here are some examples of concerns:
- Per WP:SAMPLE, "samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter". File:Marilyn_Manson_-_The_Love_Song.ogg, for example, is 30 seconds from a 196-second song - 15%, and thus too long.
- fixed.
- "A decade on, it is still scathingly relevant" - this quote from the lead is not sourced there and does not match the sourced version later in the article. Please check it and other quotes for accuracy and verifiability
- fixed.
- Article as a whole includes way too many quotes, and too many very long quotes
- WP:MOS edits needed - hyphens and dashes, italicization issues, WP:OVERLINK, etc
- Please elaborate where? -Red marquis (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples of problematic phrases: "It would finally be worked into shape in his aforementioned former home during his confinement" is awkward and repetitious; "December 16, 1999 which announced that the album is now progressing" uses an incorrect tense; "other critics found larger cracks within their assessment" is awkward and unclear
- I've addressed that ones you've listed but I need you to help point them all out to me. I've been looking at this article for so long, it all looks the same to me. I need a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs to be more accessible to lay readers. For example, what is "DisinfoCon 2000"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2011 (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 00:24, 16 April 2011 [13].
- Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of two rail trails created from the former Wallkill Valley rail corridor. The shorter, southern trail was promoted in January, and I think this article is ready to join it. There's a nice photo of a medium-sized tree growing between two railroad tracks, so you might want to read this article just to see it. Gyrobo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for feedback: Gyrobo, your last two FACs were carried a very long time because of prose issues. I hope this has been well copyedited before nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll read it and give feedback, but don't want to get into another big back-and-forth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I requested a peer review back in January, and I also got some feedback during an attempted A-class review. Prose wasn't identified as an issue – and unlike my previous two FACs, this one only covers (roughly) the last 20 years in terms of history, and coverage is fairly comprehensive. I'm anticipating a review similar to this. Thanks for reviewing, Truthkeeper88. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I've done a quick scan of about half the article and again am seeing MoS errors and problems with flow. Before spending the time on a full review, I suggest strongly that Gyrobo review MoS before bringing another page to FAC, and that the changes Finetooth suggested in the peer review be incorporated. I would have brought up those points here, again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What changes did Finetooth suggest that I haven't incorporated? --Gyrobo (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I didn't want to get in a back-and-forth. Finetooth is a good reviewer and some of the changes haven't been made from what I can tell by looking at the PR. Also you need to fix MoS issues on the page. And, more importantly, you need to know what the MoS issues are instead of bringing to FAC and have others tell you. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but reviewing takes time, and I'm very picky (and I don't like being made to feel bad for being picky).
Finally, am recusing myself based on this.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Further discussion along this line continues at User talk:Truthkeeper88#Vagueness. Regarding this article, I am not aware of any outstanding issues from the article's previous reviewers, and Truthkeeper88 has not described any specific errors in the article, for me to address. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I didn't want to get in a back-and-forth. Finetooth is a good reviewer and some of the changes haven't been made from what I can tell by looking at the PR. Also you need to fix MoS issues on the page. And, more importantly, you need to know what the MoS issues are instead of bringing to FAC and have others tell you. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but reviewing takes time, and I'm very picky (and I don't like being made to feel bad for being picky).
- What changes did Finetooth suggest that I haven't incorporated? --Gyrobo (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll read it and give feedback, but don't want to get into another big back-and-forth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry Gyrobo, I haven't looked at the PR but I agree with Truthkeeper that MoS, among other things, needs work. Here are some specific concerns:
- Image sandwiching, all over the place - some of it is because I have an odd screen size, but there are a lot of images here
- Removed some images, does it look good now? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilinking issues - overlinking (ex. motor vehicles, dogs), repeating links (ex. See also, which should not include any links already present in article text),
- WP:SEEALSO gives some latitude in what can be placed in See also sections, and I believe that the companion trail is so important to the topic that it warrants mention in that section; and without its presence, the portals would be either in an empty section, or moved to External links. I removed some links to animal articles, but I thought those links were appropriate given that the section was about animal and plant species. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-editing needed: typos ("Wallkill Valley trials"?), grammar issues ("The Wallkill Valley Rail Trail was the 17th rail trail created in New York state,[24] and it became a National Recreation Trail in 2007."), awkward and unclear phrasings ("The idea of converting the former corridor to a rail trail was first considered in a 1983 environmental report commissioned by the town" - this is the first sentence of a new section, which town are you talking about?), etc
- The typo was part of some editing I did a few hours ago, fixed, and fixed those instances. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistencies in reference formatting - be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for weblinks to print-based sources, in whether you provide publisher locations, etc
- I believe I've taken care of this; all online sources except the books have accessdates. Regarding location, I have made that available in all cases where the location was known, and where the template supported it. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead is too short for an article of this size, per WP:LEAD. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll post again when I've expanded the lead. Thank you for reviewing, Nikkimaria. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the lead, does it look good? I think I solved the issue with too many numbers, as well. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've been asked for a full review. Instead I'll post a selection of problems I see:
- Avoid use of "current" per WP:MOSDATE
- Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency in spelling - cross country or cross-country?
- Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a reader, the sentence early in the lead with all the numbers makes my head hurt
- The infobox is overly long and distracting
- Reduced. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence needs a rewrite: Passing through a variety of habitats, the trail is frequented by many types of birds and animals.
- Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "History" section - sorry, but as a reader I'm totally lost.
- Seems to be over cited - have a look at WP:CITEBUNDLE
- I've combined the citations that are adjacent and not likely to be reused, but a lot of these refs are named and can't be combined. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OVERLINKING problems
- Nikkimaria listed some examples of this, I believe I fixed it. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose is choppy in places
- See WP:MOSIMAGES regarding text squash
- Fixed, I believe. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't a clue what BOCES is and am forced to link out to find out about it - if it's an acronym, then explain in the text
- Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Final para in the "Recreation" section is a bundle of factoids - what does shale outcrops have to do with bicycle shops? Shale should be linked and outcrops probably not necessary to link
- In my mind, parking is associated with general sights, like the outcrops, because both are landmarks (and splitting them would create a one-sentence stub for the outcrops). And I think "outcrop" itself is an unfamiliar enough term to link. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #10 has two photographs in the book and nothing about the subject, see page 10.- Ref # 11 I believe should be on page 8 - see the link above
Ref # 12 fails source verification - nothing about Conrail or selling in this edition of the book. If it exists in another edition, then the source should be changed
I've only read through the first few sections. Have only checked one source, not looked at referencing, images, or for copyvio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 10, 11 and 12 are all for Mabee's 1995 book, not the 2003 book. If you're looking for a good story, I'd definitely recommend Listen to the Whistle. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN for refs 10, 11 and 12 links to the book I looked at. I don't know whether or not it's a 2003 book, but if it's incorrect it should changed. That book doesn't have the information cited by those three refs. Nevermind, clicked the wrong ISBN. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I'm currently having Internet connectivity problems at home, so it may take an additional day or so to address these issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My connection is back up, I fixed some issues last night, and I'm going to work on the rest tonight. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm currently having Internet connectivity problems at home, so it may take an additional day or so to address these issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Only scanned the article briefly and found a few quick things.
New Paltz and Gardiner: "to fund several rail trail–related projects." Dash should be a regular hyphen here.
- MOS:ENDASH says the en dash should be used for for compounds, in this case "rail trail". Would it be simpler to reduce it to just "trail-related"? --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove comma after Sojourner Truth?
- I think I cleared it up. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 32 is a PDF and could use the same indicator that the other PDFs had.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (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 00:24, 16 April 2011 [14].
- Nominator(s): Tærkast (Communicate) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bring you one of the most controversial films of all time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. "Who will survive and what will be left of them?" I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it stands a good chance of passing this time round, however, should this prove not to be possible, it's OK, because I will work at it until it does. Tærkast (Communicate) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images check out, copyright/NFCC-wise. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, article revamped while at FAC, unclear if issues are resolved, previous comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've watched all of the changes to the article since the FAC started. I don't believe that there were any real significant changes, and what was changed (even if you view it as significant or not) was for the better anyway. My support still stands. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - IIRC correctly a source review was done before the restart; I haven't checked the particulars of that review, and am only evaluating the article as it stands. Also, spotchecks not done
- Why include only one author for a work that only has two?
- Multiple problems with reference formatting and consistency. Examples: page ranges must use ndashes always; be consistent in whether "p." is spaced or not (ie. "p.1" vs "p. 1"); be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- Should provide page numbers for non-weblinked newspaper articles
- Make sure you're using the right kind of cite template, or at least choose consistently. For example, one reference to Texas Monthly uses citebook, while another uses citejournal
- Find some way to distinguish visually between citations to the two Muir 2002s
- Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
- When citing to a video/audio source, it's generally a good idea to cite a specific time or time range to make verification easier
- Be consistent in whether second authors are listed first name or last name first
- Page number(s) for Farley?
- Be consistent in what you call things. For example, is news.bbc.co.uk "BBC News" or "BBC News Online"?
- Ref 96: don't repeat volume number
- What is IGN? Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms
- Was this originally from another source? Who is the author?
- This should be cited to the original source
- What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, will deal with it. IGN doesn't stand for anything. The last couple of refs aren't of paramount importance, should I use Vendorsites for DVD releases? And a Film Threat is notable--Tærkast (Communicate) 11:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Halloween ref, it's the official Halloween site, there doesn't appear tobe any author. For Film Critic.com, author is notable, the site is owned by AMC, and Film Threat is also a notable site, owned by Hamster Stampede, but I could remove it. I could also remove the Kim Newman Film Reference, but it is a useful site. For the home video releases, they are only there for talking about release and stuff, don't know what other reliable sites could be used.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability" and "reliability" aren't (necessarily) the same. Could you justify your use of these sites with reference to WP:RS and related policies/guidelines, or cite a previous FAC or RS/N discussion where these sources were accepted as reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine I'll remove most of those sources, and replace the DVD sources with Amazon or whatever.
Don't really know what reliable sources to use for home video releases.I'm sure the current other sources will suffice, will try and find some more--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Copy still looks buggy to me. I'll be back later to elaborate. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for an apology. Duly noted--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it a go, with Reception, Themes and Post-Release still pending. I request the nominator to consider trimming down the Post-release section to about three tight, interesting paragraphs; right now it excessively details home-video release dates and comic-book publication info (redundant to the TCSM comics article). It also repetitively discusses all the sequels and remake ever produced when, surely, a couple of summarising sentences would suffice?
- Another idea: how about making it another sub-section of Reception, by discussing the ensuing TCSM franchise in a couple of paragraphs?—indopug (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too bad. I'll see what I can do.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that if it does not directly relate to this film then it should be cut and put on the franchise page (if it's not already there). Comics that are based on Part 3 have no place here. I think the reviews of the other sequels are better left for the franchise page as well. I think that a lot of times these older films with sequels get their pages turned into mini franchise articles because the actual franchise articles suck and don't cover the information well. That is no longer the case with Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street and that is slowly not being the case with the TCM franchise page. So, things that occur in 2005 that are a better relationship with the remake than to this page should be removed. It helps to trim the fat off of this page and move things to a more appropriate location. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut it down some, but I'm wondering if I cut too much? Thoughts Taerkast and Indopug? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine, next thing to tackle is home video. What we need to do then is decide the structure of the post-release section.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bignole, the complete removal of comics info means the reader get no idea that the film spawned off a multimedia franchise (unless there's something about that elsewhere that I missed). Sequels: I don't think naming all the sequels chronologically is useful either (and redundant to the TCSM navbox below). Instead, with the help sourced critical analysis, could you write something more general and over-arching about the five sequels: "Starting with TCSM 2 (1986), the film spawned three sequels in the 1980s and 90s. Each of these featured ever-increasing amounts of gore and horror, but received a critical mauling and far lesser commercial success than the original. 'Snarky quote by critic'. <Summarise last two films similarly>."
- Unrelated: the Australian Classification Board paragraph, can you confirm that all the info is backed by the cited sources?—indopug (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all the info is backed by the Classification Board as per the sources.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not find "frequent and gratuitous violence of high intensity" in the sources (which are all ACB certificates in that paragraph—or have I overlooked something?).—indopug (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine, next thing to tackle is home video. What we need to do then is decide the structure of the post-release section.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut it down some, but I'm wondering if I cut too much? Thoughts Taerkast and Indopug? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that if it does not directly relate to this film then it should be cut and put on the franchise page (if it's not already there). Comics that are based on Part 3 have no place here. I think the reviews of the other sequels are better left for the franchise page as well. I think that a lot of times these older films with sequels get their pages turned into mini franchise articles because the actual franchise articles suck and don't cover the information well. That is no longer the case with Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street and that is slowly not being the case with the TCM franchise page. So, things that occur in 2005 that are a better relationship with the remake than to this page should be removed. It helps to trim the fat off of this page and move things to a more appropriate location. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too bad. I'll see what I can do.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, the ACB does not appear to state it. Removed, I wish it did though, the BBFC usually does theirs, but that's the UK film board.--Tærkast (Communicate) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it appears that all of that information will need to be removed because whatever was sourcing it is now gone. The sources for each individual citation are all reverting to a single overview page on that website and not providing any of that information anymore. So, unless it can be refound, it's going to have to go. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Some sample idiosyncracies I've found:
- Roger Ebert is notable. Wikilink him.
- Why omit the name of Ebert's journal, but include all the other critics' publication names?
- Why mention the lead actors of just one of the five subsequent films?
- Why wikilink second incidence of "remake" in the space of seven words, but not the first?
- What's the difference between a remake and an official remake?
- Was there no book version of the film?
- Slightly bothered by US-centric approach to box office takings, per WORLDVIEW. Are there no statistics for worldwide box office for films from the mid 70s?
- First use of "MPAA" in both Lead and body copy (not just former) should be explained
- PG and R should be wikilinked. I've never heard of an R rating.
- Was the limited cinema release in the UK during that initial year or, as the text seems to flow (but makes less sense logically) after the BBFC ban?
- Why explain an 18 certificate, but not PG and R?
- "the word "chainsaw" became outlawed in titles" Just in the UK?
- "splats of real animal blood" is "splats" a quote? If not, it's awfully colloquial for an encyclopedia article. If it is, put it in quote marks.
