Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2008

[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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:17, 29 December 2008 [1].

Brett Favre

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Pookeo9

I think that this article is in good shape to be a FA and I think its long enough, with enough information about the article. Plus if this becomes a FA I will be happy but if it isnt then I will try again another time.--Pookeo9 (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "starting every game from then until his retirement" - remove "from then"?
  • En dash should be hyphen in "three-time". Again in "eight-grader".
  • "He is of French and Choctaw ancestry; one of his paternal grandparents was a Native American affiliated with the Choctaw." The second clause repeats part of the first.
  • "Early life" - merge the paras.

Needs work. Tony (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Have you asked the primary contributors if they think this is ready to come here, per the FAC instructions? Looking at the article, it does have more potential than most so-called "drive-by noms", but Tony is right, as usual. There are some issues with reference formatting and quality, among other things. It does have a good chance to be an FA in the future with some work, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead could do with more about his career and less of his stats. BUC
  • Refs #70 and #71 needs entering properly.

Also I can't see a FAC template on the talk page. (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Three cite tags in the article is an automatic disqualifier for me. As for the reference issues I mentioned above, here's a list of them, though I don't claim to have caught everything.

  • What make the following reliable sources?
  • Reference 22 appears to have a formatting error, because there is no link for an apparent NFL.com citation.
  • Reference 30 is a 2002 New York Times story. While not essential, an online link would be nice, especially with no page number.
  • References 70 and 71 are bare URLs with no publication information, as Bucs already said.
  • Reference 87 (Favre's statistics at www.packers.com) should have the publisher outside the link.
  • References 55 and 100 lack publishers.
  • References 54, 55, 80, and 86 lack access dates.
  • Inconsistent date formatting in the citations. Some are full (4 March 2008 in reference 2—European date formatting for an American subject?), while most are like reference 1 (2007-11-23).
  • En dashes are used for page ranges, like in reference 9 (2008 Southern Miss Football Media Guide).

Hopefully the nominator will be willing to address these problems and the others. If not, the nomination should be withdrawn. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:28, 26 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:17, 29 December 2008 [2].

Festivus

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Feats-O-Strength
previous FAC

I am nominating Festivus for featured article, specifically for December 23rd of this year. That's this coming Tuesday. Now, I know it was nominated in the past, and it was refused, but from what it says on the previous nomination thing, I've gathered that the article wasn't nearly as good back then as it was now. It's really lengthy now, in-depth, and what, 28 references? Great intro paragraph, references out the wazoo, in-depth, detailed, and lengthy sections, definitely good stuff. I'd say it would be practically a crime to not give this article a second chance at featured article candidacy, as it seems to have vastly improved since its first nomination. Also fitting, considering the time of year, you know? Huh (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it links to the wrong Dan O'Keefe in the first line.--Grahame (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, but this has a few major issues:

  • It includes a trivia section.
  • The infobox has a ridiculously long caption for the picture. Image captions should be succinct.
  • The majority of the article is composed of quotes from Seinfeld.
  • Cites 25, 27 and 28 are missing accessdates and publisher information.
  • The lead, while reasonably good on its own, features information not included in the main body of the text.

These few points I spotted with only a cursory glance through the text, and I did not evaluate the sources or grammar. This article is a long way off featured quality. Apterygial 09:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/ a reliable source? Also, wouldn't these be copyright violations which we do not link to?
  • A number of your website references lack last access dates. Several also lack publishers.
  • A number of your book references lack page numbers.
  • Large sections of the article are unreferenced.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to the oppose guy above:

  • That constitutes a trivia section? It's more like instances in which Festivus is acknoweleged and/or celebrated in real life. Doesn't really fit anywhere else on the page, yet seems notable enough to stay....
  • Fixed the caption. Didn't need the bit on George fleeing the coffee shop.
  • Are quotes non-encylopedic?
  • So should those cites be deleted?
  • If you could point out what's in the lead that isn't anywhere else, I'll fix it. I checked just now, didn't see anything... Huh (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response from "the oppose guy":
    • What you need to do with that section I labelled as trivia is remove the bullet points and integrate that prose into a paragraph structure in an ordered and cogent format.
    • The quotes are non encyclopedic because there is little indication about how what is essentially just a re-telling of what happened in the Seinfeld episode is notable in RL. You need to be able to establish its notability outside of Seinfeld. This is not done through the use of verbatim quotes from the episode.
    • At the moment, the lead looks promising, there is a good indication about how Festivus is celebrated in the real world, and yet the article gives a lot more weight to its existence in Seinfeld and only a small paragraph to its real origins. You need to weight the lead around the prevalence each theme is given in the main body.
I don't believe these issues can be addressed within the time frame of an FAC. Nevertheless, if you feel you can do so, feel free. My suggestion is that you withdraw the nomination, go for a peer review and work towards passing a good article nomination. In short, get more opinions, improve the article, and decide where to go from there. Still opposing, Apterygial 02:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I hope my suggestions prove useful for a possible GAN - good article nomination
    • The trivia section (Festivus in popular culture and the real world) should be transformed into paras, instead of the list.
    • If I understand it correct, the festival started from fiction, but now is fact. So there must be free images available. The fair use of File:Festivus-Pole-from-Seinfeld.png is questioned.
    • I see a number of dialogues, which i assume are from Seinfeld, I think they can be transformed into "readable text" (prose).
    • "Festivus Miracles" needs references to support the POV "miracle". --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the subject, so I'll give a review (without looking at any of the above). Overall I oppose, primarily on it seeming to be too in-universe. The article is about the holiday, not the Seinfeld episode.
    • Could the "significance" in the Infobox be cut down a bit?
    • In the lede, I have a few issues. includes novel practices - seems POV. Also, after the Festivus meal - the also seems a bit awkward, since you only mentioned one thing before. Maybe mention some other things, like the Festivus pole (which you mention in the Infobox), or perhaps focus a bit more on the history, and not necessarily on the episode?
    • Likewise with the above, the article should focus more on the history. The first paragraph should not be on the episode IMO. Perhaps put the "Etymology and origin" first? Otherwise, it feels like it's too much about the episode, and after all there's already an article on the episode.
    • Festivus is introduced in "The Strike" - that is a poor way to introduce the first sentence of any section. You should mention the series and date there. The lede mentions both, and as the lede should be a summary of the article, all info there should be in the body of the article.
    • There are too many quotes. Try integrating some of them as prose.
    • The trivia section could be better done.
    • Taking a look back, I can't help but wonder whether there should even be an article on it. Since the majority of it is related to the Seinfeld episode, have you considered a merge? Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:17, 29 December 2008 [3].

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it offers the reader a comprehensive guide to the history and current status of an important mill town in the North West of England. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Take a good look at your references. I have found several unsourced facts.

:#"The mill burned down in 1851." - Source needed.

I have removed this line. I cannot remember where I read it, but I believe that the land the mill stood on was re-used as another mill. When I find that information I will add it back in. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"There were many smaller textile concerns in the parish. Thomas Howarth owned a cottage in Stand Lane, from where he sent yarn to be dyed and sized, made his own warps, had them weaved locally, and took to Preston and Kendal for sale to drapers. His nephews founded A. & J. Hoyle's mill in Irwell Street, which employed power weaving to produce their specialities in Ginghams and Shirting. The mill closed in 1968.[28] Powered looms and spinning were introduced to the town around 1844, by Messrs Stott & Pickstone's Top Shop on Stand Lane, who employed many people who later left to start their own businesses, such as Spider Mill, built by Robert and William Fletcher, and John Pickstone. This mill closed around 1930." - Source at the end of the paragraph, at least.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"It has since been demolished, along with the East Lancashire mill." - Same here as the first.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"From the 11th century, Radcliffe was a parish and township in the hundred of Salford, and county of Lancashire." - This too.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"Several weirs and Goits were built along the course of the river as it passes through the town. Flowing from east to west the river divides the town on the north and south sides of the valley respectively. The town centre sits on the north side of the valley. Two road bridges cross the river; the 1905 structure in the former hamlet of Radcliffe Bridge, and the newer bridge built as part of the A665 Pilkington Bypass. Various smaller pedestrian footbridges exist, and two railway viaducts (one disused) also cross the river. To the east of the town the River Roch, flowing from the east, joins the Irwell close to another bridging point, Blackford bridge." - No reference at all for that one. Please add one.

I'm unsure how to do this. It's all perfectly visible from Google Earth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"...with Manchester City Centre itself 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe." - Here too.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"...reflecting the number of mines in and around Radcliffe that had by that time been completely worked out." - And again.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The town's central shopping precinct retains a Boots, an Ethel Austin outlet, and several other shops. A Dunelm Mill store occupies the former site of the town's Asda supermarket." - Needs it.
I'll can probably find references in the form of 'store location' pages for each of those shops. I don't know if I'll be able to find a reference for the Dunelm store replacing the Asda, unless I can find some archived addresses that prove this. Perhaps its better just to make the line more generic - ie "the town has a shopping precinct..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The fountain no longer exists at this location." - Here too.
Uncertain how to do this, other than to take a photograph or to look on Google Earth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Radcliffe's closest railway connection therefore was at Stoneclough, several miles distant." - Here again.
Its difficult to find a reference for something which didn't exist. Nearby Bury (the larger town) didn't get a railway until the line through Radcliffe was built. The nearest railway at that time was the Manchester and Bolton Railway, and the closest station on that line was at Stoneclough (now Kearsley railway station). If the present line that serves Radcliffe were removed, the closest station would still be at Stoneclough. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "brought the town a direct connection to Manchester and Bury. Two stations served the town, Radcliffe Bridge, and Withins Lane station (although this closed in 1851 after only a few years of operation). Ringley Road station was located to the south of the town, close to the civil parish of Pilkington. The line crossed the Irwell over Outwood Viaduct, an impressive structure which remains to this day." - Add one, or move Ref 86 to end of 'graph.
Done - new reference Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "with a link northwest to the L&BR line at Bradley Fold (near the present day Chatsworth Road) from the new station, and a new station along Ainsworth Road, Ainsworth Road Halt. The new L&YR route joined the existing ELR route near Withins Lane (North Junction), whereon they shared the connection to Bury. The L&YR gained another act in 1877 to construct a link between North Junction and Coney Green farm (West Junction). The LY&R line was electrified in 1916 for which a substation was constructed between the canal and the West Fork." - Here too.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Today the building is used as council offices." - Source?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The station was closed in 1959." - More Source?
The line was from the station's own article, to which I have inserted a citation request. Until fulfilled I have removed this line. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "and the late snooker player, John Spencer." - Source? from another angle.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "A museum was located in the upper rooms of Close House." - This needs one.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The town is also along the route of the Irwell Sculpture Trail." - source?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "although a rebuilt bridge along Water Street presents a barrier to its full restoration." - Last one.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also other things:
  1. What is with the mass linking in the citations. Things like "Hudson 2001" don't need to be referenced constantly with wiki-links.
I'm not sure what your objection is here. The Harvnb template automatically creates links? Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Future developments" is POVish, rename to "Future".
Changed to 'Future Plans' as per WP:UKCITIES Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Deblold Radcliffe in the chart in Education.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Convert the chart in Population to 3 rows, to prevent the gap.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Blackford bridge." - Capitalize Bridge
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Notable people" should also be renamed. Maybe "People from Radcliffe" - you decide.
Naming of this section follows the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is "Toponymy" expandable?
Possibly, but likely the best chance would be for me to get access to the Domesday Book - that costs money online, and I've already spent a fair bit travelling for this article. If someone has a subscription... Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be able to check in a paper copy on Saturday. Nev1 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know though, it's unlikely the Domesday book will help; it detailed who owned what land and the mills etc on the land, there was no analysis of names. IMO the section doesn't need expanding and addresses the main points of the name (there may be other theories for the name, but if one has academic consensus it seems irrelevant to mention others. If the objection is that the section is only two lines long, it should be merged with early history. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to help with topynomy in Domesday Book, but it does show that Radcliffe was a royal manor. Here's the entry:"King Edward held Radeclive [Radcliffe] as a manor. There is 1 hide and another hide belonging to Salford"[1] from Williams, Ann (ed.) (2003). Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-141-43994-7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help).


  1. "Bury to Manchester turnpike." - Bury to Manchester Turnpike.
All instances of turnpike have now been capitalised. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't turnpike only be capitalised where it's part of the full name? Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you find these comments useful. Good luck!Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Its late, so give me until tomorrow to start on the majority of this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Cotton mill.jpg is probably public domain, but since it was published in the UK, it should have an applicable template tag for public domain in the UK: {{PD-UK}}. It has a public domain in the US tag now. As well, can you complete the image summary?

Changed the licence as requested. It is a generic mill image I found in this article so I cannot offer any more information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all from the booklets in the source field. I took the pictures on my mobile phone in the library. Generally, no author information is given. The council offices image which was 'kindly lent by R Muschamp' - I have just looked around for an R Muschamp and have come across a Robert Muschamp who has authored some material from around the area. One of those publications is 1937, so I'm guessing now that this image cannot be used, and should be deleted. I've updated the author info on the image, please advise and I will remove it immediately. I have the original photographs which I can upload and link (for confirmation of their status) if required. The 'radcliffe from the air' image is by an N.S.Roberts of Royton, and this image also may well not be useable. I am by no means an expert on copyright status, its very confusing so would appreciate any help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 2 images with author information and likely unexpired copyright. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source for File:Tram in Radcliffe 1905 Greater Manchester.jpg is a geocities site. I admit I am unsure if this qualifies as a reliable source. Certainly I would be very skeptical if information in the article came from geocities. I recommend finding a more reliable source (your local public library, perhaps?) or switching the image for a similar theme with a better RS.
I can get other Tram images if you prefer. I'm quite certain this one is genuine as I have seen others in the library, taken from the same vantage point, with the same technical limitations of the film used on the day. Nothing in the article whatsoever comes from the geocities website - the image has been used to illustrate, nothing more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. Normally I geotag all my images, I will get around to this soon. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

I'm happy the source is trustworthy - it gives a source for the text, the excerpt used in the article is demonstrable looking at Radcliffe on old maps.co.uk - the two sections are clearly labelled on the os map of the time. The site has good reviews and I have seen nothing in the Radcliffe page that has not in some way been replicated by another source. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image used is a perfect copy of the front of the coat of arms on the cover of the 'Borough of Radcliffe (1935-09-21), Charter Celebrations, Bury Library Local Studies' booklet, also referenced in this article. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of it but can vouch for its authenticity. Perhaps the next time I go to the library I will photograph it and reference that document instead. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at the reference the coat of arms has a yellow background, which is the exact texture on the document I mention above. I believe the author has copied his image from the same document. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that projects like this website tend to be volunteer-led, very much community driven. That said, there are plenty of references to James Hutchinson, here (including what appears to be a professional drawing of the event for which he received his award, which also states he was from Bury Fusiliers). The contributor for the findagrave site is listed here and has worked with army records. There is another record to this soldier's history here which backs up some of what the article source states. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 39 (Farrer...) is an online reprint of a book. The title is Victoria County History of Lancaster: Volume 4 and it should be formatted as a book. Same for current ref 42 (Farrer..)
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CUrrent ref 102 (Buildings in Radcliffe.. ) is lacking a publisher.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper titles such as The Independent should be in italics.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - subject to satisfactory responses to the image and source reviews. The article is comprehensive and, on the whole well-written. It has been commendably researched and I found it engaging. I have a few comments:

  • This sentence: In terms of the subdivisions of the dioceses, up to at most 1535,[109] Radcliffe ancient parish was in Manchester and Blackburn rural deanery. might be better in the active voice. Before 1535,[109] Radcliffe ancient parish was in Manchester and Blackburn rural deanery, based on the subdivisions of the dioceses.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need "Home Office" here? Home Office policing in Radcliffe is provided by the Greater Manchester Police, (no big deal).
I'm no expert, but Home Office policing certainly leaves people in no doubt that the policing is crime-related - there are other forms of policing. I have no real opinion on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dobb ISBN does not seem valid.
I have removed it and will replace if I find a working number Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to include "(PDF)" for refs 7,36,52,78,79, and 149?
That text appears as part of the citation template. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the GENUK website is reliable, but I have doubts about Civic Heraldy. Thanks for and interesting contribution. Graham Colm Talk 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC
Done I have changed the civic heraldy reference to that of the booklet from the library, mentioned above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I keep meaning to give this a proper read, but for now:

  • The lead has "Radcliffe appears in an entry of the Domesday Book as "Radeclive", held by Edward the Confessor." Edward was long dead at the time of the Domesday survey.
  • The Domesday entry reads: "King Edward held Radeclive [Radcliffe] as a manor. There is 1 hide and another hide belonging to Salford". So before the Norman conquest it was a royal manor. Nev1 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead again, "by the mid-19th century Radcliffe had emerged as an important mill town at a convergence of cotton mills, bleachfields..."; leaving aside whether "convergence" is the right word, surely bleachfields had given way to chlorine by then?
Use of Chlorine is almost certain however there is little information I have found on the working practices of local bleach works. I have changed 'bleachfields' to 'bleach works'. I think 'convergence' is a good word to use given the significant railway network, canal, roads, and tram system. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toponomy, is "red cliff or bank" Celtic, Roman, English or what?
  • The machines are in the picture are power looms, not spinners, so the caption "A spinning mill in Lancashire" ought to be modified.
Changed to 'textile mill' Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Stephen (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • It lies on undulating ground in the Irwell Valley, along the course of the River Irwell, 2.5 miles (4.0 km) south-west of Bury and 6.5 miles (10.5 km) north-northwest of Manchester. - "South-west" should be one word (unless it's British spelling that I'm not aware of).
  • Today, Radcliffe has an association football club and a cricket club, and facilities for swimming and recreation, and is served by several churches. - This sounds a bit too close to a travel guide.
  • The tithe barn was for storing the local tithes, a tenth of a farm's produce. - This needs a source.
  • The first real mention of industry in Radcliffe was after 1680, in the Radcliffe Parish Registers, which make increasing mention of occupations such as woollen webster (weaving), linen webster, and whitster (bleacher). - Is there a more encyclopedic word to replace "real"?
  • With a weir and goit providing motive power for a water wheel, the factory was built for throstle spinning and the weaving of cotton - a relatively new introduction to Britain. - Change the hyphen to a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
  • Shifts were typically 10-10.5 hours in length - Change the hyphen to an endash.
  • inspections by local magistrates of conditions in mills across the county, revealed that unlike many other mills - Remove the comma after "county".
Disagree. If I were reading that aloud, I'd want the comma in there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite this, the textile industry was not the town's major employer as other industries such as mining and paper making were also common. - "Despite this" → "however".
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a known date when the town formed?
  • The last paragraph of the history section could probably be incorporated into the economy section.
  • certain inhabitants obtained an Act of Parliament for making, maintaining, and taking tolls along a Turnpike road - Why is "Turnpike" capitalized?
  • I think "turnpike" should only be capitalised when it's part of the name of a turnpike (ie: Bury to Manchester Turnpike) and the other occurrences have now been de-capitalised. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'll be back with some more comments later. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from epicAdam:

Lead:

  • I don't understand why "Historic counties of England" is wikilinked in the lead.
  • I'm not sure the lead adequately summarizes the article. It reads more like an economic history that a summary of a modern town.

History:

  • It may be best to break toponymy out into its own section.
  • "There are few places in North West England with a history as long as Radcliffe's" - I looked, and I don't believe the source actually makes this claim.]
An old edit, now removed Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break out the Wikilink to Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, like in other articles, there's a tendency to use the history section as a "catch all" for miscellaneous facts. Could the information about the stone axe-hammer and the medieval buildings be placed elsewhere in the article where they would have more relevance? It's unclear why the stone axe is important to the history of the town itself.
I'm presently waiting on more information on this axe from the museum that stores it. I inserted this line to give the reader an idea of how long ago people may have lived in the area. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the problem with the information, at present, is that the ax is not dated! The ax should probably follow after the first sentence about mesolithic peopl. The section should probably be better ordered chronologically. Currently, it goes from the stone age to Roman period (quite a jump), then back to the stone age with mention of the ax, then skips over the Medieval period to the 17th century, and then the final paragraph doesn't give any date reference whatsoever. It leaves readers a bit confused. -epicAdam(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand entirely. The book source also does not give that information, so about a week ago I emailed the museum for more details, since it isn't currently being exhibited. I have had an email telling me (a personal email not automated) they're looking into it, so I do not expect a reply until at least the first week of the new year. Presently the implication is that the axe is pre-historic. Your other points are quite valid and I will work on that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the subsection headings - they do little to organize the article.
Respectfully, I disagree. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is too much overlinking of simple words. For example, "factory" and "water wheel".
I think it important to link such things, some people will have no idea what a water wheel is, or a goit, or weir, or why their use was so important, especially with the onset of steam power. I have tried to link only words that may not be in common use any longer. Today 'factory' is a word that many people would use to describe any building where products are made, regardless of method, hence the link. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire history section reads more like an history of the town's mills, which I believe diverges too far off topic. The article tells readers more about the history of the mills rather than the town, which isn't good. The section is in general too long and should probably be downsized to provide a more concise history, creating a subarticle if need be.
The town, in its heyday, was one mill after another. It was a mill town built upon significant reserves of coal and water. I think that the history section should reflect this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transformation of the area from an industry based upon water power, to one based upon steam power, may not have been without problems." This is editorializing. The history should stick with just the plain facts, allow readers to draw their own conclusions. And again, I believe this paragraph diverges too far off topic.
Respectfully, I disagree. If I had written "was not without problems" then I feel your point would be valid. Including only the story (which is an anecdote in only a single, old and quite rare book) is I feel worthy of inclusion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governance:

  • The prose is poor in this area. There are too many names that are just thrown in there without indicating how their relevant. For example, "When in 1485 Richard III was killed in the Battle of Bosworth, Thomas Pilkington was captured and executed." Okay... so who was Thomas Pilkington? The then-lord of the parish? Don't make readers guess about the relevance of people mentioned in the text. When people's names are directly mentioned (especially those without their own Wikipedia pages) it should be clear who they are and why they're important.
  • Right, that I saw. However, Thomas Pilkington could have been anybody, not necessarily the landowner. He could have been a son, or a cousin. By mentioning his death readers are left to assume that there were no other Pilkingtons who would have had claim to the property, etc. epicAdam(talk) 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography:

  • Third paragraph needs citations. At the very least, for the date of the bridge.
Have removed the date of the bridge, however everything in that paragraph is visible on modern maps or Google Earth. There are no modern references I can find that include such information so would appreciate advice on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics:

  • The employment statistics should be included under Economy.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy:

  • Is there nothing more to say about the modern economy? What are the major employers? A lot of this can be covered by moving the information out of demographics, but major employers would still be nice.
I agree - the town has been falling apart for the last 20 years, there aren't really any major employers left. I have tried and tried to find more details but so far without success. I will keep trying though. The employment stats list only what people living in the town do - they do not mention where those people work. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks:

  • See discussion under Religion

Transport:

  • Current transport should be mentioned first and foremost in the section as opposed to the rather long history.
I'm not certain I agree but don't particularly object to this - I've written the transport section to give the reader an understanding of the significant transport links the town once had, and which it now does not. If I first wrote about the present transport system, and then about the historic transport, I'm not sure the reader would benefit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would make more sense to deal with transport in chronological order as much as possible. It illustrates how means of transport have changed, and it's counter intuitive to talk about motorways and then skip back 150 years to talk about the start of the railway. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education:

  • Table is just awful. Shouldn't be present here.
Could you state your reasons? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, per WP:EMBED, prose is preferable to lists of information. Second, there is already a hatlink to the list of schools, which can be organized by town. Third, external links such as the school websites are frowned upon when used in the main article text. -epicAdam(talk) 18:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phase Two opened two years later." ???
re-worded Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sites:

  • All the information about historic and listed buildings should be present in its own section; not divided among several sections.
On it Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future plans:

  • This type of information should be included within their respective sections, be it economy or geography.
There is scope for this section in Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Optional_headings but I generally agree. I will look at this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't decide between simply commenting on this review, which I typically do, or actually opposing the candidacy. I chose the latter because after reading through I felt that the article is absolutely mired in the past. As a historian, I really appreciate the detailed history the editors here have been able to pull together. I believe history should help readers to understand the present; however, that is difficult to accomplish when the present is neglected almost entirely. The article goes too far off topic in many areas, giving a complete history of a specific mill or a listed church, but not tying that information back to the town itself. For those reasons I currently oppose the candidacy. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree, but it's difficult to find modern information on a town that currently has little except its history going for it. Your comments are extremely valuable though, and I'll certainly work to improve some of what you've highlighted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A reference would be nice for the direct quote in the Sports section (from Nicholls 1900). And use en dashes for page ranges, not hyphens. I fixed one in the aforementioned quote, but more fixes are needed in the references. A piped en dash in the See also link would be good as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 15:59, 28 December 2008 [4].

Nevado del Ruiz

[edit]
Nominators: —Ceran [speak ]
previous FAC (15:49, 12 October 2008)

This is honestly the article I've put my utmost effort into; ie. my best work. It's made huge progress from the last FAC, with copy editing from some of the best — Ling.Nut, Ruslik0, Dabomb87, Serendipodous, and others. I feel now that this article meets the FA criteria. Also, to fulfill EOTW's request ;). —Ceran [speak ] 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets all the criteria - great job Ceranthor! A nitpick, however: The massive quote by the student does look a bit strange - perhaps you could use a smaller quote by, I don't know, someone with an article. Anyway, that's my only concern. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article covers the volcano's geologically recent activity well, but seems light on earlier volcanic history. The article seems to suggest that this doesn't extend back before 6660 BC, which I have trouble believing.
  • I'm pretty sure that's wrong. You're probably reading too much into the Smithsonian's eruptive history - they only cover Holocene eruptions (i.e. back to about 10,000 years ago). I've changed the text accordingly. I recall reading somewhere about an eruption 10,000-15,000 years ago; I'll try to track that down. -- Avenue (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minor quibble: the 1845 lahar sounds like it was triggered by just an earthquake, so it shouldn't be listed under a "Past eruptions" heading. Should we make this more inclusive? And this may seem obvious, but it would be good to spell out the potential hazards the volcano poses. Which nearby settlements are most at risk?
  • As mentioned below, it is not apparent that there are any towns remaining near the volcano. —Ceran [ speak ] 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the effects of volcanism, human occupation, activities and traditions seem to be covered only in "the Sleeping Lion" nickname and the climbing history. This is probably not comprehensive. Are there any relevant native traditions?
The article seems to have some MOS problems, and also still seems to need a thorough copyedit; I've seen a few grammar and punctuation errors in just the few paragraphs I've checked. There's one dead link. Not insurmountable, but I think there's still a bit to do here. -- Avenue (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it an ecological attraction? What features of the ecology here are attractive to tourists? Are certain animals, plants, or ecosystems especially well known?
  • More generally, what do tourists typically do or see here? Do they usually come for the scenery, to climb the mountain, for cultural activities, or something else? -- Avenue (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use a consistent format on times and specify am or pm:
  • Newly installed telemetering seismometers recorded a tremor of indefinite amplitude on 18 November at 02:00 that preceded an ash emission at 0600. Later, a stronger tremor that lasted from about 06:00 to 09:45 the next day preceded a small explosion at 10:30.
    Done. —Ceran [ speak ] 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no converts on measurements, and a MoS review will be needed.
  • Copyedit needs as well, sample:
  • Support The article is comprehensive and scientifically sound, but can benefit from some additional copy-edit. The references are reliable. One problem that I see is accessdates, which are not formatted consistently. This is a problem of Cite XXX templates, which are being significantly changed right now. I would recommend manual formatting of all accessdates. Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to fix that. I'm not really sure why, but I just checked out two of the references and they were exactly the same, but the accessdate was different. Any advice? —Ceran [speak ] 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the Cite XXX templates currently autoformat accessdates, while others do not. I recommend manually writing dates: i.e. December 12, 2008 instead of 2008-12-12. Ruslik (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Err.. the "title" field is for the title of the specific article you're citing. Work is for the name of the newspaper, publisher is for the company that publishes the paper. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query Support Hi Ceran, interesting read, it left me thinking, Why the multiple names, was one the Pre Columbian name? & Did the Mountain feature in pre-columbian religions of the area? Also pervaded doesn't sound right to me, would spread out and thinned be better? ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The volcano is called mostly Nevado del Ruiz, but sometimes less familiar sources refer to it as Mount Ruiz. The last one is its indigenous name, (thanks Avenue). Fixed pervaded. Could you clarify what you mean by your second question? —Ceran [speak ] 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceranthor, my andean experience and reading is from much further south and things may have been different in that area (I think its too far north for the Pachamama). But it wouldn't surprise me if the volcano had theological significance to the locals pre the conquistadores. If the sources don't cover it then no worries, but if they do it would be neat to add something along the lines of "Prior to the Spanish conquest of 15?? the local ????? tribe called the mountain Kumanday and worshipped it as an aspect of the god/goddess ???? / feared it as a dangerous place. ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Please link to the source where the image was downloaded for File:Ruiz volcano.jpg. If the image is indeed taken by NASA, please include a photo ID number per File:ISS after STS-124 06 2008 cropped.jpg, and change the licensing from GFDL to {{PD-USGov-NASA}}.

I fixed some issues in the image summary pages. They appear to be fine as of today. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a USGS paper. Might not have one, but I'll try. —Ceran [ speak ] 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the URL, at least. -- Avenue (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This looks like a great article. However, while reading the infomation I noticed there is nothing much about when this volcano started to form (i.e. ancestral activity) other than a list of years in the "Past eruptions and lahars" section. More infomation about those eruptions would make this article more useful. Black Tusk (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short summary of the eruptive history of the volcano during the Quaternary. Ruslik (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The volcano has been active since the Pleistocene period, which began 1.8 million years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. It does not mention history of the ancestral volcano during that period, meaning this article pays too much attention on the Holocene (10,000 years ago to present) cone rather than the ancestral cone, which apparently has been around longer than the Holocene cone. Any infomation in the introduction should be mentioned in the article..... Black Tusk (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I again expanded the article (see Early history subsection). All information that is in the lead is in the main text. Ruslik (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article seems to be better equipped now. Black Tusk (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of this article confuses me:
3.3 Armero tragedy of 1985
3.3.1 Pre-eruptive activity
3.3.2 Eruption and lahar flow
4 Relief efforts
4.1 Aftermath
4.2 Early warning
4.3 Current threats

The "4 Relief efforts" section deals with the Armero tragedy rather than the volcano itself, so I don't understand why it's a separate section. "Early warning" appears unrelated to Relief efforts, so I'm unclear why it's there. Same for "Current threats".

