Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2012

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 11:36, 28 April 2012 [1].

May Revolution

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.

All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by North8000 Not a thorough review of any criteria, just comments. A well written, very informative, very encyclopedic article. Two minor suggestions. The 3rd sentence in the second paragraph of the lead is very confusing. "Loss" to who? Seems to say that the uprising caused loss of territory to its side, but an uprising doesn't have territory to start with. Suggest clarification. Also it goes into details about the Primera Junta without introducing it with a sentence that simply states what it is. Suggest adding that sentence. Overall, nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, the Spanish uprising (which I clarified) was indeed controlling sectors of the country, lost during the Napoleonic advance. I shouldn't go into more detail, as long as the info is correct and possible to understand on its own, as the peninsular war is a background topic, not "the" topic of this article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eisfbnore

  • Lead
  • "The Supreme Junta retreated to Cadiz and dissolved itself, being replaced by the Council of Regency of Spain and the Indies." – I don't very much like the participial construction in this sentence; I'd try "..., and was replaced by" (see WP:PLUSING).
  • "Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal the news in order to maintain the political status quo, but a group of criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of notables of the city) on May 22 to decide the future of the Viceroyalty" – 'in order to' is an unnecessarily verbose formulation; try 'to' instead.
  • "However, this caused a great deal of popular unrest" – 'a great deal' is a touch informal; perhaps try "However, this caused much popular unrest".
  • Causes section
  • "With the overthrow and execution of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, that revolution brought to an end centuries of monarchy" – a more logical English phrase order would be "With the overthrow and execution of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, that revolution brought centuries of monarchy to an end".
  • "Books from the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies through Caracas, due to the proximity of Venezuela to the United States and the West Indies." – swap the adjectival 'due to' for the adverbial 'owing to', as its antecedent is not the verb 'to be'.
  • Prelude section
  • I have no quibbles regarding this section

More to come. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • May week section
  • "The May Week was the period of time in Buenos Aires beginning with the confirmation of the fall of the Supreme Central Junta and ending with the dismissal of Cisneros and the establishment of the Primera Junta" – Disagree you may, but I would honestly challenge you to remove every third gerund-participle construction in the article. Please try it; swap 'beginning' for 'which began' and 'ending' with 'ended' and you'll see the prose certainly be improved. The same goes for the next sentence – "On May 14, 1810, the British war schooner HMS Mistletoe arrived at Buenos Aires from Gibraltar with European newspapers reporting the dissolution of the Supreme Central Junta the previous January." – WP:PLUSING explicitly recommends against present participles after nouns.
  • "Leiva left the Cabildo and Belgrano, representing the crowd, requested a definitive commitment" – Alas, I'm too thick to understand what this sentence is trying to tell me. Are there words missing?

Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 11:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I changed most "-ing" verbs with other variants. Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section
  • "The cities of the Upper Peru, however, did not take a position, due to the recent outcomes of the Chuquisaca and La Paz Revolutions." – Another erroneous use of the adjectival 'due to'; please swap it for 'owing to'.
  • "Ocampo refused to shoot the captive Liniers, so the execution ordered by the Junta was carried out by Juan José Castelli." – 'so' is a touch informal; how about "Ocampo refused to shoot the captive Liniers; hence, the execution ordered by the Junta was carried out by Juan José Castelli."
  • "The Junta was defeated in 1814 at the Battle of Rancagua, and the subsequent Reconquista of Chile would made it a royalist stronghold once more." – Grammar: the 'made' should be 'make', no?

Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 17:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical perspectives section
  • "The first remarkable historiographical school of interpretation of the history of Argentina was founded people of the 1837 generation, like Bartolomé Mitre." – Am I being extremely thick, or is this sentence simply indigestible? Seems to be a verb or preposition missing.
  • Legacy section
  • Seems to be a quite reasonable section. No qualms.

Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Someone removed a "by" that was there, fixed Cambalachero (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (on prose only). --Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not comfortable copyediting this one ... again and again, I keep wondering how often the Spanish phrases turn up in English sources, and how familiar English-speakers are with the words, concepts, geography and history. I don't have a good sense of any of this. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that this is an obscure topic in English literature, and none of the people mentioned is likely known by readers. That issue has been adressed before, and all the people mentioned has descriptions of their office or role in the event. Readers may not know, for example, who are Cisneros or Cornelio Saavedra, but being told that they are the viceroy or the commander of the army, they know enough to understand the article. If you noticed something that needs further explanations say so, otherwise, this is a non-actionable complain. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining, I'm saying I don't know what I need to know to do a copyeditor's job here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wilhelmina Will:

This nomination needs more reviews. All things said so far have been adressed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander (prose only)

  • Better word: " was the disintegration of the territories ..." - word "disintegration" needs to be defined/explained here. Some readers mat think it means extermination. Or replace it with a more precise word that is not as ambiguous.
  • Need time context: "The Council of Regency, the Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires and the peninsulars opposed the new situation.[156] The Royal Audiencia secretly ..." - What day/week is this happening? in general, every section beginning should mention a date.
  • Better word: "The rioters were led ..." - Rioters may not be right, since that implies violence, vandalism, out-of-doors. Maybe protestors? Or demonstrators?
  • Better word: " on whether this was genuine or not." "Sincere" may be better than genuine.
  • "The May Revolution declared loyalty to Ferdinand VII of Spain." - Is the "May Revolution" an person/group or an event? Only persons/groups can declare loyalty.
  • Link: need to link first occurrence of word "junta" by itself.
  • Web site: I dont think the web site belongs in the InfoBox. I'd move it to the "External LInks" section. A URL in the infoBox should only be used for the official site of the organization/company, which in this case, there is none.
  • Leaning towards support: the article appears very detailed & comprehensive; and the prose is generally very good. I'm not at all familiar with the topic, but it does not seem to have any POV issues. It would be nice if a Latin American historian could give a vote of confidence.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Aftermath" section that the secret swore of allegiance and exile took place a moth later, but have in mind that the section is a summary of events that took place in a period of several years after the event itself of the article (as it would be expected from an "Aftermath" section). If I mentioned the dates of everything in there, it would double the section size and become harder to read. It is correct that "rioter" implies more violence than "demonstrator", but that's precisely why I used the word. When we say "demonstrators" we don't think in armed men or in people that actually overrun the buildings next to the protest, so the word may give a ligther idea of the situation than it really was. I agree that the link seemed somewhat out of place in an infobox about a historical event, but there's a field for it, and I thought I had to fill it; I moved it to the external links. Thanks for the review Cambalachero (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Support, based on review of prose only. I have not validated image rights (although they all seem rather old, so that should be a non-issue); nor spot-checked any sources. Nor can I vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination needs more reviews. All things said so far have been adressed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You should try and find someone to copyedit this article thoroughly. The prose is sometimes clumsy; there are grammatical and MOS errors. I'd offer to help, but I'm not the greatest writer myself and, above all, I don't have the time right now. Here are some examples for what I mean:
  • "May Week" in the lede should be italicized and not in quotation marks, cabildo should be italicized. May Pyramid and Plaza de Mayo should not be italicized.
  • The important words in the name of the painting should be capitalized per MOSCAPS.
  • "Spanish peoples" should be "Spanish people" or "Spaniards".
  • "Liberal ideas spread through the Atlantic Revolutions across most of the Western world, and expanded to new and varied ideas thanks to the national variations of the Age of Enlightenment" I don't understand that sentence.
  • "Spain forbade its American colonies to trade with other nations or foreign colonies, and imposed itself as the only buyer and vendor for their international trade" The second half of that sentence is just repeating the content of the first half.
  • The passive voice is used excessively.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I forgot to mention this in my original remarks. Despite those problems, I think the article has real potential and I appreciate the effort you've put into it. I hope you are able to find a copyeditor so I can strike out my oppose.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first reason to why I oppose this article is due to its prose, which has several issues, as Carabinieri warned above. The second reason is regarding the reliability of the text. Carlotism is given as an idea to make Carlota Joaquina the regent of Spain's colonies in South America and that is failed because of her desire to rule as an absolute ruler and the May revolutionaries' desire for a constitutional government. There is no mention of Prince Don Carlos of Bourbon, the only male dynasty of the House of Burbon in South America, who was then living in Brazil. He was the person whom the Revolutionaries wished to rule as a constitutional monarch and Carlota wanted to use him as her puppet to rule on through him. Besides, the major reason to why Carlota's schemes failed was because her husband, the later King Dom João VI of Portugal, did everything to prevent her from succeed. He wanted to take advantage of the chaos in the Hispanic American colonies to acquire more territory for Brazil, which led to the invasion of present-day Uruguay in 1811 and later in 1816, leading for its annexation as a province named Cisplatina. I can't even believe that nothing of this is told on this article, and can be easily found (albeit with contraditory views) on several English written books: Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834, as well as in Carlota Joaquina, Queen of Portugal, or in Tropical Versailles: Empire, Monarchy, and the Portuguese Royal Court in Rio, and in Empire Adrift. Not only that, but I wonder why almost no book written in English has been used, relying solely on Spanish written books which can not even be found at Google books, for example. If the May Revolution is regarded as the "Independence of Argentina" and must be certainly one of, if not the most important moment on Argentine history, there are certainly many, many books written in English that could have been used here. And why they weren't, then? If I found glaring omissions with a quick look, I wonder how many others, perhaps even mistakes, I might find if I read a book in English about the subject? --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Of course there's much more to the carlotist project than what is mentioned here, same as with the American or French revolutions. They are described in summary style: they influenced the topic of the article, but just that, they are not the topic, and going into further detail would make the article go off-topic. Besides, it's really strange that Lecen rejects a wording that he proposed himself at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive2. As for the books used, I don't know if they are available at Google books or not, because I got them the old fashioned way: at the bookstore. I searched for books in English on the topic, but did not find any that go into the level of detail I found in real-life books. WP:VER says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - after over one month, there is no clear consensus to promote this article and the FAC seems to have stagnated. I think it would be benefit from archiving at this stage. Graham Colm (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:04, 27 April 2012 [2].