--Dweller (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will deal with those. As for the question of the book, no, there isn't a book version of the film. It's not based on anything. The word chainsaw did become outlawed just in the UK yeah. As far as I'm aware, there are no worldwide box office statistics for this film at all. PG rating is linked in the lead. I don't think the ratings are of ultimate paramount importance, and the overlinking of such things should also be considered.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dealt with most of thse issues, but perhaps archiving might be a good idea now? I mean, I don't want it to happen, but my time will be taken up with RL quite soon, so that might be something to think about.--Tærkast (Communicate) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Like I said before, I think its about time the article deserves the Featured Article status. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, leaning support. Steve T • C This is a fine article, into which a lot of effort has obviously gone, and I hope you can get it over the line. While giving the article a light copy-edit yesterday evening I began listing issues in my sandbox, but it looks like someone spotted that and has resolved at least a few of them. Only a few items remain:
The "Filming" section doesn't get off to a gripping start, with two pieces of information that don't seem all that relevant (my emphasis): "The primary filming location was an early 1900s farmhouse located on Quick Hill Road near Round Rock, Texas, where the La Frontera development is currently located. The house was later moved to Kingsland, Texas, restored, and turned into a restaurant as part of the Antlers Hotel." Or if they are relevant, they're certainly less important that what follows about principal photography, which should be the focus. Might these work better relegated to the "Notes" section?In "Post-production: "David Foster, producer of the 1982 horror film The Thing, arranged for a private screening for some of Bryanston Pictures' West Coast executives, and received 1.5 percent of Vortex's profits and a deferred fee of $500."—I may be wrong, but that seems to be saying that Foster received a 1.5 percent stake and $500 just because he arranged that screening?In "Critical response": "In his 1976 article ... Stephen Koch mentioned that he felt the sadistic violence in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to be extreme and still unimaginative."—I'm not sure what the "still" is indicating here, as it implies a return or reconsideration of opinion. Is that the case? If so, perhaps beginning, "Revisiting the film in a 1976 article ..."?"Later, critics began to praise the film for its artistic qualities and effectiveness."—its effectiveness at what?The second paragraph in particular has a couple of quotes that feel more like what you would see on a poster than an in-depth summary of what these critics thought about the film: "a punishing assault on the senses"; "a backwoods masterpiece of fear and loathing, Texas style". I'm not saying they should be removed, but perhaps the last one at least could be trimmed or paraphrased?"Noted reviewer Rex Reed"—as opposed to the other, non-notable reviewers, such as, er, Ebert? Seems weird to single him out. The fact he has a link should be enough to indicate his notability."The film currently has a 90% overall approval rating from critics on film aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10. This is based on 40 reviews collected between the years 2000 and 2009."—OK, so hands up, I was going to scream blue murder at your use of Rotten Tomatoes, as it does not offer an accurate reflection of the critical reception of films released before 2000, per WP:ROTTEN. Then I spotted that last sentence, and all was right with the world. If I have a suggestion, it's that you should perhaps explain what a "90% approval rating" is, as well as how the average score is arrived at. Perhaps, "Review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 90% of critics give the film a positive review, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10" or something along those lines?In "Cultural Impact": "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, considered one of the greatest and most controversial horror films of all time ..."—do you think it might be helpful to say by whom here, and when? I had to click down to the cites to see that this is long after the film's release. The first cite is a 2011 poll of the public by the BBC, and that's probably fine, but I'm wondering what the second, See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy (2000), says exactly. Are Kerekes and Slater reporting on a critical re-evaluation, or again on public opinion?"Ben Cobb of British public service Channel 4"—a likely jarring description of the service for any UK readers. You already introduce Channel 4 in a previous section, with a link, so it's probably unnecessary to say exactly what it is."Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, profoundly disturbing' and was 'far more than personal, as the general response it has envoked [sic?] demonstrates.'"—this doesn't work grammatically; however I can't figure out what it's supposed to be saying, especially the last part, so I'm not sure how to fix it."Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, 'In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask.'"—it may be useful to link to those characters' articles for those readers unfamiliar with them. It's frowned on a little to link within quotes, but is permitted in the MOS for instances of necessary clarification.
- And that's all the weather! Feel free to ignore or rebut my issues/suggestions. I have this page watchlisted, so no need to ping. All the best, Steve T • C 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Steve. Will deal with those in due course.--Tærkast (Communicate) 22:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've taken care of most of them. As for Forster, yes, it's true, he did get a 1.5% share just for screening the film.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Sorry about the delay in responding; I plum forgot to check back in on this, even though I know how frustratingly slowly a FAC can sometimes seem to proceed. I'll look over your changes and revisit my comments tomorrow evening (UK time). All the best, Steve T • C 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck some. Back shortly after another read through. Steve T • C 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think it's OK now? I'm off on the 10th, will be back on the 30th, anything could happen between now and then, which is what worries me.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The change to the Bill Nichols bit is better, but it's still not quite right. The second half of the statement doesn't link very well with the first. Essentially, it's saying, "Bill Nichols commented ... and was 'far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates.'" How about something along the lines of, "Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, [is] profoundly disturbing and far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates."—which more explicitly links the statement to the first. Steve T • C 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think it's OK now? I'm off on the 10th, will be back on the 30th, anything could happen between now and then, which is what worries me.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck some. Back shortly after another read through. Steve T • C 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Sorry about the delay in responding; I plum forgot to check back in on this, even though I know how frustratingly slowly a FAC can sometimes seem to proceed. I'll look over your changes and revisit my comments tomorrow evening (UK time). All the best, Steve T • C 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've taken care of most of them. As for Forster, yes, it's true, he did get a 1.5% share just for screening the film.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, and thanks so much for your comments.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the last. I'll give it another read and see if I'm happy to support yet. Steve T • C 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see a considerable amount of thoughtful work has gone into this since the previous nomination, but the number of prose problems I found in the lede alone makes me concerned. I'll just address those for the moment:
- "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a 1974 American independent horror film directed by Tobe Hooper, who co-wrote with Kim Henkel."
That last verb needs an object: "it", or "its screenplay", or "the screenplay".
- "It stars Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Paul A. Partain, Jim Siedow, and Gunnar Hansen, who respectively portray Sally Hardesty, Franklin Hardesty, the Hitchhiker, the proprietor, and the main antagonist, Leatherface."
I assume (i.e., hope) there is some good reason that "Hitchhiker" is capped while "proprietor" is not, but whatever it is, it's not good enough to justify this glaring stylistic inconsistency.
- "Although it was marketed as a true story to attract a wider audience and to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time..."
The grammatically logical connection between the sentence's first clause and its last is not conceptually logical: "It was marketed as a true story to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time." The connection made between the marketing and the intention (I presume Hooper's intention) to make a subtle comment about the era's political climate is both unclear and unsound.
- "...its overall premise is entirely fictional."
"Overall premise" is redundant and "premise" appears to be the wrong word. "Plot" or (since "plot" appears in the next sentence) "story" or "narrative" seems to be what was meant.
- "PG" is unquoted and glossed with its unabbreviated form. "R" is enquoted and glossed with its official definition.
Appearing in the same sentence, these are, again, rather glaring stylistic inconsistencies.
- "...numerous theaters later withdrew the film from release after concerns from viewers regarding its violent content."
Doesn't parse. Could go with "...from release after viewers voiced concerns about its..." Or with "...from release in response to complaints from viewers about its..." Or with "...from release after viewers complained about its..."
Given all the attention that's been paid to the article, I was expecting that the lede--the section that almost always receives the most attention--would be virtually flawless at this point. It is far from that, raising serious questions about the prose quality of the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)
Just archive this nom. Please. I'll be going on holiday, and don't have time to fix all this stuff. One problem after the other, with differing opinions amongst editors. There's no satisfying everyone, but it seems I'd have to in order for this article to ever pass. Archive, please.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also taken into account the nearly 3 month time period of this FAC, so it may be best to archive now.--Tærkast (Communicate) 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Scrap that, I'll see what I can do in the time I've left.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that it's two months, not three :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two months, you say? Ah, it is correct. Thanks Sandy.--TaerkastUA (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that it's two months, not three :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been working my way through the rest of the article, and (for the most part) the prose is in much better shape than I anticipated after reading the lede—just light copyediting needed, which I've been doing. The math here doesn't add up:
- [Post-production:] "A film production group, Pie in the Sky, donated $23,532 in exchange for 19 percent of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper with a 23.5 percent stake, and the remaining 18 percent was divided among 20 cast and crew members."
Nineteen percent of 50 percent equals 9.5 percent. That leaves a total of 40.5 percent for the Henkel-Hooper partnership and the cast and crew members. What you have—23.5 percent and 18 percent—adds up to 41.5 percent. I do not have access to the two sources from which the data derives, so I don't know if the information in one or the other was mistranscribed in the composition of the Wikipedia article or if their numbers do not add up due to an error in one or the other. Please double-check the sources and emend the data or gloss the mathematical discrepancy as appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember working on this section back in October diff . MAB owned 50% and Vortex 22.5% and Pie in the Sky 9.5% and the cast and crew 18%. So the only thing wrong is Vortex did not own 23.5 as you say but 22.5. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Release (caption box):] "The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particularly Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin..."
Does it actually say "in particular" or "particularly"? If the error is in the original, it needs a [sic] here.—DCGeist (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [Release:] "After the initial release, including a one-year theatrical run in London, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned in Britain, largely on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman. It saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils, and later received an 18 certificate (indicating that it should not be seen or purchased by a person under 18) by the BBFC.... The BBFC passed The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for release in 1999 with no cuts."
Very confusing. What does "largely on the authority" mean? Did someone higher up have to approve his decision? How did it see "limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" if it was banned? (The "cinema" there is, of course, redundant.) Was it, in fact, not exactly banned? When precisely did it receive an "18 certificate" and how does that relate to the 1999 development when the BBFC passed it "with no cuts"? Did the version that received an 18 certificate have cuts? What certificate did it receive in 1999?—DCGeist (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- City councils don't actually have to listen to the BBFC, which is why it was given a limited release. The BBFC rated the film "18" when it passed it in 1999. I'll make that clear. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 09:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits didn't make clear why the text was mentioning twice that it received a BBFC certificate. So I looked at the source for the first instance—not only did I discover that the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate just once, in 1999, which shouldn't have been difficult to make clear, I also discovered that the claim that it "saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" was unfounded. One city council granted it a license...in 1998. I've made that correction.
- A problem remains:
- "Censors attempted to edit the film for the purposes of a wider release in 1977 but were unsuccessful."
- This is unclear and dubious. Who are these "censors" who failed to make a cut that satisfied (presumably their own) censorship board? Do you mean the filmmakers or the film's British distributor? We wouldn't refer to either of those parties as "censors". And what is meant by "wider" release? We've established that after the ban, there was no release in Britain for over 20 years, right? The source for this claim (Ruth Petrie's Film and Censorship: The Index Reader) is not available for viewing on Amazon and has only snippet views available on Google Books—I did try to verify, at least, that the book included a reference to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and found none. Unless you (or another editor) actually have this book in your possession and can edit the line in question as needed based on the supposed text of the cited page (p. 156), the line should be eliminated entirely.—DCGeist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important Just to say. I'm off tomorrow (the 10th) for 3 weeks, so I will probably not be able to check in. I sincerely hope this FAC ends well. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Regretfully. I just checked the source for another claim that seemed oddly phrased, and found that the information there was wildly misrepresented in our article. I made the correction, but that's two sources eyeballed, two major errors found—and a third "source" looking very shaky. All in just one section. I wrote in the last FAC that "rigorous vetting of all the cites and the claims based on them" needed to happen. It clearly hasn't.—DCGeist (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point out the sources in question? I'm sure a few could be removed, which shouldn't be enough to stop this FAC from passing.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think generalising one section to the entire article makes it representative of the rest of the sources. Misinformation can be a problem yes, but not of such that it needs to fail. It can be easily fixed, but as it's up to me, unfortunately, I don't have time to fix it up. 3 guesses this will be closed by the time I return.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (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 00:24, 16 April 2011 [15].
- Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article meets the criteria to become a Featured Article in Wikipedia. It has already been been granted Good Article status and received a peer review in the past. And, I think it's ready now. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
File:Wonder_World_Tour_poster.png - FUR needs some work. "The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the song." - no, the subject is the tour, not the song. "The image is used in the article section giving a visual description of the poster released for the tour." - no, it's in the infobox. "The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder." - no, you don't tell us who has copyright. Also, licensing tag is incorrect, as this is not an album cover.
- Done
- File:Miley_Cyrus_-_Wonder_World_Tour_-_Breakout.jpg -
need a more informative description than "A teenage girl singing" (as for other images with similar description).Also, who holds copyright for the stage design and props (like whatever that big thing behind her is)?
- Text has been aletered. And since the images are under Commons, I don't think they belong to anyone. They are free images. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily true - images can be erroneously transferred or uploaded to Commons without being free. I'm not sure of US copyright laws surrounding stage design, which is why I'm not opposing over this issue, but it's still something you should look into. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The images passed Flickr review and meet Commons guidelines. They are surely free images. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Nikki means is that a photo of a copyrighted work (like the stage) might not be "free" under one of the quirks of American copyright law. I'm a copy editor, not a copyright lawyer, but I don't see anything in the design that's original enough for copyright to apply, with the possible exception of the motorbike. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even think so because, then Commons wouldn't have any images of motorcycles or cars for that matters, which they clearly do. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sandwiching and stacking of images on my screen. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not on my screen. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any problem with any of the commons images FOP doesnot apply here at all. They are free to be used in the article. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Comments Hi there. I'll leave a longer review later, but I'm reviewing the lead for now. Here's what I have for you so far:
"The Wonder World Tour is the second concert tour by American recording artist Miley Cyrus, in order to promote her second studio album Breakout (2008) and first extended play (EP) The Time of Our Lives (2009)." This sentence doesn't really make sense. There should probably be something before "in order to", like "she began the tour in order to".
"in order to prevent the extensive ticket scalping that occurred during Cyrus' previous tour." This is another sentence that doesn't make much sense. I understand what the meaning is, but it sounds as if she's trying to prevent the ticket scalping that already occurred. Perhaps you could say something like "ticket scalping similar to what had occurred during Cyrus' previous tour". Also, perhaps you could add a wikilink for "ticket scalping". We both know what it means, but others (especially from other countries) might not.
"an organization devoted to fight against cancer." Should be: "an organization devoted to the fight against cancer" or "fighting cancer".
"The Wonder World Tour was described as part of Cyrus' transitional period" Not a big deal, but I would say "has been described".
"all of which bared different themes" Again, not a huge deal, but I would say "each of which had a different theme"
The second paragraph of the lead used "Cyrus" a lot. Maybe replaced a few of those with "she"
"The Wonder World Tour was financially successful despite the financial recession that was present in 2009." Maybe remove the word "financially" to remove some redundancy.
"It was able to sell-out all European dates in ten minutes and mark the largest attendance at The O2 Arena in London, England." Should be "marks".
"During the first leg of the tour, one bus overturned several times in a highway." Should be "on a highway".
"but multiple theories for it exist." I think "yet multiple theories exist" sounds a little better.(sorry, forgot to sign)-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All comments were taken care of. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, looks good! I'll leave you a review for the rest of the article later.-RHM22 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: I'm still not finished with this review! I apologize for my slowness. Anyway, I'll try to get to the rest of it tomorrow. For now, here are few more comments in addition to the miscellaneous minor fixes I made throughout.
Development:
"The Wonder World Tour was titled accordingly because of its diversity in themes and styles." "Accordingly" doesn't seem to be in the proper context here. Maybe something like "The Wonder World Tour was so named because..." or "Wonder World Tour was chosen as the title because..."
- Done.
"The reason for the prior to occur was because..." sounds very awkward. Maybe something like "the reason for this was..." Later on in that sentence, it says "Cyrus felt more confident as a vocalist to perform stunts and use props while singing.", which I don't understand the meaning of. Did you mean that using props made her feel more comfortable on stage? If so, I would suggest rewording it as such: "Cyrus felt more confident while performing stunts and using props during her performances."
- The first part was done. In regards to the other part, not really. What I meant is that, since her voice grew, she became more confident as a vocalist. Therefore, she was able to use props while singing. Before, she did not want to use props because she didn't feel she could do that and sing at the same time. Am I being clear? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ideas were given by different people and experimented during filmed rehearsals to filter which ideas would make the final cut." This is also awkward. Maybe something like "Ideas were suggested by different individuals and were tested during filmed rehearsals in order to decide which would make the final cut." Also, it might be a good idea to explain who the people are that gave the ideas (employees, friends, planners etc)
- I would, but the interview just says people. It doesn't specify. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's fine then. There's nothing you can do if your source doesn't say anything else!-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"tractor-resembling car" sounds extremely awkward. I'm not sure what to replace it with, but it looks very odd in there.-RHM22 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about car that resembled a tractor? I don't know. They both seem awkward to me. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a tough one. Was it a car made to look like a tractor? If so, maybe something like "a car altered to resemble a tractor" might be better.-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. That's basically it. I changed it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a tough one. Was it a car made to look like a tractor? If so, maybe something like "a car altered to resemble a tractor" might be better.-RHM22 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Ok, my review is finished. I fixed several minor typos and grammar stuff, but I do have two more suggestions for you.
Bus accident
"Bumped up" seems incredibly informal, especially for an FAC. It should probably be "injured" or something like that.
- Replaced with "suffered minor injuries"
"Zilio was later able to return to work on the Wonder World Tour with some injuries and a bit rattled, but in fine condition." Maybe something like "Zilio was later able to return to work on the tour, despite some minor injuries."
- Reworded
Also, maybe something like "Bus incident" would be a better header. It's not a huge deal, but "incident" just sounds better to me. It's your call on that one.