The two-sentence section in "Current threats" is short for a section, and offers ample opportunity for copyediting (which may be present in the rest of the article, I haven't looked):

The volcano now poses as a threat to nearby Manizales, a city close to the mountain. A future eruption could cause massive casualties in the city, as its population exceeds 300,000 people.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

The volcano poses a threat to nearby Manizales, a city of 300,000 close to the mountain; an eruption could cause massive casualties in the city.

Since it's probably only a sentence, unsure why it warrants an entire section, and the sections are strange (also, see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the mountain get its name?
This sentence is awkward: The volcano is part of the volcanic Andean mountains.
I've left other inline comments.
Foreign phrases are in WP:ITALICS
The Armero tragedy is referenced in the lead with no context yet provided.
The lead mentions it's the second-largest volcano in Colombia; what is first?
Why "may"? What is the evidence? The prominent La Olleta pyroclastic cone, located on the volcano's southwest flank, may also have been active in historical times.
Attribution needed (who says it's due to global warming?) The glaciers of Nevado del Ruiz were formed over thousands of years; however, due to global warming, they are beginning to melt.
This may need an endash, unsure, should ask Tony1: The volcano is a part Ruiz-Tolima massif, ...
WP:MOSNUM, spelling out of numbers less than ten needs attention: As in the 1985 eruption, the eruption was preceded by a large earthquake 3 days prior ... but inconsistency at ... It later split into two parts after hitting ...
Context, awkward: Nevado del Ruiz was very active in the three months before it erupted. (before it erupted in 1985 ... something is needed to complete this thought).
Better linking needed in "Pre-eruptive activity".
Flow issues: this sentence is mentioned before the context is provided. The destruction wrought by the 1985 eruption was partially due to the fact that scientists vacillated over whether or not to evacuate the area.
What are these infections that can't be treated by known antibiotics? In fact, some who survived were later killed by infections that could not be treated with known antibiotics.

I stopped there; would like to see more tweaking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured the article and I think I fixed all other issues except two: may also have been active in historical times. it is what the source actually says; ndash in my opinion is not necessary in Ruiz-Tolima. Ruslik (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still quite a bit needed here. Why is lahar sometimes italicized, sometimes not? (Why is it italicized at all?) Foreign phrases are in WP:ITALICS; what about Nevado del Ruiz? Newspapers should be in italics (Miami Herald). The Aftermath section is all about the Armero tragedy; why is it separate from that section (it's not the Aftermath of the mountain). There are still copyedit needs and the prose needs some shine, sample: The volcano erupted several more times through 1985–1994. More importantly, please compare the organizational structure of this article to Mount St. Helens, in terms of material covered and weight given to individual eruptions. Mt. St. Helens is 4,500 words, mostly about the mountain, with 25% of the text summarizing the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. This article is 2,800 words, of which approximately 1,700 (60%) are about the Armero tragedy. It looks like this article is about the Armero tragedy, rather than the mountain (including a very large block quote entirely about Armero). There are organizational, prose, and MoS issues to be resolved still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for the concern this is all about AT: If I were going for that FA, it would be a lot more detailed. If I wrote an article without the eruption, the article would be less than a B-class article. I'll face it, the mountain would be a little stubby article without that section. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 17:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This needs considerable work on the writing before it's of the required professional standard. Please consider bringing in unfamiliar copy-editors who have the advantage of "strategicv distance". Let's take a quick look at the lead:

  • "The stratovolcano lies within the Pacific Ring of Fire, an area of the earth's crust where the land is unusually unstable, resulting in a large amount of tectonic and volcanic activity." So does the Ring of Fire or the instability result in this activity?
  • "It is the northernmost volcano of the Andean Volcanic Belt and lies about 80 miles (129 km) west of Bogotá." Two separate facts, or should we signal close causality to the reader? ("... Belt, lying about ..."). While we're at it, I think MOSNUM says to drop the "about", especially when 129 km looks rather precise. And is there a special reason for going against the MOSNUM rule that the main units are metric (converted to US) in this type of article?
  • "second-most-active volcano" (you could probably drop both hyphens if you prefer it).
  • "Pleistocene" ... readers have to hit the link to learn the time-scale? Or just say "for at least 10,000 years", or whatever it is.
  • " Inhabitants of the towns around the volcano refer to it as "the Sleeping Lion", as it had been dormant for nearly 150 years before the Armero lahar." Can you avoid the repetition "as ... as"? Since "the Armero lahar" is the SL, this is awkward. And "it", I guess, is the volcano. Not a good sentence.
  • "The mountain was created by subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate beneath the continental South American Plate." "The" is missing.

Spot-checks below:

  • "Map of major Colombian volcanoes" (caption): this indicates that there are other major C vs. If not, add "the".
  • "a mountain range that runs along the western coast of South America". Spot the two redundant words.
  • "The first successful ascent was made in 1936 by W. Cunet, and Albert Grasser," - remove two separate redundant words. "partly by ski." - not English. Semicolon before "they".

These are just random examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny. Tony (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all issues mentioned above, and I will try to find somebody to do requested copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And according to the Pleistocene article, this era dates back to only 1.8 million years ago. Yet the article states 2 million years. In this case, Nevado del Ruiz formed in the late Pliocene period. Black Tusk (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is little difference between 2 and 1.8 million years. Precision of all these ages is limited. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why I think Pliocene should be included with Pleistocene somehow. Someone not familar with the subject will eventually notice this age issue and would likely become confused by the two different years/eras. Black Tusk (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is also because one of the references states "Pliocene to early Pleistocene". Black Tusk (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment The article is much better organized now, and is extensively researched. Some of the text however too closely follows the language of sources used in that research, as shown by comparision of the second paragraph of the section entitled Pre-eruptive activity with the abstract cited in support of that paragraph. Sparing use of quotes is permissible, but it is too easy to copy text, change some words and punctuation, and paste the result into an article. (When relying on a source it may be best to avoid copying and pasting entirely; even if you make some changes and, as here, do not intend to plagarize, it is too easy to adopt the structure, phrasing, and wording of the source. Consult the sources, but do not use their text as a basis for your work.) Here, it is too close to the cited source, and also has a style markedly different than the rest of the article. A thorough comparision of sources with text, and copyediting to eliminate overuse of borrowed phrasing, should result in a more consistent style. Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I must not have been tired at the time, as i often am. Could you specify where it is? ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 12:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the offending paragraph. Ruslik (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, it would be best if there were a thorough comparision of text with all sources. Here is another example. The article states:

In 1845, another massive lahar caused by a large earthquake on the summit flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over a thousand people. The mudflow continued for 70 kilometres (43 mi) downstream before thinning out across a plain in the lower valley floor.

The cited source states:

In 1845, an immense lahar flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over 1000 people. It continued for 70 kilometers downstream before spreading across a plain in the lower valley floor.

I don't know if there are similar incidents, but if there are, the article should be withdrawn, corrected, and resubmitted. I have changed my comment to oppose.Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few paragraphs that followed the sources too closely before. I rewrote them. However I can not say that I checked everything. I also do not have the books that are cited. Ruslik (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, to address prospective issues. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:55, 28 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:39, 27 December 2008 [5].

Gary Gygax

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

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FA-class criteria. I've been working on it for a while now, adding references, fixing formatting, etc., and believe that it should be a Featured Article. I am fully ready to help improve the article further based on comments and questions in this FAC, to the best of my abilities. I've checked external links with the link checker, and the one that lists as being dead on the list does seem to go to the proper page when used. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick comments, though I will hopefully look into this further-

  • "Troubled Times" isn't really an appropriate section title. The opening line of the section, "Dungeons & Dragons' rising popularity also brought controversy", also seems to hint that the tone is inappropriate- it reads more like an affectionate obituary than a neutral, encyclopedic biography in that sense.
  • Could we have some consistency with regards to reference placing? The general preference is to go for punctuation followed by reference, with no space. [fact][punct][ref]. There are a good few places where the ref comes before the punctuation. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some more quick comments:

  • All references to "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D" should be italicised.
  • Book covers have to go, they're adding nothing to the article- the books are barely discussed, nevermind their covers.
  • Logo image should probably also go- the logo itself isn't particularly significant, and isn't discussed in the prose. It's design seems to be an interesting piece of trivia, but trivia all the same.
  • "Gygax also performed voiceover narration as a guest dungeon master in the massively multiplayer online role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach. He narrated "Dead Girl's Spellbook" in Valak's Mausoleum, as well as all of the dungeons in the "Mystery of Delera's Tomb" quest chain." Some refs?
  • The legacy section is a little too short to warrant its own section, and it looks a little odd just below personal life. Not sure where it would fit in best, are there any guidelines on that anywhere?
  • In the "awards and honours" section, there are a couple of one line paragraphs, which don't look great.
  • Ref 122 should have the film name in italics, and in the various refs with multiple authors, the coauthors should also be listed as "[Surname], [Firstname]".
  • External links need tarting up- italics where appropriate, only keep those completely needed, etc.

Will look into it further another time, definitely going now. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look at what you mentioned. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "coauthors should also be listed as '[Surname], [Firstname]'.", {{Cite book}} says that it is acceptable either way, as long is the styling is consistent. Is this mentioned somewhere in the MOS that I just haven't seen it yet? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either way is fine, but the Surname, Firstname format is more common. If you would rather go for Firstname Surname, you'll have to change the style with which you reference the primary author as well- use author= instead of first= |last=. The consistency does not refer to just the coauthors, but a consistency with style of all authors. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I guess I'll change the coauthor format (probably tomorrow). The documentation of {{cite book}} should probably be updated to clarify this. Also, I think that I cleaned up the external links, "Troubled Times" and "Legacy" sections, and reference placement as wanted above. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all of the coauthor names have been reformatted appropriately. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed fair-use images, cleaned up ref #122. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links cleaned up. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cleaned up the "Awards and honors" section. I'll probably work on the rest tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished italicization of Dungeons & Dragons and D&D, and added a ref to the D&D Online statement. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Interesting article on a person I had never heard of before today, but was quite important in his field. Most of the comments below are only nit-picks, but they should be looked at anyway, because fixing things like these always makes a big difference in the end.

  • Remove the second Dave Arneson link in the lead; we're trying to reduce the number of identical links in FACs.
  • Gaming career: "Gary Gygax met Brian Blume and Dave Arneson at the second Gen Con in August 1969." Gygax's first name isn't necessary, because there's no doubt that it's him. Usually, first names aren't given.
  • TSR: "Gygax left Guidon in 1973, and, with Kaye as a partner, founded the publishing company Tactical Studies Rules, with $2,400 for startup costs." Since TSR is used as an abbreviation later, it should be defined here.
  • Advanced Dungeons and Dragon: Monster Manual linked twice in the section.
  • "Gygax also authored or co-authored or co-authored numerous AD&D & basic D&Dadventure modules". Space after D&D?
  • Dollar amounts such as $#.## million need non-breaking spaces before the million (place  ). It would be a good idea to check throughout for this.
  • Troubled Times (change Times to lower-case if sub-heading title is kept): "But, in 1982, TSR's annual D&D sales shot up to $16 million." Try "In 1982, however", as but isn't normally used to begin a sentence. Also, I'm not sure how formal "shot up" is. Perhaps "increased" would be better.

I read everything before Late career, and will come back later to look at the rest. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I picked out all the nits. :) BOZ (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I got the "Troubled times" section title and opening sorted out. I changed the header to "Leaving TSR" and rewrote the first few sentences. Hope that works! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished fixing the punctuation around references, so I think that everything above has now been fixed (except for the coauthor format, as I mention above). -Drilnoth (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late career: "One key design goal was simple gaming rules, as Gygax felt that role-playing games were becoming discouragingly complex." This needs a citation.
  • Four of six paragraphs in this section begin with Gygax. More variety is needed.
  • "Gygax also worked on the Gygaxian Fantasy Worlds Series from Troll Lord Games, editing volumes IV, V, VI, VII." Needs and before VII.
  • I have an issue with what I'm reading here. It feels like a registry of everything Gygax did during this time, instead of being focused on the most important parts. Almost looks like a list disguised as prose.
  • Awards and honors: Again, this section is very listy. Can more material be added, or can a few paragraphs be combined? Either of these would help alleviate the problem. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy comment. A lot of the cites in this article are to primary sources (Gygax), so I thought I would check one of the others for accuracy, namely cite [7] to wired.com (not a stellar source, but presumably acceptable - if it isn't, then please fail/withdraw this FAC now!). The results of my analysis were not bad, but there are some discrepancies.
    Article: "After Gygax dropped out of high school during his junior year, he worked odd jobs for a while, but eventually continued his education by attending night classes in junior college." and "In terms of careers, Gygax progressed from the various jobs that he had picked up after leaving high school, to a steady job in the 1960s working as an insurance underwriter for the Firemen's Fund."
    Source: "After working odd jobs during the day and attending junior college at night, he found a steady gig as an insurance underwriter for the Firemen's Fund."
    The article stretches and distorts the information in the source. The prose is also weak ("In terms of careers").
-Fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "Gygax met Brian Blume and Dave Arneson at the second Gen Con in August 1969."
    Source only refers to Arneson here, as far as I can tell.
-Fixed. I removed the reference to Brian Blume; I'm pretty sure that the statement is true, but can't find a citation right now. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "in part inspired by the wargame Siege of Bodenburg"
    Source: "One night, friend Jeff Perren brought over some miniatures from the medieval title Siege of Bodenberg."
    "Inspired" appears to be interpretation.
-Fixed by rewording. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "Gygax first collaborated with Dave Arneson on the naval wargame Don't Give Up the Ship! in 1972."
    Source: "The two had recently worked together on a sailing war game called Don't Give Up the Ship."
    I'm not saying "first" is wrong, but the source suggests replacing it by "previously".
-Fixed by rewording. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "Gygax married his first wife, Mary Jo Gygax, in 1958. By 1961 they had two children – Ernie and Elise – who would later assist with play-testing Dungeons & Dragons. Three more children were to follow, (Heidi, Cindy, and Luke) before the marriage ended in divorce."
    I only found reference to the names of the first two children, and the fact that they play-tested, but perhaps I was not sufficiently diligent. If any of the above is in error, please feel free to set me straight! Geometry guy 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Regarding Gygax's children, there's probably a reference in the LONGBIO that BOZ has access to. I'll try to find some other refs online soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref for Gygax kids: [6] (see the Luek-O, Idee, and Ye'Cind entries). I'm not sure if you were looking for references on the names or that they were born before that marriage ended. Should the ref be added to the article? -Drilnoth (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"LONGBIO" identifies the children as Ernest Jr. (Ernie), Mary Elise (usually just Elise), Heidi, Cindy, and Lucion (Luke) from his first marriage, and Alexander from Gail. I'm not sure how much else we can say, given BLP, but I have birthdates and a little bit of genealogy. I'm not going to mention grandchildren (although obits might say how many he had at time of death, so we can repeat that I'm sure), and don't know if I should get into married names of the daughters. Too many details on living people is a no-no, and Gary didn't want a bunch of info on his family on the Wikipedia article, so let's be careful. BOZ (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; maybe add a cite to the LONGBIO for the kid's names, just for reference. I agree that you should leave the other information out; both for the reasons you mentioned and because then we'd be getting to far away from the main subject of the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing those out! I'll probably have a look at them later today or tommorrow. The reason for the large number of citations that were written by Gygax is that they are designed more to provide information on publication dates, publishers, and ISBNs of books than to cite actual facts in the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gygax worked odd jobs for a while - too vague, can we get some idea of length of time here? I concede it may be difficult.
but eventually continued his education by attending night classes in junior college.[7] Later, Gygax furthered his education by pursuing anthropology classes at the University of Chicago. -this is a bit 'fluffy'. I think we could lose one of the 'educations' here. I will leave this to someone more familiar with the source
Thanks for the input. I think that I cleaned up the latter problem, although I'm not sure if the former will be fixable. Most all information about Gygax, especially that online, mainly concerns his gaming career and not the time before then. The LONGBIO which BOZ has might be able to be used for this, but I don't know exactly what's in it. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says less about school than what is currently in the article. :) "Never finished high school and only got a bit more than a year's worth of college credits." That, and he never liked school, until college. BOZ (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons section, putting years of first publication in brackets would help in giving a crhonology/flow after each book.

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll look into some of these tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on removing the possibly unreliable sources. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on some more later today or tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new external link to replace one of the references to the LONGBIO, if anyone wants to check it: [7]. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's another one I'd question. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first thing that struck me was overreferencing. You do not need five references for something such as "During the 1960s, Gygax worked as an insurance underwriter[4][5][14] for the Firemen's Fund[7] in Lake Geneva.[6][15]" or such as "In the mid 1980s, Gygax worked with Flint Dille on the Sagard the Barbarian Books.[61][62][63][64][5]" I'll give a more thourough review in the next few days. But I'll contribute and make the refs easier to manage for now. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:12, 25 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:39, 27 December 2008 [8].

Omaha, Nebraska

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freechild
previous FAC (00:25, 8 September 2008)

I'm renominating this article for featured article after it passed GA review and because it was lauded after several editors completed two peer reviews. • Freechild'sup? 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Disambig pages are used for Cineplex, Claim_jumper, Electric_company, Jobbing, List_of_countries, Omaha_(disambiguation), San_Cristobal, Shizuoka, Tom_Dennison.
  • Dead links:
Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge To Open September 28
Sister Cities Online Directory: Nebraska, USA
Local government
Introduction: Immigration and Nebraska
Lesson Plans for Omaha Race Riot of 1919
  • This is a standard template.
  • Done.

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 5 is a bare url. Needs a formatted link title and publisher and last access date at the least.
  • I note the number of links to google books searches in the references. I'm hoping that the actual books have been consulted, not just searched on google books. Reading more than a google searched snippet gives the full context to the information.
  • Current ref 52 (Wishart..) needs a page number or article title.
  • Current ref 61 (Bednarek..) needs a page number
  • Current ref 66 (Mutal of Omaha..) has a formatting error, I tried to fix it but was unable to.
  • Current ref 71 (2008 US Olympic Swim Team...) is lacking a publisher and last access dates.
  • CUrrent ref 74 (Larsen...) has only authors, a date and page numbers. If you're referring to the books listed in the "further reading", further reading is for books that are NOT used as sources in the article. If it's used in the article, given the citation style used you need to give all the information in the footnote.
  • Same deal for current ref 77, since it's used in the sources, it shouldn't be in the further reading section.
  • Current ref 80 has a formatting glitch
  • Current ref 94 (Story of the Great Plains ...) is lacking publisher and last access date at the least. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 123 (Dalstrom...) what entry is this referring to?
  • Current ref 127 (French...) Is this a book? Or an article? If it's a book, we need a page number and it should be in italics. If it's an article, we need the publication it appeared it, and page numbers.
  • Current ref 163 (Dinova..) has a retrieved on date but no link?
  • Current ref 174 (Klein...) I believe you mean University of Minnesota press?
  • Current ref 178 (Omaha Sports COmmission....) is lacking a publisher.
  • Current ref 180 (Omaha Sports Commission official website...) publisher should be Omaha Sports Commission, not "official website"
  • Current ref 218 ("Gambling with the good life") is lacking a publisher.
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals in the references.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done all of them? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. • Freechild'sup? 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Please make sure that all images have the {{information}} template completed in their summaries. The licensing of the images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Can I ask, because I can't tell, if that was brutal really? I went through and looked at a few and some of them have incomplete source, author, or date information. If you need help with this, let me know. I know images are frustrating, but I'll be gentle I promise. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query Re the sentence "Most early pioneers were buried in Prospect Hill Cemetery, next to soldiers from Fort Omaha, early European immigrants and African Americans." Is that early pioneers as oppose to or including early European immigrants and African Americans? If this refers to different phases in the use of the graveyard it would help to explain that. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also I was wondering if the Northern Tier mentioned was the Northern Tier (Pennsylvania)? ϢereSpielChequers 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - These all come from the Sports and recreation section.

  • After the first use of National Collegiate Athletic Association, place the initials in parenthesis. This will ensure that the initials in the second paragraph don't confuse anyone.
  • Delink the second use of NCAA (before the College World Series). We're trying to cut down on the number of identical links.
  • Remove the capitalization from Gold Medalist? Do the same for Running back, and remove the comma after Johnny Rodgers.
  • "and the soon-to-open Missouri River Pedestrian Bridge..." When does it open? Precise time periods should always be provided for items like this, as they risk falling out-of-date otherwise.

Comments -

  • "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs". This article has a six paragraph lead.
  • "Tallest buildings" should be moved to a list subarticle as is the convention for large cities.

Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following section of the lead needs to be fixed: "The city has a number of ethnic groups represented in its population. Race relations in the city have included a number of riots, lynchings, and recently, gang violence." Two problems here: The first sentence is stating the obvious; the second sentence makes it sound like the only race relations in the city involve violence. Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment


  • Inconsistent date formatting in the citations:
  • Kaipust, R. "Swim Trials CEO named president of the Omaha Sports Commission", Omaha World-Herald. August 27, 2008. Retrieved 9/21/08.


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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:39, 27 December 2008 [9].

Meshuggah

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Lykantrop
previous FAC (00:34, 19 September 2008)

Since the last nomination, the article went through a peer review and many copy-edits. I've heard several opinions from different kinds of editors and I fixed everything they told me about. This improved the prose, structure and the content of the article. Now I believe it meets the criteria :) Thank you.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro looks okay. I fixed one word. Overall structure, use of images and references, looks solid, but I didn't read past the intro. I'm also not familiar with the subject matter. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images appear to be fine.

Unrelated comment: I noticed the footnotes are small font. Is this a problem with accessibility? SandyGeorgia knows more about this than I do. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a note on Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text, which says "You can change your individual display to show footnotes in full sized text". To do that, we can just replace the head formatting of the section with this: <div class="references-small; font-size: 100%;">. What do you think of it?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Size - You break your history into five sections. Some are 2 year periods, and some are 4 or more. Why are they each different sizes? For example, Nuclear blast, a 4 year section, seems like it should have at least three paragraphs to be comparable to the size of other sections. Same issue with the early work in Musical Style. It just seems like the sections are comparatively short. Any reason? Could these be expanded to be more comparable to other areas? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends mainly on the information the sources provide. I wrote it independently on any sections and paragraphs. And afterwards it was separated into sections. They have been chosen more or less by the content rather than by the lenght of the text. Where I saw a break in the career (history) or style (mysical style) of the band I did a new section. I can't expand a section just for the sake of it being the same lenght as the other sections. What I can do is to split one if it is too long or vice versa. I can see a reasonable possibility in fusing "Formation and early years (1987–1989)" and "Nuclear Blast and Contradictions Collapse (1990–1994)" because they are shorter and the content of both of them is still "the beginning of the band". But then if t would be a 7 years section in one, which is pretty much compared to the others. I left them separated because I think that the longest hisotry section "Catch Thirtythree and obZen (2003–present)" could be split into two sections later when more iformation about the current events will be available. But it would be a logic to keep the subsections rather longer that shorter in general and to fuse those above into one "Formation and Contradictions Collapse (1987-1994)" What do you think?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just hoping that there was a way to add a few more sentences in the smaller areas, flush out some detail, etc. I'm sure they had to do at least something else in 4 years. But, they might not have. I don't know, which is why I originally wanted to ask. I prefer larger sections aesthetically because they make me think that the topic is more complete. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is right (about the longer sections)... Well I am sure they did something worth mentioning, but during the time it gets more documented and more information is available about the more recent events...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two first history subsections were fused, because they were pretty short.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Billboard 200 should be formatted as Billboard 200.
  • For chart positions, "number 59" is preferred to "No. 59".
  • "Meshuggah began in Umeå ... " -- I think it'd flow better if don't mention the word "Meshuggah" until the band Meshuggah actually forms. For example, you can see the "Formation and early days" section in Black Sabbath, where the band name isn't mentioned until Iommi and co began calling themselves that.
  • In that section, I don't think you need to mention the bandmembers of Metallien and Calipash, especially if they directly involved with Meshuggah. (there are too many names in there; its too confusing!)
  • The second sentence of the lead made me think that all five members were founders. You might want to make it a little more explicit that only two of them are. indopug (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I think it's all done now. I removed all the unnecessary names from the first history sub-section and kept only those, who have had some impact on the band (I hope there are no grammar mistakes). In the lead I completely removed the "founding members". It was confusing. The article body explains it; I think :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider reducing caps per MOS:ALLCAPS; reading through them is hard on the eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me. It's fixed now :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Images
  • Lead
    • The lead throws out many facts without much semblance and structure. We go from their attention to their guitars to albums selling copies to their total albums. There is next to nothing on the formation of the band. I'm concerned about peacock terms that add little, such as "renowned" and "in spite of its critical acclaim" which suggest a listenership far more than its sales indicate.
  • Body
    • You got lots of sourced info in footnotes, and I think that much of it would be better served integrated into the actual article. For example, note [a]: it's basically citing the whole paragraph before it. Why not just have the citations in the article body?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much for your comments!
      • I added appropriate captions to the music samples. The nonfree images have been used to depict every member of the current lineup once clearly. One capture is the whole band from their first world tour (2008) and one is in infobox. I just tried to do it similarily as the other FAs are, for example Metallica. I used the album cover because I think it is as helpful as the covers in Slayer or Metallica. But I don't insist on that.
      • I re-structured the lead and added the information about the formation of the band. You also have a point about the wording. I think it's fixed now. It was partly because I misunderstood some of the words (my English is still pretty far from being perfect..)
      • Those footnotes are a long story. The simple explanation is: when there were no footnotes like that, many editors told me that the readability of the text is very bad with some sentences having 20+ footnotes. It was simply impossible to read fluently and they suggested to cut most of the footnotes (which means also the sources). But I invented these footnotes, rather than just unnecessarily removing sources.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 01:16, 27 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:18, 27 December 2008 [10].

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because of the low amount of flack it got at WP:MILHIST A-Class review. Maybe it is close to featured. I confess, I do not own any of the books that I reference. I borrowed them from the Chicago Public Library. I suppose I could borrow them again, but I will be leaving town for the holidays in 2.5 days. I hope I can get throught this review without the original texts.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. First off, thank you for working on this article. These are some of my favorite Rockwell works, and I'm delighted to see them get the attention they deserve. While much of the content appears to be in place, I think that there is necessary background information missing, and I think the organization could do with more work. There are also several places where opinion is presented as fact - this should probably be attributed to whoever said it. I'm also concerned about a few of the sources used, and whether there are too many fair use images in the article.

  • Does the size of the paintings really need to be in the lead (much less in the second sentence)? That doesn't seem like one of the most critical pieces of information.
  • "should serve as a reminder of our motivation for fighting" - I think "our" here assumes that only Americans are reading this, and it might be wise to mention that this was fighting during World War II.
  • I think the lead ought to mention what the four freedoms are
  • awkwardly worded - "who by the 1950s was rivaled only by Walt Disney for his familiarity with the public among visual artists" - "familiarity with the public" to me means that he was familiar with the public, not that they were familiar with him
  • Is it really important to know how many covers he illustrated during WWII? Anyway, it confused me at first because I thought the sentence read that he did a total of 34 covers about American life during the two wars, and that 33 of those came in WWII. On a second read, I don't know that that is what the sentence is saying.
    • This information seems to be topical among secondary sources with several of them trying to quantify how well-known he was by using number of productions on the cover. We are a tertiary source with a responsibility to summarize secondary source info. The average reader is probably too young to remember his popularity. These numbers quantify them. If you have problems with the grammar, I am willing to address them. I think we should WP:PRESERVE the encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first phrase is talking about a certain type of subject that he painted on the cover during WWI and WWII 34 times. The second phrase is saying that he painted 33 covers during WWII some of which were of the aforementioned subject. Let me know how I can clarify this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say "Rockwell's artistic expressions were said to have led to the adoption of the goal of the Four Freedoms in keeping with United States President Franklin Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union Address"
  • I'm not sure that the last paragraph in the Rockwell and World War II section is really necessary. Some of that is already stated (in broader terms) in the preceding paragraph, and the rest doesn't seem relevant to this article.
  • I think there needs to be more background information in the article about Roosevelt's speech and what the four freedoms are. The lead has detail that is not in the article body, and I think the article body needs a bit more. The reader doesn't understand why the four freedoms are important, or why the speech was important (and, unless the reader read the infobox captions, they don't even know what the four freedoms are until halfway through the article)
  • I suggest a new Background section that would incorporate what is now in the Rockwell and WWII section with information about FDR's four freedoms speech and possibly a bit of basic background on the war effort in America during WWII. Possibly a bit of the info in the production section could go there as well.
  • There is some overlinking in the article. For example, do we really need links to models (linked twice in one paragraph), patriotic, etc?
  • "and eventually, 25 million people bought Rockwell's Four Freedoms prints" - as of what date? I know they are still for sale because I've given them as Christmas presents before
  • the production section is a bit out of chronological order. There is a paragraph on reprints before the publication is actually discussed.
  • Can we go into brief detail on the essays that accompanied the posters? Who chose the essays (did Rockwell have any say)? Who wrote them? Did the essays get anywhere near the same level of recognition as the illustrations (I assume not, but it might be worth noting).
    • I have brief detail in each individual image article. The magazine chose the essays and I don't have any information on the critical review of the essays. This article is about Rockwells freedoms. Detail on the essay accompanying them probably does not belong here. I will add the name of each author, but don't think anything further is appropriate here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we could get a bit of explanation of what a War Loan Drive is - I was confused about the 16-city tour.
  • need a citation after every sentence with a quote (this one is first I noticed: " written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator."; there it at least one other in Provenance)
  • This likely needs to be attributed, as I suspect many would disagree that he did nothing "interesting" -> "he did nothing interesting, thought-provoking, rare or cutting-edge"
  • this likely needs to be attributed "has given the idyllic Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving work as important a place in the enduring marketplace of promoting family togetherness, peace and plenty as Hallmark at Christmas" - and some people may not understand the Hallmark and Christmas reference
  • this likely needs to be attributed "nostalgia seemed to cause a bit of revisionism in the artworld."
  • Provenance and Exhibitions can probably be combined as both are short sections
  • I don't think the article should go into such detail on the 1993 book.
  • Who owns the rights to the paintings now (for reprint purposes)? Rockwell donated the originals to the museum; the SEP gave one of them to the War Loan drive....
  • I also think that the book cover is probably not appropriate for this article under fair use guidelines. We already have several fair use images in the article, and since this article is not specifically about the book, I don't think the image is appropriate.
  • I'm also unsure whether you can justify having all four paintings shown here under fair use, especially when one of them is included in a PD image later in the article (Freedom from Fear).
  • what makes artchive.org a reliable source?
  • The canton repository link is dead : http://www.cantonrep.com:8881/index.php?ID=318935
  • I don't believe that Encarta is an appropriate source
  • What makes "http://www.best-norman-rockwell-art.com/" a reliable source\
  • I don't think this is a reliable source: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2004/3/04.03.01.x.html
    • According to this the author is a U.S. history and Advanced Placement psychology teacher at Hill Regional Career High School. If he can teach kids in school and is an AP teacher he is somewhat of a reliable source. If I would trust him to teach high school kids, why not a WP audience.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsaturday.htm a reliable source?
  • Not all references have publisher specified
  • What makes the HomeSchool Magazine an appropriate source for an art article?

Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [11].

Revolt of the Comuneros

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

A-class review

No, I never heard of this revolt (well, before July or so) either. Nevertheless, while Hernando Cortes was busy conquering Mexico, huge swathes of Spain itself were fighting a civil war in which the rebels even controlled the capital! Just think: If the French had ridden to the rescue of the rebels about three months earlier (or the rebels had just stalled better), we might have seen a rather different Spain under some kind of constitutional monarchy (but also with a healthy dash of xenophobia). Meanwhile, in the course of about 10 years Charles V turns from useless 16-year old puppet king controlled by nobles to administrative badass.

This started as a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia Featured Article (and thanks to User:Rastrojo and others for their work there), and has since been rewritten and expanded. The article now uses English-language sources on the topic whenever possible. Some friends of mine helped copyedit it, and it's passed an A-Class review.

Anyway, let me preemptively note and then respond to some possible questions/criticisms of the article:

  • Sourcing: This article relies mostly on Stephen Haliczer and Henry Latimer Seaver's books. This is because they are basically the only two pieces of English-language scholarship exclusively on the topic, as best I can tell; sure, your average History of Spain book will spend 2-10 pages on it, but that's only overview stuff. Joseph Perez is used to complement those two, and also has the virtue of being recent (2001) as well as less potentially biased than most other Spanish work on this (Perez is French). Nieto is used a teensy bit; he's got a bit of an axe to grind, but seems to be the only historian who wrote a lot on other 20th century intellectual views of the revolt. Some of the very recent developments are sourced to a 2002 doctoral thesis. The reliability of the (very few) links to Spanish-language websites is discussed in the A-Class review, but I think they're all fairly non-controversial.
  • Images: There are two MOS exceptions in the article. First, there may be some squishing between the two images at the very end. However the only place those two images make sense is the very end of the article, so there really isn't any other option. I'm going to invoke the "reasonable common sense exceptions" clause to the MOS here. Second, there are a few images with specified sizes due to the original being small, looking bad at low resolution, etc. More on that at the A-Class review as well, and the guideline explicitly says that "looks bad at wrong resolution" is a fair reason to specify a size.
  • Size: The article weighs in at 49KB readable prose, which is toward the upper end of the scale, but reasonable I think considering this is an article about an entire war.

Comments and suggestions welcome. SnowFire (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current refs 104 (Lopez, Adalberto and Kuethe, Allan) are lacking page numbers
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added page numbers. Mostly was just trying to cite the fact that those Latin American revolts exist, even if their connection to the original revolt was quite loose. SnowFire (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've followed the evolution of this article on English Wikipedia and it's awesome. I'm so glad to SnowFire. He has done a similar work with the article (first diff comparation) as hard as I did a couple of months ago with the original one on the Castilian Wikipedia. I did this article in Castilian because it's a very complex, completely unknown and quite manipulated topic. I had the objective of write a complete article about the Comuneros, but now, I'm fully satisfied with this translation. I see it as a new step that clarifies the topic in two of the most important languages on the world: English and Castilian. Congrats to SnowFire and best regards. Rastrojo (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Most of these images had excellent descriptions and sources - thank you! A few minor points:

  • Image:BattleofTordesillas.PNG - Was Halliczer the basis of the rest of the information in this diagram? If so, his work needs to be listed as a source.

These issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Joanna: I assume so. I've edited the description to say so, and dropped a message off at Viewer's talk page to confirm this. As for the city control, I'm 99% certain that it's Perez's Los Comuneros, but I'll let Rastrojo confirm since he made the original map. Regardless, the map matches up with what's in Perez anyway, I think, but I'll try and confirm it. As for the Battle of Tordesillas, both Haliczer and Seaver discuss it, but Seaver does it in more detail, so I'll probably list him as the chief source I actually used (since as noted in the description I'm actually ignoring one part of Haliczer's account). As for the Castle of Torrelobatón.. uh, that's a weird error. The Commons page shows the licenses clearly, but I see what you're saying, it's not showing up on the English Wikipedia. I'm stumped on that one; anyone know what's up with that? Worst comes to worst, we can always add a text notice as well. SnowFire (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, source added for the city control map (and I was wrong in my guess). Thanks again, Rastrojo. SnowFire (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full publication data also added for the Tordesillas image. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a slight punctuation copyedit, although if you disagree then please change it back. This was a fascinating article on a subject I'd never heard of and I think it is certainly FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation links: The only one, to Comunero, is the hatnote on the top of the page. Obviously that's going to be a link to a disambiguation page (though you'll note on the talk page that there's a discussion on the hatnote, which I wouldn't mind input on.) (Edit: There was another one, since removed; see below.)
Re image in the lead: Could you clarify what your complaint is about this image? It's in an infobox with no custom modifications, so it should be a pretty standard deal. I read WP:ACCESS before, have reread it twice, and have no idea what issue you are referring to. Only thing I can think of is that you're referring to the image of the church, but that's intentionally not part of the lead. It's there more as a prelude to the Origins section / filler to not make the TOC be completely alone.
Re Large map image: I assume your complaint is the size? MOS:IMAGES says that "Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts" is an explicit reason to set a size, and the {{wide image}} template was used on the recent TFA Harvey Milk#Tributes. I'm going to firmly stand next to keeping this one here: Your average English-speaking audience is not going to know where all these towns in Spain are, and the color denoting who controlled the cities is practically illegible at a smaller scaling. Some of the people I ran this article through first specifically noted the large map as quite helpful.
Captions: Was under the impression that using periods consistently for fragments was okay, but see that's apparently only for when they're mixed with other sentences. Lone sentence fragments now consistently have no period.
WP:ACCESS: Okay, from your changes, I gather that if there is a level 2 caption and a level 3 caption immediately beneath it, images must go beneath the level 3 caption. I've made that change throughout the article, but this isn't entirely clear from WP:ACCESS - it says that images should be inside sections, which I feel they were previously, just that the images applied to the entire level 2 section (for example, the "BattleofTordesillas.png" image clearly is part of the whole level 2 section on the Battle, not just the Leadership Disputes subsection). Perhaps the wording could be clarified at WP:ACCESS? (To be clear, I've made the requested change, though.)
Re this image you moved: This wasn't a case of ignorance of the guideline; the problem is that that image violates a guideline no matter where it's at. If it's right-aligned (your change), it can cause stack-ups on large resolution monitors and violates "alternate which sides an image is on." If it's left-aligned beneath the header (what it was for most of the article's history), then it violates the "don't have a left-aligned image beneath a level 3 header" guideline. If it's placed above the header (a change I made just before the FAC to try to comply with image placement guidelines, actually), then it's placed above the section it describes. Personally I think that the two options in which the image is left-aligned look better in far more cases, since we're going to have to make an exception anyway. Thoughts?
Re Joanna: Yeah, Joanna is kinda archaic. Both the main English sources called her Juana, but it seems Wikipedia uses Joanna, so that's what I've done. SnowFire (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ACCESS#Lead section; the problem is the placement of the image of San Pablo church. Doing what is done there throws off screen readers. Re Dabs, see WP:RED. The gynormous map is disruptive IMO, and 500px would do the job, but that's just my opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re the image of the church: A screen-reader would read the image after the lead but before the TOC, which is fine here, right? The image is more a prelude to the Origins section, not part of the lead itself, but this is a case where vast amounts of white space next to the TOC is undesirable and unsightly, so the image is used to fill the space out and hint to readers to keep on scrolling down for more. I don't think that this is in any way bad for screen-readers; they hear it exactly where other readers would see it.
If this is an opposable problem, then I'd rather remove the image for now pending asking about the issue on policy pages. It's not part of the lead so shouldn't be moved up, there isn't room in the Origins section for it, and it isn't essential to the article.
As for Dabs: Actually edited out what I had there before and changed the article at the same time as your reply. There actually was an Italian republics article, but I just made that redirect - "Italian Republic" unfortunately redirects to Italy (and lots of articles use it) with no disambig page linked in Italy's hatnote, so "Repubbliche Marinare" was annoying to find.
Re the map: Fair enough. I will point out that all of Castile is within the leftmost 500 pixels of the map, so even on small resolutions where the scrollbars pop up, readers will still see the most important part without need to scroll. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an oppose; it is merely advice to fix an easy issue that I have already reviewed many times at WT:ACCESS. Images go before the text in the lead; filling the white space with an image causes problems for screen readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind on removing the image in general. Image moved to beneath infobox. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose by karanacs. This is a very interesting article, but I think the prose is not at FA quality. There is too much redundancy and too many areas where prose is much more complicated than it should be. Please note that the prose issues in the list below are examples only. I only read through the early 1521 section, so there may be other, non-prose issues, that I have missed.
  • The lead contains details not in the body of the article; for example, that other heirs died before Joanna and Philip gained the throne (I'd just remove this from the lead, not add it into the article body). Charles's youth is not mentioned in the section dealing with Ferdinand's regency either.
  • Grammatical and punctuation errors (listed are examples only)
    • King Philip the Handsome ruled for a mere two years; he was replaced by Archbishop Cisneros as regent for a short time, and then Ferdinand who ruled from Aragon -- missing comma after Ferdinand, two halves of the second sentence don't mesh - should be "and then by"
    • The government had expelled the Jews in 1492 and the Muslims of Granada in 1502, a move that undercut lucrative trades and businesses - instead of "a move" should be "moves" - those are two different events
    • The population greeted him with skepticism - why not just "the people"?
    • With the arrival of the new king in late 1517, his Flemish court took positions of power in Castile; young Charles only trusted people he knew from the Netherlands -- very awkward sentence
    • "With the unrest growing, Charles' paternal grandfather Emperor Maximilian I died in 1519" -- these two clauses have nothing really to do with each other
    • The cities responded by sending their militias - could be simplified to "The cities sent their militias"; prose tends to flow better when redundant wording is removed
    • Uprisings throughout Castile occurred - should be "Uprisings occurred throughout Castile"
    • In turn, dissenting voices inside the comuneros now began to be heard, especially in Burgos - had these dissenting voices existed before? what made them only "heard" now?
    • Valladolid, the former seat of royal power, was considered especially likely to turn, but supporters of the king had been away from the political life of the city for too long and it remained rebel-controlled - not sure about the importance of the supporters of the king being gone so long - did that mean they couldn't accurately read the town's mood, or that their absence contributed to the rebel's control?
    • I understand what you mean here Girón was one of the few noble comuneros, apparently because Charles had refused to grant him the Duchy of Medina-Sidonia to him - but it is not clear; at first, it appears that he was not granted a noble title, so how could he be a noble.
    • Outnumbered, the town nevertheless resisted for four days, thanks to its walls' -- very awkward wording
  • The paragraph on the succession doesn't ever actually mention that Joanna was Ferdinand and Isabella's daughter, and that's why she was the theoretical heir
  • Short quotations (less than 4 lines), should not be offset; they should be part of the paragraph, per WP:MOSQUOTE
  • Be consistent on whether Cortes is italicized or not
  • Why is the Beginnings of Revolt section subdivided into other sections? They are so short that it seems a little pointless
  • Per MOS, only the first word of a heading should be capitalized (unless there are proper nouns in the heading). revolt should not be capitalized
  • Headings should also not begin with "The"
  • The people of Segovia, led by militia leader and noble Juan Bravo, closed ranks around the Comunidad -- what is this supposed to be saying?
  • Watch for overlinking. Adrian of Utrecht is linked multiple times (not counting his image caption). He is also referred to in two different ways- as Adrian of U. and as Cardinal Adrian. Let's be consistent (Joanna also overlinked)
  • The section on the Battle of Tordesillas may be too short to need 3 subsections
  • Meanwhile, the rebellion in Burgos scheduled for January 23 - while the article says a revolt was encouraged, it is never mentioned that it was official until now

Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will return later, but I agree with some of your changes but disagree with others. Some notes (might have more added later):
  • Cortes is consistently not italicized, as it's basically a word in English. It is italicized upon introduction as it is used as a word (MOS:ITALICS#Words as words), and it's also italicized when part of a title not in English as then the entire phrase needs to be in italics. But those cases are incidental.
  • No headings begin with 'The' except "The Junta of Ávila" and "The Junta of Tordesillas." One, it sounds incredibly awkward to leave "the" off in those cases, and two, in both the Spanish books I read on this (and the Spanish article) these Juntas are almost always referred to as "La Junta de Ávila" or "La Junta de Tordesillas." I'm not sure it qualifies as a proper name including "the/la", but if not, it's darn close.
  • I don't follow your complaint about Burgos - the article says they were planning a revolt, and then it discusses the aftermath.
  • Short quotes: I hesitate to invoke "other crap exists" at FAC, but that guideline has to be one of the most ignored on Wikipedia. A quick look at transclusions turned up Apollo 11 using JFK's short quote about landing a man on the moon right in the lead, for example. Is there a problem with emphasizing shorter quotes with the indent? I mean, again, if this is actually a big deal then I'll change the one shorter quote that's in the article to be in-line, but I think it works for emphasis and guidelines admit exceptions. (Admittedly I think this guideline should be considerably weakened so am perhaps not the best judge of what would qualify as a good exception.)
  • Short sections: This came up in the A-class review. The usage of short sections is intentional, and I see this more as a stylistic choice. I don't like giant walls of text, and lots of sections helps break things up and remind the reader what's happening in a longish article that they might skim. Almost all of the sections do comply with the minimum length in Help:Section, though.
  • Re consistency of title: I disagree on that. What's wrong with using all of George Washington, General Washington, and President Washington? Many important people had multiple titles / positions / epithets, and switching between them seems the best way of getting it across. I'm not even using "Regent Adrian" except once (and then with Cardinal to be clear).
  • "With the unrest growing, Charles' paternal grandfather Emperor Maximilian I died in 1519." Maybe there's a rephrase that could help here, but yes, these events are interrelated even if one didn't cause the other. Consider "With the children playing with matches, the gasoline can tipped over." Events that would normally be boring and humdrum can turn into explosive sparks for action if the conditions are bad. "With the unrest growing" sets the scene; Seaver specifically talks about how Maximilian's death was a completely forseeable issue that only became a crisis because distrust in Charles was so high.
  • "King Philip the Handsome..." Fair point on adding the word "by," but I'm pretty certain that a comma is optional in the last part.
  • "In turn, dissenting voices inside the comuneros now began to be heard, especially in Burgos" [had these dissenting voices existed before? what made them only "heard" now?] Not really, since anyone who opposed the comuneros wasn't a comunero before and thus wasn't really an internal dissenter. As for what only made them heard now, it was mostly upper class / aristocratic rebels getting cold feet after they saw the peasant revolts and feared what would happen, as is discussed in the section immediately prior.
  • To be clear, thank you very much for looking the article over and giving your suggestions, and I'll adjust the text with regards to most of your suggested changes. As for the prose in general, I'll give it another runthrough, but I've mostly already shot my own cannons on this. Would you be willing to continue looking over the rest of the article, or should I go ask for a copyeditor somewhere else? SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are supposed to adhere to MOS guidelines, hence why I mentioned some of the inconsistencies with the MOS above. I would recommend a run-through by a copyeditor just to iron out any other glitches. The prose isn't bad, it just needs a little more polishing. Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, back (was out over the weekend). I had another friend look over the article, but they didn't have much to say. I've dropped another request off at the Guild of Copyeditors, though I'm not sure that's the best/right place for it. More concerns and comments... (de-indented)
  • (your change) "Economic growth created new urban industries and powerful people not tied to the aristocracy" -> "Economic growth created new urban industries and enabled non-noble individuals to become powerful." I understand that the previous sentence is a bit wordy, but this changes the sense of things. Non-noble people were powerful before, but A) There were fewer of them and B) They were powerful because they were the king's treasurer or the like. I'm trying to get at the creation of the budding middle class, people who got rich off of not toadying to nobles (and thus being "tied" to them) but via being merchants, lawyers, etc. I've tried "Economic growth created new urban industries and offered a route to power and wealth not tied to the aristocracy" - hopefully should read clearer.
  • "The people of Segovia, led by militia leader and noble Juan Bravo, closed ranks around the Comunidad " - changed to "rallied." It's supposed to be saying that it cemented their support and changed previously neutral parties to pro-comunero ones.
  • "...but too many supporters of the king had been away from the political life of the city for too long and it remained rebel-controlled." With regard to your queries: Yes, to both of them. I've changed it to "...but too many supporters of the king had left city politics and lost their influence. It remained rebel-controlled."
  • Joanna: You removed "Queen" before Joanna in the lead. I've restored it, because it's highly important that Joanna was the -Queen-, not some powerless Queen Mother like in other countries. She officially had a lot of power and had high standing equal to her son the King, hence why the comuneros latched on to her. Also removed "wished for" an alternative ruler; I had originally said "need," but perhaps we can just go with just the facts that they "chose" Joanna.
  • Re your comment about the potential to confuse Giron with being a non-noble, how does this sound? "Girón was one of the most powerful nobles who supported the comuneros; his rebellion is thought to originate from Charles' refusal to grant Girón the prestigious Duchy of Medina-Sidonia a year prior to the war."

Will try and continue looking over the article more in general. SnowFire (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue came up in the A-Class review, and I already removed a significant number of the duplicated wikilinks which I felt were borderline then. The relevant guideline from WP:CONTEXT: "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." The thing is, this is a longish article, so often the most recent link is considerably earlier. I also want to respect readers who have forgotten who's who- there's a lot of names in this article, and I don't expect it to always be obvious that this is the same person as linked above and force the reader to go hunting for it. Within a single section, repeated wikilinks occur occasionally due to consistency in lists. It looks strange and bad to have only a single city unlinked in a list of cities, for example, just because that city was mentioned earlier. So any kind of list, I think it looks far better to be consistent and either link all the people/places or kept them unlinked. And captions can have wikilinks as well.
Re specific copyedit changes: Toledo is the main topic of "Rebelliousness in Toledo" section and it's been awhile since the previous link, so I've restored that. I also restored it in a list of cities later for the consistency reasons noted above. As for the Battle of Villlar aftermath... why not just use the simple past, "was struck a crippling blow?" "had been" struck a crippling blow isn't wrong, but it places the reader in time a bit after the battle, almost like a new section. I've left that as is, just figured I'd toss that out here to see if anyone else had thoughts on it. SnowFire (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose: 1. Caption of picture in "Origins" is too long and also causes a formatting disruption. Cut this to only two or three lines as most. 2. Picture of "Juan López de Padilla" should be moved and is facing the wrong way. He needs to be on the left. 3. Sections are too small. Each section should probably have at least two full paragraphs. These should be condensed. 4. The huge picture of Spain seems to be off, or too large. 5. Other pictures have captions that are too long. 6. Sandwiching of images in "Later influence". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. There is a method to my madness; again, I'm familiar with the relevant guidelines, but I firmly believe that most (all?) of these issues are minor and acceptable stylistic choices.
  • 1: "Causes a formatting disruption?" You'll have to be more specific than this; I've examined the article at lots of resolutions and it seems fine at all of them. The caption is long, yes, but I also feel that it's fairly vital - it sets absolutely crucial background information in one place (rather than the more chronological take in the Origins section). If readers know one thing about Charles V, it needs to be the size of his empire. The caption really only has two "thoughts" - the artist, and what exactly Charles was king of.
  • 2: Except that there's a bulleted list on the left, which would look awful if a picture was staggering it. That image absolutely must be right-aligned, and the relevant guideline specifically forbids flipping an image just to make the face point the right way.
  • 3: The sections are within the lower bound guidelines of Help:Section. Yes, they're often short, but they often occur in different geographical locations, cover events notably separate in time, and are useful for people skimming the article and only wishing to get a sense of what happened there. As an example, the "Expansion of the Revolt" section includes short sections on Blockade of Segovia -> The Junta of Ávila -> Burning of Medina del Campo -> The Junta of Tordesillas-> Scope of the rebellion. This is exactly the logical progression the rebellion took - one incident, increased discontent and a meeting, another incident, the Junta expanding, and then the rebellion fully breaking out across the country. This, in outline form, is probably the best way to understand the early rebellion. Furthermore, these sections don't combine easily- I could make it three sections with "Blockade of Segovia and the Junta of Avila," "Burning of Medina del Campo and the Junta of Tordesillas," and "Scope of the rebellion," but that would seem just overly wordy. Alternatively, each of these sections could be very easily expanded to be longer than just one paragraph, but then this article would start running into WP:SIZE problems instead. I've tried to keep the writing clipped and to the point (although apparently still not enough from karanacs' request for a copyedit- something which I am looking into and asking editors about, by the way), but as a result, some topics will have short sections. That said, I will combine the Consequences section in the Battle of Tordesillas, since that was pointed out by several other editors and is the one section that I don't think meets the Help:Section lower bounds (though just barely if so).
  • 4: See above. Especially since it's a .png, the fonts will look just awful if it's compressed and the color of the dot for who controlled the city will be hard to make out. And moreover I don't see a large map as really a problem anyway; I think it's helpful considering the woeful knowledge most people have of geography.
  • 5: I'll look into it and see what I can do. That said, some of the captions have some useful "sidebar information" (like the number of soldiers per side at the Battle of Tordesillas) which for whatever reason didn't flow well with the main text, and I'm less keen on moving those since it would make the text ungainly.
  • 6: Yes, that is directly noted in my nomination. Are you saying that this is an objectionable problem, though? If you think this is a serious problem, then one of the images could certainly be removed, but I think this is exactly the kind of case where an exception is intended- there is no logical place for those two pictures to go but the end of the article, so they can't be moved about.
With the exception of #6 (which, as noted in the nom, does not follow the MOS but is a merited exception nevertheless in my opinion), I firmly believe that the other issues raised are legitimate choices grounded in the current guidelines. SnowFire (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My monitor is 1280 x 1024, if that helps. 1. "the artist, and what exactly Charles was king of." I don't know if it helps to have that in the caption, when it would seem that the images are secondary to the text. If someone reads the text, it should have the info, making the caption redundant. No? 2. "Except that there's a bulleted list on the left," Sigh, yeah. Um. I really don't know where it could go, or how to remedy it. Its just an MoS thing that could be ignored if the reviewers are really nice. :) 3. "Yes, they're often short, but they often occur in different geographical locations" Its just an reading/aesthetic thing. I tend to read larger chunks and my ability to comprehend is disrupted by the breaks. Others may have a different experience. 4. "Especially since it's a .png, the fonts" Yeah, it would have to be an exception. However, it did provoke a reaction from me when I did not expect it. Perhaps it was the color choice? lol. 6. "Are you saying that this is an objectionable problem" Sometimes people remove images. Sometimes they just move them. Sometimes they just expand the section. Add a sentence or two to the first paragraph. Split the third paragraph. Add a sentence to the fourth paragraph. That might do it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1: I doublechecked again, seems fine to me in various resolutions in all of IE, Firefox, and Konqueror. As for text in captions, well, yes, I do think that using them as a sidebar of sorts can be useful, and this is incredibly common on Wikipedia. Heck, the full-text sidebars see use too a la educational texbooks (an example in an FA), especially for things like timelines; versions associated with an image are probably even better. 2-4: Fair enough. 6: Sure, I'll try and expand the section even more. Alas, I had to return my library books already (and lost my loaning privileges), so I can't do this right away, but I will add a few sentences when I get the chance to make the sandwiching less evident. SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose until a complete audit of the awkward and often ambiguous arrangement of ideas within sentences is conducted. Our readers have to work unnecessarily hard.

  • "With the deaths of the other possible heirs, Ferdinand and Isabella's second daughter Joanna the Mad inherited the throne with her Burgundian husband King Philip I." So three people inherited the throne? Maybe. And can you re-order it so the reader won't at first wonder whether Ferdinand and the daughter were the other possible heirs? Maybe they were. Unclear.
  • "young age"—>"youth".
  • "He came to Spain in October 1517 ..."—consider "arrived in".
  • "Soon, a series of riots broke out in the cities against the government and local city councils (Comunidades) took power." Again, the order of the ideas could be misleading as the reader progresses through the sentence, requiring, at the least, reverse disambiguation: the cities [that were] against the government? And put "soon" after "riots". Can you audit the order of ideas within sentences throughout?
  • chose for an alternative ruler --> "as an".
  • "The rebel movement also took a radical anti-feudal aspect, supporting peasant rebellions against the landed nobility." Also? I'm searching back to locate what other aspect you've told us about. And try "dimension" rather than "aspect". "took ON"?
  • "After nearly a year of rebellion, the reorganized supporters of the emperor struck a crippling blow to the comuneros at the Battle of Villalar on April 23, 1521." Somehow better as "On April 23, 1521, after nearly a year of rebellion, the reorganized supporters of the emperor struck a crippling blow to the comuneros at the Battle of Villalar."
  • "The following day, rebel leaders Juan de Padilla, Juan Bravo, and Francisco Maldonado were beheaded. The army of the comuneros fell apart. Only the city of Toledo kept alive the rebellion, until its surrender in October 1521." At first I thought the city of Toledo did something "the following day", too. But no, I had to work harder to disambiguate in reverse. The last sentence is somehow unsatisfactory: did "the army" surrender in Oct 1521, and Toledo was the only city to keep alive the rebellion? Same issue.
  • "The character of the revolution is a matter of some historiographical debate." Spot the redundant word. Keep it just for "scholars" in the very next clause. (Watch those close repetitions, too.)
  • "Others consider it a more typical rebellion against high taxes and perceived foreign control." So the taxes were real and the foreign control just perceived? I have to work hard to tease out what might be the intended meaning.
  • positive commemoration has "risen"?
  • Comma after "revolt".
  • "the revolt has been mythologized by various Spaniards, generally liberals who drew political inspiration from it". You know I hate "various". Can't it be straightened out to: "the revolt has been mythologized by the generally liberals Spaniards who drew political inspiration from it"?
  • How are "motives" different from "government"? (All government occurs as the result of motivation.)
  • "the incident is often referenced in Castilian nationalism." "Referenced" is a strange and ambiguous word here. "referred to in connection with"? I really don't know. Tony (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Since it seems that the only issue raised so far has been copyediting, I'm willing to do whatever is necessary here. I've already had it copyedited three times by acquaintances of mine, and have asked at least one Wikipedia editor to take a look at it. If you're interested in going through more of it, I'd be more than willing to work with you; I would like to see this make FA status, but my own copyediting skills have mostly been exhausted here.
Specific notes:
  • "Ferdinand and Isabella" are like "peanut butter and jelly;" it's a single phrase that unfortunately includes an "and." I suppose I can see the potential for confusion, though. "Joanna the Mad, Ferdinand and Isabella's second daughter, inherited the throne with her Burgundian husband..." then.
  • I don't think your fix keeps the intent of the sentence. Specifically, it was riots against the government, with cities against the government being a tertiary thought. Still this clearly meant that the original sentence could use some work if that was unclear. That said, I disagree about soon; it's referring to Charles' departure for Germany in the previous sentence. Maybe it should even say "Soon after" for clarity, though that might be redundant, too. "Soon, a series of anti-government riots broke out in the cities, and local city councils (Comunidades) took power." any better?
  • Well, that bit felt disconnected from the throne claimant part, so the "also" was meant as a transition there. And isn't "took on" the same as "took?" "His face took a fierce mien" vs. "His face took on a fierce mien." Mostly trying to follow your own prescriptions for removing redundant words here, but sure, I'll put that in.
  • "The following day, rebel leaders Juan de Padilla, Juan Bravo, and Francisco Maldonado were beheaded. The army of the comuneros fell apart. Only the city of Toledo kept alive the rebellion, until its surrender in October 1521." Er, don't the periods clearly delineate the differences here? The army falls apart as a result of Villalar and the loss of their leaders, and the next sentence says that the city of Toledo continues on 'till October 1521. Even if the reader keeps the "The following day" thought, it's true that Toledo was still resisting the following day, even if nothing in particular happened then. And the middle sentence makes it abundantly clear that the army falls apart in the immediate aftermath of the battle. I guess some make-space continuation like "Soldiering onward, the city of Toledo kept alive..." could be added, but that feels unnecessary and awkward. I'm fine with changing this, but as I don't quite follow the potential source of confusion, could you suggest a fix?
  • Yes, the taxes were real but the foreign control was far more disputed, especially in the views of pro-government types (Charles was later rehabilitated as a True Spaniard to a degree, and he spent a good 10 years or so in Spain later). This seems put pretty bluntly - "They thought it was about A and B." And they did indeed think it was about A and B.
  • Re "commemration has risen:" Any better suggestions? I wasn't overly happy myself either, but "grown" sounds weirdly organic, and "increased" sounds faux-scientific. All three do the job, but none are perfect. Trying "grown" for now, I guess.
  • I considered phrasing it that way, but while that phrasing does allow for the existence of conservative admiration of the revolt (which did exist), it implies that the default orientation of liberals is to be pro-Revolt. I wanted to emphasize that traditionally, a majority of pro-Revolt types were liberals (true), but not that a majority of liberals were pro-revolt (false, except perhaps very recently). Maybe that's just an imprecision price we have to pay, though.
  • Motives are why the comuneros revolted at all, and government was how they actually conducted themselves while in power. Many socialists would admire the motives of the Russian Revolution and deplore the government that followed it, for example, and plenty of politically unappealing groups whose motives were in question turned out to be decent rulers. The conservative view would say that the comuneros were a bunch of bandits who were whiners about taxes and took power so they wouldn't have to pay, and furthermore massively screwed up once they were in power. I think these ideas are distinct enough that they both merit a mention.
  • "has been an inspiration for Castilian nationalism" is perhaps more direct, but also sounds way too sunny, since inspiration also has positive connotations that would be a bit POV here. "has been a source of" sounds clinical. I guess I'll go with "referred to," but the usage needs to imply something broad here (which hopefully is distinct from "ambiguous") - it wasn't used for just one specific book or anything, but rather in many different ways.
  • Suggestions I didn't comment on: Sure, will make those shortly. SnowFire (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts: I can see why you don't like "various Spaniards," but all of the fixes I've tried so far seem even worse. I don't think that "mythologized by the generally liberal Spaniards who drew political inspiration from it" works because that seemingly implies that Spaniards are generally liberal, and requires reading further to realize it's only talking about those who were interested in the revolt. I don't know, maybe this whole section needs to be rephrased to not have to combine these two ideas into one sentence, but I can't see a better way of combining "pro-Revolt types are generally liberals" and "people who liked the revolt turned it into a heroic drama." Will try and return shortly. SnowFire (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:07, 21 December 2008 [12].