Citroën C3 Picasso

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jenova20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be of a standard higher than good now and at the very least the article would be improved from this candidacy. Thanks Jenova20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments to start off, I haven't read the article yet. Note that it's generally a good idea to have a WP:Peer review between GA and FAC.
  • The lead is too short, that should be expanded. (See WP:LEAD for the guideline.)
  • There are a lot of short sections, they should probably be condensed into larger sections.
  • The page has a cluttered feel to it, lots of pictures and charts all over the place.
  • There's one link to a disambiguation page that should be fixed.
  • Is Autogear.us a reliable source? (WP:RS) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved some sections around and removed others. What do you think of it now? Also i was told to add more pictures in the good article candidacy as you can see on the talk page. Every single thing is referenced and AutoGear.us in this case is well informed on specifications of the car so i do believe them to be appropriate, even for a blog/low-key auto news source. Also which link to a disambig page is wrong? Opinions Thanks Jenova20 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since you said you want comments, here are a few more. I encourage you to withdraw this nomination and try to get a thorough peer review.
  • To prove that Autogear is reliable you would have to provide evidence that it is a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. Even if it is useful and accurate, it may not qualify.
  • MPV is the link I meant. The dabs on the article are listed here, for future reference.
  • The external links section should come after the references section.
  • In a caption you have "Reviews of the "plasticky" interior were mixed.", who are you quoting there?
  • How does the picture of a 1959 Cadillac held the reader understand this article?
  • Numbers less than 10 should generally be written out (i.e. "two out of three" rather than "2 out of 3"). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, based on criteria 1b, 2a and 2c. I'm far from an expert, but I just can't believe this would be a comprehensive study of the subject. I feel like every section could be expanded with more information. Not enough context is given for general readers, for instance: "The chassis platform used for the vehicle is a modified version from the Citroën C3 and the Peugeot 207, giving it a comparable wheelbase" - this means nothing to me. The lead needs to be substantially expanded, to summarise the entire article, before it can even be consider for FA status. Lastly, citations are not formatted consistently. --Lobo (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal per Lobo. Content-wise, it barely--if at all--meets GA status; the lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD; and there is just too little information on what I reckon to be a very popular subject. Auree ★★ 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can i get realistic detailled suggestions for content improvements from everyone so at least i have some idea where to go from here and improve the article.
And all the criteria for Good Article status was met and the User:Waggers provided what i compare to this so far to be absolutely flawless reviewing. Thanks Jenova20 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The place for "detailed suggestions for content improvements" is WP:Peer review. I also just suggest reading through a load of FAC reviews to get an idea of the requirements (standards are very high), and read over similar FAs to see what they do. You'll find this extremely helpful, I'm sure. Don't be disheartened—you've underestimated the requirements for FAs, but there's no reason this article can't get there with more work. You just need to make sure you have a full grasp of the criteria. --Lobo (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't underestimated the criteria, as i state above i just want it to be improved and was expecting the kind of support i got at the Good article review. I thought that's what the review would aim for like last time, improvement rather than 2 lines and a vote. Thanks Jenova20 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per above comments. For me the Lead is too short and there is not enough information in all the other sections. Also, a curious use of the Ghostbusters car image. To justify it's inclusion, you state: "The original Ghostbusters did not use a C3 Picasso" - why the image then? It's not really relevant to have this image included based on the fact it was not used in something. If that was the case then the images would be endless. Sorry. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left it in because the good article review never mentioned it. I'll remove it now. Thanks Jenova20 19:47, 26 April 2012 (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 Ucucha 15:52, 25 April 2012 [3].

Augustinian theodicy

[edit]
Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in September 2011 and I think it is now ready to be considered. It was peer reviewed in Sepetmber, became a Good Article in December and was peer reviewed again at the start of this month. It has also received a copy edit from Accedie and was briefly reviewed recently by Quadell at his talk page. I now feel that it is ready for a Featured Article nomination, and am happy to make any necessary changes suggested. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I've wanted to participate in a philosophical FAC for a while! Good work on nominating this. I've got a few suggestions, which probably aren't necessary changes (nor, of course, are they sufficient ).

  • Firstly, the grammar of the name. I haven't read the original sources, but the article currently talks of Augustinian theodicy (and the partnering article on Irenaean theodicy) in gramatically the same way one refers to, say, "Christian theology" or "French cheese". Except there's some inconsistency. In the first paragraph of the 'Outline' section, Hick is referred to differently from in the paragraph in the sub-section of Outline entitled 'Evidential problem of evil'. In this, it is referred to as "The Augustinian theodicy". A minor quibble, perhaps, but stylistically it reads a bit strangely and inconsistently. It is perhaps slightly odd, as the philosopher in me wants to say, "well, what is this thing exactly?" A theodicy is basically an argument, so perhaps, strictly logically it ought to be Augustine's theodicy, like, oh, Wittgenstein's private language argument or the Gettier problem. Perhaps they do things differently in theology, I don't know. Don't let me bully you in to my preference, go with what the sources say.
  • "Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" - I'm not sure identified is the right word here. As an argument, the first person we know identified the Augustinian theodicy was hopefully St Augustine. What exactly did Hick do? Clearly reconstruct the argument and identify it to Augustine? (In much the same way various arguments have been reconstructed in the form of, say, the form of modal logic and read back into the literature.)
  • "Augustinian theodicy can be distinguished by its attempt to maintain the goodness of God despite the occurrence of evil in the world" → distinguished from what?
  • "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's nature of existence" → This could perhaps be better phrased. It doesn't call into question the nature of God's existence. I'm not sure what that means. The evidential problem of evil challenges theists to accept either that God doesn't exist or that the thing they call God doesn't all his divine attributes. If you are willing to concede some divine attributes, then you don't need to concede on existence; conceding to the evidential problem of evil doesn't necessarily require you to question the nature of God's existence—the atheist can say "well, if God exists, then he has the relevant attributes that theists say he has, but given the evidential problem of evil, I don't believe God exists because the evidence of evil makes me call into question the compatibility of those attributes." Omitting the words "nature of" might do it, but that doesn't really nail it, does it? You could say something like "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's existence or God's nature", but that's a bit clumsy.
  • The discussion of Calvin in the lead might be a bit too much: noting that Calvin's view of soteriology differs from St Augustine isn't necessary for understanding the theodicy and probably ought to be omitted from the lead, even if it is an interesting thing to discuss later in the article.
  • "Scientific implications" → good name for the section? Not sure. It's really a scientifically-derived critique rather than a discussion of the scientific implications.
  • Is Augustinian theodicy taken up a plausible theodicy by non-Christian philosophers/theologians? To say that something is a Christian theodicy has two possible meanings: either that it is a theodicy only available to Christians (perhaps if a theodicy appealed specifically to specific doctrines of Christian faith) or that it has been primarily used by Christians. Often the Islamic philosophers reuse and extend philosophical arguments from those who went before: it'd be interesting to know if there is any development of Augustine's theodicy in the Islamic world.
  • There are some philosophical texts that are pretty well-respected on the problem of evil that are missing, but I don't know if that's because they are duplicating other sources. The work of MM Adams for one. Howard-Snyder's "The Evidential Problem of Evil". There's probably some other contemporary philosophical work that the article might be missing, but theodicy isn't my area of interest.
  • In the section on Plantinga, it might be useful to cite Plantinga directly and perhaps some of the contemporary literature on Plantinga's FWD even if Plantinga's FWD isn't a theodicy but a defense against the logical problem of evil. (My personal biases might be showing here: my Ph.D is on Plantinga's later work.)
  • In the references section, Michael Tooley's Stanford Encyclopedia article is included twice as separate references.
  • Otherwise the references look at first glance to be pretty good.

Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Tom. I'll reply in the order that you gave them.
  • Fixed - it now consistently uses 'the Augustinian theodicy'.
  • Reworded identification & added a little extra to clarify.
  • Clarified.
  • That was a mistake in the first place - it was supposed to be God's nature or existence; I've fixed that.
  • Renamed the section.
  • I had looked for non-Christian views and had found little. I will have another look and tell you what I find.
  • Thank you for the sources - I will have a look and include anything which can better source what's already there.
  • I'll have a look for something directly from Plantinga.
  • Tooley is referenced twice because the two references point to different sections on the page. What would you recommend here?
As I said, thank you very much for your comments. I'll get back to you on the last few things ASAP. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot find any non-Christian views; it seems to me that this is a Christian-only theodicy. Islam theology has alternative interpretations of The Fall, but nothing specifically related to Augustine's interpretation; most Jewish theodicy seems to be post-Holocaust, and Maimonides had little to do with Augustine, from what I can gather. I have found Howard-Snyder's work and used it and have directed referenced Plantinga, as you suggested. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed this at FAC and took a look. One thing instantly stands out to me: the lead looks disproportionately big for the article. The whole page is 3,000 words, but the lead alone is 500 of them. So a 500 word lead for 2,500 words of text is 1/5 of the size! I find it hard to believe the lead needs to be so long..? --Lobo (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll have a look at shortening it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've condensed the second two paragraphs of the lead, which were making it so long. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's looking much better, good work. --Lobo (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: I notice "Hell" is capitalised throughout, but "heaven" isn't. Since the two are opposites, shouldn't both be capitalised (or not)? Auree ★★ 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I have capitalised Heaven where it occurs. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 5 and similar: why omit Russell?
  • Green 2010 or 2011?
  • Generally encyclopedias, even if online, are italicized
  • Be consistent in whether Augustine's works are cited to Augustine of Hippo or simply Augustine
  • FN 41: page(s)?
  • Murphy & Ellis or Ellis & Murphy?
  • No citations to Bush 1991, Engel 2007. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment on prose, no comment on comprehensiveness:

  • The lead is quite good. One query: "those who choose the salvation of Jesus Christ" Is "choose" the optimal choice of words here? It seems a bit odd in this context.
  • "The Augustinian theodicy was first distinguished as a form of theodicy by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love, written in 1966, in which he classified Augustine's theodicy and its subsequent developments as Augustinian." Not sure, but would it be better to put "Augustinian" between quotation marks, as it's introduced as a certain classification.
  • "Hick distinguished between Augustinian-style theodicy, which is based on free will, and Irenaean theodicy, which sees God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits." "Augustine-style" theodicy yet simply "Irenaean" theodicy?
  • "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin, with the Augustinian theologians arguing that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings." With + noun + -ing constructions are generally depreciated: suggest "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin; Augustinian theologians argue that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings."
  • "based on the writing of Saint Paul, as well as his interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis." Whose interpretation? Saint Paul's or Augustine's? Needs clarification
  • "Aquinas believed that evil is only acceptable because of the good that comes from it, and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good required the occurrence of the evil." required → requires? Also, you could lose the first "only".
  • "He argued that God's grace is irresistible and will consequently be accepted and persevered in by those he chooses to bestow with it." "persevered in by"? Also, you could lose the "consequently" here.
  • "Italian theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria criticised Augustine's conception of evil." "Conception"? Should that be "concept"?
  • "does everything within his power to bring about good" "bring about" seems like informal wording.
  • "He went on to propose that, even in a world where humans have significant free will, their actions may be predictable enough that God would be unable to create a world in which a significantly free agent would do something unpredictable." Could benefit from some tweaking for brevity and clarity.
  • "By simply arguing that the coexistence of God and evil are logically possible, Platinga did not present a theodicy, but a defence. He did not attempt to demonstrate that his proposition is true or plausible, just that it is logically possible. Consequently, Plantinga's argument is an answer to the logical problem of evil, whereas Augustine's attempt to show that the existence of God remains probable is a response to the evidential problem of evil with which he dealt." This reads as editorial opinion to me... needs attribution.
  • I've made some (mostly minor) edits myself, please check.
  • Watch out for redundancies such as "therefore", "moreover", "consequently", "subsequently", and "thus": most of these are no more than cumbersome supplements to the text and are generally unneeded. I removed some but others remain. Auree ★★ 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed "choose" to "choose to accept".
  • I've put quotation marks around the second mention of Augustinian, where it is a direct quote.
  • I've changed "Augustinian-style" to "Augustinian".
  • I've made the change you suggest.
  • Swapped the two round to remove ambiguity.
  • Fixed.
  • Removed "consequently" and changed the order of the sentence.
  • Done.
  • Changed to "achieve".
  • Rephrased for brevity.
  • Reworded to attribute the opinion to the source.
  • Your changes look ok, thank you.
  • I've removed the redundancies I could find.
Thanks for your comments. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes are great, thanks. This was a very interesting and educational read to me, but I know very little about the subject matter. As such I'm afraid I cannot go beyond reviewing the prose -- which, in my opinion, now meets the FA criterion, so I'll switch to support on that. Nice work and good luck! Auree ★★ 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Alright, I've been meaning to review this for a while, have finally started reading it. I took a couple classes on Augustine back in my college days so I have a passing familiarity with him, but otherwise I'll be focusing mostly on prose. The article is pretty well written.
  • I suggest breaking up the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead into two sentences.
  • You might want to note that Hick and Plantinga are contemporary philosophers.
  • Is the John Hick mentioned here the John Hick we have an article on? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a preference, but I'd avoid {{Quote}} in favor of a regular quote in the prose (the City of God quote).
  • Any notable differences between Augustine's theodicy in Confessions and City of God (seeing they were written a decade or so apart)?
  • General prose comment: if you can make it flow, it's usually better to use the "X's Y" construction instead of "the Y of X".
  • "Aquinas supported Augustine's view that evil is a privation of goodness, maintaining that evil is a real privation, intrinsically found in good." What is meant by "real privation" here?
  • "and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good requires the occurrence of the evil." Could this be clarified a bit?
  • Try to standardize how you write centuries: "Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century scholastic philosopher", "John Calvin, a 16th-century French theologian", "vividly depicted in this 12th-century painting", and "and by eighteenth century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria". Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the last sentence of the John Calvin section is really needed.
  • "Fortunatus proposed that Augustine was reducing the scope of evil only to what is committed by humans, though he finally conceded the debate, as he admitted that he could not defend his views on the origin of evil." This is based on Augustine's recollection though, right? Might want to note that.
  • Might want to note time periods in the reception section.
  • I see you go right from Fortunatus to Zaccaria, I take it there were no notable responses in the intervening time?
  • "Schleiermacher and Hick argued that the world's perfection lies in its capacity for human development." Is there a better word to use than "capacity" here?
  • Overall the article seems to be very well researched, I'm curious if you think Reinhold Niebuhr's take on Augustine's theodicy might be a good addition though [4]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review Mark; I have made all of the changes you recommended. I have searched quite extensively for responses to Augustine in that time period but can find none. This may be because, as his theodicy was generally accepted and formed Cathloic doctrine up until Hick's objection in 1966, there has simply not been a great deal of criticism. If there is anything I have missed that you can point me to, I will add it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that explanation for the gap makes sense. Alright, I'm satisfied with your changes and am now content to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Just to let people know, I am away from between from the 17th to the 22nd March and will be unable to respond to any feedback regarding this nomintion until then. Once I am back, I will of course address any issues people have raised in my absence. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Do you have a source for the Landsberg caption?
  • File:Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Hortus_Deliciarum_-_Hell.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The latter have been tagged. What needs to be sourced in the Landsberg image - that it was painted by him? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Opposefor now. To me, there appear to be a number of logical contradictions in the article. Maybe that's because the sources don't agree with each other. I don't know, but I feel like that needs to be resolved.
  • "Thomas Aquinas, influenced by Augustine, proposed a similar theodicy based on the view that God is perfectly good and can contain no evil" Isn't a theodicy always based on the assumption that God is perfectly good. Then most of that sentence is redundant.
  • "Some criticisms have also been derived from science, as the Augustinian theodicy runs contrary to scientific consensus on the development of the world." The end of that sentence is rather vague.
  • I'm not sure why Sharma, Murphy, and Ellis belong in the "Scientifically derived critique" section. Is Sharma's critique derived science just because he assumes natural disasters to in fact be a result of nature rather than God's punishment? And I certainly don't get how Murphy's and Ellis's critique is derived from science.
  • "Hick distinguished between the Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits.[1] The Augustinian theodicy is distinguished from other forms of theodicy (specifically Irenaean) by its attempt to maintain the goodness of God despite the occurrence of evil in the world.[2]" Those two sentences appear illogical to me. The first appears to say that the Irenean theodicy claims that God is omnibenevolent but that He has to allow for the existence of evil for some purpose. The second appears to say that God isn't actually omnibenevolent. I thought the whole point of a theodicy was to reconcile God's goodness with the existence of evil.
  • "Evil is believed to be just punishment for the Fall of Man" That sounds a lot like the article's description of the Irenean theodicy - evil being the necessary means to punish mankind.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Carabinieri; here is what I've done.
  • Clarified that sentence to emphasise God not being responsible.
  • Rewritten the end of the sentence.
  • Clarified how arguments are derived from science, based on the sources.
  • Rewritten the end of the second sentence to highlight God not being responsible.
  • The Irenaean theodicy teaches that God is responsible for evil but justified because of the benefits evil has to human development. I have made that clearer in the article.
I think that's all. Let me know if there's anything else that needs improving, or if I've not quite dealt with any of your issues. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I think the distinction between the Augustinian and the Irenaean theodicies is definitely a lot clearer now. Now, it looks like Murphy and Ellis are basically just saying the same thing as Hick. I'd suggest moving those two sentences next to each other, possibly even merging them.
  • I also stumbled over the fact that the Development section seems to repeat a lot of things from the Outline section. That's not very surprising. Though I wouldn't insist on it, I'd suggest the following: An outline really belongs in the lede and it appears that most of the information in the Outline section is already in the lede. So I'd do away with that section and present the arguments that form the theodicy in the context of who came up with them in the Development section. Like I said, it's just a suggestion, but I do think that it might improve the article's coherence.
  • When you say that Thomas Aquinas agreed with Augustine on certain points, does that mean that he directly mentioned Augustine? Or is it just that scholars since have made the determination that their views coincide? Maybe that should be made clearer in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
  • I've merged the sentences, as you suggested.
  • I added the outline section after someone suggested that I did (either on this article or Irenaean theodicy, I forget) in order to present the argument clearly, before going into different variations. If you really think it should be removed, I will remove it, but that is why it is there. What do you think?
  • Clarified (and referenced). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose

I'm generally very impressed by the article, and I am pleased to see a philosophical article at FAC, in between the hurricanes and the pop songs. Here are some prose niggles:

  • Check throughout for hyphenation of compound adjectives: When a century functions as an adjective, it should be hyphenated; hence, "Eighteenth-century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria" and not "Eighteenth century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria".
  • This is only a personal preference, but I prefer a few more grammatical articles than are at present used in the article. Also, to the best of my recollection, the style guide of The Guardian prescribes the use of a definite article before occupations like "Twentieth century philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr". Similarly, I would like to see an indef article before "punishment" in "Augustine believed in the existence of a physical Hell as punishment for sin"; however, I'm not a native speaker of English, so you do not have to care to much about this bullet point.
  • "Augustine also influenced John Calvin, who supported Augustine's view that evil is the result of free will and that humans have a natural tendency to sin, though held a different position on salvation." – what is the antecedent of "held"? I do understand the sentence, but, if I'm playing unkind, I could maintain that Augustine held a different position, or that humans held it. You could try something like: "Augustine also influenced John Calvin, who, despite holding a different position on salvation, supported Augustine's view that evil is the result of free will and that humans have a natural tendency to sin." OR: "Influenced by Augustine, John Calvin supported Augustine's view – although held a different position on salvation – that evil is the result of free will and that humans have a natural tendency to sin."

Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have made all the changes you suggested. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (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 Ucucha 15:52, 25 April 2012 [5].