- Any is fine with me. But "incident" is more general. It could be any sort of event. Accident has more of an impact. But if you want to change it, I will. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it's fine the way it is.-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General comments:
My biggest problem with the article is the multitude of images of Cyrus performing. They're nice photos, but it seems like there are too many of them and a number of them are not really in the relevant sections. Maybe replacing some of the ones of her performing with some photos of the other people discussed in the article would help to even it out a little bit.
- I'm sorry but there are no free images of the personnel. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I copyedited the entire article, but I still think it needs a good once over from another set of eyes. Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave a request with the Guild of copyeditors and see if anyone over there would like to give it a check.
- I'm a decent copy-editor (and MoS wonk), but somewhat pressed for time. If you could be more specific about what you feel needs attention, I'll do what I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not certain that there's any one section that could use copyediting, just a once over of the whole article in case I missed anything (and I'm sure I did!) For instance, "Cyrus" is repeated a lot throughout the article. I fixed a few of them, but there are still some that look awkward when replaced with "she", so I left those alone. Someone else looking at the article might not think it necessary for it to be copyedited, but there a few interruptions in the flow to my eye.-RHM22 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's it!-RHM22 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article reads good now, and though I still think it could use a minor copyedit, I believe it should make "the climb" to featured article!-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Nitpicks.
- Non-print sources should not be italicized (e.g. MTV News, CNN etc)
- Done.
- See Ref 7
- Done.
Ref 21: The source appears to be the recording of a song, yet the text cited to it seems to be mainly about Miley Cyrus's various changes of clothing. How does this work?
- It cites the DVD of a concert of the tour, which was included in that CD. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9: "MTV. Viacom"; Ref 25: "MTV. Getty Images". Why the difference?
- The latter was corrected. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 35: Why the use of parentheses? - and "retrieved" rather than "Retrieved".
- Done.
Ref 40: "retrieved" lower case
- Done.
Otherwise sources seem to be OK, though I have not had time for any significant spotchecking. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Not too bad, mostly minor prose issues
The poster's FUR needs improving; "To provide a visual companion to an informative article" isn't really a good enough reason to use non-free content- Done.
"The tour was made" → The tour was held- Done.
"It began in September 2009 and concluded in December 2009, visiting cities in the United States and United Kingdom; thus, the Wonder World Tour became Cyrus' first world tour." - don't like the use of "thus" here as the two parts of the sentence aren't really related. Also maybe change "world" to "international"- Why doesn't it relate? It covered the United Kingdom, a new territory for her. Her last tour was also international because it covered Canada. This covers another continent and that is usually referred to as a "world tour". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The current wording is slightly confusing as when I read it I thought it meant her first tour. Maybe I'm a bit thick, but it may be a good idea to stipulate that it was her first world tour but not her first tour?
- Exactly. It says that the Wonder World Tour is her second tour on the very first sentence. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet you think I'm the height of stupidity. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. It says that the Wonder World Tour is her second tour on the very first sentence. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The current wording is slightly confusing as when I read it I thought it meant her first tour. Maybe I'm a bit thick, but it may be a good idea to stipulate that it was her first world tour but not her first tour?
- Why doesn't it relate? It covered the United Kingdom, a new territory for her. Her last tour was also international because it covered Canada. This covers another continent and that is usually referred to as a "world tour". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The full-length concert film was released on the limited, deluxe edition of Cyrus' third studio album" - no need for comma- It does. Commas are used to separate coordinate adjectives, such as here - well, at least in the US. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"furthering her distance from Hannah Montana franchise" - needs a "the" before Hannah- Done.
"including Cyrus' then-active Twitter account" - remove "then-active"- Done. She renewed it! :D -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:CAPTION - captions that are full sentences require captions, those that are not do not- Done.
"the average rehearsal period is about three months" - for Cyrus? For pop musicians?- Done.
why is the Best of Both Worlds Tour linked in "Development"?- Done.
"It consisted of a rectangular main stage, which features staircases that elevate the center of the stage, a narrow runway, and a B-stage that runs the length of the main stage and connected to the main stage by the runway" - changes tense multiple times- Done.
"Cyrus noted that it's" - don't use contractions except in direct quotes- Done.
"multi-screen, video units" - why the comma?- Done.
"The structure of the video panels was designed by Jammal Sims" - do not need his first name as you have already mentioned him- Done.
"to go airborne" isn't flash prose- Airborne just means to be moving through the air. You think it sounds informal? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the "to go" part. What about "to become"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- I meant the "to go" part. What about "to become"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Airborne just means to be moving through the air. You think it sounds informal? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"asking them to bring their "hopes, wishes, and dreams."" - quotes should be followed directly by a ref- Done.
"Because it came along late in the design process, the main elevator was not built to handle the weight of the car" - I don't think you have mentioned any car before this (I may be wrong). Explain "the car"- It is already mentioned and described in the sentence before. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry! Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already mentioned and described in the sentence before. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"silver, flowing, evening gown" - no need for commas- Done.
- I suggest you give the article a read-through and copy-edit it. I can give more examples for you to fix, if you wish.
- Please do so. Thank you for all your help. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Some more comments:[reply]
Unlink Trace Cyrus in the synopsis as it is linked beforehand- Done.
- "
[i]f there was any worries that Miley Cyrus" → "if there [were] any worries that Miley Cyrus"- Done.
- The picture in the 'Bus accident' section is inappopriate here
- Why? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with the accident.
- Why? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"One person, Bill "Uncle Bill" Douglas, a 53-year-old of Austin, Texas, died at the scene of the accident" - mention his role in the tour- Done.
The 'Opening act' section should be in the 'Setlist' section (maybe a subsection?)- I don't think so, because the setlist refers to the main artist and since this is beforehand, I think it is placed well. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who published the press release ref (#3)?- Done.
- It is unclear that ref 14 is a video (I found out in the cite template). Is the video available online? How are readers able to access the video?
- They were reward videos sent to those who purchased their tickets with an American Express credit cards. Since it was exclusive for that, the video does not appear on the American Express website. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This concerns me - how are readers supposed to access this info? Is there another, more accessible source that could be used as a replacement?
- The videos are posted on YouTube if readers want to see them. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then. Could you please add a release date (or at least a year)? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- OK then. Could you please add a release date (or at least a year)? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The videos are posted on YouTube if readers want to see them. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This concerns me - how are readers supposed to access this info? Is there another, more accessible source that could be used as a replacement?
- They were reward videos sent to those who purchased their tickets with an American Express credit cards. Since it was exclusive for that, the video does not appear on the American Express website. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 46 is a press release - use {{cite press release}}- Done.
Allmusic ref (#47) - Allmusic does not need to be italicised- Done.
Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support I want the boxscore sources issue to be sorted out, as outlined by Legolas below. Otherwise, a comprehensive, well-written article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly oppose. I see a real problem with the boxscore references. Only two reference is used to justify them, but they neither have any issue date, nor any publication date. Furthermore, I have access to Billboard and can say that WW tour is present in 10 different issues. So that whole table fails WP:OR. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what to do about it, quite frankly. I trusted that someone had added them with correct references. I don't know how to add it, nor do I have a subscription to Billboard magazine. I'm sorry, but can you please help? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can help, but it will take hell lot of time, something I dont think/not sure the FAC will cover. I think you know my present condition Ipod, hence... It really takes time to search billboard.biz archives. Note to you for future references, always ask editors like me or Eric—people who have access to archives—to check these things. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh god, I had forgotten. I'm so sorry. I'll ask Eric for hep myself. I don't want to put a burden on you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can help, but it will take hell lot of time, something I dont think/not sure the FAC will cover. I think you know my present condition Ipod, hence... It really takes time to search billboard.biz archives. Note to you for future references, always ask editors like me or Eric—people who have access to archives—to check these things. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:51, 9 April 2011 (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 00:24, 16 April 2011 [16].
I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that it meets the citeria for featured articles, and because I have resolved all the issues raised in previous WikiProject A-class reviews and the previous featured article candidacy. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Provide complete page range for Albrecht in its bibliography entry
- Done
- Spell out "Publishing" in MBI
- Done
- UK instead of England
- Done
Images
- File:Arado_234%2B381_parasite_aircraft.jpg - any further information on copyright status? Source link does not discuss author or copyright holder
- Well, that's where it came from, if they don't have anything, don't ask me for anything.
- File:Arado_E.381_I_3d.svg and File:Arado_E.381_I_3v.svg - are these drawings based on existing images or sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey WikiCopter, just letting you know I removed the templates you added above - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, those shouldn't be used here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standard disclaimer, after giving Wikicopter the stink-eye in the first FAC. I reviewed this at the A-class review, and there's only been one edit since then. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No thanks for the stink-eye earlier (though it probably was justified). I didn't edit since the ACR since I didn't think I needed to do much. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
It would be better for the first block of references in the article to be in numerical order, unless there's a special reason why they are in that order.- Please clarify. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Development: In the first paragraph of the section, I see no need to have so many cites to the same source. You have five cites, all to reference 4, which strikes me as a bit of overkill. You could get away with just three: the one at the end of the paragraph and the two directly after the quotes.First "a" should be removed from "with armament and a with a Walter HWK 109-509 rocket engine for power."- Done. - Dank (push to talk)
Variants: Why are the full plane names bolded here and in the last section? Feels like bolding should be limited to the one section.- Those sections seem like they should be their own page, and the first instance of the subject of the page should be bolded. In fact, if I ever get enough information to split those articles off, I will do so. However, if you don't like it, you can remove the bolding. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sections seem like they should be their own page, and the first instance of the subject of the page should be bolded. In fact, if I ever get enough information to split those articles off, I will do so. However, if you don't like it, you can remove the bolding. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The pilot would lie in in a prone position...". Remove second "in".- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography, check the page range of the Ulrich Albrecht piece. There might be a number missing from the second figure.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a quick run through...
- "Kleinstjäger" should really use the {{lang}} template for screen-readers. It's easy, free, and makes no visible change to most of us, but does tell the visually challenged that this is German.
- Hiya RM. I need some educating on this one. If a blind person has trouble deciphering Kleinstjäger without the lang template, won't they have trouble with Luftwaffe, Flugzeugwerke and Messerschmitt? If they can't understand German, will it make a difference how the screen reader pronounces it? If they can, couldn't they follow links to the German Wikipedia? And most important, I think: if their screen reader knows that all the words are in either English or German, and can't figure out which, shouldn't they get a smarter screen reader? Google can generally pick the right language out of hundreds; choosing between two shouldn't be that hard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Dank. Well, the thing that stuck out in my mind was that, a little further on, we have [[Ministry of Aviation (Germany)|Ministry of Aviation]] ({{lang-de|Reichsluftfahrtministerium}}) which gave me a clue that the lang template was known and could be used. I'm far from an accessibility expert and unfortunately my stock expert (User:RexxS) has been offline a few days now, but I guess it boils down to whether FAC pay too much heed to WP:ACCESS or not. I don't have all the answers, I suppose all I'd like is some kind of consistency throughout the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At MILHIST (except for just a few writers), we're generally not mentioning the foreign word unless the foreign word is used extensively in English sources. I'm very dubious that English sources would prefer "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" to "Ministry of Aviation"; would it be satisfactory to delete that German word and its lang template? - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At MILHIST (except for just a few writers), we're generally not mentioning the foreign word unless the foreign word is used extensively in English sources. I'm very dubious that English sources would prefer "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" to "Ministry of Aviation"; would it be satisfactory to delete that German word and its lang template? - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Dank. Well, the thing that stuck out in my mind was that, a little further on, we have [[Ministry of Aviation (Germany)|Ministry of Aviation]] ({{lang-de|Reichsluftfahrtministerium}}) which gave me a clue that the lang template was known and could be used. I'm far from an accessibility expert and unfortunately my stock expert (User:RexxS) has been offline a few days now, but I guess it boils down to whether FAC pay too much heed to WP:ACCESS or not. I don't have all the answers, I suppose all I'd like is some kind of consistency throughout the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiya RM. I need some educating on this one. If a blind person has trouble deciphering Kleinstjäger without the lang template, won't they have trouble with Luftwaffe, Flugzeugwerke and Messerschmitt? If they can't understand German, will it make a difference how the screen reader pronounces it? If they can, couldn't they follow links to the German Wikipedia? And most important, I think: if their screen reader knows that all the words are in either English or German, and can't figure out which, shouldn't they get a smarter screen reader? Google can generally pick the right language out of hundreds; choosing between two shouldn't be that hard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arado Ar 234" could be linked in the lead.
- Done.
- "but the plane was cancelled" not keen on "plane", perhaps, "the development was cancelled".
- Done.
- "[3][1][4]" any reason why these citations shouldn't be numerically ordered?
- Done.
- You have parasite fighter in the infobox but that's not used in the lead, perhaps be clearer?
- "exploited the Luftwaffe concept" suddenly Luftwaffe is italicised (it wasn't in the lead or the infobox..)
- Done.
- "The level of g-forces envisioned" shouldn't that be "the levels of g-force envisioned"?
- How about "The g-forces"? (Done) - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arado E.381/I, Arado E.381/II, and Arado E.381/III. " not sure you need this, why not just "the marks I, II and III"?
- Done. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 21:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they were never called Marks, they were referred to as Arado E.381/I etc.
- "Baureihe" and "Marke" are words sometimes used to mean "model" or "mark" in German, but I don't know if these words were applied to the Arado, or what the best translation would be if they were. We've got plenty of people who know over at Milhist, I'll ask. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got no answer at WT:MIL. AFAIK (and leo.org backs me up on this), "mark" and "model" would both be acceptable translations of whatever word the Germans used. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Baureihe" and "Marke" are words sometimes used to mean "model" or "mark" in German, but I don't know if these words were applied to the Arado, or what the best translation would be if they were. We've got plenty of people who know over at Milhist, I'll ask. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they were never called Marks, they were referred to as Arado E.381/I etc.
- Done. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 21:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "cancelled" is good BritEng, but "realized" is definitely not. Which WP:ENGVAR are you using?
- Both are fine in AmEng. This is AmEng.
- No need to continually re-bold the name of the aircraft.
- Done.
- Image in the specification section has no caption.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: RM's talk page says he's away, and I'd rather not ping him if he's busy. I'm reasonably sure we dealt with all his concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did ping him, no reply. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
I would suggest expanding the lead with a sentence or two definition of parasite aircraft and in the development section summarize the thinking behind parasite aircraft as an implementation of the small, high g-force little fighter; obviously the reader could click the wiki link but its kind of a strange (IMHO dumb) concept and the article doesn't have a length problem.Kirk (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us a little more about what you want, Kirk? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; In the lead, something like 'A parasite aircraft was a fighter aircraft carried by a larger aircraft, almost always a bomber, and was generally used to protect a bomber formation from fighter attacks and was preferred to a separate fighter formation because of X' I don'know the answer to X.
Somewhere in the article, explain they were first used with Zepplins and expand on X.Also, someone thought this was a good use of scarce resources: why?More on this - my scarce resource comment is something I gathered from this statement in the lead section: ...eventually abandoned because of a shortage of Ar 234 mother ships and a lack of interest from the Ministry of Aviation. and those statements aren't supported in the body anywhere which is a problem. Also, the lead mentions twice the project was cancelled.Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us a little more about what you want, Kirk? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand why the Arado Ar 234 was being used for this purpose; the article explains the bomber interception mission but the original idea of parasite fighters was for protecting bombers and the Arado Ar 234 was too fast to be intercepted by fighter aircraft, and weren't being flown in formations so why did they need parasite fighters? Or was this only to intercept bomber formations so in which case why use expensive Arado AR 234s?Hopefully this helps. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks. Time is tight, hopefully Wikicopter can look into this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, guys. Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I would have replied on Wednesday, except some people (privacy refuses to let me disclose their identities) shut off the computer as I was about to submit. Afterwards, I went to Spokane, Washington and Couer d'Alene, Idaho. In fact, I'm still here. Here in Eastern Washington, I'll have relatively limited access to the internet, so excuse me if I don't get back for a week (plans to get back by the end of the next week).
- AHEM. Now on to the FAC buisness...