Oba Chandler

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

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think its time for this article to become a feature article. A well known case in the Florida area that has been edited on from a small stub to a good article. MarkusBJoke (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - sorry, but this has a way to go yet before meeting the FA criteria.
  • The lead should be expanded.
  • Make sure footnotes go after punctuation.
  • Don't link stand alone years.
  • There are entire unsourced paragraphs.
  • There are problems with grammar. For example, The case remained unsolved for several years, and Chandler would not be arrested for the murders until september 24, 1992. - "September" should be capitalized.
  • The Media concerning the case of Oba Chandler is almost entirely unsourced, and comprises of several one-sentence paragraphs.
  • The Features and background of the Case section has unsourced POV.
  • All of the references need to be formatted properly.

–Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a small amount of problems that are easily fixed if everyone available helps with improvements.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the nominator for FACs are typically the ones who are responsible for ensuring that issues brought up in the nomination get addressed. Gary King (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed most of it.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually see very little that has been fixed. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates
  • "Features and background of the Case" should be in prose, not bulleted
  • Speaking of which, "Features and background of the Case" is also almost completely unreferenced

Gary King (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no publisher/last access date for references, unreliable references used (findagrave, chapters.indigo.ca), large chunks of the article unreferenced, use of lists instead of prose in a section, skimpy lead, and prose issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per overall quality of the article. Though it might not be perfect i support it because of its overall quality and the references are ok. It is also to be considered that this article has been built up from a stub to a actual article that tell most about the case. So congratulations for that achievement wikipedia.--Judo112 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the amount of work put into the article should be praised, it shouldn't serve as a reason to support an article's promotion to featured article candidacy. The "overall quality" is not up to Featured Article standards. This shouldn't dissuade the editor from trying again. On the other hand, I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and instead putting the article through a peer review. A peer review will allow the editor to get everything required done, allowing a future renomination and a much smoother FAC process. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However their has been improvements from the original problems states earlier by Juliancolton. A withdrawal of the nomination feels to early according to me.--Judo112 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are promoted to FA based on the FA criterion, not on "overall quality". –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- sorry. This is an interesting article but it is not ready to be promoted. The referencing is insufficient and some unreliable sources have been used, (e.g. Crimeshots forum and Find a Grave). Many of the few citations given are wrongly positioned in the text. The prose needs attention as in billboards "spreading" and long snaking sentences such as:
Another lead was that two weeks prior to the murders on may 15,1989, Chandler had lured Canadian tourist Judy Blair on to his boat in nearby Madeira Beach, raped her, then dropped her off back on land where Blair made her way back to her hotel room where her friend Barbara Mottram was waiting.
In an attempt to establish Chandler's whereabouts on the night of the murders, investigators found phone records of several radio marine telephone calls made from his boat to his home between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. – probably to attempt to explain to his wife his absence as well as to provide himself with an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murders.

The need for devices such as (see next paragraph) often indicates poor prose. The article should be withdrawn and brought back to FAC after these problems, those of my colleagues above and other problems not listed here have been solved. Graham Colm Talk 16:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, prose: On June 1 heading home authorities believe the women became lost and encountered Chandler, who gave them directions. What does it mean? Quite a lot of basic proofreading required. NVO (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:14, 21 December 2008 [13].

Battle of Trenton

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Kieran4
previous FAC (21:55, 25 August 2008)

I saw this had been nominated in the past, and it appears as though it had made improvements since, so I would like to nominate it.-Kieran4 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you informed the primary editors of the article of this nomination? Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Past contributors are no longer active; the question becomes whether past issues have been resolved. See the Dashboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Please include the reference you used (including page numbers) to illustrate Image:Battle of Trenton.jpg and Image:Battleoftrenton2.jpg. All other images appear to be fine, though I wonder if you can find a better version of Image:Trenton Surrender.jpg. --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make those maps, so I can't do much about that. As for the painting, I'll look around, but most of them thus far appear to be about the same.-Kieran4 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Red4tribe has email enabled; perhaps you can contact him and request information about those maps? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would like to see more background and legacy but other than that, seems to have everything a battle article should have. No serious prose or cite issues. Meets FA criteria, IMO. --mav (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Badly written.
    • In the time before the battle, American morale was very low.
    • The Americans had been ousted from New York by the British and Hessian allies,
      • Describing the Hessians as allies is at least misleading; Hesse was not at war.
    • three Hessien regiments
    • The American plan relied on launching coordinated attacks from three directions. (Try "consisted of").
      and so on.
  • Badly sourced.
    • The standard source on this subject is still William S. Stryker: Battles of Trenton and Princeton which was reprinted in 2001. Any survey of this battle which does not consult it, especially for this mishmosh of tertiary sources, is not comprehensive; this one does not mention it.
  • Last FA noted that Hessian casualties varied from source to source, yet the article stated one set, the editor's choice, contrary to WP:NPOV. This was fixed then; but now we have one one set of figures again.
  • The hours before the battle served as the inspiration for the painting Washington Crossing the Delaware by German American artist Emanuel Leutze. The image in the painting, in which Washington stands majestic in his boat as it is crossing the Delaware River, is believed by some to be more symbolic than historically accurate By some? Why mealy-mouth the consensus on the obvious? Does anyone in his right mind think otherwise? Leutze came to America in 1825, at the age of nine; are we to suppose that he interviewed witnesses to Washington being so dumb? Which of the sources suggest Leutze was historically accurate?

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have some legitimate points, but badly sourced? Just because it is lacking one book, granted it may have been the standard source, does not make it badly sourced. Did you look at which books are cited? Fischer? Ketchum? Lengel? McCullough? Those are almost the only sources cited. Fischer is the Pulitzer Prize winning book which should be the definitive source, not Stryker.-Kieran4 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read Fischer; a depressing experience. The Pulitzer Committee is not what they were. (Using only Stryker might well be worse - but he is fuller and more reliable than the moderns.) Please read Stryker, and include his version as a POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 20 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [14].

Kilogram

[edit]
Nominator(s): Army1987 – Deeds, not words.

One of the best articles about units of measurement we have. It has been listed as a Good Article for more than two months and has been very stable during this time (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kilogram&diff=cur&oldid=242599699). (Yes, a significant portion of the article is about the prototype and proposed definitions, and will be outdated in 2011 if the kilogram is redefined; but "all the information in the article will stay true for a century or more" is not one of the FA criteria.)

(I'm not a major contributor to the article, though I did some edits – but most of them were tweaks, not additions of new material.)

Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Most of the article does not have inline citations.
  • "Importance of the kilogram" is completely unreferenced.

Gary King (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Gary. Let’s consider some articles here that are more promising. Greg L (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [15].

GoldenEye

[edit]

Nominator: User:Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)

This article has undergone significant upgrading and reviewing. After satisfying two peer reviews I think this Article really deserves to be FA. It has good sources, a good structure and meets the FA criteria. I'm eagerly awaiting your comments as this James Bond movie is probably the best of all James Bond films and is a core article. I'm ready to make it better and better and just need someone to tell me what's missing. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in improving the article, but it appears you haven't followed the featured article candidate instructions in consulting significant contributors to the article prior to nominating it for FAC. I have asked User:The Giant Puffin, a principle contributor who still edits the article, to comment here. Maralia (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unsure on whether this article can really gain FA status and hold it. Several improvements suggested in the past have not been met. A final and comprehensive copy-edit should probably be done again. The suggestion in /archive3 that cinematic style be covered in more depth does not seem to have been fulfilled. I did previously look in to meeting the suggestion of using scholarly sources, but with little success. If this is a viable action to take now, it should probably be done. I'm glad peer reviews have been done. Evidently that department is in a better state than at the time of the last FAC. Generally, this article is of a high standard. Its been constantly improved over the past two years, and it should be close to FA status. Although not completely relevant, if this FAC does not succeed, I'd suggest submitting GoldenEye for an A-class rating. - • The Giant Puffin • 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... can you remove those strike throughs? At FAC we wait for the person who left the comments to strike through issues when they feel they are addressed. Also, we don't use the fancy templated graphic "dones" as there is a limit on the number of templates that can be on a page, and FAC can hit that limit if everyone used those templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the reception section, the article states that "The critical reception of the film was mostly positive, with the film review collection website Rotten Tomatoes giving it an 84% Fresh approval rating, although a similar site, Metacritic, gave it only 65%." It might be worth clarifying this by briefly explaining how each site generates its percentages. They do so in a different manner, which is why you see the discrepancy. Rotten Tomatoes decides whether a review is positive or negative, calculating an end score based on this simple binary assessment. Metacritic is equally subjective, but assigns a rating out of 100 to a review. So if a film receives twelve reviews which are generally unfavourable but not utterly scathing, this might translate to a score of perhaps 41% at Metacritic. Rotten Tomatoes, however, would declare all these reviews negative and so the film would receive a whopping 0% score. My own preferred choice of wording is that which I used at Changeling (film)#Critical reception, or Hancock (film)#Reception, which states:

    Hancock received mixed reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 39% of critics gave the film a positive write-up, based on a sample of 200, with an average score of 5.4/10. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 49, based on 37 reviews.

    You'll note that for Goldeneye, the Rotten Tomatoes "average" score is calculated in the same manner as at Metacritic, and at 6.8/10 is much closer to that site's 65% score. All the best, Steve T • C 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding File:GE-Virtual-Boy-screenshot-1.png; if any (non-free) image of a game is to be used in an article wouldn't it make more sense to have an image of the successful (critically and commercially) Nintendo 64 game to which a paragraph in the article is devoted than of a cancelled game which only garners a one line mention? Guest9999 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [16].

Gulfton, Houston

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

I decided it was time to nominate this article after the peer review - I finished adding access dates to the non-newspaper article/tv station article citations. I addressed many of the other points. The one thing I could do, although this isn't crucial, is consider including a different format map. But other than that I think this article is ready to be tested for FA status. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are some issues to address before I can support. Here are some obvious things noticed from glancing at the article:

  • The lead section is way too short. It should be 2-3 paragraphs that summarize the article.
  • The gallery in the education is unnecessary, since there already are numerous pictures in that section.

I will add more comments, as I read through the article. --Aude (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the copyediting! :) - Anyway...
    • 1. What else do you think should be mentioned in the lead? We have the basic population, the basic location, and the basic structure of low income apartments. Should it mention the reputation for crime? What about bits from the culture section?
    • 2. What if I took the images in the education gallery section and left-aligned them in the education section?
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should first and foremost, say where Gulfton is located, in a way that people not familiar with Houston would understand. Then it can say something about the history, geography, demographics, government/infrastructure, transportation, etc., basically covering all the sections.
  • Pictures are not needed of all the schools. I think too many would overwhelm the text. Extra pictures can go on Commons, with a link from the article to the Commons gallery. --Aude (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History section
  • I have tried making parts of the section more concise. There was a lot of repetition, and I see this elsewhere in the article.
  • I'm not sure the paragraph on the Colonial House Apartments is needed. If it's kept in the article, it needs to make more clear what the significance of this complex was? The article mentions, "1989 article in response to the fate", but it's not clear what the fate of the complex was?
  • The part about Michael Pollack is probably not needed. The article says he was just a promoter, but then was referred to as an "apartment operator" This is confusing, and anyway seems too trivial.
  • I see the following paragraph begins to talk about this complex. I think the information is presented out of order, and thus confusing to the reader.
  • The "In the 1980s the economy declined " paragraph talks about two things (1) the decline in the economy and foreclosures (2) the shift towards immigrant tenants. I suggest breaking this paragraph into two, so it's easier for the reader to digest what is being said there.
  • "Kroger remodeled its Gulfton-area store to cater to Hispanics in the 2000s" - what year did the remodeling take place?
Geography
  • "Gulfton is located outside of the 610 Loop south and east of U.S. Highway 59 (Southwest Freeway), south of the Westpark Tollway, north of Bellaire Boulevard, and east of Hillcroft Avenue." - huh? I'm not familiar with Houston, so this doesn't help me at all to understand where Gulfton is located. Is Gulfton located in the western part of Houston? eastern part? or what? how far from downtown?
  • A more simple map would help readers see where Gulfton is located. Perhaps something that shows the Houston city limits, and a dot on the map or area colored indicating where Gulfton is located, and perhaps the interstate highways for reference? And the locater map belongs in the geography section, or at the top of the article.
  • The census map is not terribly helpful for showing the location, especially when shown at thumbnail size. I can't see the red line, unless I look at the image in close detail. However, a demographic map showing some variable like income levels, % of hispanic population, or such is helpful for the demographics section. Population density as presented here might be okay.

I'm going to stop here, for now, and review more later. Overall, I think the article can use copyediting, trim some of the more trivial details, and make the article more concise. --Aude (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References
Additional comments

The changes made so far are in the right direction, addressing some of my previous concerns. Though, I see more to be done, particularly as the prose is concerned.

  • Though, I did some copyediting, that's not one of my strengths. I think copyediting is needed from someone uninvolved in the article to improve the quality of the prose.
  • Throughout the article, I see sources cited in such a manner as "As stated in a 2005 Houston Chronicle article, the Houston-Galveston Area Council identified ...". Instead, just say "In 2005, the Houston-Galveston Area Council identified ..." The footnote citation suffices in most cases.
  • I also see excess amount of direct quotes, such as 'Roberto Suro of The Washington Post described Gulfton as a "tightly packed warren."' Direct quotes should only be used sparingly. Can you paraphrase this or is Suro's description important enough to include?
  • More could be said about transportation, and it could be said more clearly. (remember, not all readers are familiar with Houston, so please provide some context) It sounds like there is no subway in Houston but there is light rail. When was it built? Does it go anywhere near Gulfton? Sounds like it doesn't. The reasoning given "agency originally envisioned "more of an express service" in that area" leaves me puzzled. What is meant by express service or what form? an express bus line? More information on the University Line, as it relates to Gulfton would be useful.
  • Another concern is the Education section, which I think goes into a tad too much detail. I think it can be written in a way that is much more concise. For example, the "Elementary and middle schools" and "History of elementary and middle schools" sections are together 11 paragraphs long. Is it possible to convey the information in those sections using 2/3 number of words or less? I know that may be a challenge, but that would go a long way towards improving the article.
  • The lead section has been improved, in the right direction, but I think it needs more work. I took out the direct quote ("Susan Rogers, author of "Superneighborhood 27..."), which detracts from prose quality, and added mention of when Gulfton was first developed, and the circumstances (oil boom). The lead can perhaps say something more about demographics, government, transportation, economy, and other sections.

These are my concerns for now. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright: 1. Perhaps some location details that could be useful to non-natives is the distance to Downtown Houston; - I could also say southwestern Houston. 2. I don't know exactly year the remodeling took place, but I know it took place in the 2000s. I'll re-read the article, but AFAIK the best I can say is the 2000s. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I've not read the full article yet; these are just some comments on WP:LAYOUT and WP:Manual of Style issues that I noticed in a brief look at the article.

Sorry for quoting so many guidelines at you, but I figured it would be more helpful to point you in the right direction than to just say 'x isn't right'. Please let me know if you have any questions. It might also be helpful to take a look at current FAs about 'places'. Maralia (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, it's fine to quote the guidelines :) - There are a few things:
    • 1. I'm thinking about how to work on the lead
    • 2. I thought about the lead image; it *does* have signature details; check out the street signs. I don't think the intersection of Gulfton and Westward exists anywhere else in the world. Plus I don't see any "sign" that says Gulfton or anything like that. However I do kind of wish the car wasn't there.
    • 3. I did add more access dates to non-newspaper article citations. However, do I need to add access dates to newspaper article citations? Even though the article itself is online, the content of the article is highly unlikely to change and the article was originally published offline.
    • 4. I removed some extra pictures, so the sandwiching hopefully is no longer there.
    • 5. As for "In the references, many website and publisher names are (incorrectly) italicized; please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic face." - which ones, in particular? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • Current ref 71 (Rice Epicurean..) is lacking a last access date.
  • A number of your newspaper links lack last access dates. If it has a link, it needs a last access date.
  • Current ref 79 (Kolker...), Houston Press should be in italics.
  • http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/DM/lib00377,0ED3CED3B2373735.html deadlinks
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added much more access dates. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, now the lead section has two paragraphs - Am I going in the right direction? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I haven't read the article yet, but I'm going to oppose based solely on the pictures, mainly because when you look at the thumbnail images in the article, you cannot see anything relevant in the photos (usually due to extraneous detail); only the photo of the Rice Headquarters looks OK. Perhaps increasing the size of the photos would improve the article, but I suspect that some of the photos will need to be retaken. In particular [17], the photo in the lead, is supposed to be a photo of apartment complexes, but when you look at it, your attention is drawn to 1) a pickup truck, 2) a divided highway, 3) some overhead power lines, and 4) some apartment complexes in the background. A crop of the photo might work, though I'd rather not have the pickup in the foreground. The second image: [18] is supposed to be of a supermarket, but is actually of some cars in the supermarket parking lot. Neither the picture nor the text explain how the remodelled store is supposed to appeal better to Hispanics (as a non-US person who lived in Houston for 3 years, I just can't see it...). The map [19] is far too busy. You want a map that shows the freeways with a dot to mark Gulfton, without the other communities being marked. As it is, your attention is drawn away from the dot to the rest of the map. Additionally, the map _really_ needs to look good at the resolution shown in the page. The photos of the schools looks like a gallery. I would just keep the photo of the Benavidez Elementary School, but severely crop it to mainly show the lobby building, which is slightly architecturally interesting (you also need to rotate it slightly to make the verticals upright). Of the other school photos, [20] is particularly bad, being a photo of the crossing outside the school - it's impossible to make out the buildings due to the fence on the opposite side of the road. Bluap (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [21].

International Space Station

[edit]
Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that, following a lot of work by some very diligent editors, a peer review and successful GAN, this article meets the Featured Article Requirements. In addition, it discusses a highly important and relevant machine, the International Space Station, considered by the Version 1.0 team to be a vital topic, and so certainly counts as a notable subject. Colds7ream (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for now:

  • Why is "Not yet launched" repeatedly emphasised in a table called "Scheduled to be launched"?
  • Why are the isolated and station view of the Zarya the same image?
  • Could you elaborate on the "byproducts of human metabolism" that are removed by the activated charcoal filter? The article tells us how the CO2 is removed but how is the urine and faeces processed, is this where the activated charcoal is used?
  • The article still needs some copy-editing. I removed two occurrences of "in order to", but glitches remain here and there, and please check for correct Em and En dash usage. I enjoyed reading the article—thanks. Graham Colm Talk 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the 'Not yet launched' labels - they're a leftover from when that table was part of the table above it. I've removed them.
  • The views of Zarya are the same because when she was launched, Zarya was the ISS - she was the first module launched, and, as a result, represented the entire station.
  • I'll get to work on the other two points.
Colds7ream (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that there is quite a bit of "British" english in the article, while most of it is American oriented, especially the dates. analyse, programme, kilometres, tonnes, pressurised. I'm not quite into the finer details of US vs. UK spelling. I'm not sure what to do in these cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I spotted this (as with "centre"); the article must be consistent. Given that it is about the International Space Station, I guess the principal editors can choose? Graham Colm Talk 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style says that you should decide upon a dialect and stick with it; I think the general unspoken agreement was that given the article also discusses European and Russian spaceflight, which are predominantly written in British English (see Salyut 6, for instance), that was the best way to go. Colds7ream (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I work on converting all the dates to European format then ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This interesting article on an important subject could benefit from a rigorous copyedit to remove extraneous words and prose. Examples:

  • "currently being built"; "currently under construction"; "currently participating" -- What does "currently" add?
  • "A typical day would begin" -- Why not "A typical day begins"?
  • "at which point" -- use “when”
  • Repetition of “additionally” (a word which should be used very sparingly, if at all) twice in the span of three sentences
  • Repetition of pressurized volume when complete

Other comments:

  • In the text in list of modules, you sometimes use complete sentences, sometimes not. You may wish to make it consistent.
  • The first sentence in "Sightings" seems labored, and can be made terser and more coherent.

Good luck. Kablammo (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some overlinking, including linking of names of countries and of Europe itself. Kablammo (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In the politics and finances section, I don't understand this part:

"...whereas the other sections of the station have been agreed to be assigned as follows:

1. Columbus: 51% for ESA, 49% for NASA and CSA (CSA has agreed with NASA to use 2.3% of all non-Russian ISS structure)

2. Kibo: 51% for JAXA, 49% for NASA and CSA (2.3%)

3. Destiny: 100% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) as well as 100% of the truss payload accommodation

4. Crew time and power from the solar panel structure, as well as rights to purchase supporting services (upload/download and communication services) 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA, 8.3% for ESA and 2.3% for CSA"

Is it talking about the division of the costs for these things, ownership, or what? If not cost, then what exactly do these percentages mean? How does one use 2.3% of a structure? If it's about the time spent using these sections, how is it regulated and how closely are percentage allotments adhered to (and what are the social and research implications of this arrangement)?--ragesoss (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The time spent using the modules is determined by point 4, whilst points 1, 2 and 3 govern how much actual structure is assigned to each partner, i.e. how many research devices each partner can put in each segment. Colds7ream (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be explained more clearly in the article. The significance of points 1-3 is not clear in the present form, and point 4 perhaps out to be part of a paragraph instead of a numbered item.--ragesoss (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references, such as NASA, ESA, GAO, etc. Just the first time they are mentioned is sufficient.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • All your website references and pdfs need last access dates. (Noted refs 17 & 18 (STS-123 & STS-124 press kit ...) but there are probably others.)
  • Current ref 26 (Barry, Patrick...) is missing a publisher.
  • Same for current ref 28 (NASAexplores...) where the publisher is in the title, it needs to be outside the link title.
  • Current ref 38 (Jones, Chris...) needs a page number
  • Current ref 41 needs a publisher (Khrunichev State...)
  • Current ref 42 (BUckley, Jay...) needs a page number
  • Titles of publications need to be in italics, such as Orlando Sentinel, etc. When using {{cite news}} you use the work field to do this.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on this. The books might be a problem for me, but all the other stuff I will deal with today/tomorrow. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, there's been some work going on - the metabolic byproducts have been specified, we've copyedited and the soirces are being dealt with - although I'm not sure how to page number the books, as they are used on multiple occasions. How's the looking? Oh - and, given that I forgot it before:

Support as nominator. Colds7ream (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status with regard to all comments? There seems to be some inactivity here. Graham Colm Talk 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, most if not all have been dealt with, with TheDJ dealing with citations. Colds7ream (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [22].

South African Scout Association

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- YiS, Jediwannabe

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that it offers good factual information about the subject. The article has also had GA status for approximately 2 years and has reached a very stable state. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments -

Unfortunately a large number of available sources on the organisation are published by the organisation. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 06:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. If they are self-published sources, they need to meet a higher hurdle, see WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the pinetreeweb.com and milestones references in favour of the actual printed sources of the information. I still can't get any verification regarding the sossi reference, will keep looking. -- YiS, Jediwannabe 20:39, 11 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [23].

Made in America (The Sopranos)

[edit]
Nominator(s): –FunkyVoltron talk

I'm nominating the final episode of The Sopranos for FA status as I think it qualifies: It includes all the essential information and follows Wikipedia:Television episodes closely. The article has been peer reviewed. I know that the ratings sections is very short but I'd prefer to keep it like that. There are also two red links in the article for two decidedly notable actors; I'll create stub articles for them if that's a concern.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: There are four non-free images in the article. I have concerns with Wikipedia:NFCC #3 and #8. Fair use images should be used only when the readers' understanding of the text cannot be complete without the image. See the use of images in Mulholland Dr.. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they greatly enhance the article but I suppose one or both of the images in the Plot section could be removed.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between illustrating the article and including an image that ensures the reader cannot understand the issues in the article without referring to the image in question. Helping your cause for keeping the images would be referencing something specific in the image in the text. For example, if you included an image because of the characters interacting, the text should highlight that, and the image summary should also. It should be explicit. In the summary for Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg, look at the Fair Use Rationale, particularly numbers 1 and 8, and then the 2nd paragraph of the Mulholland_Drive_(film)#Style section. I recommend using this kind of fair use rationale in the images for the article. I would also recommend taking a long hard look at all four non-free images to determine if all should stay. You may end up removing two or more. Let me know if you have questions. Images are particularly difficult to deal with. I had to learn by doing what you're doing... --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been resolved. see below.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing of images appears to be fine. I recommend adjusting placement, however. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as RTE.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, done.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I remember something about Al Gore being given a Halliburton with this episode in because it aired when he was on a plane, and not being allowed to open it until airtime. Or am I confusing it with The West Wing? Sceptre (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's true. Here's the story. Didn't include it in the article, though, as it seemed to be too trivial.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to use all available sources to definitively cement its notability :) Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Reading the Production section leads me to wonder about the prose of the rest of the article. The section is illogically organized, and reads more like a collection of facts than a summary of the episode's production. Odd use of present perfect tense in three of the four first sentences (the sentence structure also being dully repetitious). "To insure that the final scene..." - spot what's wrong here. BuddingJournalist 19:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a collection of facts regarding the production is what the production is in the end. Tried to make the prose more varied.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I reworked the prose to the best of my ability—english being my third language—and tried to make the sections more coherent.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section shouldn't strive to be a mere collection of random facts. It should summarize the production of the episode in a logical fashion, with prose that flows smoothly – from concept (who wrote the script; how did the ideas germinate?) to shooting to post-production. Here, the last three paragraphs are disjointed ideas. Readers find out when the episode was planned, but nothing more about its conception. By the way, the use of present perfect and "to insure..." is still there. You might want to try working with a native English speaker on the prose. "He has maintained that the final scene was filmed almost exactly as he had envisioned it, and has also denied that the ending is a setup for a future film, but has mentioned that a Sopranos feature is still a possibility, stating "[t]here may be a day where we all come up with something."" What Tony would call a winding snake. BuddingJournalist 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the case with feature films were sufficient information for a section like that is available. For television episodes, however, that go in the general production section of the show's article. Have a look at some other featured episode and you'll find that they follow pretty much the same model as this article. Redid the sentence.–FunkyVoltron talk 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, resolved. Removed all screencaps except the one in the infobox, which should be that very picture. I removed the Image:Sopranosfinale.jpg image as well as it was too similar. I also added another free image to the production section to get some more illustrations.–FunkyVoltron talk 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b. The lead doesn't delve into much of the story or provide a straightfoward summation of the entire article. The plot section is convoluted and confusing for anyone who has never watched an episode, not to mention it seems to neglect facts, if what I read about the episode are correct- wasn't there some sinister character heading into the bathroom or something? It's mentioned in the reception (and by the way you shouldn't have a two sentence heading ["Final scene"]) but not in the plot. There are tons of stubby paragraphs and headers. I'm concerned about the lack of print sources from newspapers and the slim production section as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. You see, it's impossible to do a detailed write-up of the final scene in the plot section and still keep it 600 words or less. Hell, that would be 600 words in itself. As such, details concerning the final scenes appearing only in other sections is inevitable but I've always mentioned that the discussed plot point is from the final scene. As far as the lead goes...you lost me. How does it not summarize the article? Everything's there. What are you even talking about? The story of the episode is hard to summarize as The Sopranos generally doesn't do "Tony and his crew rob a bank"-type storylines. I added a new opening line to the plot section to clarify things. What is written in the lead about the plot is what actually happens in the episode in very broad strokes. Please point out some stubby paragraphs so I can overhaul them.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also very hard to find information about the production of the episode. You see, The Sopranos isn't Lost. I think all the essentials are there and episode articles with shorter production sections are featured articles.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't follow the organization of the article itself—ideally, plot should come first, then development, then reaction. There's nothing from the series DVD commentary-and considering the blasted box set has something like five hours of bonus features, I'm sure some of that covers the development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked lead. Is it okay now? Sadly, I don't have the box set (yet) although from my understanding that's more of a general discussion of the ending and not anecdotes regarding the shooting.–FunkyVoltron talk 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately oppose This article just isn't ready yet (not polished enough), and I am not confident that this can be fixed quickly. As you have already tried peer review, I strongly suggest to ask an uninvolved editor to copyedit and/or take the advice given in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (that essay and its exercises are great; they helped me in my first FAC). Below are a few issues that immediately caught my eye, to illustrate where the article still needs (major) work.