Werner Hartenstein

[edit]
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triggered by the BBC mini series "The Sinking of the Laconia" I started investigating the life of Werner Hartenstein. I believe to have come very close to making this article featured. Please help me improve the article further. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency review of sources

--Eisfbnore talk 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you'll find the problem with the "cite book" is that no author fields have been filled in. If you put in the first/last fields that you have used in the others, or even "|author=Anon." then the year will go to the right place. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I think "was involved in the Laconia incident" is too vague. I would prefer the sentence to explain what he did in the Laconia incident. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per discussions at WT:MHC#Werner Hartenstein and WT:FAC#Copyediting question. MisterBee is one of our top contributors at Milhist and I very much enjoy his articles, and I'm a Germanophile myself, but I can't support. The preponderance of German words and difficult concepts for the general reader goes beyond anything I've seen in printed English-language encyclopedias (on any subject) and goes beyond what the best style guides recommend. If you'd like to keep the article the way it is, MisterBee, I have no problem with that ... I don't make usually make the calls at A-class, and Wikipedia is a big place, with room for many viewpoints and many kinds of articles. But not at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but I would like a bit more guidance from the reviewers. Do you suggest to replace Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine with German Navy even though the affiliation was with two different types of government? Do you want me to remove humanistische Staatsgymnasium even though highschool reflects a different school system. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better now, thanks, striking my oppose. I'm going to do some tweaking before I support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My vote is for the German. It provides a much better account, and promotes a better, more detailed understanding of the subject. "High school" would not be a proper translation, and not only would information be lost, but misunderstandings might be introduced. Ideally, humanistische Staatsgymnasium would have its own article. I would support the argument for a general article on World War II; but realistically, is a general reader likely to be seeking information on a specific U-Boat captain? I would argue that the reader will be of a more specialised kind, and pitching the article a a higher level is quite appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Before this wraps up we'd better have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If any of the above reviewers would like to perform this task, pls do so, otherwise will list request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
  • Generally, this article appears to be written in British English. However, it uses the word "ton". I always thought "tonne" was the British spelling (for the unit as opposed to "a ton of homework").
  • "Hartenstein was born in Plauen in the Vogtland of the Kingdom of Saxony on 27 February 1908" makes it sound like Saxony was independent country at the time. I would suggest adding something to the effect that it was part of the German Empire.
  • I'm not really comfortable with the translation notes. I feel like you should be certain enough that you're translating those terms correctly not to need those notes. Also, in many cases (Korvettenkapitän, Wehrmachtsbericht, e.g.) you've included both the German term and the English translation in the text. I would suggest eliminating the notes by either including both terms in the text or just using the English term.
  • This is an ongoing debate and every reviewer seems to have a different opinion on this topic. I am very certain that the translation is correct. Some reviewers advise against adding too much German into the flow of the text and others focus on semantic correctness of the translations. The format I chose here has been accepted on the Ernst Lindemann article as well as on some of German ship articles of WWI. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the outbreak of World War II, Hartenstein continued to command torpedo boats." The article doesn't really say he'd been commanding them before. Or does being first watch officer mean that one is the commander?

Spotcheck: I'm willing to try to locate sources that will let me do a spotcheck, MisterB, although it means you'll have to answer some really dumb questions while I try to read the German. Please email me any links that might be useful. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fluent command of Modern High German, so you needn't bother Mr. B with the silly questions—methinks there are only stupid answers, no stupid questions. You know where my talk page/email is. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, MisterBee is on holiday for a few weeks. I'll come back to this after he has a chance to respond to my email. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MisterBee and I have a question about what spotchecks are supposed to cover. For instance: "On 30 March 1941, command of Jaguar was given to Kapitänleutnant Friedrich-Karl Paul and Hartenstein transferred to the U-boat force, and on 4 September 1941 was given command of U-156, a Type IXC U-boat. For his service on torpedo boats, Hartenstein was awarded the German Cross in Gold on 2 February 1942.[5]" That ref covers only the information on Hartenstein, not Friedrich-Karl Paul, or what the German Cross in Gold was awarded for, or that U-156 was a Type IXC U-boat. The ref at the end of the paragraph doesn't cover those things either, but other refs in the paragraph may cover them. I don't have access to every source, so I can't check every ref. What's my job as a spotchecker here? Should I say approximately what I just said about what's covered by this ref, or should I ask the nominator which sources cover which material and report on that? - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dan, as we've discussed elsewhere, a citation (or group of citations one after the other) should generally cover everything up until that point, as far back as the previous citation or group of citations. Therefore in the example above, I'd expect FN5 to support everything in the quoted passage. If it doesn't, I'd expect us to add one or more citations to the end of that passage so all the info is verifiable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, MisterBee is away now per his talk page, for a few weeks I think, and he didn't have time before his vacation to respond to my email, so I'll go ahead and post what I've got so far. The main thing I checked was the one significant English-language source, and there were what seem to be problems with most of the refs, someone correct me if I'm wrong:
  • Jones, p. 122:
  • "Ten months after his death a service of remembrance was held in Plauen ...": text
  • "ten months after his death a service of remembrance ... was held at Plauen.": source
  • "... was attended by his parents, his sisters and other members of the family, the [mayor's name], senior officials and councilors.": text
  • "... was attended by his parents, ... his sisters and other members of the family, by the [German for mayor], senior officials and councillors.": source
  • The name of the mayor doesn't appear in the ref
  • p. 110: "The people lined the streets as the whole crew marched from the railway station to the City Hall ...": text
  • "the people lined the streets as the whole [crew] marched to City Hall ...": source
  • p. 117: "south of Freetown": the source says southwest
  • "Capetown to Freetown": source doesn't say this
  • Otherwise checks out
  • p. 31-32: checks out

Comments:

  • "Gustav Julius Werner Hartenstein (27 February 1908 – 8 March 1943) was a corvette captain (or lieutenant commander) in the German Navy of the Third Reich during World War II who commanded the U-boat U-156." The ordering here is a little wonky, and there are a lot of details being crammed into this one sentence. How about this instead: "Gustav Julius Werner Hartenstein (27 February 1908 – 8 March 1943) commanded the U-boat U-156 in the German Navy of the Third Reich during World War II." and then his rank can be plopped into the second sentence.
  • "He is credited with the sinking of 20 ships for a total of 97,504 gross register tons (GRT)" Is this a statistic that is generally considered relevant or interesting for commanders or their vessels? I would have thought that total lives lost would be a much more telling statistic.
    • No! The role of the U-Boat captain is to sink ships, not kill crews. Whether the fungible merchant marine crew goes down with the ship or escapes on a raft provided by the U-Boat matters little to the war effort (although a lot to the crew). What is important is the cargo capacity that is lost, which represents weapons and supplies. Together, those 100,000 tons (= 283,000 m3) of cargo should be multiplied by the number of voyages lost (probably one per month in the Atlantic) to obtain a figure of the magnitude of the loss. To this should be added the cargo that went actually down with the ships. Every Allied campaign of the war depended on the ability of ships to haul the cargo required. The timing of campaigns, the length of the war itself were determined by the availability of shipping. Every U-Boat and convoy commander reckoned success or failure in terms of tons sunk or saved. And if every U-Boat commander had sunk as many ships as Hartenstein, Britain would have starved, the United States and Canada would have been isolated, and Germany would have won the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and with damaging three ships and a warship." Warship should be linked, though I don't know which article would be most appropriate.
  • "After torpedoing and sinking the RMS Laconia in September 1942, Hartenstein aborted an attempt to rescue the survivors in what became the "Laconia incident" after his U-boat came under attack by a B-24 Liberator bomber of the United States Army Air Forces." I think there a few too many details being crammed into this sentence, and yet at the same time it does not quite convey the significance of this event as it relates to German naval operations. I suggest splitting it into two sentences, perhaps something like this: "After torpedoing and sinking the RMS Laconia in September 1942, Hartenstein attempted to rescue the survivors but was forced to abort when his U-boat came under attack by a B-24 Liberator bomber of the United States Army Air Forces. The event became known as the "Laconia incident", and blah blah blah some other stuff."
  • There should absolutely not under any circumstances ever be a section with a single sentence in it. Ever. Either find a way to merge the "content" in In popular culture or delete it altogether.
  • I'm a bit puzzled by the Wehrmachtbericht reference section. Can you explain what its purpose is?

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:31, 17 April 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:56, 25 April 2012 [6].

Cherish (Madonna song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i feel is one of the most complete articles regarding Madonna's singles discography. It's structured in a really complete way making it easy for the readers to understand the article and it's different sections. I consider it to be one of the most complete articles regarding Madonna's old songs. I believe, here on Wikipedia, it should be a featured article after gaining consensus from my fellow reviewers here at FAC. Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 06:53, 22 April 2012 [7].

Unfaithful (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... this is my second Rihanna article on which I have worked and heavily and with all my efforts. I know that is not perfect when it comes to prose, but I just want to try the first nomination and see comments with which I can improve and eventually satisfy them. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on incomprehensibility issues in the Info box and Lead alone. This many mistakes in one prose sections leads me to believe that it is highly probable that countless more are present in the other 10 sections.

Also, three general comments. Why is the there an unneeded and unsightly clear in the Background and release section? And nine of the Digital remixes countries in the Release history table are missing a Label box. The "A Girl like Me" book link should also be included.

Done those too. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron • You Da One 12:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1) One does not ask a sourcing question[8] about an article at WP:RSN and then ignore the input there when submitting an article for FA status. The source is not a RS and should not be used in a Wikipedia article (2) Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect.[9]Fladrif (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I mean maybe you are right for the first one. Obviously I am looking for an alternative source to replace the Artistdirect one (howevr, is still not proved that the source is FA unreliable). But, blaming Legolas here (or better said everywhere)??? Legolas made only couple of edits and just made the prose better. I wrote the whole article and sourced everywhere. You check that ! — Tomica (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Legolas barely did some copy-edits here. So, it's unfair to say Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Why like this article will never get promoted because Legolas did two edits on it. Plus I don't see how he that he false references. Check them If you want. And Btw maybe I am collecting sources to defend ARTISTdirect. Yourp oppose is childish and on purpose. — Tomica (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Yes, with two opposes and no serious movement on the review for some time, this FAC will have to be archived. If and when all outstanding comments are addressed, and a minimum of two weeks have passed following archiving, the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2012 (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 GrahamColm 09:21, 21 April 2012 [10].