- X is expanded, please review. I don't remember that the Zepplins were used with this aircraft. Where are these aircraft mentioned as a good use of scarce German resources? To understand why the Germans used Ar 234s as the launch aircraft, go ask the Germans. The sources I used do not mention why. Yes, these aircraft were used to shoot down the enemy bombers, not the enemy fighters attacking their home plane. Sorry if I sound a little confusing, but I have limited time and have to run through all of the GA reviews I'm doing. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I crossed off the things I had above with the exception of the why part, which I expanded to address your concerns.Kirk (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the parasite aircraft article was better I wouldn't have had as much problem with your limited description - this aircraft was more of a parasite interceptor fighter instead of just 'fighter'; the role being intercepting bombers instead of fighters attacking fighters attacking a bomber formation but I doubt your sources made this distinction. Overall, good work!Kirk (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is balanced. It's not often that I see one-paragraph leads, but I think in this case it works just fine. Thanks for the good work and speedy responses!
The lead should, at the very least, mention the fact that the Arado E.381 came in three different flavors."Had the Arado E.381 been completed it would have been carried aloft by and launched from an Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft, but the development was canceled." This leaves the reader wondering why the project was cancelled, a question that isn't answered until the end of the second paragraph. I suggest rearranging the lead material to inform the reader of the reasons for cancellation shortly after this sentence.I think the most interesting/unusual feature of this design was the prone orientation of the pilot. This should definitely be mentioned in the lead.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great suggestions. I tackled two of them with this edit. For your middle point, I need to see how Wikicopter responds to Kirk's points. WC, as you know we've got a lot of German-speakers in the project with access to German sources, you might want to ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To Kirk and Cryptic: Fixed; I also tweaked some awkward wording. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on comprehensiveness grounds and lead clarity. I know very little about airplanes, and what I know about WWII details came mostly from other FAs, which may make me a good person to review this article.
- Lead issues
- I got lost on the second sentence of the lead. Had to reread that a few times to make it gel in my brain. I would recommend reorganizing this a bit. I'd mention it's cancellation first and then go into the would have beens...
- I assume the comparison to the Messerschmitt Bf109 means something....because I have no idea what that type of aircraft is or why we'd compare its crosssesction. Is the Bf109 the biggest? the average?
- Might be important to have the info about 3 possible designs at the beginning of the lead and not the end.
- Above all done.
- " Luftwaffe's concept of "gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in the cockpit"" - huh? Why was placing excessive stress on someone a tactical advantage? Can this be fleshed out a little more?
- Rennenberg and Walker says so. Argue with them.
- Is there any information on why Arado and the others designed these. Did the Luftwaffe solicit them specifically? Was there a general call for a specific type of aircraft and Arado decided to participate? Did Arado already have a history of developing new planes for the Luftwaffe?
- Sources on the way. Not sure.
- Were parasite fighters common? Was this a new concept?
- New concept. Clarified.
- How many rounds of ammo was normal to carry? I see the "only" 45 and wondered.
- Thousands. 60 could have been sent on its way to the enemy in a second or two.
- Was the design not completed, or was the design not implemented? If they weren't completed, do we know what wasn't done?
- I don't get your concern.
- Were the other companies also designing parasites for the Ar 234s?
- Not sure. Is this important, or just curiousity?
- What was supposed to be done with the aircraft - and the pilot - when the plane landed?!?
- Glide down, reuse (what else? Germany is strapped for resources, reuse is best).
- Was there a height/weight requirement for the pilots? Since the bulges were located in specific spots, I wondered if there had been thought to how big the pilot would have to be.
- No info.
- Did the mark 3 have a hatch on the side and on the top? That's how i interpreted this, but that seemed excessive
- I guess so. I'm not sure. Sources are on the way as above.
- In the Mark II section, the fuselage is given in standard units first; everywhere else it's metric first
- That's how it was given in the sources.
- Did the process get so far as to let Arado eliminate some of the other competitors? Did they get close to being chosen as the final provider, or did the process not get that far?
- It wasn't a competition.
- What happened, if anything, after the project was cancelled? Were the designs just shelved? Was any part of this used in other aircraft? Was there anything revolutionary about the design that was carried forward elsewhere? Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to come to be a Jonny-come-lately, but I don't think this is quite the finished article yet. There appear to be some gaps/inconsistencies in the narrative, and the prose needs work in a few places. Some examples:
- We're told in the Development section that the aircraft had room for "only forty-five 30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" (why "only"?), yet in the very next section that's apparently gone up to 60 rounds.
- "The Mark II had similar features with the exception of having a larger overall size and smaller fins." Similar features to what? The Mark I? I'm not overly fond of "with the exception of" either.
- Sorry I'm getting frustrated, but two late opposes can be draining... I noted that it is similar to the Mark I. I don't know why you don't like "with the exception of." What else could we say?
- Your frustration is understandable. But my concern is with the quality of the article, and whether I believe it meets the FA criteria; the sentence is awkward. What about something like "The Mark II was similar to the Mark I, except for being larger and having smaller fins". (You don't "have" a size, you are a size.) Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'm getting frustrated, but two late opposes can be draining... I noted that it is similar to the Mark I. I don't know why you don't like "with the exception of." What else could we say?
- "As pilots could only enter from a hatch above the cockpit, the pilot would have had to enter the E.381 before it could be attached to the carrier Ar 234C and had no way to escape in case of an emergency." Presumably this is saying that the pilot had no means of escape while the aircraft was attached to its mother ship? But what about when it was in free flight? Could the pilot escape then? If not, then to suggest that the reason the pilot couldn't escape was because of the attachment to the carrier isn't correct.
- Well, if that's what my sources say, what can I say? It doesn't say anything about free flight or gliding. I could assume that the aircraft could not be evacuated only when it was attached, but would reviewers allow that?
- My point is that your ordering of the facts implies that pilots had no means of escape because the aircraft was mounted underneath its mother ship, but that's clearly not the case once it's in free flight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if that's what my sources say, what can I say? It doesn't say anything about free flight or gliding. I could assume that the aircraft could not be evacuated only when it was attached, but would reviewers allow that?
- The Arado E.381/II section is written very choppily.
- Please expand.
- It's a sequence of short sentences without any flow. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expand.
- "The aircraft's straight wings had a blister for a single MK 108 30 mm (1.2 in) cannon and 60[8] rounds." Why is the citation after "60" rather than at the end of the sentence? It's also rather unclear. The wings (plural) had a blister (singular)?
- Blister underneath wings underneath fuselage. Cite fixed.
- "... the fuselage deepened in the form of a hump which extended to the tail, which housed a single MK 108 cannon ...". Awkward.
Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
Comments—I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but my instincts say "lean oppose" because of the lack of polish, and concerns about comprehensiveness. I hadn't read the comments above before reviewing, so please forgive if I'm repeating. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "…designed by Arado Flugzeugwerke in December 1944" the main article text does not mention when it was designed
- "Each of the three proposed designs" what 3 designs? There's not enough context yet for this to be in the second sentence of the lead.
- link Allied
- "It was designed with a rocket engine to quickly close and fire on American and British bombers." I didn't know one could use a rocket engine to make designs. Or, (in an alternate interpretation), I was unaware that rocket engines could be used to "Close and fire" at enemies. Also, why is this sentence in the lead thrice reffed? Is it not cited in the article?
- "… approximately a quarter of the cross section of the Messerschmitt Bf 109." What's the relevance of the comparison to this particular airplane?
- link fuselage (earlier), point blank range
- "According to their "specific design philosophy"" why do these three words need to be quoted?
- "This is because the aircraft was cancelled, due to a lack of funds, mother aircraft Ar 234s and a lack of interest by the Ministry of Aviation[1][2][2][7][8]" clunky and confusing sentence; no fullstop at the end; ref 2 is cited twice
- inconsistent display of units: "30 mm (1.2 in) rounds" vs. later "5-millimeter (0.20 in)"
- what's a blister?
- "… and 60 (other writers say 45) rounds[4][6]." discrepancy in # of rounds has already been mentioned; put punctuation before citations
- why are the specs for only the E.381/I given? How about a comparative table showing the differences between the three versions? (as in the Spanish Wiki)
- for consistency, should specify the publication states for Albrecht (2002) and Green (1971)
- fix the doublestop at the end of Ford (2000)
- why doesn't this article have the longitudinal section diagram shown in the Spanish Wiki article?
- the Spanish version of the article gives some interesting data about resources needed for production that isn't included here
- aren't there any German-language sources which have more information?
- 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 Nikkimaria 01:04, 13 April 2011 [17].
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor but important battle in the South West Pacific in New Guinea during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB: One disambig link is in the "For other uses" at the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Do we really need that long two-paragraph quote from White?
- Spell out or link acronyms like NAA
- Missing bibliographic information for Watson 1958, Kenney 1949, Byrd 1997
- Need publishers for web citations
- Bibliographic information for Yoshihara is repeated
- Notes 24, 29: formatting
- Be consistent in how multiple editors are formatted
- Publisher for Yoshihara?
In general, reference formatting needs a bit of work for consistency. Haven't done spotchecks, will do later if no one else beats me to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very limited spotchecking found no close paraphrasing; however, I don't have access to many of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:- in the Prelude section, the emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH;
- there is some overlinking of terms, for instance in the Strategy section, "Rabaul" is linked a number of times;
- in the Prelude, I suggest wikilinking the word "ace" to Flying ace as it might be a term that some readers won't understand;
- I suggest wikiliking "platoon". AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All my concerns have been addressed. I made a couple of tweaks just now - please check that you are happy with them. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
- I know it looks like a spelling error, but Ernest Mustard changed his name to Mustar later in life. See: Diane, Langmore (2002). "Mustar, Ernest Andrew (1893 - 1971)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. p. 655. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 29 March 2011.
{{cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)- Arghh, He was still Mustar in 1927. (Where is Ian when I need him?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it looks like a spelling error, but Ernest Mustard changed his name to Mustar later in life. See: Diane, Langmore (2002). "Mustar, Ernest Andrew (1893 - 1971)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. p. 655. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 29 March 2011.
- Comments:
- the New Guinea campaign box should auto collapse to remove whitespace in the article.
- the pictures could be tweaked to remove other whitespace in the article.
- FYI - I have linked and created some stub articles that relate to this article to help out. Newm30 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the campaign box collapse? It does for me when I click "hide". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor has set the default to collapsed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions could use editing for clarity.
- Changed two. See below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead caption is copied almost verbatim from this source
- Replaced the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Salamaua-Lae.jpg - any further information on this image's source?
- Yes, it is from The Reports of General MacArthur Volume I, p. 106. Updated the page on commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wau_Map.jpg - "However, not all materials in our holdings are in the public domain. Some materials found in our holdings may be copyrighted. Please note that it is your responsibility to identify the copyright owner and to obtain permission before making use of this material in any way." Have you ascertained that this specific image was created by a US Army employee?
- Yes, it too is part of the Reports of General MacArthur. It was prepared by his staff in the late 1940s from a captured Japanese map. The reports were handed over to DOD in 1953 and published in 1966. The reports are in the public domain, as, for that matter, is the original Japanese map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Wirraway_at_Wau_AWM128154.jpeg - caption for this image is copied almost verbatim from this source. This type of pl*giarism is quite concerning, given that as mentioned above I don't have access to many of the sources used for the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye has a PhD in military history. These days, reviews in academia often involve gsearches to see if the candidate has ever been accused of anything nasty, and if they know he's called "Hawkeye" and they search for "pl*giarism", this will show up ... or it would have if I hadn't just edited your comment, Nikki. Please be careful with incendiary words; these days, nothing on the internet ever goes away. The word pl*giarism means, to anyone other than a few Wikipedia editors, deliberately attempting to pass off someone else's work as your own. No one who links to the exact caption that they're citing, and then submits the article for a careful image review, is attempting to pass off someone else's work as their own. Now, to the substance: the caption in the article is: "A Wirraway of No. 4 Squadron RAAF in flames after being set on fire by a near miss in the Japanese raid on Wau." Linked caption is: "WAU, NEW GUINEA. 1943-02-06. A WIRRAWAY FROM NO. 4 SQUADRON IN FLAMES AFTER BEING BLASTED AND SET ON FIRE BY A NEAR MISS IN THE JAPANESE RAID AT WAU. THE CREW, FLIGHT SERGEANT A. RODBURN AND SERGEANT A. E. COLE, SCRAMBLED FROM THE AIRCRAFT ONLY A FEW SECONDS EARLIER AND THREW THEMSELVES FLAT ON THE GROUND. COLE RECEIVED A MINOR SHARPNEL WOUND IN THE SHOULDER. (PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCED IN OFFICIAL HISTORY VOLUME: RAAF 1939-42, PAGE 611). (RAAF - WAU5/6)." The only part that's problematic is: "set on fire by a near miss in the Japanese raid". Agreed, my sense of WP's copyright policy is that that's too much; it needs to be reworded. And I have no objection to using the word "copyright" here, that's very unlikely to turn up in a gsearch of Hawkeye's edits 10 years from now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken about the wording; however, given that the other caption mentioned above is also a near-verbatim copy, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed (although not one that should have real-world repercussions). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being gracious about it; I regretted coming at you with both barrels, but this issue just doesn't die on Wikipedia and it's very frustrating. It affects morale. Agreed that Hawkeye needs to address this, and thanks for bringing it up. I'm not personally concerned that this is a pattern of his, based on his extensive work; I think this is a rare thing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Much appreciated. The War Memorial puts the photographs up with the original captions. So both photograph and caption are in the public domain. Changed the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, I thought there was a WP:Copyright problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankfully not - if there was a copyvio issue, we'd have to do some serious revdeleting, including your copy of the source above. This is a paraphrasing problem, which isn't as big a deal, but is still best avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, I thought there was a WP:Copyright problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Much appreciated. The War Memorial puts the photographs up with the original captions. So both photograph and caption are in the public domain. Changed the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being gracious about it; I regretted coming at you with both barrels, but this issue just doesn't die on Wikipedia and it's very frustrating. It affects morale. Agreed that Hawkeye needs to address this, and thanks for bringing it up. I'm not personally concerned that this is a pattern of his, based on his extensive work; I think this is a rare thing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken about the wording; however, given that the other caption mentioned above is also a near-verbatim copy, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed (although not one that should have real-world repercussions). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye has a PhD in military history. These days, reviews in academia often involve gsearches to see if the candidate has ever been accused of anything nasty, and if they know he's called "Hawkeye" and they search for "pl*giarism", this will show up ... or it would have if I hadn't just edited your comment, Nikki. Please be careful with incendiary words; these days, nothing on the internet ever goes away. The word pl*giarism means, to anyone other than a few Wikipedia editors, deliberately attempting to pass off someone else's work as your own. No one who links to the exact caption that they're citing, and then submits the article for a careful image review, is attempting to pass off someone else's work as their own. Now, to the substance: the caption in the article is: "A Wirraway of No. 4 Squadron RAAF in flames after being set on fire by a near miss in the Japanese raid on Wau." Linked caption is: "WAU, NEW GUINEA. 1943-02-06. A WIRRAWAY FROM NO. 4 SQUADRON IN FLAMES AFTER BEING BLASTED AND SET ON FIRE BY A NEAR MISS IN THE JAPANESE RAID AT WAU. THE CREW, FLIGHT SERGEANT A. RODBURN AND SERGEANT A. E. COLE, SCRAMBLED FROM THE AIRCRAFT ONLY A FEW SECONDS EARLIER AND THREW THEMSELVES FLAT ON THE GROUND. COLE RECEIVED A MINOR SHARPNEL WOUND IN THE SHOULDER. (PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCED IN OFFICIAL HISTORY VOLUME: RAAF 1939-42, PAGE 611). (RAAF - WAU5/6)." The only part that's problematic is: "set on fire by a near miss in the Japanese raid". Agreed, my sense of WP's copyright policy is that that's too much; it needs to be reworded. And I have no objection to using the word "copyright" here, that's very unlikely to turn up in a gsearch of Hawkeye's edits 10 years from now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. A-class review is here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible reviewers will object to the length of the block quote; if so, I'd paraphase the first paragraph of the block quote and keep the second paragraph.