  • Plot is too long. The article doesn't need to mention every detail, and it lost me after the second paragraph (information overload). Wikipedia is not a replacement for watching the show, so you should really try to get this below 450 words. It's also a great exercise for the next point...
  • Prose: This is not a court hearing, so the article can skip "He has maintained" and "he denied" (unless these are controversial claims). There is too much redundance and unnecessary wording, e.g. the first paragraph of the Production section can be trimmed to: Show runner David Chase planned the series ending during the 21-month hiatus between seasons, a "long break" that HBO granted him after season five. The final scene was filmed almost exactly as Chase had envisioned. It was not intended as a setup for a future film, although Chase stated "[t]here may be a day where we all come up with something" for a possible Sopranos feature.[2][3][4] The series finale is Chase's second Sopranos episode to direct besides the pilot episode. That's 20% down without losing any information. This is the article's weakest point after the overlong plot summary.
  • Reception: Too many and too short subsections. As a (my) rule of thumb, a subsection should have at least one four-line paragraph (preferably two) to earn its right of existance
  • Refs use both 2008-11-19 and 23 November 2008 style for the accessdate parameter. Ref 11 uses two external links - why? Ref 39: I know the Emmys have a website for listing all their awards and noms, so add that link.
  • External links: at least three of the ELs are unnecessary (general IMDb, TWoP review, essay) - work them into the article as refs, or don't mention them at all

It seems this is your first FAC, and you may feel discouraged by all the negativity and nitpicking. Please don't take it personally if this FAC fails. You can take an article to FAC as often as you like, and you'll always get better with each attempt (with this article or another). – sgeureka t•c 22:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article but please reconsider after reading my comments. According to this MOS, the plot is fine like it is. That sentence was very helpful, I reworked it slightly and added it to the article. Refs use the same style, it's just that the templates (cite web and cite news) currently use different display styles. I suppose someone's working on that. That should absolutely not be an issue as that's something I can't control. The Emmy ref was a good suggestion, I fixed that. External links should not be a concern.
This is far from my first FAC. I've passed articles before. It's a sad affair as always. People seem to be more concerned what they personally think can benefit the article instead of helping the nominator pass the article. As opinions often differ and contradict, it's quite a ridiculous balancing act but I guess that's what Wikipedia is so I'm not going to complain (any more than that, anyway).–FunkyVoltron talk 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says, "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words". The article has 602 words. Even if we account for "Complicated plots may take more space", the plot summary is simply not accessible for someone who has never watched the show (okay, I admit that part of this may be because it was a serialised show). The first paragraph says Tony goes somewhere, doesn't get what he wants, and goes somewhere - why is it necessary to say where he goes? The second paragraph talks of Tony's widowed sister - what's up with that? That's what the general reader asks himself when he reads the article, and it wastes his time. (I'm just saying.) – sgeureka t•c 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at it like that, it's almost impossible to write summaries of television episodes. Plot summaries are allowed to exceed the recommended word limit when it's a complex show and The Sopranos is a very, very complex show. It's quite simply impossible to summarize the plot any better than that as, like with many Sopranos episodes, there is no "story" in the traditional bullshit network sense. If TV episode articles' plot summaries were written like you advise, you'd have to recap the entire season or the entire series to explain what's going on...and that doesn't make for easy reading. Let's compromise, baby.–FunkyVoltron talk 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article has some work to do before reaching FA status but it is on its way.
I've split up the second lead sentence about the episodes position within the series and season to make it easier to digest.
With regard to the plot summary I've been through it again and pruned out the one sentence references to characters that might confuse the casual reader and reduced the word count by removing more of the quotes. I'm not sure where the word count stands now but hopefully it is under that MOS 500 word guideline and still provides a reasonable summary of the plot for the casual reader.
I've copy edited the reception section and merged several of the short one paragraph sections together.
I think this article needs a further copy edit from an independent third party. Once that is done and any suggestions have been acted upon I'd be happy to offer my support.
--Opark 77 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I've made some minor edits to your edits. I think it should be able to pass now.–FunkyVoltron talk 11:43, 16 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [24].

Tragic Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tezkag72 and Escape Artist Swyer

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Escape Artist Swyer and I worked on it to get it to GA, and then had it peer reviewed, which recently closed (we fixed all the problems.) So, we want to know if it is capable of being one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Tezkag72 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom: We've spent a while working on this article since finding it like this. It stunned me that such a great album should have so poor an article so I got to work. Tezkag72 soon joined me and we've worked together since. This is my first FAC, btw. I hope it can be classified as one of Wikipedia's best. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I bought the album in January or so, and when I looked it up on Wikipedia in August or so to learn more about it, I noticed how bad the article looked. I found out that Escape Artist Swyer had been working on it for a bit, and I joined in. Through the course of the two months, we got it from a Start to a B, and then a GA. Now, basically we're trying to complete the process. It's my first FAC, also. Tezkag72 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia Welcome; it's nice to see some new faces around here! A few comments to get you started:

  • Every citation to an online source needs an accessdate (some are missing).
As far as I can see, they're all there for the "cite web" sources. Tezkag72 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 4, 5, 6, and 12 appear to be online sources without accessdates. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit it, and accessdates are indeed in all of them, they're just not showing up. Tezkag72 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed these myself. Maralia (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fair use rationale for Image:No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom.jpg needs minor clarification (the rationale does not explicitly state that it is a rationale for use in this article).
Why not? It's the album cover. Tezkag72 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to the next question here—there is a fair use rationale on the image page, but it's not clearly designated as being for use in this specific article. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? (sorry it's not your fault. I just don't understand those.) Tezkag72 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FURG for an explanation of what a fair use rationale is. You might consider using a preexisting template such as Template:Album cover fur. done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric Stefani is linked twice in the main prose, but Gwen not at all.
Yes she is, as far as I can see. Where should I be looking? Tezkag72 14:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen and Eric are both linked once in the main prose: the background section. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Paul Palmer leads to a disambiguation page.
Done. Tezkag72 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the article in Category:Atlantic Records albums? I see that Atlantic partially financed Interscope, but Atlantic is not mentioned in the release history, nor in the entire article. Am I missing something?
Done. Tezkag72 00:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Maralia (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more issue: references 7 and 9 aren't formatted the same as the rest; they have a date appended to the end of the citation—where an accessdate normally displays—but I think those dates are actually publication dates. You need to either use the same cite templates as used for the rest of the references, or manually format them to display in the same way. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed these. Maralia (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth -

Damn, No Doubt could've waited 'til this was promoted to reformat their website. Will go find new urls. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source no longer used as I've cut down the singles section. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 44 (Charts-Surfer...) is in German, and should note this in the reference. Any other foreign language sites should also note the language in the reference.
Done. Tezkag72 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note Maralia caught the formatting issues in the references, and I second her recommendations.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by indopug
  • It could do with a solid copy-edit
In which areas? Tezkag72 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since most of the songs on Tragic Kingdom were written by lead vocalist Gwen Stefani, and were about her experiences in life, and those from No Doubt's previous album were written mainly by Eric Stefani, who left the group before Tragic Kingdom was recorded, the style of music changed from what No Doubt had previously produced"—very long sentence.
Done. Tezkag72 14:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commercial sound" in Background is a rather ambiguous phrase.
Removed. Thanks. Tezkag72 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to have such detailed info about the singles. They have their own articles, don't they?
Cut down. Is that enough? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can yo[u break that rather large Critical reception paragraph?
How should I do that? The only way I can think of is breaking it between positive and negative reviews, but there aren't any mainly-negative reviews there. Tezkag72 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now two medium paragraphs. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of that release history section? How are a list of catalogue numbers supposed to help the general reader?
I removed those once, but PiracyFundsTerrorism said that WikiProject Albums's guidelines said that it's encouraged to have such a box. I checked, and it does say that. What should I do? Tezkag72 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed section. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tragic Kingdom spawned seven singles from 1995 to 1998, including "Just a Girl", "Spiderwebs", "Excuse Me Mr.", "Sunday Morning" and "Don't Speak"." -- is this needed at all in the lead? The infobox lists these out any way.
Well, every FA album article I've seen does that. Only five of the seven singles are listed because the other two didn't chart, didn't pass WP:N, and don't have articles. Tezkag72 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it to "Just a Girl" and "Don't Speak". These were the most well-known singles from the album. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very good work, but it needs fine-tuning. I'll try to help if I can with a ce and maybe add some more reviews. indopug (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Recommend you alter the Fair Use rationale for the album cover similar to Image:Michaeljacksonthrilleralbum.jpg. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One image in article, license and appearance ok. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [25].

Edgar Speyer

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

I'm nominating this biographical article for featured article because of the subject's interesting life and status as one of only a few people to be struck-off as members of the Privy Council. DavidCane (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Strongly suggest expanding the lead quite a bit, it's very skimpy for the size of the article.
Will do tomorrow. They're always a bit short.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking - no need for "New York", the "German Jewish" in the Family section (as it's linked in the lead), "works of art", etc.
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 1 (Oxford Dictionary of National biography..) I'm assuming you're referring to the Barker, Theo ref in the References? Might make more sense to make the footnote "Barker".
Correct and done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alphabetize your references, please
done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 2 does not go to the marriage record, just to the home page. What makes this a reliable source, anyway?
Unfortunately the search results are not persistent for any great length of time. The information here is the same as that used by Ancestry.com except that it is free and is complied from the original microfiche of the birth, marriages and death registers.
nothing particularly but, it's primarily provided as a link to pictures of his house.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have changed somewhat since I originally linked to it. A better link would be to this which states the full dedication and which I have used instead. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are the publishers in conjunction with Boosey & Hawkes of the score for Salome. Doing a bit more digging, I have found on the B&H site a direct link to the first page of the score showing the dedication, so I have linked directly to that instead. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intrinsically nothing, but the fact that he was a trustee is covered by reference 1. Reference 24 is supplementary to that, in part to provide some background on the gallery itself. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing particularly. I have found a reference since this was added in the new york times to his subscription of £1,000 to the Scott fund which I will replace this with.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Data is from a list complied by the United States Geological Survey. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/S6 for the same information on Wikipedia.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comprehensive list of stringed instruments (over 10,000 listed by nearly 300 makers (see the home page for the numbers), so I think it's safe to assume it's reliable.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 56 is lacking a publisher
Publisher is Killick & Co. Reformed the ref to make this clear.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Killick & Co. is a private stockbroker so I'm fairly confident that they check their facts thoroughly, however, the link is only to support the fact that they are now the occupiers of Speyer's house. Everything on the Killick & Co. "Our History" page is supported by information in other sources - principally the Sheppard reference which gives a detailed history of the house up to 1980 when it was the Japanese Embassy. --DavidCane (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the unstruck issues out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wholesale reversion [26] was rather unconsidered:
    • It's nice to avoid "this" clauses in formal writing when they can be rewritten. You reverted to "this was characterised by novels warning of the rising military threat" and "the parts of the Act of Settlement that prohibited this"
    • "Following the British declaration of war with Germany... Following a Royal Proclamation on 11 September 1914...." - you prefer two consecutive "following"s beginning a sentence?
    • "Accusations of disloyalty and treachery were made against him in the Press" - I had removed the passive and the capitalization of Press
    • "In June 1915, Sir George Makgill, Secretary of the Anti-German Union applied for permission" - needs a comma
    • "In December 1915, Lord Chief Justice Lord Reading, rejected the application" - doesn't need a comma
  • Eh? –Outriggr § 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've been without a connection for a couple of days, so couldn't reply earlier. Something odd happened there as the only bits that showed up as being changed in your edit when I did a comparison were the changes about disloyalty, the Press and "normal" to "formal". I didn't see the other changes.
I reverted "the press" to "the Press" as I was advised during the GA review that the context required it to be capitalised. I reverted "formal" to "normal" because the contemporary Times commentaries on the case (now, unfortunately, locked behind a pay-per-view registration system) indicate that there was no process to be followed to remove someone from the Privy council or to withdraw a baronetcy, formal or otherwise - see the quotes in footnote 38. I probably missed the comma changes.
Now that I've seen the rest of your changes, I don't have a problem with them. --DavidCane (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

I've fixed this, the page has been moved within the same web site, although the image appears to have been enlarged and cropped on the current page. --DavidCane (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that Brian. --DavidCane (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a very well-written and comprehensive article that tells a compelling story. I reviewed it at GA and have carried out a few minor tweaks during the course of this FAC review. I have just one question: The Legacy section contains the sentence "The former [deep level tube lines] may not have been built without the finance he raised with Yerkes, and would have struggled without his chairmanship". Can you clarify where these opinions come from? The only reference in the para ,([22]), is to a biography of Percy Grainger. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The note (now [23]) from John Bird's biography of Percy Grainger is provided only with regard to his support for the proms. I have added a link in the Bird reference in the reference section to link to the relevant page of the book at google books.
With regard to the support for the tube, I was relying on the description of his actions in the third paragraph in the Financier section to support this implicitly. I have added a new note in this section (note [10]) which explains how Speyer bailed out the company to prevent it going bankrupt in 1908. I think the addition of this supports the argument in the legacy section.--DavidCane (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the first 25 years, the last 25 or some other period? The article covers the notable aspects of his life - involvement with the creation of the London Underground, philanthropy and the revocation of his nationalisation and Privy Counsellorship. Other than growing up and going to school, not much notable is likely to have happened before he became a partner in his father's banks when he was 22 in 1884 and nothing appears to be recorded. After his British citizenship was removed he lived in New York for the last ten years of his life and continued as a partner of the surviving American and German banks. After 1922, his appearance in the public record is fairly sketchy in the US and virtually non-existent in the UK. There are periodic mentions in the society sections of the New York times of his holidaying in the Hamptons and the like but I considered that to be trivia.--DavidCane (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A person is notable. The individual events don't have to be notable. Encyclopedias contain non-"notable" information for a biography. At least place two or three paragraphs about his early life, education, etc. We need to see how this individual developed, various influences, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to notability - I believe that Speyer passes the basic test at WP:BIO. He is the subject of secondary source material such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
With regard to his early life - There is virtually nothing recorded. What is known is already in the article as it stands. The problem is that, aside from the Barker biography in the ODNB (which is an update of the 1949 original in the Dictionary of National Biography by H. B. Grimsditch) there is no single source all-encompassing biography of Speyer. The ODNB's only information on his early life is the following single sentence:
"Educated at the Realgymnasium, Frankfurt, at the age of twenty-two Speyer became a partner in his father's three associated companies in Frankfort, London, and New York."
I have been unable to find anything else.
With regard to his influences - I could put in that his German parentage, German relatives and education in Germany gave him a pro-German outlook, which is fairly clear in any case, but that would be, largely, conjecture and original research as it is not covered in the ODNB or any of the other sources I have referenced. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I can confirm from my own experiences that trying to get background information on Speyer is all but impossible. I have found nothing on the record about his early life beyond what is in this article. He went to school in Frankfurt, joined the bank, became a partner at an early age. His brother James Joseph, a year older, followed exactly the same path. I don't think it reasonable to sustain an oppose on the grounds that there ought to be more information available, when there isn't. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008 [27].

Ralph Bakshi

[edit]
Nominator: User:Ibaranoff24 (talk)

The article has been greatly improved since its last FAC, and should be ready for promotion. Documents the history of an important figure in the history of American animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment

There is an undisambiguated link to Marvel, and Foofle is a redirect to an unrelated subject. William Avery (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently doing a requested copy edit of the articles, and came across the following quotation: "The conflict between Avatar and his evil brother Blackwolf is borh cliched and mostly..." near the end of the "Controversy and shift towards fantasy film" section. I don't want to change the "borh cliched" line because it's a quote, but someone might want to check the source and see if that was a typo in the original book or if it crept in when the quote was added to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the same quote has "neccesarily" in it, which should probably also be checked. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, both of these are typos, and have been corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Copy edit complete. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Hill is a notable animation commentator. The Media Coalition citation can probably be taken out. Desert Exposure is an Arizona newspaper. The articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
What has been taken care of? And are you saying that you used citations for works you did not consult when you say that the "articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information was listed in Cohen's book. In a few instances, I cited the sources that Cohen used, which were given in the back of the book. Some of them were missing information. Thus, the citations are presented as they were printed in the source list for Forbidden Animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You need to cite that information to Cohen's book then, if you did not actually utilize the other works yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten articles on three films by Bakshi using the same kind of formatting and writing style, and I've never been asked to do so before, nor has this kind of formatting deterred the success of a FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It's basic citation 101 that you cite to where you found the information, not where the source you're using got the information, unless you also accessed and verified that information with the source's source. I learned this with the very first term paper I ever wrote. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thanks David!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth asked me to read over this discussion and see what I thought. She is right; you must cite where you got the information, not where your source got it. If you have done this before and no one has complained it is likely because no one realized that was happening. It is always possible (and usually likely), that the intermediate source (the book you read) picked and chose information out of the original source, leaving out other info, and may have added their own interpretation of what was in the original source. If you want to do proper attribution in the text of the article, you may say that "According to Author Y, the magazine XXX on ZZ date said.....". But this must be cited to the book that you read, because it may not be a 100% accurate representation of what the magazine actualy said. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with the above: cite to your source. The form which Karanacs suggests is correct procedure when you wish to refer to an original source that you don't have; I have often used it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree 100 percent - the place where you found the information is the place that must be cited (also making clear where they say they got the information). For another example of this in a FA, see, for example, Ref. 61 in Joseph Priestley House ("Qtd." is "Quoted"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Query Hi, the claim that the 1978 Lord of the Rings Film "laid the groundwork for future adaptations of the book" is quite controversial and I think would need a citation. Also could the sentence "director John Boorman was attached to direct adaptation of The Lord of the Rings" be revisited? Should it be "director John Boorman was (attempting, contracted or planning?) to direct an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings"? ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 30 November 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [28].

Zimbabwe

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

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that the editors have fulfilled the FA criteria, and if not I believe constructive criticism would be most useful in helping us to make the article as best as we can. Mangwanani (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - too much slant against Mugabe. Yes, it is most likely deserved. At the same time, though, I don't think this article is dispassionate enough. Also have concerns about stability for several issues happening there right now, e.g. cholera epidemic, widespread condemnation of Mugabe... Sceptre (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you define slant and give examples at all? I can't say the Hitler pages are so rosy.... Mangwanani (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "The country is dictated by President Robert Mugabe, who is accused by rights groups of massive violations of human rights". is clearly a POV statement because it moralizes. The article is full of statements like this. Sceptre (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope I've repaired that incident a bit. Rephrased it to "The country is ruled by President Robert Mugabe, who has been accused by rights groups of violations of human rights" Mangwanani (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which groups are these? Attribute the claims. Unfortunately, this article is far from FA status. Sceptre (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider giving us tips such as those which we got for GA status to help us improve the article? Mangwanani (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better tack to take would be specific examples? I.E., can you find a list somewhere of how many African and international leaders have called for his resignation? Have Amnesty International or the United Nations ever condemned his human rights abuses? A sentence to the effect of "Over X African leaders have called for Mugabe's resignation, citing corruption, human rights abuses and electoral fraud" is much more NPOV than "Mugabe's a horrible human being and should be toppled." --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose referencing issues.

  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. A number of your references are just bare urls, and need formatting. The checklink tool shows a number of dead links. As it stands, I can't even begin to evaluate the references until they are in some sort of coherent system. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the sort of feedback I was hoping for. Thanks. Mangwanani (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for feedback, the proper place for that is at WP:Peer Review. Generally, it's expected that articles coming to FAC should be highly polished, and just about ready for FA. I notice this article did have a PR, but it was almost a year ago. The references are in need of serious formatting, there are sections unreferenced that include opinion (examples: "Following the failed insurrections of 1896–97 the Ndebele and Shona groups became subject to Rhodes's administration thus precipitating European settlement en masse which led to land distribution disproportionately favouring Europeans, displacing the Shona, Ndebele, and other indigenous peoples." or "Mugabe began to redistribute land to blacks in 2000 with a compulsory land redistribution. Charges that the programme as a whole is designed to reward loyal Mugabe deputies have persisted in Zimbabwe since the beginning of the process." among others.) I strongly suggest withdrawing and submitting this to another PR. FAC is suffering from a lack of reviewers at the moment, and the nomination might not gather any reviews. At the moment, I must oppose based on the lack of references throughout. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs primarily on referencing and organization issues. The article has definitely gotten a good start, but I don't think it is close to meeting the FA criteria at this time. There have been a lot of books written about Zimbabwe, including about the leadup to the current crisis, but they do not appear to have been consulted. This leads to concerns about the comprehensiveness of the article; if we are cherry-picking from online sources and news articles and not consulting comprehensive scholarly works about the topics, then we might miss something important. The sourcing issues I've listed below are not 100% comprehensive, but should hopefully give you a good idea about what sources should and should not be used.

I suggest at this time that the nomination be withdrawn, the article rewritten with more reliable sources, and then it should be brought to peer review. After that, it will likely be ready for a second FA nomination. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [29].

Marty Hogan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Daysleeper47 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it represents the best of Wikipedia. I am not involved at all with this article, however I have worked closely with the primary editor, Twelsht, on several FACs. As is the case with all of the Twelsht products I have seen, this article is well-written, very detailed, and well cited. Additionally, it has proven stable, is of sufficient length for someone of this notoriety, and includes graphics. I highly recommend that this article be promoted to FA-class. Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that Twelsht is not active on the project anymore (unless working anonymously, which he has done in the past). I will be happy to make minor corrections to the article as necessary, but don't have the time for wholesale changes. I nominated the article on its current merits. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daysleeper, it is the custom of those patrolling FACs to remove nominations where the nominator is not a major contributor, per the FAC instructions at the top of the page. If you do not have the time or resources to make extensive changes to the article, I recommend that you nominate the article when you have the time and sources used in the article. It is virtually impossible to have an FAC promoted without these. --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - I count seven cite tags in the article. There's no way the article can pass FAC unless they are resolved. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to strong oppose because tags haven't been fixed in six days, and I recommend that it be withdrawn. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [30].

WrestleMania XXIV

[edit]
Nominator(s): iMatthew

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I'm sure it meets the Featured article criteria. Concerns will be addressed. iMatthew 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • I don't like the small text in "Results"; I suggest changing to normal
  • In the infobox, there should be no space between the word and the (s) (I'm assuming the (s) to cover bases for singular and plural.) This will require editing the infobox; shouldn't be a problem though.
  • Why is U.S. state linked? Common enough term to not need it.
  • "and it was" – "and was"
  • "brand, that" – "brand that"
  • "featured The Undertaker defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge" — "featured The Undertaker's defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge"
  • "match; CM Punk won the match." – "match, which CM Punk won."
  • "Bowl; grossing $5.85" – "Bowl, grossing US$5.85"
  • "The Citrus Bowl record-breaking attendance of 74,635, consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy." – "The Citrus Bowl's record-breaking attendance of 74,635, consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy."
  • That "See also: Professional wrestling" in Background strikes me as being too generic to be a See also link.
  • Where's the reference for the paragraph that begins with "The event featured nine professional wrestling matches"
  • Ref for "Canadian Online Explorer's professional " onwards?

Gary King (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got everything except the reference for that paragraph. I'm not sure about it. iMatthew 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the reader doesn't know anything about the subject, like me, then the paragraph should be referenced. How else can I verify if the information is accurate? Gary King (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I recommend sourcing it with this. It's reliable, seeing how there is an article on Wiki about it.--SRX 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sourced with that link. iMatthew 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on its reliability, but just because it has its own article doesn't mean it's reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess let Ealdgyth comment its reliability, but I think its reliable since its operated and published by Discovery Networks. In addition, the ref should go before the sentence that elaborates about the "brand extension." The brand extension sentence should be sourced with the WWE corporate citation released in 2002.--SRX 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
A few comments from WillC

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with some replies. iMatthew 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, but a review of the lead only revealed a lot of questionable prose. Here's what I found.

  • Put the tagline reference after the quotation mark.
  • "Nine professional wrestling matches were programmed for the event". Don't think program is a better choice than scheduled, which I've seen in previous wrestling FACs.
  • "that featured The Undertaker's defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge to win the title."
  • Logo in the infobox needs a link that specifically shows the logo as a source. One of our image reviewers can determine what else is needed.
  • "From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, three received more promotion." More promotion than what?
  • Remove comma after Career Threatening match?
  • US dollar link isn't needed in the lead. As WrestleMania XXIV was held in the US, it is an American topic, and us Americans don't need links for our own currency.
  • Spell out Corp. in Enigma Research Corp.
  • Non-breaking spaces needed for the three million-dollar+ dollar totals in the lead.
  • "ended up pumping an estimated $51.5 million instead of the projected $25 million into the local econony..." The original projection is harming the flow of the sentence. Either re-word it or just have it in the body.
  • "The Central Florida Sports Commission estimated that the event created numerous jobs and brought around 60,000 visitors to the city for the event." "Numerous" is too vague, can a reasonable estimate be given? Also, "for the event" should be dropped, since it's redundant with the early part of the sentence.

I recommend seeking a copy-edit for the whole article. If the lead has a large number of problems, the body probably needs work too. Let me know when these are done, and I'll review more when I can. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with a few comments. iMatthew 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back for round 2, and my oppose still stands, unfortunately. I found all of these in the first two paragraphs of the Background section:
  • "All wrestlers belonged either the..." Two-letter word is missing.
  • "in which WWE assigned its employees to a different programs." Why is "a" here?
  • "Cena became a top contender to the WWE Championship at WrestleMania XXIV." Picky, but I'd replace to with for. Other instances of this exist later.
  • "Orton got himself intentionally disqualified after slapping the referee". What else did he have to do? Even wrestling has some rules. :-) I think you're looking for "by slapping the referee".
  • "in an Elimination Chamber match, a match...". Close repetition here. This has been one of the nagging complaints about the move out-of-universe, and it's a problem in this instance.
  • "surrounded by chain and girders." One chain?
  • "who is portrayed as a matchmaker and rules enforcer". Is may be correct now, but for how long will that be the case? I would make it was.
  • Two instances of "if ... should win", which should be "if ... won".
  • Remove comma after "Regal added a stipulation to the match". As an alternative, a colon could be inserted, along with the removal of the next word."
My advice about seeking copy-editing services still stands as well. The most beneficial thing would be to seek someone outside the wrestling project, who could come with a completely fresh pair of eyes. I know it's not easy to find someone to work on these articles, but the effort would be helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ayematthew ✡ 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing I saw when I returned to the Background section was an indented paragraph with a stray period. Doesn't inspire me with confidence.
What? ayematthew ✡ 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the following episode of Smackdown, Edge predicted that The Undertaker's 15–0 record at WrestleMania would come to an end once he defeated him at WrestleMania." "at WrestleMania" is repeated in the sentence. Needs rewording.
  • "in a Steel Cage match, a match where the ring is surrounded by walls of steel." → "in a Steel Cage match, where the ring is surrounded by steel walls."
  • "The Undertaker chokeslammed — lifted both Hawkins and Ryder by the throat and slammed them down to the mat — while he executed a Tombstone piledriver (second link in section) on Guerrero." If what is in between the dashes is removed, the sentence makes no sense. Can this be reworded too?
  • During the "burial," however". Watch for logical punctuation. Unless part of a quote, punctuation should be outside quotation marks.
  • "came to his aid and confronted Big Show. Big Show..." Repetition again.
College finals are looming, meaning that I probably won't return for a few days. Until then, these should be fixed. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ayematthew ✡ 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College finals no longer looming, but I'm waiting until SRX's comments are resolved. I see no reason to overload the nominator with comments. I might even look at making some improvements if I have time, which is a distinct possibility. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--WillC 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant contributors - you should have notified the significant contributors of the article about this FAC, since they are the ones who helped edit the article.SRX 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments from the lead.
  • From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, three received more promotion than the other three. - "other three" → "others".
  • Is it possible to cut down on the usage of "bout" in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • Tickets for the event went on sale to the public on November 3, 2007. - Is there a better term for "went on sale"?
    • Not that I can think of.
  • For the second year in a row, WrestleMania broke the record for the highest-grossing pay-per-view in WWE history, as well as for the Citrus Bowl, grossing US$ 5.85 million in ticket sales. - "For the second year in a row" → "for the second consecutive year". Also, there is no space between the $ and the number.
  • The Central Florida Sports Commission estimated that the event created jobs and brought around 60,000 visitors to the city. - "around" → "approximately". Also, "estimate" is a term usually reserved for exact numbers, so "estimated that the event created jobs" reads oddly.
    • Suggestions to fix it?
  • WWE and the city of Orlando hosted festivities that spanned a five-day period within the central Florida region. - "city of Orland" → "City of Orland" (notice the change in capitalization).
  • More than one million people ordered the event on pay-per-view, grossing $23.8 million in revenue. - "More than" → "over".

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikki

  • "Ric Flair in his last match at WrestleMania XXIV, who lost to Shawn Michaels." - this is grammatically incorrect
  • "All wrestlers belonged to the SmackDown! brand – a storyline division in which WWE assigned its employees to a different program, the other being Raw" - I thought wrestlers from all three brands participated in WrestleMania.
  • It sounds confusing to call Cena the #1 Contender and then Triple H the same thing later on ("Triple H also became the #1 Contender..."). Maybe they would be better referred to as "a top contender for the championship" or something along those lines....something that indicates there can be more than one. Does WWE refer them both specifically as #1 Contenders?
  • "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company." - it might be good to add how long he'd been absent, so "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company after a (add time span here) hiatus."
  • "Jeff Hardy was later removed from the match after being legitimately suspended by WWE for violation of the company's wellness policy" - this might make more sense to a non-fan if the fact that it was a drug violation was made clearer
  • "During an interview, WWE production manager Brian Petree mentioned that video reinforcement should prevent anyone from being obstructed by the steel structure." - anyone's view?
  • In the main event section, I don't think it is made clear enough that Sweet Chin Music is the name of Michael's superkick.
  • Some of the move names are in italics (like Pedigree and RKO) and some aren't (like Sweet Chin Music and FU). Make sure it is consistent throughout.