School of Advanced Military Studies

[edit]
Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments leaning to oppose -- Cassianto (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In June 1983, the first class of 13 U.S. Army students began in the basement of Bell Hall at Fort Leavenworth (image right)."
Removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second year of school away from the force to attend a school that had not yet proved its value in combat was risky. But the school's chance would soon come."
  • Too many "schools". The opening could be trimmed down, as at the moment it reads a bit muddled. The last line is redundant. It's almost like a teaser for what's to come. Not needed.
Removed redundancies. I actually used the last sentence as a transition. It was meant to be a bit of a teaser, but in the sense of linking the paragraphs together. I removed it, but wonder if a different teaser might be better or if it's ok as is? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "first test of battle" for SAMS graduates..."
  • Why the inverted comma's? If its a quote then it should be referenced.
For this and a few below, I quoted multiple sequential sentences at the end with a single, summary footnote. I suppose this might be confusing to some, and could even cause a break in the link if someone added a sentence in between. So, I replicated the note for both sentences here. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With its first 'combat'"
  • again, why inverts?
SAMS planners don't typically engage in armed combat, so I initially used the quotes. They are now removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were expected to 're-engineer the decades of planning that had gone into the GDP [General Defense Plan] almost overnight'".
  • and again. If it is a quote then there is no reference.
As above, I replicated the source for the following sentence and attributed it to this sentence as well. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice to have a blue-link to Hurricane Katrina. Also, why the need for brackets?
Wikilink added; brackets removed.
  • "The United States Central Command requested planners from SAMS along with its "sister schools", the United States Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS), which..."
  • "sister schools" - says who? Refrence for this?
I need to dig the reference back up for this. MTF. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reference mid-sentence to attribute the words in quotes. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this period, SAMS also "continued to serve the Army at war as a 'reach' asset", helping deployed headquarters plan operations and contingencies."
  • More Un-referenced inverts. Unless you are using the reference at the end of the sentence. In which case the cite should be up near the quote.
The entire sentence is supported by the source—both the quoted words and the paraphrased words afterward. Short of making the entire sentence a quote (which I wanted to avoid), the note should go at the end of the sentence. If you have another suggestion here, I'd be happy to hear it. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"
  • again here
Again here the source supports both the quoted and paraphrased words. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now. These quotes/inverts really need to be fixed, as they are occurring in nearly every sentence. I will carry on when you have caught up.

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your fixes, however I have since gone through the article and have totalled a further 18 issues. I don't think FAC is the place to fix these problems and I agree that a thorough PR is needed. Im sure with a decent PR, it could turn into a good little article.

Oppose from me at this time, as I think it's current FAC is a little premature. Cassianto (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Since you totaled 18 further issues, would you mind recording them here or on the article's talk page? I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done. See the article's talkpage. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. Given the topic, it might be helpful for you to try Military History A-class review, or a peer review before coming to FAC. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Some unsourced material - for example, "SAMS' leaders view..." should include a citation to where these leaders said this
  • Manual of Style editing needed - WP:OVERLINK, don't begin section headings with "The", etc
  • Tone problems, ex. "continued to morph to meet the demands of a changing world"
  • Very heavy use of quotes, at times to the detriment of flow
  • Coverage. Given that this is about an educational institution of sorts, we would expect to see it cover things like the physical campus (which you have pictures of, but not really much text)
  • Images: File:Combined_Arms_Research_Library_in_Eisenhower_Hall,_at_US_Army_Command_%26_General_Staff_College_(Fort_Leavenworth,_KS).jpg is tagged as lacking author and date information, and you should use the Army-specific template for Army images
  • Sourcing: formatting issues (ex. publications should always be italicized), missing information (ex. Bower 2011 is missing publication/publisher), generally inconsistent formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I'll pursue a peer review. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't want to pile-on, but this article currently doesn't meet the FA criteria, and would take a reasonable amount of work to get there. I agree with Nikki's suggestion about seeking comments through the military history project, though I don't think that the military history A-class criteria are met. My specific comments are:

  • Most of the article's references are to public relations products produced by the US military, many of which are directly related to the institution. These obviously aren't neutral.
  • Related to this, the article reads like something written by the military and contains no criticisms of the institution or its products. The graduates are only associated with successes for the military.
  • As an example, the article states that "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"." - given that this planning is widely regarded as being deeply flawed, this suggests that there might be problems with what SAMS is producing. This should be discussed. Likewise, the invasion of Panama is not normally regarded as a military masterpiece.
  • The article doesn't really explain what it is that SAMS teaches and how this is delivered - when this is discussed its centred on quotes written in military jargon. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments. I think it would be reasonable to nominate the article for peer review as well, given the above comments. All of your comments make sense as well. The only one that concerns me as I continue to pursue improvements is the criticism section. I also considered that the article seemed a little one-sided in its coverage. But, I have simply not found any published criticism of the SAMS school or its students. The closest is historical concerns from the force about attending a school that hadn't yet proven itself and potentially damaging a career, which I covered in passing. If the only ingredients on hand to bake this cake are "vanilla", so to speak, how should that be addressed? Thanks again. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always wonder how newcomers are going to respond to FAC, which can be a daunting process. That's a great answer, Airborne. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Wait, you're not a newcomer to FAC, you got Sentence spacing through ... great topic btw![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 GrahamColm 14:52, 15 April 2012 [11].

Hyderabad, India

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it deserves to be a FA. The article is also a good article. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a short note, since I'm not a contributor to this, I've notified User:Omer123hussain about this, a major contributor to this article. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature nomination This is a premature nomination by someone who is not a major contributor to the article. Extensive work is needed and is being done by the major contributors as of now. I would request the delegates to archive this nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2012 (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 Ucucha 20:54, 11 April 2012 [12].

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

[edit]
Nominator(s): kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured Article Criteria. I think it is well written (although I am not in the habit of calling myself, or my writing, brilliant), and covers the topic well. I have looked for media to include, and alwyas come up short, even in my request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for some PD images. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • 'Tailing[s]' needs to be linked; I would say it is by no means a term familiar to general readers.
    • Tailings is linked in the lead.
  • 'resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).' reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps: 'causing a rise of 50 ft in the floor elevation of the lake'?
    • It is awkward, I changed it to "causing the floor elevation of the lake to rise 50 ft (15 m)." It's a little less wordy than both.
  • No citations for the third paragraph in Background; are there statements here whose validity might be disputed?
    • They were souced with the same reference as in the following paragraph, but should have had a reference at the end of the paragraph, it's done now.
  • The lede does not discuss any material from "Subsequent Developments".
    • I'm having a think about how to do this...
      • Expanded the lead (lede) section to discuss the sub dev section.

- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newspaper names should be italicized
    • Done.
  • Use a consistent date format
    • Done. I thought I had (DMY), but I hadn't, so I switched it all to MDY (US topic, use US dating).
  • Be consistent in whether you use "AP" or "Associated Press"
    • Done - opted for full spelling
  • This source gives a publication date of June 22, but you say May 23 - why?
    • Stupidity on my part? Only reason I can think of, It's fixed.
  • Single pages should use "p."; "pp." is for multiple pages
    • Yes they should be, when I used the handy template tool at the top to add it, it used the field "pages" rather than "page", it's fixed now, and I know to check that in the future :).
  • Don't need retrieval date for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
    • Removed, it had came up when I did the "check links" prior to nominating it, so I added then.
  • Isn't this the same as the version in the Seattle Times? It lists the same author and title
    • Yes they have the same author and title, and cover a lot of the same information, but they were written a day apart, and don't say the exact same thing. For example. the Seattle Times does not list the reaction of Sarah Palin. However, all the material that was sourced by the SPI can be sourced with The Guardian, however not vise versa. I am replacing have replaced all the SPI references with TG.

While the sources used seem reliable, there are only 6 of them. What steps have you taken to look for additional material? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last "big look" I did was when during the GA review in December last year, there is nothing new coming out of the decision, and I didn't find it referenced as precidence in any other cases (the question I was asked at GA). I have also looked on the EPA and the USACE websites for pictures to include, but haven't found anything. I have found the EPA Record of Decision and the USACE Notice of Application for Permit.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to any of those.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness concerns: Comparing with FA United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Missing:

  • Details of Opinion
  • Details of Concurrence
  • Advocates
  • Arguments and counter-arguments etc.

I found the same and other info by a google search: OyezLII[13][14][15]--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will look at adding (noted below as well).

Comments from Noleander

  • Follow up? - "In March 2009 the Clean Water Protection Act was brought before ...." - Need to say what happened to that 2009 proposal. It was 3 yrs ago: did the law pass?
    • Last I saw (late 2011) it had been brought forward, but not passed. According to this it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  • Wording - "... is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake...." - Sounds like the court favored the _permit_, when the court was probably favoring the mining company.
    • Will look into it, probably a better way to word it.
  • More detail? - Since it was a 6-3 split decision, the reader probably wants a bit more detail on the (a) arguments of the majority; & (b) arguments of the minority. Also, include a couple of key quotes (if there are any) from the majority.
    • Will look into it, using sources above.
  • Precedent? - What later SCOTUS cases, if any, relied on this case?
    • None that I have found.
  • Map? - Since this case about a lake, it would be appropriate to include a geographic locator box in the article, showing where the Lower Slate Lake is; and where the mine is.
    • Not sure about usability, because the mine and the lake are so close together, the difference might not show up on the Alaska locator map, although it could show the location of one of the entities.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Image is unproblematic. I don't suppose it would be possible to find a more representative image? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the lake or of the judge who wrote opinion can be used. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 00:02, 11 April 2012 [16].

Ra.One

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the film Ra.One is considered important, especially from a technological point of view. Besides, the article is currently a good article, but it has a level of detailing and content that is fit for a featured article status. The article has undergone two quite successful peer reviews as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is written very well and satisfies most of the feathered article characteristics. JPMEENA (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jpmeena. However, as per rules, a completely uninvolved editor must review this article for the FAR. You have contributed to this article in a considerable way. Your opinion is appreciated, but please understand that due to your affinity to the article, your opinion may not be taken up as an official support. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just for the record, all Done suggestions shall be boldened from henceforth, because we can't use Done templates here. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Comments by User:Dwaipayanc

  • Minor nitpicking In the references, Hindustan Times has HT Media (as publisher) within parenthesis once, but not in other instances. The Hindu has "Chennai, India" as publication location once, but nothing in other instances. The Times of India has Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd as publisher only once among its multiple usages. These two sentences seem disjointed,
Please chose one style and stick to it. You can chose not to mention publisher and location in any citations, which is ok, but has to be followed for the sake of internal consistency of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read a few random paragraphs. Following are the observation. Prose is not up to the mark.