- I'd like to keep White's vivid prose if I can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't add dashes to sentences with no commas per WP:EMDASH.
- Except that there are still two instances in the next paragraph, where I would have used commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right; when there's more than one thing to fix in a sentence, and at least one of them needs input, I generally just leave it until the questions are answered. - Dank (push to talk)
- Except that there are still two instances in the next paragraph, where I would have used commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The one instance of this that I left alone was the sentence containing "a maximum effort at the time"; I think I'd like something more specific than that. Was it all the planes available, all the crews available, or something else?
- All the aircraft that could be made flyable.
- Now looks good. - Dank (push to talk)
- All the aircraft that could be made flyable.
- Is "low clouds" or "low cloud cover" acceptable? I didn't like "low cloud", though I might not know what it means.
- That is fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed two of your changes:
- I did not want to say "Walker's plane" because I did not want to give the impression that he was piloting it, or co-piloting it, (which he could have done) or that it was the plane he usually flew.
- Damn, you're right. - Dank (push to talk)
- I did not want the wording to give the impression that Blamey was committing the 17th Brigade recklessly, but on his own appreciation of the situation. We need to agree on a wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like your current wording, and I now see your point. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed two of your changes:
- That is fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has withdrawn this nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 14:35, 11 April 2011 [18].
- Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it represents a vital article in terms of Estonian history, and an important one within the context of Eastern European history. I believe the content to be of a high enough standard for nomination in terms of historical coverage and accuracy (references are mostly to authors with articles here on WP), and think the prose is perhaps short of "brilliant" but does not represent a problem of great magnitude - and copy-edit problems are hard to find without the well-practised fine-tooth comb of FA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Earwig's tool found no copyvio, will hopefully do spotchecks later
- Is Oakley 1992 or 1993?
- Make sure to include the accent on Dybaś
- Page ranges should use endashes and use a consistent notation
- Publisher for Russian Annals?
- Page numbers and publisher for Karamzin?
- Madaringa or De Madariaga? Check for other inconsistencies and errors
- Lots of little formatting niggles - doubled periods, inconsistent spacing and punctuation, etc. Check for consistency
- No citations to Dybaś 2009 or Brockhaus and Efron
- Publisher for Solovyov?
- Location for Stevens? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've believed I've covered the "Oakley" "Dybaś" "page notation" "Madariaga" "Stevens" and some niggles I found. I do have a couple of questions: is having sources that aren't used a problem? Dybaś appears to be a general work covering the topic; the Brockhaus and Efron is a public-domain-inclusion-plagurism notice (although not much of the original text is left). Solovyov and Karamzin are old publications, should I include a particular recent publisher for verifyability purposes? Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions that are complete sentences should end with periods
- File:Livonia_in_1534_(Engilsh).PNG - was a base map used to create this, or is it completely original? What PD source or data was used to create it?
- Same questions for File:Campaigns_of_Stefan_Batory_(1578-82).png
- File:Polacak,_1579.jpg - what does "NN" signify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on comprehensiveness and neutrality
- Oppose due to problems with neutrality (primarily, bias against Batory, and Commonwealth). Open to changing this to support if those issues are addressed satisfactorily. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The aftermath discusses the Polish-Swedish struggle up to 1629, but the Danish-Swedish one till 18th century. Why? Pl wiki article discusses the P-S angle till the Treaty of Oliva (1660) and I think so should this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not discuss the Dano-Swedish conflict until the 18th century: the aftermath section mentions Bromsebrö (1645) as the last event, because then Denmark finally lost her last foothold in Estonia. With respect to Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian interests in Livonia, Oliva (1660) did nothing but confirm the situation before the 1655/60 war, which had not changed since the establishment of Swedish Livonia and the treaty of Altmark (which is mentioned in the article) some decades before - the only argument for inclusion would be that in Oliva, the great powers explicitely reckognized the power relations in Livonia. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough reason to link the treaty there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not discuss the Dano-Swedish conflict until the 18th century: the aftermath section mentions Bromsebrö (1645) as the last event, because then Denmark finally lost her last foothold in Estonia. With respect to Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian interests in Livonia, Oliva (1660) did nothing but confirm the situation before the 1655/60 war, which had not changed since the establishment of Swedish Livonia and the treaty of Altmark (which is mentioned in the article) some decades before - the only argument for inclusion would be that in Oliva, the great powers explicitely reckognized the power relations in Livonia. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I find the following fragment potentially not-neutral/biased: "North of the Düna, Stefan Batory denied the inhabitants of the Duchy of Livonia many privileges granted by Sigismund II Augustus in 1561, since he regarded the territories re-gained at Jam Zapolski as his war booty. The traditional Baltic German administration and jurisdiction was gradually impaired by the establishment of voivodeships, the appointment of Royal officials, and the replacement of German with Polish as administrative language". Sources used are in German, and German historiography has a history of bias against Poland (and vice versa). In particular the assertion that transition from German to Polish administrative system was "impairing" sounds dubious (I'd suggest changing "impaired by" to "transformed"). I'd like to see quotation and translations of those sources, and preferably, addition of English sources to verify them. Finally, while the above fragment gives some insight on the treatment of those territories by the PLC, the article does not discuss the corresponding treatment by the Swedish Empire. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentences quoted by you are based on Dybaś, Bogusław (2006) and Tuchtenhagen, Ralph (2005). Since your ethnicity-based argument probably does not refer to Dybaś - do you really accuse Tuchtenhagen (2005) of bias against Poland because of his alleged German nationality?!
- Tuchtenhagen (vita, google translate) is one of the best experts you can get for Livonia during the Early Modern Era, which is his main field of study. He has worked as a professor in this field at several universities, is a member of several respective scientific circles (e.g. Baltic History Commission) and publisher / co-publisher of several scientific journals, etc; cf de:Ralph Tuchtenhagen (google translate).
- The cited book, "History of the Baltic States", is a compendium, i.e. factual and reflecting scholary consensus.
- The cited book is part of the series "Becksche Reihe" published by C. H. Beck - i.e. it is part of a series of standard reference works published by a renowned publishing house.
- It is disturbing that you argue that this excellent modern expert source should be treated as biased based on nothing but the alleged ethnicity of its author. That should not be an issue even if the author did not have that many credentials in international colloaboration as Tuchtenhagen. Scholary sources need to be evalued by the education and reputation of their authors, the only legitimate nationality-related evaluation is to check whether the author is bound to/works under some kind of authoritarian regime and is thus influenced by state ideology/propaganda/censorship - but again that has nothing to do with natinality/ethnicity per se. The book was first published in 2005 Germany, not in 1941. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the accusations are likely either, but I think you're coming over a bit strong here Skäpperöd; any source's validity and truthfullness is open to legimate question, but not necessarily guilty of a particular deed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Polacy na Łotwie by Edward Walewander 1993 describes the situation in more detail. Tuchtenhagen is available online on google books and initial glance at the book suggests to me that some portions of information were omitted while others cherry picked. It does however seem that Tuchtenhagen a somewhat critical view of Poles, somewhat resembling the pro-Protestantism bias encountered sometimes in German historiography when describing the religious conflicts in that area of Europe. This is perfectly valid viewpoint, but needs to be marked as such and counterbalanced by other viewpoints that hold opposite view. Walewander for example notes that some churches taken by Catholics were actually restored to them, after being taken by Protestants. Of course probably all writers on this subject are somewhat biased, so we can't determine truth here, but have to present opinions regarding this.In any case more can be copied from Tuchtangen and others to ensure that the description isn't one sided as it is now(fr instance Tuchtangen also notes overall atmosphere of religious conflict, and attacks by Protestants as well).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Molobo above addresses the problems quite clearly. I don't think Tuchtenhagen is particularly biased, it is more of a "how certain arguments from his book were stressed and others, ignored." In particular, the critique of Batory does not seem that relevant to the article. I see no such critique of others (=UNDUE), and as I mentioned before - and I am still waiting for a reply to that - the article does not discuss the treatment of people and territories by other powers (more UNDUE). The critique of Batory seems to be relatively unfair, too. The article does not mention that Batory introduced Countereformation to the entire Commonwealth - he did not single out Prussia, as it is implied. The article does not mention that the Countereformation in Poland was relatively mild, that Batory supported the existence of multiple churches (instead it creates the impression that Batory brought religious intolerance and decline), that change of administration, post-war, was a common practice (it is almost as one would write: "Batory, in his war efforts, was responsible for death of many." - doh!). Leafing through this book, quickly, with a German-speaking colleague, and through another one online, I can point out such phrases as "But generally speaking, the Polish monarchs, especially Stefan Batory were primarily concerned with the economic development of the conquered territories". Yet this is not present in the article, and he agreed with me that the book almost seems to have been used to cherry-pick criticism of Batory (and the Commonwealth), and left all other views out. The Polish nobility remained there "...strong for the next three hundred years", but the article does not mention this, and seems to suggest that those territories were primarily Swedish or German. "Southern Livonia remained with Poland until the partitions" - yet the article implies that Sweden gained the entire territory. I could go on, but overall I am not impressed with the way Commonwealth is marginalized in the article, Batory is being singled out as some villain or an incompetent leader, and so on. Overall, I have growing and serious doubts about this article being neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the accusations are likely either, but I think you're coming over a bit strong here Skäpperöd; any source's validity and truthfullness is open to legimate question, but not necessarily guilty of a particular deed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentences quoted by you are based on Dybaś, Bogusław (2006) and Tuchtenhagen, Ralph (2005). Since your ethnicity-based argument probably does not refer to Dybaś - do you really accuse Tuchtenhagen (2005) of bias against Poland because of his alleged German nationality?!
- "Originally a compact, self-sufficiant, unconquerable military colony in the midst of savage and jarring barbarians" do we need to propagate outdated stereotypes with obviously POV quotes from early XX century ? The quote in question comes from 1905, and I believe represents a stereotype image of victims of Teutonic Order's aggression that is no longer represented in modern history. I suggest removing or trimming this quote so we can avoid such portrayal of these people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow, I did miss that. Nothing like some 19th century source to put the "barbarians" in their place, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source isn't 19th century, but 20th century; it was reprinted by the Cambridge University press in 1971. It remains a standard work in this field, as clear by the occurence of the book. Whilst he may well be wrong, he cannot be dismissed with the distain you embody.I will, of course, look to change the quotation as I do think it needs a more modern approach. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment. Why the term Dominium Maris Baltici is present only as an external link? I think it is importnat enough to deserve a mention. Pl wiki lists it as an alternate name for the war, but I think it is not exactly correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are other points made in the pl wiki article that seem relevant, yet are not included in our article:
- that the Livonian nobility wanted to join the Commonwealth to obtain the extensive rights and privileges of the Polish nobility (the word szlachta is not mentioned in our article at al). The article does mention that "When the Livonian Confederation turned to the Polish-Lithuanian union for protection in the Treaty of Pozvol..." but it fails to elaborate on why (in particular, why did the LC turned to P-L instead of Sweden or Russia?). Oh, and the term Livonian Confederation should be ilinked and explained on its first appearance in the article, neither of which happens.
- pl wiki implies that before the Treaty of Pozvol, there was a treaty/alliance between the Order and the Muscovite Tsar, intended by the Order's Master as a way to waeken the political opposition in Livonia, that backfired, galvanized support for the Polish faction, and resulted in widespread unrest. Our article makes no mention of that.
- The discussion of the Treaty of Vilnius (1561) should mention rights and privileges the Livionian territories gained (such as guarantee of religious tolerance), not just what territories were given to whom.
- When discussing election of Polish kings, the article on free election should be linked
- "Much of Lithuania, still annoyed at the permanent union with Poland, wished to elect Ivan IV..." - cite
- According to pl wiki, in 1568 Poland allied itself with Sweden, and Moscow, with Denmark. This article is unclear about the first, and seems not to mention the second event. This important alliance change needs to be clarified.
- Description of the Treaty of Stettin should be expanded, with regards to what it meant for Denmark, Russia and the Commonwealth (even if some countries like the Commonwealth were not parties of the treaty, it nonetheless stabilized the situation and implicitly recognized parts of the disputed territories as theirs)
- War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588) should be linked as it is discussed in text
- The article confusingly first mentions the Treaty of Jam Zapolski and then the Truce of Jam Zapolski. This should be standardized and reorganized to avoid the confusion.
- "It was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he was the one requesting it" - cite
- As I mentioned earlier, the Treaty of Oliva should be mentioned.
- I'd like to see foreign language sources clearly marked as such in the bibliography with {{de icon}} and others, if appropriate
- Question: German language sources are marked by the |language=German field and thus in display as (in German) which the {{de icon}} would almost duplicate. Is this really preferable? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think both should be used. The |language is better for machine searching, but de icon is more visible to the human reader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: German language sources are marked by the |language=German field and thus in display as (in German) which the {{de icon}} would almost duplicate. Is this really preferable? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Throughout my reading, I also noticed numerous sentences without inline refs, only with refs at the end of the para. I think this is not acceptable to FAs, but if it is, please let me know and I'll tag all sentences I'd like to see cited with citation needed template.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Have to say it a difficult article to write -- it is a tangled mess of four foreign armies fighting for the same piece of land. I think it is a good start and has the components needed to became a FA. However, I have to oppose. First, it needs a very thorough copy-edit. There are a number of run-on sentences to the point I cannot figure the intended meaning. Would suggest asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for help. At the same it has numerous stylistic issues (inconsistent dashes, italics, capitalization, etc.) Second, inconsistent referencing. Some sections (like "Livonia before the war") are very well sourced, while others (like "Russian war with Sweden") are sourced very poorly. Third, important factual errors: Kingdom of Poland got involved later; it initially was an affair of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sigismund II acted in his capacity as Grand Duke of Lithuania, not as King of Poland. The article fails to mention completely that this war was one of the major reasons for the Union of Lublin. Fourth, a map of new division of Livonia would be really helpful.
- A couple of points about the issues here. The referencing is just a slight inconsistency in style. Referencing (ultimately in the bits I was responsible for creating) has fewer references because they are not repeated sentence-by-sentence.
However, they are just as suitably referenced in terms of whether the end reference covers them, which it does.(True, but apparently FAs require sentence-by-sentence: will do so when I get the book in hand). The Poland/Lithuania relationship is a complicated one; the sejm (as I think is noted somewhere) was requested to provide Polish assistance but refused; however, it is not always clear to what extent it was involved. If there are specific things that were "isolated" from Poland, and you think they have been misrepresented, I suggest you mention them, because I thought the text reflected the sources in this regard. The Union of Lublin] page makes mention of the Livonian matters; I think it needs a mention, but I'm not sure to what extent. The nature of Sigismund's inheritance is listed there as the primary reason, and I'm not certain but I don't recall the books I have access to portraying it in a big light. I'll check, but as you can see I've got quite a lot to work on. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points about the issues here. The referencing is just a slight inconsistency in style. Referencing (ultimately in the bits I was responsible for creating) has fewer references because they are not repeated sentence-by-sentence.
- Specific items:
- the former establishing the Duchy of Estonia under constant invasion from Russia, and the latter control of the old Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek placed under the control of Magnus of Holstein -- the latter did what? Unclear, needs rewording.
clarified, though I think the lead as a whole is
not a good summary atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The year after Sweden and Russia signed the Truce of Plussa, Sweden gaining most of Ingria, and northern Livonia, keeping the Duchy of Estonia -- huh?
rewritten Skäpperöd (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no need for the two quotes in the "Prelude" section. Re-write.
Moved one, deleted the other anitquated one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In June 1556, Wilhelm appealed to Polish king Sigismund II for help against landmeister Wilhelm von Fürstenburg. Whilst there, however, von Fürstenburg successfully besieged the archbishop, and the landmeister's son killed Lancki, a Polish envoy. -- Who is William? What was Fürstenburg doing to him? Why? Where is "there"?
clarified Skäpperöd (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigismund to invade the southern portion of Livonia with an excessive army of around 80,000 -- needs ref.