Nikki♥311 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There needs to be a link to singles match in the lead.
  • The other match was a Career Threatening match where Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair, forcing Flair's retirement from professional wrestling. - this would read better as ..resulting in Flair's retirement from professional wrestling.
  • In addition, why are the brands not linked in the lead?
  • All wrestlers belonged to either the Raw, SmackDown, or ECW brand – storyline divisions in which WWE assigned its employees to different programs. - if you're going to elaborate what the ECW acronym in the lead, you may as well do in the background intro.
  • The event featured nine professional wrestling matches with wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or fan favorites as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. All wrestlers belonged to either the Raw, SmackDown, or ECW brand – storyline divisions in which WWE assigned its employees to different programs. - recently, The event has been replaced with the event's name, which in this case would be WrestleMania.
  • At the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event in January, Cena won the Royal Rumble match, where thirty wrestlers compete in a ring and are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope. are -->were, compete--->competed [past tense]
  • That same night, Triple H also became the a top contender to the WWE Championship by defeating five other men in an Elimination Chamber match, which features wrestlers fighting in a ring surrounded by chains and girders. 1)Remove the word the before a top contender. 2)Features --> Featured [past tense]
  • If Orton won, however, the main event would remain as Orton versus Triple H in a standard wrestling match. Cena, however, won the match and was added to the bout at WrestleMania. - it should be elaborated here that a standard wrestling match is also a singles match.
  • The Undertaker won the match by eliminating Batista (Dave Batista) after lifting him upside down and dropping his head down to the mat, a move called the Tombstone piledriver. - is it relevant to say how he won? Its not relevant to the feud and is just adding more WP:PLOT.
  • The following week, Edge, Hawkins, Ryder, and Chavo Guerrero, a group of aligned wrestlers, defeated Ric Flair (Richard Fliehr) and Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom) in a Steel Cage match, where the ring is surrounded by walls of steel. - in this context, is should be was
  • The Undertaker lifted both Hawkins and Ryder by the throat and slammed them down to the mat, while he executed a Tombstone piledriver on Guerrero. - if the Tombstone is removed as I suggested above, it would need to go here, and in addition, the chokeslam explanation should state that is indeed called a chokeslam (that's if it used again in the article)
  • The Undertaker emerged from a casket, which was inside the ring, and attacked Edge, Hawkins and Ryder, knocking Hawkins and Ryder outside the ring and chokeslamming Edge through the casket. - see, here the reader is left clueless because they don't know what a chokeslam is.
  • The SmackDown prime rivalry has a lot of WP:PLOT, I suggest cutting some of it out, [a lot of week by week IMO]. I will review the rest after these comments are addressed.--SRX 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks! ayematthew ✡ 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comments
  • . At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company after taking time off for injuries beginning in December 2006. - I think you can spot the error.
  • The match involved wrestlers from all three WWE brands. The winner would earn a contract to challenge for any of the three WWE World Championships (the WWE Championship of Raw, the World Heavyweight Championship of SmackDown, or the ECW Championship of ECW) at any time and any place over a one-year period. - WP:OVERLINK of ECW, anyhow, its pipedlinked to Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW).
  • Qualifying matches occurred to determine the participants in the match at WrestleMania, starting on that night's edition of Raw with Jeff Hardy and Mr. Kennedy (Ken Anderson) respectively defeating Snitsky (Gene Snitsky) and Val Venis (Sean Morley) to qualify. - move the respectively to the end of the sentence, it doesn't work well in the middle of the sentence.
  • The final design had the lighting and video screens on the tarpaulin rig as well as the sound system. - a pause is needed before as well +comma.
  • Without the restriction of a roof, the pyrotechnics for the show shot as high as 2,000 ft as compared to WrestleMania 23's height of 150 ft. - use {{convert}} to convert these to meters.
  • After the show, WWE was criticized for a malfunction in the pyrotechnics during The Undertaker's victory celebration. During the celebration, a hot cable for pyrotechnics was sent flying into audience members in the upper seating bowl of the stadium, leaving 45 injured with some hospitalized. The accident was apparently due to a cable which fireworks were traveling across snapping, thus resulting in the fireworks exploding into the top rows of the upper bowl of the stadium.[31][32] WWE's corporate website released a statement afterward stating that they would investigate the incident, though the results of the investigation were never released.[33] - this just stands out because it gives away that The Undertaker won before the event section is even explained. In addition, this is more of aftermath than production. I suggest moving it.
  • With the Citrus Bowl's locker rooms on the south side and the entrance set on the north side, a tented 40,000 ft² mini-city outside the north end served as the show's backstage area and included air conditioning, trailers, VIP areas, showers and restrooms. - {{convert}} is need for the square foot.
  • Heavy-duty plastic flooring had been put over the field, to protect the turf, provide seating and serve as the steel structures' foundation. - comma needed before and.
  • The building of the actual set began in the middle of March. - because in the previous sentence the year 2007 is stated, it should be stated that this March is in 2008, or do you meant 2007?
  • Before the show aired live on pay-per-view, Kane (Glen Jacobs) won a 24-man Interpromotional Battle Royal, an elimination style match where the last person remaining is the winner, to win an ECW Championship match against Chavo Guerrero (Salvador Guerrero) later that night. - in this context, the explanation of the match should be in past tense.
  • The first match that aired live on pay-per-view was a Belfast Brawl between Finlay and John "Bradshaw" Layfield (JBL), a match where there are no disqualifications and match outcomes can occur anywhere. - this should also be in past tense per the context.
  • The match featured several spots, which included JBL hitting Finlay with a trash can lid when the latter was about to perform a suicide dive on him through the ropes on the outside. - spot is jargon.
  • Later on, Finlay tossed JBL through the table that he had set up earlier on the turnbuckle. - in this context, the should be a
  • Hornswoggle also got involved during the match by hitting JBL's with a kendo stick, while later on JBL threw a trash can at him. - JBL's?
  • Attacking Finlay's knee with a kendo stick, JBL then quickly hit a high impact attack with his forearm to score a successful pinfall. - is pinfall linked above? Just wondering.--SRX 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I almost missed these. I'll get them tomorrow afternoon. ayematthew ✡ 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to put it off another day. I spent the night trying to catch a raccoon in my attic, not fun. Sorry, ayematthew ✡ 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is done with some comments. ayematthew ✡ 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

  • The match featured several parts, which included JBL hitting Finlay with a trash can lid when the latter was about to perform a suicide dive on him through the ropes on the outside. - parts? can another word be used?
  • The match featured many dangerous spots. - either explain that spots means the meaning above or avoid using spot per WP:JARGON
  • Early in the match, Morrison climbed a turnbuckle and performed a back flip on others outside while holding a ladder against his chest. - link to turnbuckle. In addition, turnbuckles in wrestling are padded.
  • When MVP was close to retrieving the contract briefcase, Matt Hardy (returning to action after suffering a legitimate injury) - link to legitimate, the one in pro wrestling
  • When MVP was close to retrieving the contract briefcase, Matt Hardy (returning to action after suffering a legitimate injury), entered the ring and climbed the ladder, he grabbed and slammed MVP's head down to the mat over his shoulders off the ladder. - this explanation is worded badly. How about When MVP was close to retrieving the contract briefcase, Matt Hardy (returning to action after suffering a legitimate injury), entered the ring and climbed the ladder, he then slammed MVP's head down over his shoulders onto the mat.
  • The next match, which was billed as a "Battle for Brand Supremacy", was between SmackDown's Batista (Dave Batista) and Raw's Umaga (Eddie Fatu). - Batista's real name is Dave Bautista
  • Early in the match, both Batista and Umaga exchanged blows and Batista threw Umaga outside with a shoulder block. - Its not literally possible to throw someone outside with a shoulder block, how about knocked Umaga outside.
  • Umaga later delivered a high-impact kick to Batista, which caused him to fall back-first outside the ring from the ring-apron. - how about Umaga later kicked Batista in the face, which caused him to fall back-first outside the ring from the ring-apron.
  • The fourth match for the event featured Chavo Guerrero defending his ECW Championship against Kane. Kane surprised Chavo by emerging from underneath the ring instead of from the entrance stage. - it should be elaborate that this is during his ring entrance
  • Kane instantly pinned Chavo after he lifted Chavo by the throat and slammed him down to the mat (termed as a chokeslam) and won the ECW Championship. ---> Kane instantly pinned Chavo to win the ECW Championship after a chokeslam, in which Kane lifted Chavo by the throat and slammed him down to the mat.
  • Ric Flair put his career on the line next against Shawn Michaels. - WP:JARGON "on the line"
  • The Flair match has too much WP:PLOT, cut down this match by eliminating some of the play-by-play
  • Randy Orton defending his WWE Championship against Triple H and John Cena in a Triple Threat match, or a standard match involving three wrestlers, was next. - Threat should not be capitalized. In addition, link to the match?
  • During the match, when Triple H had held Orton in a sleeper hold, Cena picked up both Orton and Triple H to flip and drop them down to the mat, --->...both Orton and Triple to flip and drop them down for an FU.
  • Orton dominated the match for some time. One highlight of the match featured Orton performing a crossbody from the top rope on Cena, while the latter was held on Triple H's shoulders in an electric chair position. the first period should be a semi colon. The electric chair should be a seated position since that is WP:JARGON.
  • Also, Orton drove both Cena and Triple H's heads to the mat from the second rope simultaneously. - It is not proper to start a sentence with "also"
  • Orton then tried to jump and grab Cena's head to drive it over his shoulders (a move called the RKO by Orton), but he countered and threw Orton onto Triple H. ---> Orton then tried to perform an RKO by jumping and grabbing Cena's head to drive it over his shoulders, but he countered and threw Orton onto Triple H.
  • Then, Triple H started targeting Orton's legs and using some submissions on him. - Not proper to start with "then" either.
  • The match came to an end when Cena had Triple H on his shoulders for the FU but was countered into a maneuver in which Triple H jumps and slams the opponent's head positioned between his knees to the ground, a move called the Pedigree. - an FU not the FU. Reword to , but was countered into a Pedigree; this move was performed by Triple H slamming Cena's head, positioned in-between his knees, onto the mat. In addition, finishers should be in italics.
  • As Triple H was in the pin, Orton come across and punted Triple H in the head and pinned Cena to win the match and retain the WWE Championship. It sounds like Triple H was being pinned, how about As Triple H was pinning Cena, Orton came across and punted Triple H in the head. He then pinned Cena to win the match and retain the WWE Championship.
  • Soon, Mayweather applied a sleeper hold on Big Show, but the latter escaped out of it before passing out and stomped on Mayweather's hand. - play-by-play
  • Finally, Mayweather removed his right glove and put on a pair of brass knuckles to hit Big Show in the face. As a result, Big Show was knocked out as he could not answer the referee's ten count, and Mayweather was declared the winner. - it would help if the referee's ten count was piped linked to like the rules of pro wrestling.
  • The main event of the night had Edge putting his World Heavyweight Championship on the line against The Undertaker. - WP:OVERLINK of Edge.
  • The early going in this match was slow-paced with some counters by both men. --> The early going of the match was slow-paced, in which both wrestlers countered each others maneuvers.
  • One high point had Undertaker run and leap over the top rope from the ring onto Edge on the outside. - high point?
  • Near the end, Edge was able to counter numerous signature moves of The Undertaker's including the chokeslam and the Last Ride, a variation of the powerbomb. - comma before including. Is powerbomb linked and elaborated above?
  • Although, The Undertaker was able to land both these moves, Edge was able to kick out of both. - what?
  • The last part of the main event prose needs to be seriously reworded. It seems like you just nominated this article without any work, you have potential to rephrase and cut these proses down like you did with The Great American Bash (2005). As a result of these many prose issues, I have to Oppose the passing of this article until some work is done with the prose. Sorry.--SRX 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup3

  • After getting up on his feet with a worried face, Michaels said to Flair "I'm sorry, I love you," before nailing a final superkick and thus pinning Flair to end his 35-year long wrestling career per pre-match stipulations. - 1)Nailing is poor word choice. 2)Thus? I don't think superkicking somebody will "thus" be a pinfall.
  • In the Flair match, there is an overuse of "delivered"
  • An attempt by Edge to drop Undertaker on his head in an upside down position was reversed into Undertaker's own Tombstone Piledriver. - it needs to be elaborated earlier in the sentence that the explanation is indeed a Tombstone Piledriver
  • Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder came to the ring for Edge's aid. Because of their distraction, Edge was able to hit a takedown maneuver on The Undertaker, followed by an unsuccessful pin attempt. 1)Merge. Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder came to the ring for Edge's aid, and because of their distraction, Edge was able to hit a takedown maneuver on The Undertaker, followed by an unsuccessful pin attempt.
  • On the following episode of Raw, Ric Flair made his farewell speech, which led to Triple H introducing various people from Flair's past, such as the Four Horsemen, a former group of wrestlers, Ricky Steamboat, and others, each coming out to give an emotional farewell. - it should be elaborated that Flair was in the 4 Horsemen.
  • Michaels won with a superkick. - won what?
  • With Matt Hardy's return at WrestleMania, his feud with Montel Vontavious Porter over the WWE United States Championship that started in July was revived with a match booked at Backlash which Hardy won. - comma before which
  • The rivalries between The Undertaker and Edge and the one between Kane and Chavo Guerrero both continued with successful title defenses at Backlash. comma in between and and Guerrero
  • DVD reception?--SRX 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [32].

Boeing 777

[edit]
Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)

This was nominated for FAC in mid-2007. The article has improved since then. In my opinion, all of the points raised in the 3 objections have been met. The subject of the article, The Boeing 777, is a very notable aircraft though even obscure articles have passed FAC before. This is truly a collaborative effort between several editors and represents great work and effort. Chergles (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixing. The 2 most recent heavy contributors have been notified, me and Fnlayson. Will do the others. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Top 4 editors and all editors over 65 edits notified. 3 ok'ed it, 1 has quit and said so on their talk pageChergles (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • It's usual to put magazine and newspaper titles in italics.
Many of the references use the template and the template did not italicize the titles. This is a wikipedia style error, not our error. I'll manually add italics. Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is from confusion with how the fields work in the {{cite news}} and other cite templates. Work is the field you use for the title of the magazine, publisher would be the company behind the magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 6 (Cebeci..) needs a publisher and last access date at the least.
Fixed, unneeded sentence removed. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is current ref 12 (Sabbagh. p. 180) in italics? Same for current ref 20 (Sabbagh p. 281-284)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boening Company or Boenig? Pick one and be consistent in the footnotes.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These sources list plane deliveries. They are like a directory. News sources will never say "plane 00112 is United Airlines, plane 00113 is British Airways, etc." Nobody has ever claimed that these websites are so error prone as to be unreliable. If SandyGeorgia says we cannot use these list websites, then I am willing to remove lots of good information and just have a barebones generic 777 article. Otherwise, let's use these sources. They are not blogs. Chergles (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that suggests these websites are not reliable. News articles are less reliable because they might say United Airlines has 53 planes but that number is not updated by the article so that we can't compare different articles. If SandyGeorgia determines that these websites have to go, then we'll just re-write the article and take out information. That will leave the article with a good basic description of the 777 but it may not have airline specific information, like number of planes a certain airline has. Chergles (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with zap16.com, but the rest are well-known airline field to be reputable sites. I'm not sure how much "proof" policy requires. Given that these sites are maintained by experts, I'd actually put their reliability much higher than mainstream media who have a bad reputation for getting aviation reporting wrong. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, most all of those have been removed or replaced. Working on the rest... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 26 (Boening 787 Program...) is lacking a publisher.
Added Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 27 (FAA publication...) is lacking a publisher. Also, the title should be the title given in the pdf and the footnote should note that it's a webarchive of the original.
Removed ref as there is a better reference. Chergles (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 28 (Type Acceptance report) is lacking publisher and last access date at the least. Should also note that it's a pdf
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 29, the publisher should be The Australian.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 30 (From the Cockpit...) is lacking a publisher. Also worthy of note is that I did not investigate the site as I got a "Warning, Visiting this site may harm your computer..." message when I tried to click on it. What makes this a relaible source?
Removed reference. Chergles (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 33 (IATA & ICAO...) the publisher is run into the link title, when they should be separated.
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 37 (Leading engine for the 777) is lacking a publisher. also, shouldn't the title be "Trent 800"?
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 38 (ALPA 50th..) is lacking a publsher. Also, the author is known.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 39 (JAL...) is just badly formatted. Journal title shoudl be in italics, article title in ""'s
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 48 (Delta Airlines...) is lacking a publisher
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 63 & 64 (Factsheet...) are lacking publishers
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 65 (Aircraft & Aircraft...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. (The access date shouldn't be in the link title).
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a significant contributor to the article removed the FAC tag with the edit summary "Let's try to get the article in better shape before starting FAC". Since the article is already listed at FAC, and the 'significant contributors' issue is fuzzy here (nominator has 63 edits, but the editor who removed the tag is the top contributor at 365), I have reinstated {{fac}} on the article talk page and requested further input here. Maralia (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are fine. Both of us are not in dispute. I'm just fixing the article now. Chergles (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proof...16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Fnlayson says alright with the FA. Yipee, we have a common goal! Chergles (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There is some sandwiching of text in the "Production" section, which we should try to avoid (see WP:MOS#Images). Can one of those images be deleted?
  • Image:020802 02.jpg - This image has no author. It looks like it is the uploader, but we need to confirm that. Please leave a note with the uploader.
  • Image:B777-200LR Paris Air Show 2005 display.jpg - The original source image for this has a problem. Note that the uploader and the author are not the same, so when the uploader released the rights, they were releasing rights that did not belong to them. We need the author/photographer to release the rights. Could you leave a message for the photographer? They can amend the image description page to make their release of the rights explicit, if they actually want to release them.

These issues should be relatively easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request in progress. One author is French and contributes to French Wikipedia. Have tried to write in French even though I don't speak French. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is 3 paragraphs. It is possible to add fluff but 3 paragraphs is deemed sufficient according to Wikipedia. Suggestions always welcomed. Chergles (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this size should contain a lead of four paragraphs, but even so, they should be decently-sized paragraphs. Remember, the lead is a summary of the entire article, and should provide a general understanding of the entire subject to a reader. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll try to comply with your suggestion. However, WP:LEAD actually says "three or four paragraphs". Chergles (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! 4 paragraphs in the lead. Content of the 4th paragraph was decided by several editors with drafts considered and improved. The 4th paragraph is truly a collaborative effort! Thanks to S.S. and F. Chergles (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tags, as well as other unsourced info. Some examples:

**All software, whether produced internally to Boeing or externally, was to be written in Ada. The bulk of the work was undertaken by Honeywell who developed an Airplane Information Management System (AIMS). This handles the flight and navigation displays, systems monitoring and data acquisition (e.g. flight data acquisition). **The first 777-200 built was used by Boeing's non-destructive testing (NDT) campaign in 1994–1995, and provided valuable data for the -200ER and -300 programs. This A market (see below) aircraft was sold to Cathay Pacific Airways and delivered in December 2000.

    • The 777 may eventually be replaced by a new product family, the Boeing Y3, which would draw upon technologies from the 787.
    • The first customer delivery was to United Airlines in May 1995.
All fixed Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few one-sentence paragraphs.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs an overall copyedit. Examples:
    • a 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km) transcontinental and an 4,320 nmi (8,000 km) intercontinental. - "A 2,700 nautical miles" is grammatically incorrect. Also, why is "miles" spelled out, when "nmi" is abbreviated?
    • From a head-on view, the end of the section is very evident. - "Very" is unneeded.
    • 180 minutes of successful and reliable operation on one workable engine are required for the ETOPS 180-minute certification. - Avoid starting sentences with numerical characters.

–

Fixed these but going beyond that and making similar changes suggested by the above. Chergles (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the points raised have been fixed. However, a continuing effort to improve is and will always be worked on. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) After a re-read, I'm of the opinion that the article is ready, so I support promotion to FA status.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs for now. I see citation issues, a few organization and prose issues, and other areas where the text was confusing to me. I think the article is in decent shape, it just needs quite a bit more massage to get to the FAC criteria. Examples listed below.

  • I think that the acronym ETOPS needs to be spelled out. We shouldn't require users to click the link to get the background info necessary to understand some of the article. I see that the acronym is referred to throughout the article, so perhaps a brief note on why it is so important is also relevant.
  • I'm not sure why this would be a big deal: "the absence of a 40,000 lbf (178 kN) engine." - perhaps just a wee bit more explanation?
  • This sentence is very awkward "By the 1980s, the DC-10 and L-1011, which had entered service in the early 1970s, were coming due for replacement within the next decade." - it refers to 1980s, 1970s, and 1990s in a confusing manner
    • This sentence is also ambiguous. Does it mean that McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed were getting ready to have a new product line, or that the companies that had purchased those airplanes needed new airplanes?
  • "Airbus developed the A330/A340 models to fulfill that requirement and to compete with Boeing" - which requirement? - and how does this compete with Boeing, since they didn't have a plane of that size anymore?
  • "for first generation wide-bodies like the DC-10. " - this seems like an important concept that might ought to start off the background section. The DC-10 was one of the first generation wide-bodied plane, and Boeing was having trouble keeping up
  • not entirely sure what this means - " began issuing firm offers to airlines " - I thought they were just proposing a new aircraft; generally "issuing offers" involves purchasing something
  • " For the first time, eight major airlines" - need a bit more background here. How many usually had input? Was the combination unusual or just the number? Did other airlines want to be involved? How did they choose these 8?
  • Why is United not wikilinked when all the others in the list of eight major arilines are?
  • "This became known as the "Working Together" collaborative model employed for the 777 project" - This sentence is not grammatical and who called it that?
  • "By March 1990, a basic design for the 777 had been decided upon:" - decided upon by whom? Did the airlines reach some sort of consensus or was Boeing collecting all their information and making their own decision?
  • " United Airlines' replacement program for its aging DC-10s became a focus for Boeing's designs" - How so? Does this mean that United had more impact than the other 7 airlines?
  • almost all the early pictures are right-aligned. Can some of those be switched (provided they are not left-aligned directly below a level-three heading?)
  • I think there may be too many small details. For example, we are told that in Nov 1995 the first GE engine 777 was given to British Airways, and then immediately told the date that the plane first flew and on what route. Why do we care the specific date and route?
  • Why did they decide to have three different engine types?
  • I'm not sure what this means "dispatch reliability rates for the Boeing 777 had reached 99.96% "
  • There is no citation for "The flight was non-revenue with no passengers on board."
  • wrong grammar "whom could not agree on risk sharing for the project."
  • EASA needs to be explained when the acronym is first used
  • what is "fly-by-wire"? Can that be explained very briefly in the article, even if only in a footnote?
  • This seems very awkwardly worded: "The 777's lighter design is made possible in part through the use of composites, which comprise 12% by weight of the total aircraft"
  • I don't like the lb to tonne conversion. Should that be lb to kg or tons to tonnes?
  • There is repetetive information in the development and variants sections. For example, we don't need to be told in two places that the first customer delivery of the 777-200 model was to United in May 1995.
  • The info about British Airways being the first to launch a ten abreast economy configuration is misplaced where it is currently inserted.
  • I don't like the graph just hanging around in the Sales and deliveries section. That is distracting,a nd it is really too small to do any good. I would suggest getting rid of the graph and keeping only the table, or if you really like the graph, rotate the table so that the list of years is vertical rather than horizontal. Then the graph and table can fit side-by-side.
  • I think the Operators section could easily be merged with the Sales and deliveries section. Those make sense together.
  • Need a citation for "The typical operating range with 368 passengers in a three-class arrangement is 6,015 nautical miles (11,135 km). "
  • Need a citation for "the proposed future A350-900R model aims to have a range up to 9,500 nautical miles (17,600 km)."
  • There are some tonne measurements that are not converted
  • There are still some problems in the references with newspapers not being italicized
  • Please note that the MOS requires that page ranges be separated with an ndash, not a hyphen. (see WP:MOSDASH) To my eyes all the page ranges in the references look wrong
  • what makes cai consulting a reliable source?
  • Some of the information is cited to Boeing press releases. It would be much, much better to cite this (especially the setting new world record for distance one) to independent sources.
  • Same with info cited to the Goodrich Corporation/Rolls Royce. We shouldn't have to be searching out information from other companies' press releases and web sites; if it is not important enough for a third party to cover it maybe it shouldn't be in the article.
  • I am concerned that the information you've gathered on the sales figures is Original Research. It appears from the citations that you (or another author) had to do a custom search the Boeing website and compile all of these numbers yourself. These numbers are completely dependent on a search, and we can't even link to the search that was done to provide the exact numbers in the article; the search must be redone each time. I don't think that this is acceptable.
  • Make sure that all references to Seattle Post-Intelligencer are consistent; in at least one it is Seattle PI

Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Of the 35 listed, I have responded to the first 20. Here are the changes made (except for photo realign which can be done later):
  • ETOPS is spelled out now, and given a followup explanatory sentence at its first mention.
  • "The absence of a 40,000 lbf (178 kN) engine." -- not sure where this exact spec came from, so it's changed to "the absence of applicable engines." No usable engines were available for the proposed trijet.
  • Paragraph clarified: "By the 1980s, the DC-10 and L-1011 were approaching retirement, prompting manufacturers to develop replacement designs. McDonnell Douglas was working on the MD-11, a stretched and upgraded version of the DC-10, while Airbus was developing the A330 and A340."
  • First generation wide-body jets - sentence added to beginning of Background section.
  • "Firm offers" - changed for clarity to "On December 8, 1989, Boeing began issuing offers to airlines on its proposed new wide-body aircraft." For the record, the exact quote in the source says, "On December 8, 1989, the Boeing board authorized the Commercial Airplane Group to begin issuing firm offers to airlines on the 767-X."
  • Working Together. Add context: "This was a departure from industry practice, where manufacturers typically conducted the design process with little airline input."
  • United Airlines wikilinked.
  • Working Together - changed to "The eight airlines that contributed to the 777 design process became known within Boeing as the "Working Together" group."
  • 777 design decided upon - add "Boeing and the airlines" to answer (who?).
  • United DC-10 replacement focus, why? Simply that United was the launch customer. The paragraph has been reordered to show the launch customer as the first sentence, followed by United's requirements. The 'focus' bit is removed for clarity.
  • Photos can be realigned...
  • Removed BA first route flown, to where.
  • Engine choice, why 3? - add reference that this allowed airlines to choose among competing engine suppliers.
  • Dispatch reliability - add (takeoff without delay).
  • Rm uncited "non revenue flight" statement.
  • Who/whom changed.
  • European Aviation Safety Agency spelled out.
  • Fly-by-wire - added "(electrically, rather than mechanically operated)".
  • Composite sentence - change to "The 777's design incorporates the use of composite materials, which comprise nine percent of its original structural weight."
With regards to the Boeing order figures / search, that is an interesting point on finding the data, however in order to get the full numbers and orders I am aware of no other location to get that info except from the source...I am uncertain of how else to proceed in that regard. Thank you for your suggestions. SynergyStar (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To update -- Fnlayson and I have made further changes to the article, which address 11 of the remaining 15 items; additionally, the photos have now been realigned.
  • Repetitive info on the 772 to United delivery removed
  • British Airways' 10-abreast info removed, rather trivial.
  • Graph in sales and deliveries removed
  • Operators section merged with Sales and deliveries
  • Citation for operating range added
  • Proposed A350-900R range removed--its still speculative and changing
  • Newspapers italicized
  • Page ranges separated with ndash
  • CAI Consulting source removed
  • Reduced Boeing press releases, replaced with third party ones where available
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer aligned in references
Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Orders and deliveries year by year table, the Cumulative deliveries and Backlog rows have been removed. The backlog numbers require subtracting cumulative deliveries from the cumulative orders. Current orders and deliveries totals are already presented in the article for each variant and for all variants. So that data in the table is not needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [33].

Ravenloft (D&D module)

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

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a Good Article since March 2007, and I think that significant improvements have been made since then that qualifies it for FA status. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point.

  • Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:Expedtion Ravenloft Cover.jpg - "to illustrate the book in question" is not a sufficient fair use rationale - According to Wikipedia's policy, fair use images must be used for something beyond illustration. That is, they have to contribute "significantly" to the reader's understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC #8). This description is also missing the name of the copyright holder and a good description of what the image is.
  • I don't actually think we need to see this book cover to understand what the article is saying - there is a new version of this part of the game. Do you have any more information on the art? Is there a reason we need to differentiate this artwork from the previous edition? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the image isn't needed. I think that it is beneficial, however, because the two books are actually quite different (based on what I've read about them; I don't actually own either). The original module is shorter and for a very different edition of the game (1st edition, rather than v3.5). Images for the silver anniversary and House of Strahd mostly illustrated reprints of the original which didn't have many major modifications from the original, as opposed to Expedition which has a lot of modifications, additions, and updates. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rationale is a bit on the weak side (3-D is pretty self-explanatory). Is there anything else that could be added to strengthen the rationale for having this particular map, for example? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually very few D&D maps which are rendered in 3D, and I thought that between that and the point mentioned in the article the rationale would be good enough. There isn't a specific reason why this map was chosen; there was a selection of three different 3D maps in Wizards of the Coast's online map gallery, so I just chose the one that I thought would look best in the article. I had decided that a map might be good enough based on Ragesoss's statement below, but if it isn't it can be removed. Is there anything else that could be done to make this image acceptable? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't think we need an image to illustrate what the article is saying - there is a sequel to this game. Do you have any more information on the art? Is there a reason we need to differentiate this artwork from the previous edition? Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every one of these fair use rationales has to make a specific case for each image. See this dispatch on non-free images for help on writing fair use justifications. Many of these covers seem very similar, so I'm not sure how necessary they all are. We usually only include one book cover in articles about pieces of literature. If you want to include more than one, the article is going to have to discuss the cover itself - that is, it will have to contain critical commentary on the cover which must be accompanied by the image in order to be understood. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In the first sentence, this seems totally out of place: "coded with the alpha numeric designation I6". The article does not make clear why that is even relevant to the article (any more than, say, an ISBN), much less why it's significant enough to be in the first sentence.--ragesoss (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will go through and update the fair-use rationales. The reason for the number if images is because each image is of a different book; if needed, I could see the removal of Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG and Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG, as they are mostly just revised versions of the main topic book, but the other three all represent very distinctly different books. As I said, I'll work on the fair-use tags and rationales and notify you when I'm done.
I'll also either move the module code or put it in more context. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the alpha numeric code; I added it, so it's on me to fix it. ;) I'll move it out of the lead, for one thing. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Another) comment. The prose needs a careful copy-edit. One thing that jumps out is the inconsistency with tense. It would be helpful, I think, to mention in the footnote for it being the 2nd best module what the one that beat it was. I agree that the two images you point out as possible candidates for removal should be removed. One image that would be more useful than any of the current ones would be one of the map, since the text specifically mentions it as significant (as opposed to the cover art).--ragesoss (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the "only one better". Any other specific items need fixing while I'm attentive? :) BOZ (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the two extraneous images and tagged them with {{orfud}}. I am still working on fair-use updates for the other images, and then I'll get to work on the prose. Good idea regarding the map; I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admit that I'm not an expert at Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, so I might be completely wrong about this. The {{Non-free book cover}} template says that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." If WP:NFCC takes precedence over that template, shouldn't the templates text be modified to make that more clear? I had been under the impression that use for simple illustration was significant fair-use because of the template's text. My apologies for any trouble this may have caused. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC does take precedence - the template even states this. It says "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". It then links you to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding non-free images, which are a bit complex. Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that I've mostly taken care of the tense; I tried to put everything about a module's plot or the design of the books themselves in present-tense, while information about the creation of the modules and world in past-tense. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I think I've sufficiently update the fair-use rationale for Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg. I've done what I can to update the others; I think that it would be a real shame to see them go, but if they must, they must. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I'd say that it's reliable because it is a review of the book by the executive chairman of a pretty large role-playing game fansite. If it was just "any member" I'd say it wasn't reliable but I think that its use is justified because of who wrote it. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually just removed all instance of said source that were used to describe the contents of a module without reviewing said contents, so that should be fine for this reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion going on about whether or not this source is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#d20zines. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran this Google search to find sources regarding why The Acaeum is reliable. It looks like there are quite a few mentions of it in reliable locations (I am aware of Wikipedia's "Google Search" guidelines; many of the sources that come up are unreliable, but there are some good ones in there, too). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a question about this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#d20zines. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 7 is just a link, needs a publisher and last access date at the very least.
  • Current ref 10 needs a last access date and publisher for the link.
  • What makes http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-book-reviews/245785-expedition-castle-ravenloft.html?ltr=E a reliable source for "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft was the first of a series of adventures looking back at the early days of the game, updating and expanding early modules into much larger works using the 3rd edition game rules..."
It's a long review of the book. There were a number of links listed as references which didn't actually link to any text in the article, and I was trying to fix that last night. This was one of the last ones I looked at, it was long, I was getting tired, and I jumped at the first thing I saw. :) I'll try to find some way to fix that; the statement can probably be backed up with a more reliable source, and the review could probably be used to source other information in the article. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of the Wizards' message board post (which I agree with removing); this is an ENWorld book review by a guy who's written dozens of very thorough reviews for them. BOZ (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; my bad. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the ENWorld review as a source for about as much as it could be used. I tried to find a source for the "first part of the Expedition series" as I would like to keep that line, but haven't had any luck so far. Will remove it if it can't be sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added an appropriate reference. It's from a primary source, but it still provides a citation. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • current ref 32 (Lawrence Schick...) should be last name first and needs a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into the online links, but I don't have the book by Schick. -15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Drilnoth (talk)
All links have been updated or removed as requested, with discussion on reliability of d20zines and The Acaeum above. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page # added to Schick reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "5-7" in the infobox should have an en dash.
  • Because of this fog no one, except a few gypsies who have a potion to cancel the fog's effects, have left Barovia for centuries. - Should "have" be changed to "has"?
  • A very memorable villain, Count Strahd von Zarovich has become one of the most infamous villains in Dungeons & Dragons history. - No need for "very".
  • While still credited to the Hickmans and based on their original work, Bruce Nesmith designed this module without help from them - "Without help from them" → "without their help".
  • While the layout has been redone, much of the original text and artwork is reused, with additional art by James Crabtree, and a new cover by Dana M. Knutson. - The comma after "Crabtree" is unneeded.
  • The module is recommended for character levels 6-13, with the main revised version for characters level 11-13, but also the option to play more like the original with the slightly revised level recommendation of 6-8. - Needs en dashes.
  • This version contradicts itself as to what level of play it is intended for; the back cover indicates that it is appropriate for character levels 5-7 like the original module, but the introduction text indicates the module is for levels 11-13 as in House of Strahd. - Again.
  • The maps for Castle Ravenloft were rendered in 3-D orthogonal effect, like in the original Ravenloft adventure. - "Like" → "similar to".
  • Is the Video games section really needed for one sentence?

The article looks good, but an overall copyedit is needed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Disagree with "gypsies has" over "gypsies have". Will consider what to do with the video game sentence; maybe increase, maybe fold in somewhere, maybe kill it. Handled the rest. :) BOZ (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Currently, that sentence reads "no one have", so I still believe "no one has" would be better. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, LOL, I was looking at the other "have" - corrected. :) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - refs need to come at the end of sentences. See sentence 3 under Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill, which I would also split into two by changing each of whom on their own section to Each writer worked on their own section.... MOre later, I need to sleep here.
It would be good if there was more info on it being the first horror-influenced RPG, did it predate Chill? Although CoC had come out sometime before maybe (???)
Watch for unnecessary repetition of words in prose. I'll check in later Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hadn't even noticed the toolbox! Has it been there all along? I'll fix the one item mentioned there. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting. In my defense, I'm not as picky as that first edit makes me look :) It's a DASH judgment call. (And btw, I'm not sure how long our current DASH rules are going to last. We'll see.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oops, so much for copyediting, there's a problem. Every reference (now, at least) [added: in the References section] is either from the Hickmans (who wrote the module) or by TSR (which was purchased by Wizards of the Coast in 1997) or Wizards of the Coast (which owns the rights). You should be able to find third-party references for a popular module, published and re-published many times over 25 years. On the other hand, I was enjoying reading the article until I noticed that, so I hope you'll get to work! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I saw a bunch of Harvard references, so I dropped down to the References section, without noticing that you had another style of referencing mixed in. The lead says "Ravenloft is considered by many to be one of the finest Dungeons & Dragons modules ever published, and is often considered a classic among gamers." I've looked at all the sentences that have citations in your list (5, 6, etc, but I'm looking at the current version of the page, if that matters), and none of those sentences supports that conclusion; that conclusion seems to be supported only by the Hickmans, TSR and WotC. Is that conclusion in one of the other sources? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at things regarding that ref. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you look at the current page or the historical version; I just provided the link for anyone in the future looking back at the article so they could see what it had looked like. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like the first part of that sentence is cited from a primary source; the second part of the sentence is cited from this review, which I hadn't put on the above list of sources. The sentence "is often considered a classic among gamers." is supported by that article's first paragraph. The first part of the sentence, as I said, is just from a primary source; if you think it is a poor reference for the line, the statement could be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Winter's reputation is; if he's uninvolved with WotC, and also one of those rare guys who would be considered such an "expert" at RSN that they'd take what he writes even if it's in a blog, then maybe it's okay, but the fact that it's published by the same people who are trying to sell us the new version of the module means you should probably strike that part of the sentence. For the other half ... I'm really not an RSN guy, I'll leave that up to people who do a lot of reference-checking. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take that part out. Additionally, I'll see what can be done about making all of the refs into inline citations to avoid confusion in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I changed all the refs into inline citations, and I took Dank55's advice and removed the one sentence. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider the White Dwarf review to be an independent reliable source, at the very least. BOZ (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd marked all of the White Dwarf citations in my list. Ah, well. Also, since I just did a lot of moving, combining, etc. with refs, that list is pretty much completely wrong now; for checking what refs I'm referring to, you'll have to look at the oldid. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have, I was just pointing out that we have at least one reliable non-primary source. :) BOZ (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article is decently developed and readable, but I have a few issues that I'd like to see be addressed:

  • The article does not clarify the goal of the players. Is there a plot summary that could be incorporated? All I can pick up is that the party is stuck in Barovia, Strahd is the key to leaving and he is difficult to slay. So is it a mystery where the party must find the means to kill him before they can leave?
  • What does "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character" mean? I'm not sure is make senses to me, so I don't why a non-gamer would understand it.
    • I attempted to address this.—RJH (talk)
  • Per WP:Jargon, the article needs to explain "characters level", "dungeon style adventure", "high-level" and "demiplane" for non-gamers. Also "railroads" might be unclear as it is gamer slang.
    • The "high-level" is in reference to "Jeren Sureblade, a high-level paladin". I think it should either clarify his level or say something like "veteran paladin". (According to this he is 15th level, but i couldn't find a solid ref. Most sites just say he was a paladin without the adjective.)—RJH (talk)
  • In the article please explain why this matters: "The module was reviewed by Carl Sargent in issue #87 (March 1987) of White Dwarf magazine." Did he have anything pertinent to say?
  • Please reference Margaret Carter's discussion of Strahd to provide more detail.
  • The statement "stripping the demiplane setting of the Ravenloft campaign from the setting" is unclear, possibly due to ambiguity and the duplicate use of "setting". Please clarify in the article. Fixed.

Sorry but I can not lend support yet.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Jargon" point. I've linked "character levels" and "dungeon style adventure" so that they can be looked up easily, and I added clarification to "railroads". In my brief scan for the words you mentioned, I didn't see "high-level," and the only instance of "demiplane" that I noticed is linked. I'll work on your other suggesstions shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Margaret Carter citation is done (good work finding that, by the way). I can't really say much about the White Dwarf issue; I don't have it, and I don't think that BOZ does either, although we could check with other editors. I can't really clarify what the PCs goal is; I don't own the module myself. The "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character" line seems pretty clear to me, but it could be removed if it is too confusing and can't really be repaired. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own a single issue of White Dwarf, unfortunately; for that we have to depend on those who do, particularly our UK contributors. Same here on owning a copy of the actual module, although it may be possible to locate one if I am dilligent enough (no promises here). BOZ (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help?—RJH (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, but I think that there really isn't enough there to help say what was in the review. It would also be a transcription, and not entirely reliable. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In that case I'd like to suggest starting a separate "Notes" section and making that a note, along with the other notes appearing among the references. This can be readily accomplished by means of the group= option described here. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just saw someone mention that they had a lot of White Dwarf back issues, and I've asked him to see if he can expand the information regarding the review. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "monster-character" description intended to refer to older editions of D&D where only certain races could take class levels? I.e. Strahd has class levels despite being a monster that normally couldn't assume classes. If so, perhaps this could be explained for the reader. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that line (nor most of the article), but I suspect that's what it means. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: So here's the work that still needs to be done. Please let me know if I missed anything; I'll start actually working on cleaning these things up today or tomorrow.

  1. File:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg might need a better rationale or removal. Image removed.
  2. Check reliability of [34].Comment above by User:Ealdgyth says that "If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review." At this point, it is being used entirely to cite information that I think counts as being used as a review, but correct me if I'm wrong.
  3. Check reliability of [35]. I know that it would be a primary source, but [36] and [37] would lead me to believe it is fairly reliable. The site seems to also have turned up some positive reviews here, although it's a messageboard. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ref in sentence three of Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill should be at end of sentence.
  5. Copyedit.
  6. Clarify the goal of the players.Per this comment on my talk page, it seems as if the module does not specifically explain the player's goal. That said, since it can easily be presumed, should it be added in anyway? Or would that be too much OR?
  7. Explain "demiplane" for non-gamers.
  8. Clariy the "monster-character" line.

-Drilnoth (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anything else that needs work? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [38].

Mirth & Girth

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Lpangelrob
previous FAC (15:26, 26 May 2008)

Second nomination; previous nomination was closed with no consensus to the support or oppose side, and only a minor bit of commentary has been added since. I hope to have a larger set of reviewers to work with for this nomination! —Rob (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image:Harold Washington at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721).jpg - I can't find this image in the archive myself. Usually these images have description pages, at which I can verify the licensing, but I can't seem to find this one. Can you help me out? Perhaps by linking directly the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can confirm that the license is a direct copy of what was in the archive. I uploaded it and personally copied the information word for word to commons. Taken by PH1 RICHARD C. GRANT, (photographers mate first class), US Navy. PD-USN. It is DoD image number DN-SN-87-00161 is still on the server. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you did copy everything correctly, but other users need to be able to verify that. I, for example, need to verify the license. The image is there, yes, but no description of it. I'm trying to find the page that you copied from initially - each image in that collection has an image description page (which we should really link to, anyway). That is what I spent time trying to find and could not. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fortunately there is no requirement that images uploaded to commons be available forever on external servers or at their original locations. DoD has reorganized their servers since that image was loaded to commons, and if it is no longer locatable via their image search it's a server problem on their part. Unfortunately DN-SN-87-00161 doesn't come up in their new search. Luckily we have all the information we could possibly need in the image's description, which quite clearly shows that it is PD-USN. At the time I uploaded the image, there was no apparent link for the description page, just a pop up page from a search page that had no usable link to the server's description. Now that the server has been changed, there is no linkable description page that is easily found, so when I upload images I normally just list the DoD image number. It's never been a problem before. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "The faculty adviser to the school's monthly publication, Joel Davies" - It wasn't until I read the source that the inclusion of this quotation made sense. Might want to describe the context a bit better; the monthly publication is a student one, of which Nelson was the illustrator.
    • "however, this was denied by the DJs during the interview" During the interview with the Tribune?
    • "By now, word of the controversy had reached the Chicago City Council." Now = ?
    • When were the resolutions described in the "Initial display" section drafted and passed?
    • "Nelson returned to the painting at about 8:30 am" - the next day?
    • "Aldermen Edward Jones (20th) and William C. Henry (24th) were the first aldermen to arrive at the scene." When was this?
    • The shorthand "the institute" is variously presented lowercase and capitalized.
    • "At some point during the meeting, the police department..." Is this separate from the incident in which the aldermen took the painting to President Jones's office? If not, there is no earlier mention of police presence at the President's office.
      • I rewrote this section to be a bit more clear...
    • In general, it seems as if the timeline of events (especially in the Display and confiscation) needs to be described better and with more precision.
    • "Parts of the incident were later broadcast widely on television." This seems to suggest that the press arrived on the scene fairly quickly. What was the press coverage like? Local television or national television? "widely on television" is rather vague.
    • "was also involved in a conspiracy" Conspiracy to do what? BuddingJournalist 20:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/concerns I haven't read the whole article, but I checked out the law section (I'm a law student, so when I see law-stuff at FAC I'll check it out). The law part needs to be improved before it's at FA level. Especially since we don't have an article about the case (and I don't think there's enough secondary commentary for it to meet WP:N by itself), the coverage of the case in this article should be top-class. First, I've changed the citations from a newspaper article about the opinion to a link to the opinion itself. (This change should also be made for the district court opinion.) Often newspapers aren't good at summarizing what legal issues are, so it's generally best to look at the case itself to write what the case says. The top-level problem I see: the article doesn't clearly present what the legal issues at hand were. Essentially, the officials were asserting they had qualified immunity because the law wasn't clear that what they did was illegal. I don't have time (finals!!!) to go through the whole section and review it, but I recommend reading the actual decision and going through that section of the article and making sure it reflects what happened in the decision and making it clear to the reader what the legal issues and holding were. This case appears in several art law books that are in google books so I might check that out to see if they say anything interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm totally confused about the procedural history of the lawsuits. (It appears there's actually more than one, so the title should be changed.) There was a case against the city that was settled later on, but at one point the city was "dismissed from" the lawsuit. So how was the suit against the city reincarnated? (I put "dismissed from" in quotes because it's really bad journalism and doesn't mean much. Was the lawsuit against the city dismissed? Did the judge hold that the joinder of the claims against the city and the claims against the alderman was improper? I would imagine the latter is what happened, and then they brought a separate suit against the city. But that's just a guess.) Anyways there's a lot to clear up here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I'm a bit late on this... been a busy 10 days. The suit went through district court first. Is it required to have a source for that case as well? (That's where the newspapers come in handy.) —Rob (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [40].

Joel Selwood

[edit]
Nominator(s): Boomtish
previous FAC

I'm nominating this article (self-nomination) for featured article because I feel it now fulfills all the FA criteria since it's last attempt. It has since gone through a comprehensive peer review and countless edits to get it up to scratch. As an article, I believe it represents some of Wikipedia's best work, particularly within the sub-field of Australian rules football articles Boomtish (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - I wish that I didn't have to do this, because it's good to have something original here. However, the fact that there aren't any top-quality models shows. These are almost all from the first couple sections, and lead me to believe that this isn't ready.

  • Premiership is used in both upper and lower-case. Since I'm not familiar with how it is used in Australia, I want to know if it's acceptable to use it either way, or if one method is preferred.
  • The second paragraph of the lead has two uses of "both" that can be removed to make the writing tighter.
  • The AFL Rising Star Award and AFL Premiership title are repeated in the lead. Why? And did nothing of interest occur in the 2008 season? It strikes me that there is little about his AFL career in the lead, and nothing on his style of play. Even one sentence would be nice.
    • Regarding the mentioning of both awards twice within the lead, they are for varying achievements. The first mentioning is to highlight the achievement of being the only player in history to have won both within the same year. The second mentioning is part of a brief summary of awards/achievements at the end of his debut season. I believe that the lead, whilst acting as a concise summary of the article, should also only mention significant achievements (see Tim Duncan, for example). 2008 did not really deliver any actual awards that I would personally consider worthy of mention in the lead of this article. Similar feelings regarding mention of style of play, which I think is somewhat already covered (albeit very briefly) in the mentioning that he is a midfielder at 183cm etc. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: "Although (he was?) raised in a sports-gifted family—mother Maree was a top runner and tennis player, whilst (while) elder twins Adam and Troy were both identified as talented footballers right from their junior days" In addition to my parenthetical comments, I think the "right from" part can be improved.
  • "As a 2-year-old..." Numbers less than 10 are usually spelled out.
    • This issue with numbers/ages being spelt out or kept as numbers was debated rather heavily in the previous peer review for this article. It seems everyone has differing views, particularly given the non-existence of global standard for these things. In essence though, it was concluded previously that the current grammar is acceptable in the context of Australian and Australian sporting articles. Boomtish (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He excelled as the state hurdling champion..." Can we have something less POV than "excelled"? The semi-colon after this should be a comma.
  • "bar the 100 metres sprint." Bar? Why not just "except for"?
  • "By the time he was 8-years-old" Not only can the number be spelled, but it can be just "eight years old", without the hyphens.
  • "Selwood played his junior football with the Sandhurst Football Club until, aged 17, he was chosen to play for the Bendigo Pioneers in the elite TAC Cup competition." Move the aged 17 to the end of the sentence because it gets in the way in the middle.
  • Overlinking: AFL Rising Star Award and AFL Premiership linked twice in the lead. TAC Cup linked twice in Early life.
  • This is jumping ahead, but I wanted to bring it to your attention: "while Geeling coach Mark Thompson (links to someone from the BBC) labelled an 18 year old (hyphens) Selwood the best youngster to had(have) come under his tutelage during his time at the club."

After this initial reading, I feel like the article at least needs a thorough copy-edit, and am on the verge of suggesting withdrawal and resubmission. That decision is up to you, but there's no way I can support it in this state. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After those were fixed, I took another look and found some more points of interest.
  • "Selwood garnered an impressive array of accolades and honours as a bottom-aged player" Can a POV check be performed throughout the article, please? From the looks of it, Selwood was an important part of a championship-winning team as a rookie, among other things. Just let his accomplishments speak for themselves.
    • I feel POV was an issue with the article prior to the previous peer review that was carried out. Since then, after some rather heavy editing, I feel POV is not an extensive issue with the current article. If you disagree, please outline specific lines to be addressed, it would greatly help! On the matter you outlined above, that sentence is in reference to his junior career prior to his AFL career (it reads in his Early Life section). Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it's referring to his junior career, but saying his award tally was "impressive" is asking for POV queries. As I said above, it's better to just state a person's accomplishments. Here's another one that popped out at me: "Selwood's transition to the rigours of AFL football drew rave reviews from throughout the footballing community". Does the source say rave reviews anywhere? If not, I feel that can be toned down. Also, "football" and "footballing" are somewhat repetitive; try "Selwood's transition to the rigours of the AFL...". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2007: Three AFL Rising Star Award links.
  • What is the MCG? I'd like to see this spelled out, because I'm not the only person who won't know what it means.
  • Two Geelong links in the section.
  • 2008: "Selwood continued to establish himself as a key player in the Geelong midfield during the 2008 AFL Season" Why is Season capitalized?
    • Careless editing. From memory, was originally 2008 AFL Premiership Season, which was capitalized after how it reads on the official AFL website (and how the AFL advertises the season). Addressed though. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • McClelland Trophy was linked in the previous section.
  • Player profile: "while teammates Joel Corey and Cameron Ling have also acknowledged his maturity and regard as one of the most physical players in the game." Should be "regard him".
  • Please watch for overlinking in Personal life.
  • Consider moving the Personal life section above the statistics and awards list.
I'm not trying to be an annoyance for you. My most-edited article is for an athlete who is about two years older than Selwood, so it would be great to have a model for such an article, from a selfish point of view. However, I strongly recommended that these changes be made, and that outside help be brought in. If these are done, and if Ealdgyth's remaining comment is addressed or struck, I will be happy to drop my opposition. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to take on outside opinions and advice that may help improve the quality of this article. It is difficult to model this article on any others, as there aren't any AFL-related FA's currently on Wikipedia. I've had to look at other FA athlete articles to try and see what can and can't be replicated in style and structure. Boomtish (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving to weak opposition until my notes above are looked at. The lead and my POV concerns are the important ones. I'll switch to neutral once these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. (Might I add, though, that the images are nearly identical. I think the article needs only 1 or 2 - not 3.) Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Prose concerns. I would recommend a third party copyedit. Some examples:

  • "was familiar in playing with"
  • "his age deemed him ineligible"
  • "concern still surrounded his operated knee"
  • "Although his kicking skills statistically carry an average efficiency of 76%, his decision-making ability is often used to counteract his productivity with the football"
  • "has said that the widespread nature of the family"

-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. This is an interesting, well-researched article and I enjoyed reading it but there are problems with the writing. I would like to see it achieve FA status but it needs copy-editing. Here are some examples:

  • There is a missing quotation attributed to Kevin Sheehan.
  • "..in one year holding.." -> "and in one year held"
  • Three clumsy occurrences of "saw him".
  • "In winning" -> "By winning"
  • Some jargon e.g. "seventh pick overall", "and proceeded to kick three goals"
  • Redundancy, (and a very poorly written sentence) - "Although his kicking skills statistically carry an average efficiency of 76%, his decision-making ability is often used to counteract his productivity with the football" - there is no need for "statistically" when giving an "average".
  • "A life-long supporter of the Cats growing up in Bendigo" - did the Cats grow-up in Bendigo. And the article does not say who the Cats are, it is assumed that the readers already I know, (I didn't). I'm sorry to oppose, I would really like to see this become featured—but it is not ready yet. Graham Colm Talk 12:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - sorry, but the prose needs work, and there are some areas where clarification is needed. Here is what I found from the lead and the first paragraph of the main article:
  • The first thing I noticed is a sea of blue in the lead. Is it possible to cut down on the wikilinks a bit?
  • As a standout junior track and field athlete and footballer from Bendigo, Selwood entered top-level football early, joining the TAC Cup competition as a bottom-aged player. - Early in what?
  • Despite a serious knee injury during his final junior football year, Selwood was selected with Geelong's first selection, and the seventh overall, in the 2006 AFL Draft. - "Serious" is vague, and requires a bit of explanation.
  • He has since represented Victoria in the AFL Hall of Fame Tribute Match, as the youngest player to feature in the all-star event, and helped Geelong reach successive AFL Grand Finals. - Remove the comma after "match".
  • Off the field, he has acted as an ambassador for the Seeing Eye Dogs Australia organisation alongside his brothers, Adam, Troy, and Scott, who each play in the AFL for West Coast, Brisbane, and West Coast, respectively. - "Off the field" is, at least in my opinion, not encyclopedic language.
  • Specify in the early life section when he was born.
  • He was raised in a family of sportspeople. - Choppy sentence.
  • His mother Maree was a top runner and tennis player, while elder twins Adam and Troy were both identified as talented footballers at a young age.'" - Remove "both".
  • However as a 2-year old, Joel was forced to wear splints on his leg to help overcome a walking disability. - Is there any more information available on this walking disability?
  • Selwood displayed gifts as an athlete from an early age. - I don't understand this. Did he literally give out Gifts?

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:51, 14 December 2008 (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 User:Maralia 17:23, 15 December 2008 [41].

Christmas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that the it has have fulfilled the FA criteria, and if not, I think constructive criticism would be useful in helping us to make the article better. Also, it would help Wikipedia get into the festive spirt. User:Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need an additional sup in your signature. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, needs serious work. First, barely anything on the birth of Jesus? The "Economics of Christmas" needs expansion, and you need to at least create a section on the Controversy of Christmas, rather than a link. In addition, there are many unreffed paragraphs as well as one and two sentence paragraphs. I didn't even look at the prose. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. I am concerned by the large number of referencs to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is seriously out of date and biased. A number of your references are just numbered links, they need titles formatted, etc. The link checker tool is showing a number of deadlinks. I cannot even begin to think about evaluating the references until they are in a somewhat coherent sytsem. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, a number of statments are unreferenced (Examples: "This story is meant to be a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and modern day globalization, most notably the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States." or "In many countries a representation of the Nativity Scene is very popular, and people are encouraged to compete and create most original or realistic ones. Within some families, the pieces used to make the representation are considered a valuable family heirloom." among many others.) Prose is choppy, with lots of short one or two sentence paragraphs.
Changing to oppose based on the prose and referencing issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Needs some serious work. References need throughout the article, and the section on controversies is just a link directing to another article! Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have to agree with the above opposers but I want to offer the nominator some help in fixing references. I am actually very busy right now but will go through and try to fix the references later in the week. Also, I was wondering if there might be some more info on Christmas as it is celebrated in different parts of the world. Here in the US, I think we celebrate much differently than those in India or Africa and it might make the page more interesting to expose these differences. I am sorry I don't have a ref to offer but you might try searching googlebooks. NancyHeise talk 17:08, 15 December 2008 (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 User:Maralia 16:19, 15 December 2008 [42].

The Great Gatsby

[edit]
Nominator(s): Saberwolf116 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a very clssic novel, and has cited sources as well as good plot and reception summaries. Literature classic that should be featured. Saberwolf116 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this one is quite ready for FAC yet. Needs more on historical background/context, Fitzgerald's style, the novel's themes, and especially its legacy. I've done some clean-up work on this article to start laying a foundation, but think it needs more work at this point. I have many of the sources to make a go, but would need several weeks to work on it. Love to come back in January and do that. --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, well I think that the main idea of novel articles is to include a good summary, recpetion, and style, isn't it? The reason I chose it is because the plot does not specify to greatly, and it has all good sources. I think if we let it be featured, it will also bring in a lot of editors who would love to contribute.Saberwolf116 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's the main idea, but right now the summary is not actually that great and the reception section is very short. There's no style section at all. Take a look at To Kill a Mockingbird, another Featured Article on a great American novel, and look at how detailed the sections on style and themes are. We'd have to do a lot of work yet--maybe a month or two--before The Great Gatsby article is up to "FA standards" for a novel that's this important. --JayHenry (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are 598 hits for "Great Gatsby" in the MLA database - have you consulted this database? This is the most important collection of secondary citations on literature. The fact that so much other research exists suggests that this article is based on a very small subset of the available material. As for the article, the plot summary is too long; the list of characters is unnecessary; there is no "themes" section (themes are the "meat" of any novel); there is no "style" section (this is crucial since Fitzgerald's writing style is so distinctive and is part of what makes this novel so important in literary history). I would suggest looking at some of the recently-promoted novel FAs. This article will require several months of work to get to FA (I would actually speculate something like a year, since it is one of those classic novels on which much has been written). I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and starting to compile a lengthy bibliography from which to expand the article. Awadewit (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Edit count shows that Saberwolf has not edited the article. Have you consulted the major contributors about nominating this? Getting an article to featured status (i.e. the best of what Wikipedia has to offer) takes an incredible amount of work – research, synthesis, writing, copyediting, etc. Take a look at some of our current featured articles, and you'll see a rather large difference between them and The Great Gatsby. I'd suggest withdrawing this article from nomination. BuddingJournalist 06:36, 15 December 2008 (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 User:Maralia 02:21, 15 December 2008 [43].

Henryk Górecki

[edit]
Nominator: Ceoil

Ecstatical contemporary composer. Not much has been written about this man (outside of his 3rd symphony), and I have spent near three years now tracking what has been put down. Ceoil (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose: I welcome this article, and look forward to being able to support it wholehearedly. For the moment, however, it needs further attention:-

  • Much more rigorous referencing. Here are some examples where citations are needed:
    • In the lead, the descriptive terms "ecstatic reverence", "meditative" and "spiritualism" are used. Unless cited, they read as POV. They are not used elsewhere in the article.
    • Early years:
      • "...and the work displayed clear influence from Szymanowski and Bartok".
      • Also, each of the two sentences following that one
    • Minimaliam
      • First sentence of section
      • Second sentence - containing phrases "seen as an affront" and "ceased to be viewed as a composer that mattered"
      • Second para: 3rd and 4th sentences containing "high level of interference" and "almost perpetual warfare"
      • Third para: final sentence
    • Style and composition
      • Second sentence: "He is considered to be a founder..."
      • Third symphony 1st and 2nd movement themes - a 15thC lament and the girl's prison song - need citing, as you have with the third movemet, unless this cite covers all three movements.
    • Critical opinion
      • "The term holy minimaliasm is often used..." By whom?
      • "None of these composers has admitted to common influence"
  • A few points arising from the text:-
    • Lead: "four hundred" should be 400
    • Early years: Some confusiion here. "In 1952 he began a teacher training course at the Intermediate School of Music in Rybnik" – finishing a 4-year course in 3. However, in the third para we have: "Gorecki began his formal study of music in 1952 at the pedagogical department of the Music High School in Rybnik". So, where was he in 1952? Or is the answer that the second 1952 is the wrong year?
    • Early works: What was the "Academy" that he graduated from?
    • Style and composition:
      • You seem to be repeating more or less verbatim a point made earlier, in the "Minimalism" section ("His change of style was viewed as an affront..." etc)
      • "Liberato"? Should this be "libretto"?
  • Images: I can understand the problem of lack of availability of free images, but the article looks very bleak at the moment with just the one picture, barely tangential, tucked away. Is it not possible to find something of relevance, for example a picture of his village, or of an institution with which he has been connected, that can be placed in the lead?