1.and Chinese-American actor Tom Wu Why "Chinese-American" needs to be mentioned? Why not just the name? ANy significance of him being Chinese-American?

I'll remove it.
There is no significance of him being Chinese-American. But there is significance in him being a non-Indian in an Indian film with all other major cast being Indian. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviewers differing over a change. Let the confusion begin :P ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a significance of him being Chinese-American. One, as Animesh pointed out, he is a Non-Indian and second, his character in the film is also that of a non-Indian. There's no reason to remove it. Secret of success 10:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But in the lead? That's too much emphasis on being non-Indian! It can be mentioned in the cast section. Even in cast (or some other section), it would be great to explain the significance of mentioning his nationality (which has been told above by Animesh and SoS). For an international reader, it might be difficult to understand why the nationality is being mentioned all of a sudden.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could accomodate it better in the Cast section.
Thats fine. Mentioning somewhere is good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I am perfectly all right from removing it from the lead, and at the same time, retaining it elsewhere. Secret of success 13:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. The villain escapes from the game and begins to track down Lucifer (Verma), the only player to have defeated him. Somehow does not read lucid. The villain escapes the game -- goes where? Who is this Lucifer suddenly? The name of the Khan's son in the film was Lucifer?

Lucifer was the gaming ID of SRK's son (i.e. Verma) in the film; the son's name is Prateek. Uh, the villain escapes into the real world. Should I elaborate?

3. Upon release, the film broke several box-office records May merit a citation even if in the lead. I jumped to the box-office section of the article, and there also the sentence is un-cited. I went on reading a few more sentences, and could not figure out what records did the film break exactly. Can you please explain which records were broken?

Single-day gross, highest three-day weekend records are currently with Ra.One. I believe they are cited in the box office section; please check the table in that section. Records are highlighted in blue, and for each row there is a reference.
I believe this is done.

4. Ra.One was the second highest-grossing Bollywood film worldwide at that time. At which time? During first phase of release.? What was that period, how many weeks?

5.To make his character more believable, Khan decided that he would perform his own stunts in the film The cited source does not mention this.

There is a sentence at the last :- "The film requires the star to perform never-before heart-in-the-mouth stunts, which he's gearing up to do." I guess that means the same thing.
What about the "to make his character more believable"? That sounds like OR. Secret of success 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


6. Khan faced considerable difficulty while filming. His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, depriving him of food and water The cites source says it made it "difficult" for him to eat and drink. Does not say "deprive".

Alright, that shall be changed to "His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, making consumption of food and water difficult."

7. On a parallel basis, Shahrukh Khan decided to ... What do you mean by "On a parallel basis?"

When Sinha made the script, at the same time, but independently Khan also decided he wanted to make a film heavy on VFX. That's what I meant by "on a parallel basis".

8. After finalizing the story, Sinha approached Khan, who agreed to produce and star in it But within a few lines, Before starting the film, Khan approached several directors to lead the project, including Aditya Chopra and Karan Johar, but they all refused. Sinha was the director, so why was Khan looking for another director?

No, Sinha had just written the script. Sinha approached Khan with the script, and the latter agreed to produce and star in the film. Khan didn't say he allowed Sinha to direct (though he did, later, due to the backing out of the other directors).

9. After finalizing the story, Sinha approached Khan, who agreed to produce and star in it. Red Chillies Entertainment continued working on other projects before finalizing Ra.One. No other films were accepted by the company after My Name Is Khan.. How is Khan and Red Chillies related? These 3 sentences and the one following these seem very disjointed, lacking flow. Looks like three different sentences picked up from different sources forcefully put together. A reader without any prior knowledge would find id difficult to put together the pieces to make sense.

Red Chillies Entertainment is Khan's production house, and the producer of Ra.One. Guess I'll elaborate that part.

10. Pre-production work began in November 2007 after the release of Khan's Om Shanti Om. What do you mean by "Khan's". Was he the director of OSO?

He was the star of Om Shant Om. By "Khan's" I was referring to a film in which he had starred in.

11. ...process helped him to create a novel character'. What do you exactly mean by "novel" character? Superhero is nothing novel.

It was actually a quote, an interview Sinha gave to a newspaper. There had been a concern that the article had too many quotes, so some of the quotes had to be converted to normal sentences. If you wish, I can add the quote back.

12.Dmitry Medvedev, the President of Russia, visited Yash Raj Studios in Mumbai to watch Khan at work Really? Sounds unreal. The president might have dropped by during his visit of India. But, the president flew from Russia just to watch Khan at work, sounds really exaggerated!!

No no no! He didn't come to India just to watch Khan work! LOL SRK isn't THAT important :P What is meant is that Medvedev dropped in and watched Khan at work. Does the sentence give that sort of impression? I'll change it.

13. The schedule included the filming of the cameos of Chopra and Dutt, and was done at Film City Which Chopra and Dutt? Reader has forgot about them by this time, as they were mentioned fleetingly in the lead.

I'll add them.

14. The indoor portions were filmed on two replicas of a train coach which were built in a record five days, a process Gill initially thought would take three weeks Why was this is a"record". Also, a citation would not be bad.

I'll remove the "record" part. The citation is given at the end of the paragraph. In some places, large blocks of text have been cited by a single source, so I found it best to keep the source at the end of the paragraph.

15.The trains were electric instead of diesel, forcing an on-the-spot change of the action sequence. No context. Difficult to understand. What's the big deal if it was electric instead of diesel?

I shall elaborate. The train stunt was initially meant to be SRK running over the train; since the train was electric, that idea had to be dropped.

16.In addition, the train and track length ended up being the same, making any movement impossible. That's funny. How can track and train length be same? Where can one find such track? IMO, this whole paragraph needs to be re-written.

It was in a set. Remember that two replica coaches? They had to run on something :P

17. Pecorini reportedly faced considerable difficulty... Who reported?

Okay, reportedly shall go.

18. A music video for the song "Raftaarein", choreographed by Feroz Khan, was filmed one week before the release due to an excellent critical response Critical response to what?

To the song. Should I add that?

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments
  • Regarding referencing, you have not consistently used any particular style among either "sentence case" or "title case". Usually sentence case is encouraged.Please see Title_case#Headings_and_publication_titles. So, in stead of "^ "Movie Review: 'Ra.One' is a Complete Entertainer"" in the reference, it has to be "Movie review: 'Ra.One' is a complete entertainer". Please update when the whole reference section is updated and made consistent accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple inconsistencies in referencing. Some newspaper names are italicized, some are not. SOme random sampling— one citation reads "Mid-Day (January 10, 2011). "Kareena's 3 diets for her look in Ra.One". NDTV". SO far as I know, mid-day is a newspaper itself, how can that be the author?
Some citations mentions the news agency in the author parameter, some does not mention the news agency at all. For example, unknown (October 11, 2011). "I approached Karan, Adi for Ra.One: Shah Rukh Khan". NDTV. NDTV Convergence Limited. p.u. Archived from the original on March 8, 2012. Retrieved October 11, 2011. This citation does not mention news agency, even though the information is available. What does p.u. mean in this citation?
This citation — Hanks, Douglas (January 2, 2010). "The Bollywood effect in South Florida: Lights, camera, ka-ching!". The Miami Herald (The McClatchy Company). Retrieved September 22, 2010 mentions "The McClatchy Company" as the publisher of Miami Herald. No other newspaper sources mentions publisher (in the ones that I went through).
The article seems not ready for FAC yet. Tending to oppose, --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issues highlighted are pretty minor, and can be fixed quickly in a day. Give the article a little time. FAs do take time to get flagged off, I believe. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and comments from SoS

  • Some of the issues raised in the peer review have not been fixed yet.
    • The film's budget of production has been cherry picked from first-party data.
    • References could be archived wherever possible.
  • The images in the cast section are not needed. A discussion is taking place about this in WT:INCINE. Note that the consensus will apply to all articles within its scope.
  • Poster requires an ALT text, if possible.
  • The images in the filming section, depicting locations are also unnecessary. They do not show the actual filming, or the appearance of the structures in the film (which may not necessarily be the same as they are in real life).
  • The image in the suit section is improperly licensed. And plus, it is supposed to be "costumes", not "suits".
  • There is no mention of Kareena's costume in Chammak Challo, which I believe, was an attraction to the media, in the same section.
  • Questionably reliable sources as of this version : 7, 9, 11, 17, 27, 29, 38, 49, 86, 108, 122, 204, 206

Secret of success 08:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Animeshkulkarni

Lead

* Opening sentence has too many names. Readers new to Bollywood and unfamiliar with all actors might have to re-read.

What can be done in this case?
Umm... how about moving the supporting and cameo actors after the two lines of the story? That way while reading the two lines of plot you know who Khan, Kapoor, Verma are. Also "villian (Rampal)" should be added. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done :)

* "...begins to track down Lucifer (Verma), the only player to have defeated him. Ra.One was co-produced by.... " Thats a sudden jump from plot to producers. Something sounds wrong here. Maybe something like "The fight between the villian and the hero results in the defeat of evil." can be added. The production sentence can join next para.

I have done a small re-arrangement and I think it looks better now.

* What is "viral marketing"? Is that a formal marketing term? Is there a wikilink available for it?