- created a mutual defensive and offensive alliance, in the Treaty of Pozvol, primarily aimed at Russia -- needs more emphasis that this put Livonia under "protection" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and not Kingdom of Poland) and started the war
- Tsar Ivan IV demanded that the Livonian Confederation pay about 6,000 marks to keep the Bishopric of Dorpat, based on the claim that every adult male had paid Pskov one mark whilst Pskov had been an independent state. -- needs ref
- Ivan continued to point out that the existence of the order required his goodwill -- what does this mean?
- Russia fought in a a war in the Crimea. -- less WP:EGGy, please
changed text to match link. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- John lent Sigismund 120,000 riksdalers and received seven Livonian castles as security -- ref needed
ref'ed Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "yet Livonia remained an important theatre of conflict" (Frost). -- why such weird wording/sourcing?
- at Czasniki (Chashniki) in 1564 and 1567, a period of intermittent conflict between the two sides -- huh? fragment?
- was held at the coast by the other powers -- what other powers?
- A "grand" party... -- entire paragraph needs refs
- Section "Russian war with Poland–Lithuania" makes it seem that Lithuania was in a good shape. It really wasn't: it had lost two major cities, its nobles did not want to pay taxes, and the talks for the Union of Lublin started just around that time because, among other things, Lithuania wanted stronger Polish support in the war.
- So what happened after the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian negotiations failed in 1566? There are 4 years missing (1566-1570).
- Ivan IV had requested the return of John's wife, Catherine Jagellonica to Russia -- why? what claim did Ivan had on Catherine?
- The section "Russian war with Sweden" -- needs more refs and trimming as it is too detailed (in comparison with the rest of the article). Also it has nothing on "Russian-Swedish war", just on negotiations gone bad.
- in Russia, at Morum, continued -- what's Morum?
- Morum is a (more rare mis?-)spelling of Murom, I
linked the resp. article and added the widely used spelling. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Morum is a (more rare mis?-)spelling of Murom, I
- Magnus had fallen into disgrace when he defected from Ivan IV -- need to explain why would he do that
- following the double election of Batory's fiancèe Anna Jagiellon and Maximillian II in 1575 -- what does that mean?
- Batory gathered 56,000 troops, 30,000 from Lithuania -- ref please
- a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he was the one requesting it -- ref please
- Russia would surrender to the Polish-Lithuanian Confederation all areas in Livonia it still held and the city of Dorpat; Polotsk would be kept under the confederation's control. In return, Velike Luki would be returned from Batory's control to Russia. -- ref please
- Need full citations for: "The Full Collection of Russian Annals", vol. 13, SPb, 1904 and Journal of central European affairs. 5. 1945. p. 135.
- Renata (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise, I'm afraid due to real life I'll have to stay away from Wikipedia for a few days. I reckon this'll still be here when I get back. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some reading this weekend. I am even more strongly opposed now -- the articles misses some very important points (like the fact that Sigismund Augustus not merely supported, but initiated the whole mess with Wilhelm von Brandenburg, the extremely complicated political dynamic between the four countries, etc. -- who supported who and why -- while zooming in on a couple negotiation attempts). If I have time, I will actually edit/rewrite the article. Also found a factual error: there no two battles of Ula and Czasniki in 1564. That's the same battle known under two names. Created article at Battle of Ula. Renata (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not bad, it's just not up to FAC standards, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it if the article is going to fail FAC because of other opposes above. If the problems above are resolved, please ping me and I'll try to get a better sense of how long it will take me to copyedit this. Just looking at the first few sentences of the first section:
- I can't tell if it's British, American or some other flavor of English. "organised", "secularised" (further down), but "organized in a de-centralized" (which doesn't have a hyphen btw).
- "It consisted of territories of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, the prince-bishoprics of Dorpat, of Ösel-Wiek and of Courland, the Archbishopric of Riga and the city of Riga." See WP:Checklist#series. It's not written in stone, but I find that if I ask writers to move the complex part of the series to the end, the end result is usually more readable. So: "It consisted of territories of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, the Archbishopric of Riga, the city of Riga, and the prince-bishoprics of Dorpat, Ösel-Wiek and Courland."
- "The political division was not only in administration, there were also persistent rivalries ...": comma splice.
- between the archbishop of Riga and the landmeister of the order for hegemony.": The Teutonic order? And this isn't the way "hegemony" is usually used; I'd probably go with "dominance".
- "The order itself was divided since the Protestant Reformation had spread to Livonia in the 1520s": Per Chicago, "since" is the wrong word when it could mean either "because" or "after".
- "a slow, gradual process": a gradual process.
- "resisted by part of the order who": resisted by the part of the order who.
- - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator. There's a fair bit to work on here, most will still get done. Ultimately I need to get some of my books back, this could take some time. As I say, thanks for your input - I'm not withdrawing because I can't take the criticism, it's just going to take a while to adapt for all of it, and I think it would be better to start over with the FAC when we're done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (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 03:32, 8 April 2011 [19].
A U.S. Representative and governor of Kentucky, Brown was first refused a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for being too young. On his second election, he was denied his seat because of alleged disloyalty during the Civil War, and during a third, non-consecutive stint in the House, he was officially censured for using unparliamentary language against a fellow member. Subsequently elected governor, he exacerbated the split in his party over the issue of free silver. Later, he was an unsuccessful third-party candidate for governor and served as legal counsel for an accused conspirator in the murder of one of his opponents after the contest. His client was convicted. Talk about a rough-and-tumble political career! As always, I look forward to addressing your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
- Images themselves are unproblematic, licensing seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query: I noticed that John Y. Brown has his birth and death dates in his article title. This is something that is a bit alien to me on Wikipedia as usually we use proffessions such as writer, politician, scientist etc, etc... to differentiate between people of the same name. As it so happens we have 4 people, FOUR PEOPLE, with practically the same name that have been in almost identical positions in Kentucky (talk about inbreeding) however the more recent politicians all have either Sr., Jr., or III after there names. So my question is this would it be possible to remove the dates in brackets from the article title and just keep the disambiguation link at the top of the page for people who are searching for the other politicians? --Kuzwa (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'd respectfully ask that you keep your comments about inbreeding to yourself. In the first place, it is insulting, and in the second place, this article explicitly mentions that this John Y. Brown is not related to the others; he is simply their namesake. The others, of course, have a grandfather-father-son relationship, and the naming in this case is not uncommon at all, even in locales where it's less common to see jokes about inbreeding.
- Regarding the naming of the article, it wasn't my choice; that's how it was when I started work on the article. That said, I can't think of one that is necessarily better. Dropping the vital dates implies that this article is the primary topic for John Y. Brown, which is not the case, imo. John Y. Brown (governor) is insufficient because both the subject and John Y. Brown, Jr. were governors; John Y. Brown (congressman) is also ambiguous, as both the subject and John Y. Brown, Sr. were members of the House of Representatives. John Y. Brown (politician) and John Y. Brown (Kentucky) are also out for obvious reasons. That means that about all we are left with is something like John Y. Brown (19th century), which is just as bad as what we have now. I'm open to suggestions, though. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments moved to talk page
- Support per standard disclaimer. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1b,cComments:
- What was he doing from 1861 until 1866? The narrative is a little light on that point and there's the alleged 'disloyalty' but no information about what he was doing to be disloyal. Kirk (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources seem to say. The NGA claims he enlisted in the Confederate Army, but no other source mentions that. NGA is known to miss from time to time, so I consider that unlikely. Following the war, many former Confederate soldiers were elected to office in Kentucky, and their Confederate service was usually seen as a qualification, not a problem. If he had served, his contemporaries would have no doubt trumpeted it from the heavens. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I think you need to figure this out - well-educated 26 year-olds not serving in some fashion sounds significantly omitted to me. I think you at least need to include that claim - your opinion makes sense as well but do you have a citation you can use? If you need a source you can't get let me know and I can see if I can help. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted User:Spacini, who is a published Kentucky historian. He is checking with a professor in Henderson, where Brown was during the war, to see if he can come up with anything. I'm not far from Henderson myself, so hopefully I'll be able to access anything he comes up with. Spacini opines: "Given [Brown's] second marriage in 1860, which produced eight children, I suspect that he simply attempted to remain neutral, raised his family, and practiced law." Based on what I've turned up about Brown and others related to him and the fact that there is no obvious mention of his activities in the usual places, I agree with Spacini's conclusion. Hopefully, his friend will turn up something more concrete soon. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check this out (page 102, 345) - not sure it answers the NGA question, but at least it gives something in between 1861-1866.Kirk (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's what Spacini and I have come up with so far. Powell says that Brown was in Elizabethtown practicing law before the war. Levin says he didn't move to Henderson until after the war, but the account from Stovepipe Johnson that you cite above calls Brown one of the city leaders of Henderson who greeted Johnson when he got there. A quick glance over the chronology shows that Johnson was in Henderson sometime between the Battle of Shiloh and the Newburgh Raid, which would put it sometime in early 1862. There is also this idea mentioned by the NGA that he was a cavalry colonel at some point, but this receives no elaboration anywhere else and is quite unlikely. However, Robert Ireland does explicitly state that Brown became disenchanted with the Union and held Confederate sympathies throughout most of the war, which would be consistent with his welcoming Johnson to Henderson and the Congress' refusal to seat in him in 1867. Apparently, the record of his activities during this period is scarce and contradictory. I can add a footnote stating such to the article, but it seems unlikely that we will have a definitive answer. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this answers my original questions. Put in where he lived, what he was doing and the NGA Cavalry Colonel part with the citation, along with his meetings with confederates and then put your concerns with the sources in some notes.Kirk (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to oppose. Kirk (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this answers my original questions. Put in where he lived, what he was doing and the NGA Cavalry Colonel part with the citation, along with his meetings with confederates and then put your concerns with the sources in some notes.Kirk (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's what Spacini and I have come up with so far. Powell says that Brown was in Elizabethtown practicing law before the war. Levin says he didn't move to Henderson until after the war, but the account from Stovepipe Johnson that you cite above calls Brown one of the city leaders of Henderson who greeted Johnson when he got there. A quick glance over the chronology shows that Johnson was in Henderson sometime between the Battle of Shiloh and the Newburgh Raid, which would put it sometime in early 1862. There is also this idea mentioned by the NGA that he was a cavalry colonel at some point, but this receives no elaboration anywhere else and is quite unlikely. However, Robert Ireland does explicitly state that Brown became disenchanted with the Union and held Confederate sympathies throughout most of the war, which would be consistent with his welcoming Johnson to Henderson and the Congress' refusal to seat in him in 1867. Apparently, the record of his activities during this period is scarce and contradictory. I can add a footnote stating such to the article, but it seems unlikely that we will have a definitive answer. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check this out (page 102, 345) - not sure it answers the NGA question, but at least it gives something in between 1861-1866.Kirk (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted User:Spacini, who is a published Kentucky historian. He is checking with a professor in Henderson, where Brown was during the war, to see if he can come up with anything. I'm not far from Henderson myself, so hopefully I'll be able to access anything he comes up with. Spacini opines: "Given [Brown's] second marriage in 1860, which produced eight children, I suspect that he simply attempted to remain neutral, raised his family, and practiced law." Based on what I've turned up about Brown and others related to him and the fact that there is no obvious mention of his activities in the usual places, I agree with Spacini's conclusion. Hopefully, his friend will turn up something more concrete soon. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I think you need to figure this out - well-educated 26 year-olds not serving in some fashion sounds significantly omitted to me. I think you at least need to include that claim - your opinion makes sense as well but do you have a citation you can use? If you need a source you can't get let me know and I can see if I can help. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be able to cite the part about Confederate service being a good thing in Kentucky politics (or I might not; haven't looked for one yet). Not sure how to cite that there are sources that don't mention his service, and no published source explicitly says that the claim is dubious; they just don't mention it at all. This is just my observation (and Spacini's, who is a published historian) from being more familiar than most with this subject. I could just make the note say "Some sources claim Brown served as a cavalry colonel during the war, but provide no elaboration. Most sources make no mention of this service, however." Would that suffice? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The NGA says he was a confederate cavalry colonel; its a reliable source you can cite. Since you did enough research to find some holes, put the speculation stuff in notes and if one or more sources says something else specific, cite the specific difference in the note. If a lot of sources don't mention something, instead of an inline citation you could just mention the author's name(s) but I actually don't think there's a policy on this exception. Most editors pick the thing that is cited more in the article and the dubious thing in the note, so in the note put the colonel stuff. Avoid weasel words like 'Most sources' or 'Some sources', be specific. I'm bothered a half dozen historians and their editors all thought his civil war service (or lack thereof) was an optional part of their biographies! Kirk (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
- Bibliography: For the first entry, the article title is "Brown, John Young, (1835 - 1904)" and this format should be used.
- Be consistent with the citation formats for refs with multiple authors. For instance there is "Hughes, Schaefer, and Williams", but also "Tapp" instead of "Tapp and Klotter".
Otherwise the sources look reliable and the formats are all OK. Spotchecks not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead comments. There are definitely some problems with the article's lead.
- Which state did Brown represent during his first term in the HoR? It is conceivable that he may have represented one state before moving to Kentucky.
- "He was first elected to the House in 1859, despite his own protests that he did not yet meet the constitutional age requirement." What age was that?
- The first paragraph of the lead seems intent on explaining curious yet somewhat trivial details about Brown's congressional career. What did he actually do while serving in the HoR?
- "Having already alienated the free silver faction of his party, he backed "Goldbug" candidate Cassius M. Clay Jr. for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1895. However, the death of Brown's teenage daughter in 1894 and the murder of his son by the husband of the son's adulterous lover in 1895 ended his interest in the gubernatorial race and his own senatorial ambitions." The rest of the lead is in chronological order. Why does this break the continuity? Also problematic is the massive number of details being crammed into the second sentence. I suggest rephrasing to "Having already alienated the free silver faction of his party, he backed "Goldbug" candidate Cassius M. Clay Jr. for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1895. However, the deaths of two of his children ended his interest in the gubernatorial race and his own senatorial ambitions."
- "Republican William S. Taylor won the election by a small margin, but after considerable legal wrangling, he was unseated, and Goebel was declared the winner. Goebel was shot..." It seems a bit silly to have a sentence in the lead that mentions two people who aren't Brown. I suggest trimming all of this down to simply "After eventually being declared the winner of the election, Goebel was shot..."
- "Powers was convicted by a partisan jury, but later pardoned by Governor Augustus E. Willson." This statement is not supported by the body of the article.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:16, 6 April 2011 (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 03:27, 8 April 2011 [20].
- Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following not very closely on the heels of my successful FAC for Nikita Filatov, I present his draft classmate Luke Schenn. After a very helpful GA Review and Peer Review, I would appreciate any further input at this higher level of review. I believe I have addressed all the issues I am aware of. Stability for a young, active player was noted during Filatov's review so I have kept an eye on Schenn's article over the course of the season (which is almost complete). Aside from my edits to improve the article and address issues, there have been less than 20 edits during that time. I'll be around to address any issues, and appreciate any and all comments. Canada Hky (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done yet, will do later if no one else does
- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
- Added, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some minor inconsistencies in reference formatting. For example, "The Sports Network" is sometimes italicized and sometimes not
- Removed italics from "The Sports Network" for all uses. Canada Hky (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a reliable source? Who is the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, it probably wasn't. I believe the replacement source from Marketing Magazine is of higher quality. If not, I could remove the info entirely. Thank you for your help with the sources. Canada Hky (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecks turned up a bit of overly close paraphrasing: "the same school which produced fellow NHL players" vs "the same school which produced fellow NHLers". Nothing egregious, but I didn't check everything, so might be worth checking. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I rephrased. Can you clarify - did you check one thing, and find one instance, or did you do a few checks, and turn up one instance? Canada Hky (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked about 2-3 links, and that was the only thing that stood out in those. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I rephrased. Can you clarify - did you check one thing, and find one instance, or did you do a few checks, and turn up one instance? Canada Hky (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Haven't reviewed this in detail yet, but on a quick peek I notice that the lead is small for a potential featured article. It's one paragraph for an article that is not that short (I've seen ones that are quite a bit shorter here). I recommend aiming for two decent-sized paragraphs.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Good point, I have expanded the lead. I focused the first paragraph on his playing career, and then the second paragraph about his playing style and off-ice details. Canada Hky (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better. I need to give this a full review at some point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I have expanded the lead. I focused the first paragraph on his playing career, and then the second paragraph about his playing style and off-ice details. Canada Hky (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the article uses the term "defensive defenceman". I've linked it by redirecting the term to stay-at-home defenceman. I guess this would be somewhat of a question to reviewers not familiar with ice hockey, but which one sounds better? Defensive defenseman is somewhat repetive but both terms are equally used, perhaps "stay-at-home" a bit more than the other. Maxim(talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left it as "defensive defenceman" for now, but would like to hear other opinions. I tried to add a quick explanation in the text as well. "Stay at home" seems more like jargon, which I think is more difficult to understand. Canada Hky (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
In the lead, WHL needs to be defined after the first use of Western Hockey League, just like what is done for the NHL.- Fixed.
All-Rookie Team could be linked in the lead. I'm not in favor of too much linking, but that seems worthy enough.- Fixed, I didn't realize there was a page for it.
Junior: Hyphen needed in "then Rockets" where Shea Weber is first mentioned. I also think "fifth ranked" could use one in the middle. Places needing hyphens are something worth checking for in the rest of the article.- Fixed, a quick scan didn't show any other obvious cases. If anyone sees one, please let me know.
I find this bit quite repetitive: "during the 2007–08 season. Also during the 2007–08 season." At the very least, you could change the second part to "during that season" or similar.- Adjusted the second sentence to "Later that same season..."
Comma should be placed after "director of the Central Scouting Bureau". This will create a nice bracketing effect. While you're at it, how about another one after "who originally held the seventh overall pick"?- Fixed.
Professional: Period needed after "against Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens".- Fixed.
Playing style: Minor point, but I'd drop the comma after "He believes he is at his best".- Agreed, that sounded really awkward.
Personal life: "In February, 2010". Again, I don't think the comma is desirable.- Agreed there as well.
Reference 4 appears to be from a newspaper; this should be noted in the cite.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Adjusted to include the newspaper. Thank you very much for your comments!! Canada Hky (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Is the Maple Leaf logo copyrighted?
- I would presume so. My knowledge of copyright matters is fairly non-existent, so I will cede to any experts on this one. I've just been following other hockey / sports FAs that picture the players in their uniforms. Please let me know if there is anything that I should do here. Canada Hky (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thank you. Canada Hky (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2011 (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 03:23, 8 April 2011 [21].
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has attained GA status and seems to fit all of the criteria for FA inclusion. It has been a featured article nomination before, and the suggested improvements that were put forward then have since been acted upon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
- Always use ndashes for page ranges
- Sources originally published in a foreign language (where you're citing the translation) should include information on the original publication, as well as the translator's name
- Assouline is in Bibliography but not Footnotes
- "rendered socially and politically acceptable in the climate of the Reaganite repopularisation of the 'Cold War' and the final push towards the demise of the Soviet Union" - check accuracy of this quote
I encourage you to work on reducing the number of direct quotes included in the article. I would also suggest you find a third party to copy-edit the article, because I still see multiple grammatical and spelling errors, and instances of awkward or unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these suggestions; I have acted on most of them. I have ensured that all footnotes refer to the locations of the publisher, and that Assouline is in both the bibliography and the footnotes. I have also checked the Theobald quote and can confirm that it is accurate. I have cut down on the number of direct quotations, although could remove more. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- From what I can tell via GBooks, the wording of that quote is inaccurate - would you mind rechecking? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Repolarisation" not "repopularisation". Wow, I completely missed that. I'll correct it in the article. {Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- From what I can tell via GBooks, the wording of that quote is inaccurate - would you mind rechecking? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I have gone through the article and added in ndashes for page ranges. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I'm a big fan of the Tintin books (and anything by Herge), so I may try and look at this from that viewpoint (the article looks very interesting). I have a copy of this book, which I think is one of the 1981 facsimile reprints, and I think I have the 1989 translation as well. One question I have is whether the 1930 originals are rare and worth anything to collectors? You hint at this with "As The Adventures of Tintin became more popular in Western Europe, and some of the rarer books became collectors items, the original printed edition of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets became highly valued." But do any of your sources actually give examples of the values they were trading at, or what they are worth now? The only other initial comment I have is that from looking at the sources you've used, it looks like you've covered all the major Tintin sources, including some very recent ones, but would you be able to confirm this (i.e. did you consult all the major sources on the topic)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the interest Carcharoth. To answer your question about market prices regarding collectable editions, none of the sources used in this article discuss them, and I am unaware of any that do, although it would not surprise me if some obscure (probably French-language) collectors guide did discuss them. Where one earth I would find such a guide, I'm afraid I have no idea. To answer your second point, there are two books which I do not have access to, and which also offer some information on the subject: Michael Farr's Tintin: 60 Years of Adventure (1989) and Philippe Goddin's Hergé and Tintin Reporters: From "Le Petit Vingtieme" to "Tintin" Magazine (1987). I doubt that either of these works offer any valuable information that the many later sources do not, particularly as Farr has gone on to write several books since the aforementioned one. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I was hoping to find some extra info in the fr.wiki but the article is kind of disappointing. Still, the "Dessin et narration" section has interesting bits that could be used to expand some of the current content. I can translate if you want but I just checked and Google Translate does a reasonable job. The problem is that the French article is poorly sourced. Still, I think that, for example, additional commentary on the (crappy) drawing style might be in order, especially given the fact that the drawing was incredibly consistent after Tintin au Congo. Pichpich (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't know if we'd be able to simply import unreferenced information from the French language Wikipedia page into here. If such information is published in an English-language source, it can be included here, but currently I am unaware of any such books. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Captions should meet same standards for prose, MoS, etc as article text
- I'm confused by the FUR for File:Tintin_in_the_Land_of_the_Soviets_pane.JPG. The lead says that an English translation was not published until 1989. If that's the case, then how can this 1930 image, scanned from the "original book", be in English? If this iamge is in fact from the 1989 translation, then the FUR needs to be amended, and the case for "historical significance" is quite a bit weaker - it won't be the first panel ever to feature Tintin, but the first in English. Also, you should note on the image description page who holds copyright on this image. Same issues exist to a lesser extent in File:Bolshevik_elections_in_Tintin.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the changes necessary on the two images' pages. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose - I was reluctant to do this earlier, but no substantial third-party copy-editing has taken place during this FAC, and there are still multiple problems with prose and MoS issues. Here's a sampling:
- "The plot revolves around the young Belgian reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy, who travel, via Berlin, to the Soviet Union, to report back on the policies instituted by the Bolshevik government under Joseph Stalin. However, an agent of the Soviet secret service, the OGPU, attempts to prevent him from doing so, consistently setting traps to get rid of him" - first sentence is plural (presumably Tintin and Snowy), whereas second is singular (presumably Tintin)
- Wikilink potentially unfamiliar terms such as Tintinologists on first occurrence, but don't link very common terms and don't link the same term more than once, especially not in close proximity (see WP:OVERLINK)
- "Tintin is blamed by the Berlin police but escapes to the border of the Soviet Union. Brought before the local Commissar's office..." - as a reader, I'm very confused by this point. He's blamed by the police for the explosion or for being a bourgeoisie? What's a Commissar, and how did he come to be brought before one?
- "Several Bolsheviks then come to arrest him during the night, when he manages to scare them off by dressing up as a ghost. Falling into the sewers, he is pursued by Bolsheviks and tries to get out of the Soviet Union, but is eventually caught and arrested. Threatened with torture by two Chinamen, he again escapes by travelling underwater in a diving suit" - again, very confused. I realize that you don't want to overwhelm the article with plot summary, but in that case it might be necessary to remove rather than add detail - for example, is "Chinamen" important here?
- "Then sneaking into a secret meeting of a group of Bolsheviks, he learns that all the Soviet grain is being exported for foreign propaganda purposes" - phrasing
- MoS edits needed - quotes incorporated as part of a larger sentence should not be capitalized, don't use contractions, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, I've gone through and made the necessary changes. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2011 (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 03:08, 8 April 2011 [22].
- Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the FA criteria. According to the Library of Congress, no such article exists in any language. Thank you in advance for your review. SSZ (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have not read beyond the lead, but am concerned that this lead is cluttered with multiple citations, sometimes in strings of three and four. The purpose of the lead is to summarise broadly the content of the article. It should not be a repository of detailed facts; these should be in the article itself, and should be cited there. At present the lead looks unwelcoming to the general reader, and I recommend that it be redafted in accordance with WP:LEAD. I am proceeding to a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: The article is well-referenced, but some basic attention is required to citation formatting. You probably need to look at the sections in WP:CITE which deal with how to format citations. You might consider whether the use of citation templates would be helpful. Particular points to note:_
- The title of the book, article or web page should be included in the url to create the link, but not the author's name, nor the publisher or journal/book title. I have reorganised Ref 23, so that you can see what I mean.
- The general order for a citation is: author (if known), date or year, title (with link if online), publisher, issue number (for journals, if known), page numbers (if known), ISBN (for books published after 1970), last access date (for online citations).
- Titles of journals, newspapers and books should be italicised
- For journals, give date of issue (not just the year) and, if possible, issue number. Give page numbers wherever possible
- For newspapers, always give the date, not the year, and the page number wherever possible
- Where authors' names are known they should be given in the order surname → forename (subject to linguistic convention).
- Where access to an online source is via a subscription, use the (subscription required) template to signify this. Ref 25 is an example of such; there are likely to be more.
- If any of the refs are in languages other than English, this should be noted also.
In addition to the above, a number of links appear to be not working: Refs 154, 155, 156 and 158. Possibly others. A thorough overhaul of reference formats and links is advised. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:A. Parrot (mainly on prose)
The text is mostly well-written, though there are a couple of strange errors (noted below). I'm not that knowledgeable about economics and mostly can't speak to the article's accuracy, but there are a few points that concern me. For example, the prediction that the tourism sector's percentage of national employment will jump from 1.8% (in 2010) to 10% only five years later seems awfully optimistic. The source is a researcher for the Iran Travel and Tourism Organization and should therefore have access to good information, but might the organization have a tendency toward over-optimistic forecasts? Do you know of any other possible sources that could disagree? Similarly, there's the prediction (pointed out in the last FAC and still present) by Goldman Sachs that Iran will become one of the world's largest economies, which could be problematic if Goldman Sachs has any vested interest in Iran's development. I think you should look over your sources again and consider if any of them might have reason for making inflated claims. For those that might, consider alternative sources—and if you can't find alternative sources, state in the text where the information comes from (as you have for Goldman Sachs).
The body isn't over-referenced like the lead, although there are a lot of passages supported by two references. If any of those double refs are unnecessary to support the statements, cut one. (I know it's hard to find the right balance.)
Smaller things:
- In the "History" section, could you say why Iran suffered capital flight in the 1970s?
- In the "Five-year socio-economic development plan" section, it says Iran is in transition to a market economy, but doesn't say what it's transitioning from, and people need to click on the link to find out. It's better to say it outright. Consider doing the same when "transition economy" is mentioned in the lead, although at least the implication is clearer there. You should probably also mention in "History" when the economy became centrally planned (after the Revolution?)
- In the "Economic reform plan" section", you link "nationwide distribution of goods and services" to the "Retail industry" section of Industry of Iran. This kind of non-intuitive link is generally discouraged. The larger problem, though, is that you don't say what the plan is going to change about the nationwide distribution of goods and services; it makes it seem like Iran doesn't have such a thing right now.
- In "Centralization and privatization": "Following the cessation of hostilities with Iraq in 1988, the Iranian Government declared its intention to privatize most state industries in an effort to stimulate the ailing economy." Why was it ailing? Because of the war?
- Same section: "Cooperative companies… will be operated in accordance with Islamic criteria." "Islamic" is a very broad term. If this means according to shari'ah law (or the ayatollahs' version thereof), say so. If the "Islamic criteria" are not something easily linked, you may have to state some specifics in the text.
- In "Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps": "the IRGC maintains a monopoly on smuggling." They defy their own government's laws to smuggle? That would surprise a lot of people, and should probably be stated a little more explicitly.
- In "Trade unions": "Employing personnel on consecutive six-month contracts is illegal." Why this type of employment specifically? Why six months as opposed to other lengths?
- In "Agriculture and foodstuffs", the list of products mentions "fruits (including citrus)". Why mention citrus specifically? Is citrus especially numerous or profitable?
- In "Manufacturing": "social learning loop" sounds a little jargonish, and the link that comes with it does not immediately explain the term. Could this concept be expressed more clearly within the bullet point?
- In "Construction and real estate": "a sharp rise in inflation and a credit squeeze caused the boom to." A word is missing here.
- Same section: "and one of the prime investment targets of well off Iranians as tangible." I can't tell how "as tangible" fits into the sentence.
- In "Tourism and travel", the caption for the photo of Mount Demavand should say what the mountain is. If space is an issue, you can drop the second sentence of the caption, which is also in the body text.
- Communications and IT has a "citation needed" tag.
Images
- Captions should meet requirements for prose and sourcing - copy-edit needed on these, source material not supported by the text, check WP:MOS issues
- Images in File:Privatization_Iran.jpg are blurry and pixelated
- File:Iran-electricity.gif - source link is dead
- File:Privatization_Iran.jpg and other images that include buildings in Iran need licensing checked - per this Iran does not have freedom of panorama
- File:Ira_world_GNI_percapita.PNG gives its source as "modification from Wikipedia" - this needs to be explained. What is the base map for this image, and what is its copyright status? From what source was the data used to create this map derived?
Oppose unless/until these issues are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did all the tedious work (and less tedious one). However, if you think I missed something, please be bold and do it yourself :) SSZ (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You obviously put a lot of work into this article, and I would like to support it. At present, however, it feels like a collection of facts about the Iranian economy rather than a comprehensive picture of the Iranian economy. Just to name a few examples: in "Labor and welfare" it says that more than two-thirds of the population is under 30, but it doesn't elaborate on how that relates to the economy; in "Personal income" it says that primary school-level enrollment is nearly 100%, but doesn't say how that affects personal income. Those facts that are clearly relevant to the sections they're in often feel disconnected, with no flow between them or indication of how they interrelate. I hope that you keep working to improve this article, but I don't feel it's ready yet. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I regret that you compare an article on the economy with an article on society. Please see economy of India which was promoted FA in 2005 and please tell me whether you have a similar or a different standard? Moreover for any subject, you must have a sum of basic knowledge that cannot be contained in the subject itself and which need to be mastered before reading the article. What you refer to in your comments is directly related to that point. In the same manner, I cannot explain what a tire is made of in a an article about Mercedez-Benz or give the meaning of the verb "to be" in a book about Shakespeare. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is not that the article is too technical, nor did I compare it to any other. My problem is that, while facts are abundant, there is too little connection between the facts. I can guess generally how school enrollment relates to personal income, but a featured article shouldn't make me guess. The underlying reasons for some things are missing, too. Clearly there's a large black market in Iran, but why is it so big? The lead says that contraband is a problem, but the body doesn't elaborate on how it is a problem. The facts and figures are impressive, but there needs to be more overall analysis of the economic system.
- The link to the old version of Economy of India shows how much FA standards have changed since 2005; its grammar and referencing would never pass today. It's difficult to compare articles from that far back. A. Parrot (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SSZ (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to the old version of Economy of India shows how much FA standards have changed since 2005; its grammar and referencing would never pass today. It's difficult to compare articles from that far back. A. Parrot (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (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 03:05, 8 April 2011 [23].