Yes, its a formal and actually very well-known form of marketing. There is a wikilink, but I though it had been wikilinked. Strange. I'll add it anyways.
Plot
  • Why use devnagri script for the dialogue?
The dialogue used is a recurrent part of the film. Its actually a very important part of the film, so I believed it was necessary to preserve it. The English translation had been added for non-Hindi users as well.
Will let other editors comment. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* "....and sends the real Sonia in an uncontrollable Mumbai Suburban Railway train." Uncontrollable train means? Had Ra.One failed some breaks or somethng? Or is that just an adjective used in general. Because in real too there are few things one can control in those trains. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you pointed out above is something that is seen in the film very frequently. Its called a "plot hole" :P Do I even need to go into details? The flaws of Ra.One as a piece of story forms a list too big to fit into this page :P Even I wondered how the train was "uncontrollable", seeing as it is that Kareena broke the brakes after SRK came onto the train. Blame the script-writer for such a glaring contradiction :P.
Cast
  • Isnt one line about their roles sufficient there. Why do we have to write all their agonies there?
Cast section should elaborate on all aspects of the Cast (I think Comprehensiveness is a major part of an FA). So I added preparation bits as well.
Will think & let other editors comment till then. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* "Khan was the first actor to be approached by Sinha, despite the fact that Sinha had never worked with him." Why "despite the fact"?

Well, Sinha didn't know Khan. Its weird that Sinha approached an actor whom he had never met, and never knew personally. That's why I had added the "despite" term.
Okay! But "had never worked with him" gives the impression that he hasnt professionally worked with him. It does not say they had never met. You should then edit that part. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do.
  • "Wu was contracted to the film in July 2010." Are readers supposed to be surprised here? Yes! Why? Because the filming started in March 2009 itself. The surprise isnt surprise here. It just feels like an odd sentence.
Even Kareena was contracted in 2010. I don't see what's surprising. Unlike Hollywood, in Bollywood a cast need not be pre-determined and set permanently.
Then why is only Wu's signing date mentioned? It feels odd to read that when none of the other actor's dates are mentioned. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There had been a sentence with a ref talking about Kareena's official signing-on date. Argghhhh! Somebody must have removed it. For Tom Wu, I added the signing-on date because the rest of the point is about Jackie Chan, not about him. Besides, Wu had a important part in the film (even if not very substantial in screen time).

Will reply on other sections soon. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production

* In case the year of release of other films is not mentioned in the sentence it should be suffixed in brackets like Main Hoon Na (2004), Toonpur Ka Super Hero (2010).

Will do.
  • Nicola Pecorini and V. Manikandan should be introduced by saying something about their work, as Andy Gill's experience with Toonpur is mentioned. Similar with Nino Pansini, Terry Bamber, Martin Walsh, Resul Pookutty, Edwark Quirk, Hingorani, Keitan Yadav.
I guess that rather than do all that stuff, we can better remove the Toonpur part for Gill :P. I'll see if I can dig up info, but if I can't I think we'll have to get rid of the Toonpur bit.
If its not available for all, then dont bother. But dont remove Toonpur. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Techinical terms like VFX, story-boarding, prop masters, call sheets, digital inter-mediation (DI), Maya, Houdini, Macs, Nuke, Shake etc. should have wikilinks if available.

Somebody had commented that wikilinks inside quotes are not allowed. The wikilinks had been present initially but were later removed. I would like a bit more consensus on this bit.
I guess that by WP:JARGON it would be in the best interests to add the wikilinks.

* "Filming for Ra.One was due to begin in Miami but this was scrapped because of budget concerns." What was scrapped? The beginning of filming at Miami or the filming at Miami itself?

Clarified.
  • "Rajnikanth, accompanied by daughter Soundarya..." But she is not seen on-screen, right? Was she there because his health problems?
Yes, Rajnikant was ill and so Soundarya accompanied him. Should I write that again? Because its given at the end of the sentence - "Rajnikanth, accompanied by daughter Soundarya, filmed his scene with Khan and Kapoor on October 2, 2011 at Subhash Ghai's Whistling Woods Studios in Mumbai despite health problems."

* "A music video for the song "Raftaarein", choreographed by Feroz Khan,...." This Feroz Khan died in April 2009!

Uh oh! Guess the wikilink must be removed :P.

* "The addition of sound effects was done in Los Angeles." Where in LA? Do we have the name of the studio? Also for other Indian studio's mentioned i am assuming names are not known.

The studios are, unfortunately, unknown. Which Indian studios are you referring to?
Thats fine. I was refering to all the studios where sound mixing and other such work happened. But i can imagine that this info would not be available. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* "The film was monitored in Croma by the team during that period." Monitored in this computer language? Or monitored by? And how does one monitor using a computer language? Is this wrong wikilink?

Oops, wrong wikilink.
  • Post-production section says "The film was pieced together by more than 1,000 people, working in shifts, in around 15 studios across the world." And Visual Effects section says "1,200 artists from 16 studios, working in three shifts, incorporated the film's visual effects." Are they all different or is something wrong?
The film was pieced together by 1,000 artists. But the visual effects were done by 1,200 artists. So yes, they are different.

* Again "A team of 750 technicians working at ten facilities around the world carried out the addition of special effects into the film." Are they part of those 1200?

I should mention that those technicians were solely of Kleiser.
  • If Chammak Challo's file is being added here, something more of the song should be written here also. Atleast the singer.
As per previous discussions, it was decided to keep the Soundtrack section brief. Adding information about any one particular song, no matter how famous, makes the section imbalanced IMO. The ogg file is given only as a sample.
Yeah! I get that when a separate article is dedicated for it, there is no need to repeat stuff. But with sample audio file just next to it its better to mention that Akon sung this. We are anyways mentioning he sang something. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll add it.
  • Not applicable for just this film. But i have noticed this at many places. "The post-production of Ra.One involved over 5,000 personnel from India, Italy, UK and the US." Why the US? Is it because its some group of states? Then why not "the UK"? Note: This point should not stop FA.
Its actually "The United States of America". Technically yes it should be "the United Kingdom". IMO, i prefer adding "the". I'll wait for more consensus on this.
  • In my opinion nationality of all these non-Indian people involved should be mentioned. Probably User:Dwaipayanc has to say something here.
Nationality for all the people may be a little hard to find. I'll try, and yes, i shall wait for more consensus.
Not necessarily of all. But try to get as many as possible. We also dont want their official nationality as such. But something more about the person who is doing cinematography is good to read. Not much. Single sentence. Like "Italian designer XYZ who is known for designing sets of Blah Blah....". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do my best.
I can change it. I think the bridge of the car chase scene will do just fine.
Umm... No! Same reasons that we are discussing at WT:INCINE goes for this bridge image too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to wait for the consensus to finish then.
Marketing

* "The television broadcasting rights for Ra.One were bought..." By whom?

STAR (India).

* "The distribution rights for the Tamil Nadu and Kerala versions..." What is that? Does it mean Tamil and Malayalam version?

Weird, I don't know who wrote "version" there. I'll change it.

* "...on a tour of five cities, which included Delhi, Chandigarh, Indore and Ahmedabad." Which was 5th? Mumbai?

No idea. Frankly, the entire marketing section was handled by other editors (I added some statistics only later). Logically yes, it should be Mumbai. Besides, I just said "including" so we needn't actually write all five :P.

* "During this event, a 3600 ft long fan mail collecting audience wishes and messages for the film was also launched." WHAT? Which event? Touring in 5 cities? Launched in all 5 cities? Launch will happen only once, right? How is fan mail's length measured? Like spread on ground and then measure it? Fan-mail is letters written by fan, right? Why was fan mail launched?

A fan mail, in this case, is a single piece of paper/cloth or whatever which is used as a place where fans write their wishes and love for a star/film. Meaning that as the promotions went along in different cities, SRK would give the paper to the fans and they would add stuff to it. That paper was 3,600 feet long. Yes, the fan mail was launched only once (launched in the sense started). That same paper was used in all other cities as well. Fan mail was launched for promotions, duh! Such a long fan mail means some new record, meaning lots of headlines and lots of publicity :P
Okay! Got it! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* "The comics were written by Khan and featured weekly episodes.... " Featured where? Some website? Print?

Huh? Of course in the comics. The comics featured weekly episodes; the Khan part is added in-between.
No! My question is whether this comic was printed and published weekly like some Chacha Chowdhary comics or in some newspaper or magazine or just online on some website. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were published separately as books. Like Tinkle. I'll add that.

More to come.... §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release
  • "A reported partnership deal is being finalised by the distributors, which will allow the film to be released in China with 1,000 prints." Odd to read a future tense sentence after so many days of release.
China comes under the second phase of release, and as of now the second phase is a future tense. There won't be much money coming from it, so only minimal updates will be required.

* "REVEALED: THE MAKING OF RA.ONE" Is this required in capitals?

De-capitalized.

* "Days before its release, scriptwriter Yash Patnaik claimed that...." should be replaced with "Days before its release, a scriptwriter, Yash Patnaik claimed that...." Current gives impression he is scriptwriter for Ra.One itself. Doesnt it?

Done.

* "Sinha claimed that he had developed the film's story." He means Sinha, right?

Added the word "himself".
Critical reception
  • None
Box office
  • None
Commercial analysis
  • "Image guru Dilip Cherian said..." Whats image guru? Photographer?
"Image" here refers to the image of a person, i.e. his reputation among people.
Accolades
  • None
Sequel
  • None
See Also

I guess i am done. But might return with something more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was invited here. I don't want to Support/Oppose, but few observations

  • Consistency: Why is note1 necessary? US$ is used in most of the article.

* "Tom Wu as Akashi and Ra.One" then why not "Kareena Kapoor as Sonia Subramaniam and Ra.One"? Ra.One assumes the forms of both?

Added, and re-arranged slightly.
  • Most entries in "Cast" talk about casting/the actor, not the character and then Shahana Goswami, where actor as well as character is discussed.
I have started talking a bit about the characters for the Cast. Just one line. I'll bolden when I'm done.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose

There are multiple issues with citations. From the perspective of reference style, this article does not live up to FA standard.

  1. Some citations use the news agency (such as Indo-Asian News Service) as the author. Although I am not totally sure, this seems wrong. There is a separate |agency parameter in cite news template.
  2. Incosistencies are there. Both Box office India and BoxOfficeIndia.com have been used as publisher.
  3. News paper names (Mid-Day, Economic Times) have not been italicised.
  4. The titles (of references) inconsistently use case. Preferably sentence case should be used consistently.
  5. TV channel (NDTV) has been italicised. This should not be, as far as I know. Can check with WP:MoS to be sure.
  6. Some dates have been italicised!! ( "Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan brings 'Ra.One' to Toronto". October 27, 2011. Yahoo!. Retrieved October 27, 2011.)