- Nominator(s): Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because of the same reasons for the last time (see archive one). The article is well-organized, and as complete as it is possible. Thank you Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Query - This is a question I find myself having to ask of almost all music-related FACs: aside from the Billboard articles, have you made sure to consult all non-web sources that might be available? I'm primarily thinking of music periodicals here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sincerely, I have to say no, I haven't. Recently, Adabow gave me five links I didn't see and I check them ASAP, so, I think I'll have to make some research at GBooks. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely focus on looking from material from magazines that don't host print material online: NME, Mojo, Q, Uncut, stuff Rolling Stone might not have, and so on. It also might be beneficial to ask around on Beyonce fansites to see if anyone has seen any articles that might be useful sources. I doubt there's anything available in book form at this point, so the mags look to be the one area you need to focus on source-wise before we can proceed further. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, in my country (excepting for Rolling Stone) those magazines as far as I know don't exist, so it would be really difficult to me to find their information. I'll try to find all the relevant information online. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely focus on looking from material from magazines that don't host print material online: NME, Mojo, Q, Uncut, stuff Rolling Stone might not have, and so on. It also might be beneficial to ask around on Beyonce fansites to see if anyone has seen any articles that might be useful sources. I doubt there's anything available in book form at this point, so the mags look to be the one area you need to focus on source-wise before we can proceed further. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images/Media
- Captions should be grammatically correct and meet WP:MOS rules
The images/media themselves are properly licensed, and those under fair use have appropriate FURs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mentioned the period thing, so I removed them. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs and deadlinks No dabs, one deadlink found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the dead external link. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was really dead? I mean, it was the official Youtube video and for something I don't know it tagged it as dead when it was never dead, and VEVO is not internationally received. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I used to be able to view the SME video, but today it said it was unavailable in my country. I think that Vevo on YouTube is available worldwide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was really dead? I mean, it was the official Youtube video and for something I don't know it tagged it as dead when it was never dead, and VEVO is not internationally received. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copy-editing needed throughout to eliminate redundancies and improve prose:
- "According to Simon Cowell, agent of British singer Leona Lewis, the writers originally created "Halo" for Lewis." → "According to Simon Cowell, the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, British singer Leona Lewis."
- Changed. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to Ryan Dombal . . . reported by him": two attributions in one sentence.
- Changed. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure of some of the sourcing; for eg: a tabloid for musical analysis.
- Nor WP:EL nor WP:REFERENCES ban or prohibits "tabloids". Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "As stated in the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing" is a comically long disclaimer for something as obvious and non-controversial as "'Halo' is a love song featuring a R&B and pop production".
- Changed. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit from "When Knowles delivers the lyrics..." is simply incomprehensible.
- The body begins with the dry "'Halo' was written by ..." - but we already know these facts both from the lead and the infobox. Is there a more interesting way to say this? Maybe you can delete that opening sentence completely and begin with Kidd's interview and origin story.
- The Composition section is extremely clunky and verbose. I suggest Slts#Composition as the gold standard to aim for.
- he worked with Knowles because "she’s Beyoncé! Once I heard the song, I had to do it" - this is an encyclopedia, puh-lease.
- The Promotion and covers section leaves me utterly perplexed, as do such sections in all new pop-song articles. Why the need to discuss every show where she performed the song? I fail to see how anybody outside of a hardcore Beyonce fan would need to know that "She also performed the song at The Late Show with David Letterman after an interview on April 22, 2009. The next day, she performed it at NBC's Today."
- Sorry for being a fan, but it is part of the song's promotion. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always, the above is only an indicator of issues, not a comprehensive list. A throughout review is needed and hopefully you can find a good independent copy-editor is sufficiently interested in the article to see it all the way through.—indopug (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mostly on sourcing
- Referencing format is quite inconsistent, needs serious attention
- Did she really write her own album notes?
- Ref 9 - given that this is a digital download, can you provide an external link to the download page?
- What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
- Agree that this article needs thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, in that order:
- Could you be so especific in which sources?
- No, but there's no name of who wrote the album notes.
- According to some users, Musicnotes is not a reliable source, but the music sheet itself is.
- And what don't?
- I've requested to a GOCE member some help here. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really point to a specific source that's poorly formatted, simply because I can't tell what the "correct" formatting is here. For example, compare refs 21 and 22 - they're from the same source, but the formatting is quite different.
- Then don't include a name, because it looks from what you've got now as if she did write them
- I'm not questioning the reliability of the sheet music, I'm just asking for a link
- Some of those are blogs, are potentially published by non-experts, are published by sites with a less-than-stellar reputation for fact-checking...is there one in particular you're unsure about? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll check this throughout the article.
- Removed.
- OK, I'm refactoring it: the site itself (Musicnotes) is not considered as reliable (I really don't know why), that's why there's not such link.
- I removed sputnikmusic link, Yahoo! link is reliable (we've discussed this at We R Who We R FAC), Top40 is published by the NY Times and Courcelles told me that the reliability of those links depends in the reputation of the individual author. I believe that Lamb's crediability is good enough for Wikipedia. For Mahalo.com, I believe that the article asserts why this website is reliable. For the other two links, I'll check reliability ASAP, and remove/replace them if possible. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This Yahoo! link has a different author - do we know what his credentials are? About.com is, per Courcelles at the We R FAC, "in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all". You'd have to make a much stronger case about Lamb's credibility. I looked at the article on Mahalo - "Mahalo.com's approach is similar to that employed by Ask.com in 1998"? That makes me question its reliability more, not less. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mahalo removed, and I'll keep Yahoo! and Lamb links, in that order: I don't know why we have to know Carter's credentials. Working for Yahoo! is enough crediability for anyone. Furthermore, we are not "checking" credentials of every author of every FAC, are we? For Lamb, working nine years for The New York Times, do you need more? Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lamb's comprehensive career in writing about music makes him reliable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mahalo removed, and I'll keep Yahoo! and Lamb links, in that order: I don't know why we have to know Carter's credentials. Working for Yahoo! is enough crediability for anyone. Furthermore, we are not "checking" credentials of every author of every FAC, are we? For Lamb, working nine years for The New York Times, do you need more? Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This Yahoo! link has a different author - do we know what his credentials are? About.com is, per Courcelles at the We R FAC, "in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all". You'd have to make a much stronger case about Lamb's credibility. I looked at the article on Mahalo - "Mahalo.com's approach is similar to that employed by Ask.com in 1998"? That makes me question its reliability more, not less. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (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 03:02, 8 April 2011 [24].
- Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is very close to meeting the criteria, and only needs a bit of attention from FAC reviewers to be a FA. It is a fairly short article, I know, but this is really all the information on Eazy-E, since he only lived to be 31. In November 2010, before I started working on the article, it looked like this, and needed a lot of work to meet even the B-class criteria. Now, it has surpassed GA requirements and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thank you, CrowzRSA 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, citation formatting needs cleanup for consistency and accuracy. For example, I think there's a typo in the first ref
- Use a consistent date formatting
- Newspapers should be italicized
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- What makes this a [[WP:RS|reliable source]? Also, where do you see a reference to Pareles in the biography?
- Date for ref 11?
- Retrieval dates are not required for weblinks to print-based sources, but if you use them you must do so consistently
- Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms like RIAA
- "Up for Discussion Jump to Forums"?
- Allmusic or AllMusic or allmusic?
- Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
- Greenwood or Greenwood Publishing Group? Check for other naming inconsistencies
- Refs 29 and 30 lead to the same site, but are formatted completely differently. Also, why not cite this to the original publication?
- Ref 7: volume/issue number? Check for others
- Ref 33: title?
- Combine identical refs
- Ref 49: retrieval date
- Why is "While Knight had sought an outright release from Ruthless Records for Dr. Dre, the JDL and Ruthless Records management negotiated a release in which the record label would continue to receive money and publishing rights from future Dr. Dre projects with Death Row Records, founded by Dr. Dre with Suge Knight" cited to ref 31 twice? That site doesn't really support most of the sentence
- Spotchecks found some instances of material unsupported by the source used to cite it. Some examples: "he openly associated with other Crips"; "co-found Ruthless Records with Jerry Heller"; "executives Mike Klein and Jerry Heller sought assistance from the Jewish Defense League"; "this provided Ruthless Records with leverage to enter into negotiations with Death Row Records over Dr. Dre's departure". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no dabs, one dead link found and repaired. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:57, 8 April 2011 [25].
- Nominator(s): Dohanlon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is concise, clear and up-to-date. The page is factually correct, and offers very significant and interesting information beyond the basic biographical information. By using references to a very wide range of sources, the article creates an impression of the significance of the subject. Dohanlon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of specific concerns:
- Per WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have at least a 3-paragraph lead
- Per WP:OVERLINK, don't link very common terms like "boarding school" and "Polish"
- Article needs copyediting for grammar, clarity and flow. Examples of problematic prose: "Following this Binoche secured her first big screen appearance with a minor supporting role in Pascal Kané's Algeria-themed Liberty Belle, following this she decided to pursue a career in cinema."; "The recurring themes of these films is"; many short choppy sentences and paragraphs
- Manual of style edits needed: italicization, hyphens/dashes, etc
- Some material is unsourced, which is especially problematic in a biography of a living person. Examples: "After this success, Binoche decided to return to France rather than pursue an international career."; "This was Binoche's first English language role and was a worldwide success with critics and audiences alike following its 1988 premiere"; "These roles may have allowed Binoche to consolidate her international position in a way Carax's film did not"
- Reference formatting needs serious cleanup - all web citations need retrieval dates and publishers, magazine citations need page numbers, etc
- Some of the sources used do not meet the reliable sources requirements. Examples: this, this (which triggered my anti-virus program), this
Suggest withdrawal to allow you to address these concerns, consider undergoing the good article or peer review process before renominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback. I'm not clear why the sources are not reliable as the information they cite is current and clearly credited to them. Thanks for feedback. Dohanlon (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - concur with Nikkimaria above. Too much unsourced opinion: besides the points Nikkimaria pointed out - "The recurring themes of these films is of contemporary young women exploring their sexuality, often from within an artistic milieu." or "However it is her collaboration with theatre director Scrutzler, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, that defines Nina." Some of the sources clearly fail WP:RS - an example - this source is clearly a fan and/or self-published site. Sources need to be third-party sources that have a reputation for fact checking and trustworthiness. A self-published source needs to be by a recognized expert in the field with publications in third party sources in the field. I agree with Nikkimaria's suggestion to withdraw and suggest seeking input from both the Good Article process and from Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 6 April 2011 (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 18:28, 3 April 2011 [26].
- Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets Featured article criteria, providing a complete and interesting view on the song. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs significant copy-editing/rewriting throughout. The following are only a sample:
- "Pop, synthpop": that's a redundancy. I think synthpop should suffice?
- I'm just gonna put pop. That's some of the unsourced stuff I forgot to get rid of. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "After debuting on the chart early with album downloads, it peaked on the UK Singles Chart at number 32, making it her lowest charting on that chart...". Also watch out for overuse of "song".
- The sentence cited has been modified. Done. Considering there aren't lots of synonyms that work with "song", I can't do anything abouth the majority of it. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-editing needed: "Reception for the video was mainly positive, with most noting...", "The video reflected the fashion and choreography of the performances of the song done during her 2009 For You, For Me Tour, where she first debuted the song".
- Honestly, I don't see the error in the first sentence you cited. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You say the song "received positive to mixed reviews" from critics, twice in the article. Does that make any sense? If it received "mixed" reviews, isn't it understood that the song was acclaimed from some critics?
- That's what I thought too, but in a previous review I learned that a mixed review is understood as a single review with positives and negatives. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking: laser beams, microphone stand, etc.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure... Done. I Help, When I Can. [12]
Oppose
- "accommodating and lovely and approachable and normal [sic]" - why the "sic" here? AFAICT it's correct
- Spelling, correct. Grammar, incorrect. Still take it out? I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that copy-editing is needed. For example, "After the final chorus cuts through all scenes." is not a complete sentence
- I didn't write it like that. Had some bad copy-editing there. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Text needs to be more accessible to people who don't know much about music. For example, most will not be familiar with the subscript notation for octave
- ...which is why the musical terms are linked. I really don't know how to make the section more accessible without writing a "Music Theory for Dummies" paragraph in the section. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Manual of Style work needed - wikilinking, hyphens/dashes, captions, etc
- What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
- Those citations are used for published opinion. You will notice that I haven't used them to verify any of the facts in the article. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference formatting needs cleanup - web citations need retrieval dates, I'm pretty sure this isn't the link you wanted for Idolator, etc Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They do have retrieval dates, Piping? Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since reviewers have given only samples of prose issues, and there are is other work needed, this article might benefit from a peer review first, and doesn't appear ready for FAC at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 3 April 2011 (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 22:26, 2 April 2011 [27].
- Nominator(s): M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for an FA article. Introduction to Evolution was at one time a featured article, but was demoted. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010, I have gone in and added some content to make the article cover basic genetic drift as well as the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for changes in frequency of alleles. The article is similar to its previous FA form, with modifications from myself and other Wikipedia editors. I understand that introduction articles are not particularly favored by the Wikipedia community, but the Evolution article is difficult to understand without more background in that area of biology, which is why the introduction to evolution article is necessarily. I have talked with my biology teacher, who was the author of the original article and he approves of my nomination. Thank you for considering my nomination. M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:
- WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
- Fixed - Please review. Dramatic reduction of detailed explanation of genetic drift which is addressed in the appropriate sections.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
- Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
- I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("—").
- Actually, spaced endashes are allowed per WP:MDASH. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I had missed that note. I thought em dashes were required, but I see now that they are merely preferred (by me, anyway). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
- Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
- Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.
- From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time
- Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
- Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
- Fixed - as noted above under same concern raised by Cryptic C62--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."
- The deck of cards analogy is something I thought of myself, I did not obtain it from anywhere. I'm also working on citing the other things you pointed out here. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting
- Im working on cleaning these up. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc
I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions:
- I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
- Fixed. I agree with you, because the subject does no offer any strong evidence for evolution.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a shot at this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.
In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now—Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.
- The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.
- I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011
- I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.
- Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?—RJH (talk)
- The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011
- The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.
- I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.
- The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.
- It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.
- The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
- Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
- Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
- Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.
- Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.
Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi 10:49, 2 April 2011 (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 22:21, 2 April 2011 [28].
- Nominator(s): Jmn49114 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because Hershey-Chase represents a significant turning point in the understanding of human biology. The results changed the world by showing the scientific community which biomolecule contained the genetic code and the basis for familial similarities. The former article was a stub and it has been significantly expanded over the last few weeks to expand on the existing article referencing their experimentation with bacterial amino acids and DNA. We added to the existing information about how Phosphorus and Sulfur molecules were used in conjunction with viruses to show the hereditary nature of DNA. We discussed the intentions and expectations of the scientists in order to clarify the benefits of discovering which biomolecule carries the genetic code. We also discussed experiments done by other scientists that support the results of the Hershey-Chase experiments. Connections were made to genetic testing and paternal tests. We will discuss applications to DNA testing in reference to crime investigation. Lastly, we explored the recent discovery of arsenic-based life forms and the repercussions of this discovery on the results of Hershey-Chase. All evidence has been cited clearly and we have edited for clarity. Jmn49114 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to reviewers/delegates: this article is tagged as being the subject of an educational assignment. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA? PR?: might I suggest you consider submitting this article to the good article or peer review processes before trying to have it promoted as a Featured Article? I am concerned that it might not meet the FA requirements at this time. Here are some specific problems:
- This article is tagged as being under construction, which is an indicator that it is not yet stable
- Some material is uncited. It's generally a good idea to have a citation at the end of every paragraph. Also, things like direct quotes should always be cited
- The article is structured like a university essay. Check out WP:LAYOUT and look at some similar articles to get a better idea of Wikipedia's organization conventions
- I think the article could benefit from some copy-editing - some sections of prose are unclear and awkward in phrasing
- I'm guessing you've got more than one person working on this? Make sure you all use a consistent formatting for references and keep track of what's being said and how in all of the article's sections.
I wish you luck with your project, but would strongly suggest that you withdraw the article at this time to give yourselves a chance to improve it before resubmitting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick view of the article shows that a number of your references to PNAS are not full citations. I don't think this article is ready to be a FAC yet. Rjwilmsi 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
apj544_2_L145
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
eep_eps_eri
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
apj690_2_1522
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
aaa426
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).