Major and tedious work is needed to bring consistency in the citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have no problem even if Ra.One fails a first FAC. The problem, as far as I can see, is that many problems in the article were not properly taken up in the prior peer reviews. This FAC has, as a result, turned into a very extensive peer review. Only now do I realize that there are still many problems with the article, so I would like to thank the reviewers who have pointed out flaws. I would like for the reviewers to continue pointing out any, I repeat any more flaws they find in the article, and place them here. In case I can't get the article to FA by the first FAC, I shall subsequently place the entire FAC discussion into the article's talk page and continue working from there.

A small query: Nearly-Headless Nick (not the ghost, the editor :P) gave a really useful way of reference archiving. I would like to know whether I should archive all references. if not, can someone enlighten me as to which ones require archiving? I do know that certain sources, such as Box Office India, require archiving as their web pages ten to disappear after a while.

Any further inputs for the article are most welcome in my/the article's talk page. Wish me luck :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- Hi Ankitbhatt, while I haven't seen an explicit request by a reviewer to withdraw this nom, the number of opposes and lack of supports after just a week indicate reasonable consensus that the article needs further work for FAC; you've identified for yourself that it's looking like a Peer Review, which FAC is not designed to be. I think the best thing therefore is to archive the nom and let you deal with the issues identified, then renominate after a minimum of two weeks per the FAC guidelines. To address your three points immediately above:

  • When a FAC is archived, a link to the review is automatically included by a bot (which can take a day or two to run) under Article History in the talk page, so you'll always have access to this info there.
  • The citation guidelines don't suggest all online links need pre-emptive archiving, but volatile ones like news reports and (as you've noted) box office info are good candidates.
  • It looks like you need no encouragement to have another go at FAC once you've addressed the above issues, so good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:50, 11 April 2012 (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 GrahamColm 10:24, 8 April 2012 [17].

IPad (3rd generation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article gives a great overview of the tablet, and is ready for Featured article status. Zach Vega (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The lead is written almost entirely in jargon. OK for buffs, not OK for a general encyclopedia's readership. Can you rephrase in a rather more reader-friendly manner? Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to some of the lesser-known terms. Further explanations are in the article's non-lead text. Zach Vega (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you may, please specify the specific information you want us to clarified or 'de-jargonise'. To us "tech buffs", most if not all the content in the article can be understood with ease so it's quite difficult for us to identity the content that needs clarification. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only really looked at the lead, but I suspect that the article has been written with the wrong readership in mind. Many non-technical people are interested in iPads and what they can do, and they will be rather put off by the first two paragraphs of the lead. We expect the article to contain technical information, but the lead should be rather more welcoming and general, and should not read like the specifications section of a manual. What is a Retina display? Is the "theoretical bandwidth" issue really worthy of inclusion in the lead? Should I have to use links repeatedly to find out what the technical terms mean? What does "It shipped with..." mean (sounds like commercial jargon)? Likewise the second paragraph is written in techspeak: "There are eighteen different variations of the new iPad, including combinations of black or white glass panels, storage capacities of 16, 32, or 64 GB, and connectivity options of Wi-Fi only, Wi-Fi + 4G LTE on Verizon, or Wi-Fi + 4G LTE on AT&T, Telus, Rogers, or Bell." You use both "3rd generation" and "third generation" in the text – be consistent, stick to one. Ruhrfisch, below, has raised other points about the inadequacy of the lead and other parts of the article, so I think there's a fair amount of work that needs doing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ruhrfisch. I closed the peer review for the bot (as article cannot be on PR and FAC at the same time), then read the lead and history section and looked at the rest of the article. This does not meet the Featured Article criteria. The criteria include 1b, which requires that the article be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" but the History section starts with the announcement of the press conference to announce the release of the new iPad and does not even include the release date. There is a timeline later, but no real discussion of the context and history (no real discussion of the earlier iPads or when the decision was made to develop this new version, etc.) Since the iPad 3 was released less than a month ago, I also have general comprehensiveness concerns. For example, Consumer Reports is quoted once on the overheating issue, but their followup report is not mentioned here and their decision to give it their highest recommendation is not mentioned at all see here. According to criterion 2a the article "...follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". This lead does not mention either the little history that is in the article or the timeline or the critical reception. There are other issues, but I do not see this as ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jim. I only read the lead, full of jargon, much of which wasn't linked to existing articles or explained in any way. Also, I can't see that the lead section summarises the article as a whole, it's all specs.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 7 April 2012 (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 GrahamColm 16:44, 6 April 2012 [18].

Avatar (2009 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready to be a Featured Article, instead of a good one. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 04:02, 5 April 2012 [19].

Sri Lanka

[edit]
Nominator(s): Distributor108 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel we have adequately addressed the issues in the previous peer review. Distributor108 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry to post a negative comment so soon after the review was started, but there are unreferenced sentences throughout the article. I note also that page numbers haven't been provided for any of the PDF documents used as references. I haven't looked at the article in detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could be specific about the unreferenced sentences and and the PDF documents, It'll help us fix those up. Distributor108 (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many sentences to be specific about - it's pretty obvious from just skimming through the article (though as some examples "As a British crown colony, the island was known as Ceylon, and achieved independence under the name Dominion of Ceylon in 1948.", and "as do aquatic sports, athletics, football (soccer) and tennis. Sri Lanka's schools and colleges regularly organise sports and athletics teams, competing on provincial and national levels." from the first and second-last sections of the article - there are lots more). All the PDF documents appear to be missing page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a more detailed review, here are my comments:

  • The article's grammar is a bit rough in places, and it would benefit from a through copy edit for compliance with WP:MOS.
  • Some data appears to be out of date (eg, figures are often provided for 2010 rather than 2011 or 2012)
  • Quoting impressive-sounding percentage changes without noting the underlying figures is unsatisfactory. For instance noting that the country has a very fast growing stock stock exchange isn't as impressive as it sounds given that the period of growth was marked by the end of a major war. Is the current market value of the companies listed on the stock exchange very high in comparison to similar countries? The same applies to many of the economic growth and other statistics in the article (eg "Sri Lanka's cellular subscriber base has shown a staggering 550% growth").
  • Lots of common terms are linked when they don't need to be (for instance "Sri Lanka has a birth rate of 17.6 births per 1,000 people and a death rate of 6.2 deaths per 1,000 people." and "Nearly 50% of them were repatriated following independence in 1948")
  • "Sri Lanka has also been a center of the Buddhist religion and culture from ancient times, being the nation where the Buddhist teachings were first written down as well as the oldest continually Buddhist country" - the word 'Buddhist' doesn't need to be used three times in one sentence
  • What's SAARC?
  • "As of 2010, Sri Lanka was one of the fastest growing economies of the world." - is this still true for 2011?
  • The history section is probably a bit over-long
  • "The average yearly temperature ranges from 28 °C (82.4 °F) to nearly 31 °C (87.8 °F). Day and night temperatures may vary by 14 °C (57.2 °F) to 18 °C (64.4 °F)." - where are the locations for these temperature ranges? (I assume that the high temperatures are somewhere in the lowlands and the low ones in the mountains)
  • The 'Politics' section seems to taken an unduly positive view of the country's credentials as a democracy: Freedom House rates Sri Lanka as 'partly free' and states that "Sri Lanka is not an electoral democracy" and notes problems with the 2010 election which aren't mentioned in the article.
  • What point in time do the population figures in the (unreferenced) 'Administrative Divisions of Sri Lanka' refer to?
  • The second paragraph in the 'Foreign relations and military' section is over-long and rather heavy going; it would be better to just summarise the key aspects of the country's foreign relationships
  • Why is 'The Military Balance 2010' being used to reference some details on the country's military? The 2011 edition is available.
  • "Sri Lanka claimed itself the first country in the modern world to eradicate terrorism on its own soil." - seems dubious (and rather early to be claiming this)
  • What makes the ministry of defence a reliable source for the statement that "Marking a rare occurrence in modern military history, Sri Lankan military was able to bring a decisive end to the Sri Lankan Civil War in May 2009."?
  • http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Sri_lanka_Navy.jpg - lacks any metadata or a source, and can't be assumed to be in the public domain
  • "it is estimated that GDP will grow by 9.5% in 2011" - did it?
  • "In 2010, The New York Times placed Sri Lanka at number 1 position in 31 places to visit" - what's the relevance of this?
  • What's a "A and B class road network"?
  • "The rich cultural traditions is the basis of the country's long life expectancy, advanced health standards and high literacy rate" - this reads like puffery, and is basically meaningless (how do "rich cultural traditions" lead to to "advanced health standards", for instance, and why do these traditions only explain the good things about the country?)
  • Why are the country's human rights problems discussed only in the 'media' section?
  • I'm not going to perform a detailed reference check, but from a quick scan some of the sources don't appear to be reliable. For instance, reference 10 and www.lankalibrary.com (which is referenced seven times) doesn't appear to be reliable sources
  • I note also that some of the references are to works in Google books, but don't include page numbers.
  • Why are 50-60 year old histories of Sri Lanka and India listed in the 'further reading' section? These are surely greatly out of date by now. The works in this section should be placed in alphabetic order by the name of their author. Also, some of the works in this section have been used as references.
  • The number of external links seems excessive (why do we need links to all those board-of commerce/exporters type organisations, and some primary sources about historic visits to the country for instance?) Some of the links in this section also appear to have been used as references. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this version. The referencing is completely at sea, and needs a good looking at. Take the references to the BBC as an example. Ref 26 includes the author, uses yyyy-mm-dd date formatting, and calls the BBC the publisher. Ref 127 doesn't include the author, uses dd Month yyyy date formatting and calls the the BBC the work. Ref 299 throws in (London) for good measure and wikilinks one of the two words of BBC Sport. Refs 12 and 13 have the BBC as publisher for reasons which are not clear to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they have been helpful, We will address each of these points and resubmit for FaC Distributor108 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2012&oldid=489609849"