As stated earlier, I look forward to being able to support this in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thank you. Writing this has been a very fustrating experiance; there is just so little out there to build on. All of the points you mention are valid but I can do - can you watch this page and give me a day or 2. And then come back with more things you dont like. I'm chipping away at your points so far, will post a block result when done. (and no I dont mean I'll get an admin to block you if you dont agree - I'll say done in one one big done!) Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspaper titles should be in italics.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both texts are RS, but are reproduced on weak sources that I've used. I'm not sure at this point how to deal with them. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose. Comments: I think the article is interesting, but it may not be quite comprehensive. What has he done since 1995? The music section is very short. The sheer complexity and difficulty of his early music is hardly conveyed. (I remember seeing part of the score of an early symphony - frightening! - time signature change practically every bar, with complex cross-rhythms!) Didn't one work have a movement omitted for this reason at its first performance? (ref: Jacobsen, I think). Some fair use musical examples, discussed in the article text, are de rigeur, I think - perhaps one of an early work and a page of Symphony No. 3 might work. The early influence of serialists, and the later influence of Messiaen and Bach, could perhaps be teased out and exemplified rather than baldly stated. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per Brian and Robert: basically "music section is very short". To clarify, Gorecki has had only one work since 1995, because of his bad health. This is the image I'd ideally like to include in the lead, and I have 3 music samples...there the down at the end Robert! Anyway thanks guys, good reviews; I'll move them into user space to tick off before I come back. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2008 (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 User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [44].

Necrid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)

After hammering everything out and with everything said and done as part of a plan to get the Soul (series) character articles to a featured topic, nominating Necrid for Featured Article status! ...Yeah I know it won't be that directly easy. References were checked for reliability and endorsement by other sources, and the images should be up to snuff for the fair use guideline. So ready to fix any issues that come up with the article.Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Criterion 1a (prose). Sorry, but the prose is well below the standard required for a featured article. It is a pity the article wasn't peer-reviewed before this nomination because these prose problems could have have been resolved then.

The following are issues picked up from the lead and the first half of the first section:-

  • "Despite hving spoken lins in the game, a voice actor has not been been attributed to Necrid". Needs ephasing along the lines: "Despite Necrid having spoken lines in the game, no voice actor has been attributed".
  • "...a human warrior that searched..." Since he was human it should be "who", not "that". And it should be "searched for"
  • Punctuation: comma needed after "while there"
  • "Now drastically mutated, he wields various various forms of energy as weapons, searching for fragments..." etc. Suggest "Drastically mutated, he wields various forms of energy while searching..." etc
  • "...Nicred has received mixed reception" - should be "a mixed reception".
  • "Series producer Hiroaki Yotoriama learned Todd McFarlane was not only a fan of the Soul series, but also praised their designs". Needs rephrasing. Perhaps: "Series producer Hiroaki Yotoriama learned that Todd McFarlae was a fan of the Soul series, and had praised its design".
  • Second sentence of this paragraph - multiple issues here. "Himself" is redundant; the sentence needs splitting; it is too wordy, and the final clause needs rephrasing. I suggest a reduction to: "McFarland was interested in ceating a new Spawn video game. During subsequent discussions with Namco a deal was agreed, to release a line of toys based on SoulcaliberII"

I could extend the examples. I would recommend that you find a handy prose expert to review the text and highlight further improvements that need to be made. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything you pointed out and a few other bits. One thing though stuck out that I'm unsure about: I haven't seen the term "a mixed reception" used in comparison to just "mixed reception", so are you certain that's a necessity?
"Reception" is not a plural or a mass noun, so yes, the "a" is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I'll be more than happy to take care of any other issues you have with the article and thank you for your time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt responses, but it would honestly be better if you got someone else to read the rest of the text, since the function of FAC is review rather than article-building. I will be happy to look again a little later, when the prose has been checked. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.gamersmark.com/
    • http://www.soulcaliburuniverse.com/images/sc2/wallpaper/ (and is this a copyright violation also? We do not link to those.)
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20040801054906/http://www.soulcalibur.com/images/smilies/z_necrid.gif
      • Regarding the sources:
        • GamersMark was a source turned up by Google News in relation to the figures, cited for the collaboration statement which can be brought up by other sources if need be.
        • Soul Calibur Universe receives official sanction from Namco's own Soulcalibur website in their links section, as seen here under their links section. In addition Namco's recent "fansite" (no closed) "What's Within Your Soul?" actively promoted the distribution of artwork and wallpaper items distributed from Namco through individual websites, as I had cited on an image of Tira I uploaded.
        • Soulcalibur.com is their official website and in this case an older copy is cited to show they created a gif "smiley" as a promotional piece for their forums (I would cite the smiley template itself, but due to its nature Wayback Machine didn't store it properly).
          • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magazine titles should be in italics (current ref 19 Minkley...)
    • Will fix.Fixed. Was unsure as the webpage was cited in this case.
  • Current ref 17 is a reprint of a published magazine, so you need to format it like a magazine, not a website. The actual publisher of the information was Electronic Games Monthly.
  • Same for current ref 34 (GameNOW...) where the publisher is GameNOW
    • I'm on it.Fixed.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix those links. I'm currently in Sociology at the college so I'll have to wait till I get out of class for the more refined fixes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • I'd like more information in the fair use rationale of Image:Necrid01.png; how is it low resolution (it seems rather large to me). The summary info can be put into the rationale.
  • I'm not seeing how Image:Souldcalibur2-necrid-screenshot.jpg and Image:Sc2-necrid.jpg are a) low resolution, and b) covered on WP:NFCC; they contain a lot of duplicate information with the infobox image, and their justification for use is not at all compelling. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the article I'm going to oppose for now. I'm concerned about the prose, images as they stand now, and the use of some primary sources for sources, ex. this version's refs 13-15. That said, there's an admirable core to the article and is very good about sparingly describing appearances, but I feel it might benefit from use of more meat. I'm going to search LexisNexis and see if I can find some more sources to add to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with Brianboulton that the prose needs to be improved. Here are some examples from the first half of the article:
  • Despite Necrid having spoken lines in the game - This is worded poorly.
  • Since his introduction Necrid has received a mixed reception. - "His" sounds odd when referring to a fictional character.
  • Sources such as GameSpy have criticized his design for clashing with the game's aesthetic, while other publications praised its visual appeal when the character was in motion. - What sources?
  • While some reviewers have cited Necrid as one of the best characters introduced to the series, others have cited him as one of the worst. - "Some reviewers" are weasel words.
  • McFarlane at the time was interested in creating a new Spawn video game, and during discussions with Namco the subject turned to toys,[2] and a deal was formed to release a line of toys based upon Soulcalibur II. - Not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say.
  • Necrid is depicted as a large, muscular, bald green humanoid. - "Bald green"?
  • His eyes glow a bright red - No need for "a".
  • reddish orange scaly skin - → "scaly, reddish orange skin"
  • Necrid can additionally utilize other forms of energy as weapons, such as ignis fatuus - No need for "additionally".

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry. The prose needs a lot of work; there is redundancy, passive constructions and a generally poor style of writing. I am reluctant to give examples because there is a growing tendency at FAC simply fix the examples given and not ask another editor to copy-edit. Although questions and suggestions are in order, FAC is not the place to get below FA standard articles fixed. Graham Colm Talk 10:11, 14 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:06, 13 December 2008 [45].

Real Madrid C.F.

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990
previous FAC (15:57, 12 October 2008)

I think this is a very good article and should be a featured one. Hadrianos1990 08:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Hate to do this again, but the prose still doesn't meet FA standards. I advise that you obtain the services of a good copy-editor to help polish the text. Here are a few examples of problems.

  • "It holds the record as the most successful club in Spanish football and was voted by FIFA as the most successful club of the 20th century...". Two "most successful clubs" in this sentence makes for repetitive text. I'd suggest changing one of them.
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Define FIFA on its first use, not second. Then remove the second link as unneeded.
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Unlike most European football clubs, the club members (socios) have owned and operated Real Madrid since its foundation." Try this: "Unlike most European football clubs, Real Madrid's members (socios) have owned and operated the club since its inception." That moves the two "club"s in the sentence further away from each other.
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "The club's traditional kit colours are all white." I think this should specifically state, here and in the Colours section, that this is their home colour. The article says later that their away colours are black or purple.
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "the most notable with FC Barcelona with whom they semiannually contest the El Clasico." Sentence needs improving; two withs in three words doesn't read well.
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "It semiannually contest the El Clasico with FC Barcelona which is the most notable rivalry of The Whites." Contest should be plural, and since when do readers know that they are called The Whites? Giants2008 (17-14) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Hadrianos1990 16:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • History: "Football was introduced to Madrid by the professors and students of the Institucion Libre de Ensenanza, who included several Oxbridge graduates." Since who is not referring to a person, change it to which.
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "They founded the club Football Club Sky in 1897..." Remove "the club" and just leave it as "They founded Football Club Sky in 1897".
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of these are in the lead and first paragraph of History. Sorry, but I shouldn't be finding this many problems this early in the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose still stands, unfortunately. In addition to the over-reliance on primary sources mentioned below, the prose is still lacking in some areas. Here are more examples.
  • Budget: "It was with the advent of Florentino Perez in 2000 that Real Madrid really started harbouring its present-day ambition of becoming the world's topmost money-spinning professional football club." In addition to needing a rewrite, this needs a citation.
Done --Hadrianos1990 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "After the 2004–05 season, Real Madrid have ended Manchester United's eight-year reign as the biggest earners in world football." Remove have because this is three years old, and no longer present tense.
Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "However, they reached the top again in March by getting massive image rights of 762 million." Massive is POV; try "However, they reached the top again two months later after completing an image rights deal with (insert rights holder here) worth 762 million."
Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "currently ranked" and "still the richest club" need "as of" or similar terms; otherwise, they risk becoming outdated.
Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "In September 2007, Real Madrid was considered the most valuable Football brand in Europe by BBDO". Why is Football capitalized?
Done --Hadrianos1990 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • History: "His death put an end to the one to whom credit can be given for transforming Real Madrid from the second most successful club in Madrid into the most successful in Spain, andone of the most successful in Europe." Another overlong, winding sentence. "put an end to the one to whom credit can be given" needs chopping, and a source. Who gives him this credit?
Done --I deleted this because I found it unenciclopedic. Hadrianos1990 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "By the early 1980s, Real Madrid had lost its grasp on the La Liga title until a new batch of home-grown stars started to back winning domestic titles." "started to back winning domestic titles"?? Giants2008 (17-14) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Hadrianos1990 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Image review

Done--Hadrianos1990 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please link to the specific page from which you downloaded the image. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Hadrianos1990 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:MadridFC1902.jpg - We need at least the death date of Anton Casilldes to establish "life of the author + 70 years".
Done--Hadrianos1990 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Big problem here. On the top right of the picture, it says the photo is copyrighted to Getty Images. It smells, and should be deleted ASAP, unless Getty has approved its use under a free license. Knowing how these photo companies are, I doubt it. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had doubts about this image, but I was going to check the site first to see if it really was released under a GFDL license. I still can't get to the site, however. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link works.Hadrianos1990 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No assertion of a free license is given at [46], there is just the image as uploaded. Given the Getty watermark, it needs deleting. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is nothing on the site that indicates this image was published under the GFDL license, as claimed on the image description page. I have put this image up for deletion. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Real crestds.png - We need a link to the source website. Also, the "purpose of use" needs to be altered, as this logo is not the current logo and therefore the logo does not confirm that readers have reached the right article or illustrate the team's branding message.
Done--Hadrianos1990 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please add a link to the specific page where you found this image. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Hadrianos1990 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've fix it.--Andrea 93 (msg) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fix it.--Andrea 93 (msg) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These should be relatively easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm concerned about the proportion of references which use Real Madrid's own website as the source. For something like a club record, it is fine as a source, but for anything contentious, a third party source should be used. I'm also think there are elements of what Dweller would call hagiography - for instance, no mention is made of Real Madrid's reputation for gaining favour as a result of Franco's patronage (see for e.g. Time magazine). Phil Ball's Morbo is arguably the best English language book on Spanish football, and covers this well; it seems the relevant part of the book is searchable on Google Books. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information about Franco and Real Madrid. The problem with the references will be solved soon.--Hadrianos1990 12:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note: Hadrianos, I still see many problems with the prose and sourcing. Rather than trying to get through FAC again, since I speak Spanish, if you will contact me on my talk page after the holidays, I will try to help you sort things out, and put you in contact with other editors, including those who speak Spanish, who may be able to help. It is best to undertake this work before re-nomming at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:06, 13 December 2008 [47].

Evolution (Dove)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another article in the style of noitulovE, Evolution won the Cannes Lions Film Grand Prix the year after the Guinness piece, and went on to win an unprecedented second Grand Prix in another category. There is less discussion on the "behind the scenes" elements to the commercial available than on noitulovE, but I've done what I feel to be a fairly good job at presenting the various aspects of the ad's progress through conception, production, and release. There are bound to be areas that could use a little work, so please let me know where to focus my attention. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Nothing in that particular video that can't be referenced elsewhere, so switched to text refs. However, with regards to the later YouTube videos, they are the only *online* versions of the commercials in question. Being able to see the differences between the regional versions is the purpose of using the reference in the first place. If you prefer, I can simply reel off the production details, but no-one without access to the reels will be able to confirm that they even exist, let alone that they differ in any way (credits are the same for virtually all of the regional versions of the ad).
The problem is that we shouldn't be linking to copyright violations, either in references or in external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, switched to subscribe-only U.S. version, and the CFRB.pl version for Southeast Asia. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and missed the Ruddy Hell!... link at the bottom. Removed, since the BBC wesite only provides access to the latest season, which has a different introduction sequence. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to Singapore version.
  • It's an interview with the creative director and art director for the advertisement. Given that it's directly quoting the primary source (the people themselves), I'm not sure reliability is an issue.
The problem is that although its an interview, how do we know that the interview was transcribed/published without bias/errors? Interviews in mainstream media rely on the fact that the publisher has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, so we need to make sure that all sites have that. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how to fix this one. The information in the interview can't be cited to anywhere else. The interviewer is a former copywriter (together with director, half a creative team) at the Doug Agency, the lead editor of the site is a former art director at Ogilvy & Mather, and all other members of staff have similar backgrounds in the industry. They know what they're talking about, but I can't really list the entire staff's credentials within a ref tag. :/ GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can find to show the site's authority is that its annual industry event is reported on by Reuters[48], and that the site itself is partnered with some of the largest agencies and organisations around (Corbis, DDB Worldwide, ADC, etc.) Anything else I can do? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source [49]

  • Switched to the ref that Mokslai itself used for the point (Creativity)
  • The point it was referencing wasn't that important. Removed.
I pulled the link from the article somewhere. May have been removed in the edits, not sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to Internet Archive version of the page.
  • Current ref 37 is lacking a publisher
  • Miscapitalised in template, fixed.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta muchly. Let me know if there are any other issues :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Just FWI, but there's a general consensus (or it seems) to delink dates.
  • It won a number of the most prestigious awards in the advertising industry - This needs a reference, as it's not mentioned in the article.
  • Evolution has also spawned numerous unofficial copycat versions, including a title sequence to a BBC sketch show and the short parody Slob Evolution, which has gone on to itself be nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award. - Is "copycat" the most encyclopedic word choice?
  • Switched copycat for alternate
  • The film opens with a "pretty, but ordinary girl" (Stephanie Betts)[2] entering and sitting down in a studio. - Do we really need to know her name? Probably not.
  • I was asked in noitulovE's FAC to provide names for the actors involved. Consider the piece a short film - acting credits on any film would be an absolute requirement, so why not include the information if it's available?
  • Two harsh lights are switched on and the first bars of The Flashbulb's "Passage D", a drum and bass piece with piano accompaniment, are heard. - What is a "harsh light"?
  • A light leaving no shadows on the face, I'll cite it to the making of.
  • The final image is transferred to a billboard advertisement for the fictional Fasel (an anagram of the word "False") brand of foundation makeup and the piece fades to the statement, "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." - Needs a source.
  • The parenthetical comment was recently added by another user, removed.

The above stuff is from the lead and some of the first section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image:Dovelution.jpg - We need a link to the company's website, if possible, in the "source" field. Also, we need a specific "purpose of use".
  • Image:Slobelution.jpg - We need a link to the company's website, if possible. Also, we need a specific "purpose of use".

This dispatch on non-free images has some hints on writing "purpose of use" statements at the bottom. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Purpose subsections to each of the images GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "purpose" statements need to be more specific. I rewrote the first one as a sample, but the best way to understand what makes a good purpose statement is to read the section on purpose-writing in the dispatch I linked to above. Note that "a well-written rationale will be explicit and articulate an actual purpose (not just a function, as is too often the case)". The dispatch does an excellent job of explaining the difference between these and why both are necessary. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, but I'm currently unable to dedicate any real time to article editing at the moment. I'll do my best to address the points at a later date and reapply, but feel free to shut the discussion down for now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:22, 10 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [50].

Scene7

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

I created this article and brought it to DYK, where its notability was questioned. Since then, I have expanded the article and have brought it to one Peer Review and through the Good Article process, and I think it's now ready for an FA star. Gary King (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Scene7's technology allow users to manipulate product images by zooming in and rotating products around, simulating how merchandise is inspected in retail stores. - Remove "around".
  • In 1998 the company, with its staff of 40 developers, was sold to Broderbund, itself owned by The Learning Company, a subsidiary of Mattel Inc.. - Only one full stop.
  • Engage was the parent company of both Cascade and MidSystems, two companies that were each one of the first companies that tried to automate prepress production with customers in newspapers and large printers. - This could be worded better.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for catching that; I've replaced the image in the article. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left them a comment, but they haven't edited in four years. The image says "selfmade" so that sounds like they took it themselves. Gary King (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem so, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see this article in the list of GA's, but there's nothing in the milestones on the talk page about going through GAN; do you remember when it passed GAN? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now it's showing up when I hit refresh, Nov 14. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is shorter than most FACs (a little over 1200 words). This is a current "hot" issue that I have no opinion on, so I won't support or oppose. However, I did some copyediting, and I have some questions.
  • "allow customers to interact with them": with the companies, the products, the images, or the websites?
  • "to run the company's computers and allow Scene7 to pay only for the resources that it uses." The user's company, or the company that owns Scene7? I would think the user's company, because of this from the ref: "Isilon's 'pay as you grow' clustered architecture reportedly enables users to scale capacity". But then it's not clear what's meant when you say Scene7 is "running the company's computers"; running on the user's computer network, perhaps?
  • I'd prefer "..." to "[...]" for ellipses.
  • - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the sentence. The other one is for the Scene7 company. I prefer [...] as it's more obvious that it's not part of the original text. Gary King (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though WP:MOS seems to me to only just barely allow "[...]" if you're not trying to distinguish it from another "...", and that recommendation follows AP Stylebook, I have no problem supporting [...] if you prefer, since it does make it absolutely clear what's meant. On the other sentence, I still think the average reader might not be clear which computer Style7 is running on. Other than that, I'm happy with the language, and I'll be happy to support this article, if other people who know more about FAC than I do want to support the idea that the article is comprehensive. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I tried to clarify it a bit further. Hopefully it's better? Gary King (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I thought about how long I wanted to hang back on the "comprehensiveness" issue, and I decided I'm not comfortable leaving the implication hanging in the air that I can't support yet because the article might be faulty. I really have no opinion on comprehensiveness; it ought to be a community decision. So I've written up a standard disclaimer. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. Company articles are really hard to write well. This one seems to be a mix of overly detailed bits and areas where there is just not a lot of context. I'm also concerned that so much is sourced to primary sources.

  • There are a lot of primary sources in the article (about a third of them) - to Adobe and to Pr Newswire/PR Web, which is essentially press releases, right? Even the BusinessWeek overview is all press releases.
  • I've never heard of TelecomWorldWire - is it a secondary source or does it regurgitate press releases?
  • In the lead, I'd replace ecatalogs with online catalogs - more people are likely to understand what that means.
  • "efforts are being made to expand into Europe" - what exactly does this mean? What efforts are they undertaking?
  • In the beginning of the company section, I would mention that Scene7 is a subsidiary of Adobe Systems. For those that don't read the lead, this would be a good intro, and will tie it together with the fact that they use so many Adobe products
  • Did they use Adobe products before being purchased by Adobe Systems?
  • Is it really important to know that they are customers of Isilon Systems? This seems like a bit of excess detail. Could just say, "Rather than maintain their own servers, since August 2008 Scene7 rents storage space, allowing them to pay for only the resources that are used."
  • I am confused in the sentence about Individual Software as to which of the companies is developing the home design software - the pronoun is ambiguous
  • That deal was signed in 2001 - any progress?
  • Are the exact dates of when they signed agreements with various companies really important?
  • Much of the information about the competitors is repetitive. It is obviously a selling point that you can zoom in on the merchandise images, but not really necessary to be mentioned so many times.
  • Are they the only company that allows zooming in? What differentiates them from other companies that offer the same service (anything)?
  • "room decoration projects" - what types of projects? Changing walls, arranging furniture, previewing wall colors or wall paper?
  • Do we need to know the names of the senior VP of marketing and the president/COO of GoodHome.com? I see that Mack is referenced later, but he is the only one.
  • the GoodHome.com technology was transferred...what exactly does that mean? Did they sell it someone else to make a go of it? Did Broderbund just make a new subsidiary for it? Did they just rename themselves and reposition? It looks like Mack stayed on.
  • Any details on their "fail[ure] to establish"? Did they go bankrupt?
  • Any info on how the name Scene7 was chosen?
  • "During the dot-com bubble, Scene7 spent five years working on a business plan that ultimately failed to take off and lost a significant amount of capital" - is this referring to its time as Goodhome.com? The five-years mark and the fact that they got new financing in 2001 doesn't really mesh well
  • Any info on what the failed business plan was? Did it fail to be brought to the market, or did it fail after it got to market?
  • Why did they change locations from San Rafeal to Hamilton Landing?
  • The history section contains a lot of info on the amount of funding raised, but little on any milestones the company might have reached - numbers of employees, capitalization, etc...
  • Acquisition should really be under history. It is part of the history and it makes more sense that way
  • " will eventually be replaced with the Adobe Systems brand" - any sense of what is meant by "eventually" months/years/decades?

Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten everything that I could get. A few things, like more information on employees and capitalization, is not available since it has been a private company for most of its life. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address my questions about sourcing? I noticed that at least 1/3 of the sources are primary sources, and I'm not sure whether Telecomworldwire is or not. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references don't have any alternatives that I can find. If you want, some can be removed; I've replaced what I can, though. The only remaining primary sources are: reference #1, #4, #5, #11, and #14, so that's about a quarter of the total. Also, these references are used primarily for business deals, etc. rather than the company's history. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [51].

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

[edit]
Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare, User:Haha169, User:Rau J

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that this article meets the FA Criteria. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh, and also because this article specifically is part of a topic (Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes) that I am hoping to get to Featured Status. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the tools bit. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point:

  • Image:AangOzai.png - The "purpose of use" provided for this image is insufficient - "It provides a necessary visual aid for the Sozin's Comet article". This is essentially illustration and Wikipedia's fair use guidelines specifically require that non-free images provide more than illustration. Thus, this image needs a much stronger justification for inclusion or it needs to be deleted.
  • Image:Sozin's comet.png - The source for this image is listed as Wikipedia's upload page - that is not a source. The copyright holder is not listed. The "purpose of use" is blatantly false - this image is not used in the infobox. Again, this purpose of use must be strengthened or the image must be deleted.

For help on non-free images, particularly on writing "purpose of use" statements, see this dispatch on non-free images. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In lead. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four-part movie premiere averaged 5.6 million viewers, and received a 195% increase in ratings over the previous year's like-time period.[5] - Like time?
  • I've done a minor fix, myself. Others:
  • Could you briefly explain who each character is in the lead?
  • Sozin's Comet has received some negative feedback as well, most notably the difficulty in understanding the voice of an important, new character: the Lion Turtle. - Remove comma between important and new, doesn't flow.
  • It's a shame that so many convenient plot twists set us up for a humongous deus ex machina that allows the Fire Lord to be thwarted without dying". - period in front of quote, please.
Use an ellipse, if possible. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comments - From a person who knows less than nothing about anime-type shows, here are some general thoughts. I didn't read the text closely, so please don't consider this a comprehensive list of everything that needs fixing.

Giants2008 (17-14) 01:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspaper titles should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}} you use the work field for the titles
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - below my 20kb dividing line for FA/GA, so I have qualms about the comprehensiveness of this article to the level I feel is required by the FA criteria. I think it's okay enough for GA, but for television episodes, I have a minimum of 20KB for 22-minute episodes, 30KB for 45-minute episodes, and and 40KB for 90-minute episodes. Articles like 200 (Stargate SG-1) and The Principal and the Pauper were criticised within the FA process for being a similar length. Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not comprehensive enough. Not even close to FA. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answering both these opposes at once: I would disagree, but I am willing to withdraw this FAC and rewrite if you deem it necessary. What more do you feel we should add? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More production and reception details: one or two paragraphs about each are pitifully small for an FA. I would suggest withdrawing and adding more. Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just going through WP:FA?: I noticed no rules regarding length, except "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article is quite the opposite. It stays on track and does not enter unnecessary detail. Comprehensiveness: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" also passes, IMHO because this article incorporates everything verifiable that is on the internet. --haha169 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look at the second- and third-longest episode FAs, Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost). One's animation, and the other's as long as Sozin's Comet. They're comprehensive to the point the featured article criteria asks. I am struggling to believe that, for a TV series as popular as this, you can only find two paragraphs of production and reception. Have you tried Nickelodeon-published magazines or Google News? Sceptre (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suppose we could technically find more for reception, though it will be just much of the same. Also, production won't be that much. We would essentially be copying the information from the Season 3 article, because I have no information to indicate that they produced this any differently. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd prefer if S3 production details that pertain to this episode are placed in the articles, yes. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've tried Google News, but I do not have Nickelodeon magazine subscriptions and I do not believe they are online. I honestly have found nothing pertaining to the production of this episode, only the production of the seasons in general. I'm not sure production could be expanded much without repeating the information in the infobox multiple times. --haha169 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from the nominator - Would you say that this source would be OK to use as a review in the reception section? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:02, 2 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [52].

Jackie Robinson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it now meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It recently passed a mildly rigorous GA at Talk:Jackie Robinson/GA1 and I think it now meets the FA criteria. It's well written, thoroughly referenced, and I believe neutral. It's been stable for at least the last two months (probably many more) and has a lead that summarizes the article. I thought quite a bit about the section names and organization, and I think the current format is FA worthy. I used Sandy Koufax (another baseball FA) as a bit of a template, but didn't follow it too closely due to the difference between great pitcher and great player plus civil rights hero. The cite web and cite book templates have been used consistently; there may be some MOS minutiae that I've missed. The big difference between this version and the GA version is I've added info that I think makes it comprehensive while trying not to stray from the topic. Whole books have been written about JR, and even about single years of his life, but I think this article covers him at the right level of detail. The article has almost too many images, but they're all free. I'm open to changing the images in any way. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oppose - 1c. Quality of sourcing is inadequate for a subject like Jackie Robinson, who has had so much written about him over the years, and is one of the most important figures in the history of American sports. Here are a few random examples, which show problems throughout.

  • Reference 46 (TheJournalofSportsHistory.org) is nothing but a bare address, with no means of checking the source. Also no publisher or date of last access.
  • Other refs lack publisher and access date, including numbers 27 (Gale - Free Resources - Black History - Biographies - Jackie Robinson), 30 (Jackie Robinson Papers), and 65 (The Sizzler by Rick Huhn). There are others like this, so please audit all of them.
  • Printed publishers should be in italics. Non-printed publishers shouldn't.
  • Many sources of suspect reliability, such as xtimeline.com (ref 26), LarryLester42.com (ref 35), baddogblues.com (ref 64), and economicexpert.com (ref 79) This is by no means an exhastive list; Ealdgyth, our resident source checker, will have a field day when she returns from her vacation.
  • Formatting is faulty in reference 83. (Jackie changed face of sports, where the title is given twice instead of the author's last name.)
  • Overall, I sense an over-reliance on Internet sources. Even many of the books used are from Google Books, though they may just be links for easy access. I don't normally complain about Internet sources, but a high level of sourcing is expected for a subject like Robinson. In my view, this fails to meet that standard.

The sourcing doesn't fill me with confidence that the other aspects of the article meet FA standards. Therefore, I want to see these examples, along with the rest of the sourcing problems, resolved before I start reading the article. Hopefully, Ealdgyth will be back soon to give you a full list of issues. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe I've fixed the references. I did the ones you mentioned and then went through them myself. There are a couple issues left, though. There is one source I've left whose meeting of RS can be reasonably debated. It is larrylester42.com. Although it is a personal web site, it is written by a guy who appears to be one of the leading black baseball historians. According to the about page, he has founded a negro league museum and worked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. His list of novels (see here) about black baseball is also very extensive. The second issue is that I can't find anything that shows how to format format the publisher part for web sites. I looked at the manual of style, a few TFAs, and the cite web template but there doesn't seem to be a consistent way to do it. For instance, should biography.com be Biography, Biography.com, biography.com, Biogrpahy, The Biography Channel, etc. It's also a problem for baseball-almanac.com, should it be Baseball Almanac, Baseball-Almanac.com, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my own editing, I like to use the name that our site gives a company, when possible. Therefore, The Biography Channel would be the winner; I also like how it clarifies that it is a TV network. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced about the reliability of Baseball Almanac. It's been questioned at previous FACs, and hasn't been confirmed to be reliable. Here are a few more notes:
  • Reference 88 (Jackie changed face of sports) still has formatting issues.
  • Reference 98 (Jackie Robinson School) is a dead link, according to our link checker tool.
  • Reference 100 (from the Daily News) shouldn't be in all caps.
  • Page ranges need en dashes to replace hyphens.
  • Tip for printed publishers: the work parameter in the templates will output the publisher in italics. Citations from sources such as The Sporting News and the Washington Post can be changed by using this option.
  • Most importantly, please find sources to resolve the cite tags. That is grounds for a quick-failure, and leaves the impression that this didn't receive the proper preparation.
Meanwhile, I looked in one section and was not happy with what I found in the writing. I'm going to make some fixes; please note them and make similar changes elsewhere where necessary. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Please make sure that all images have a complete summary in the form of an {{Information}} template.

The images appear to be fine, as of today. If you add more, let me know and I'll check those. --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (about sources mainly). This article has been on my Watchlist for some weeks and I have made a few edits here and there. I live in England, so it is hard for me to judge the reliability of some of the sources. Can someone confirm that The Biography Channel (7 cites), MLB.com (18 cites), Sports.ESPN.go.com (9 cites and installs spyware by the way), and the Public Broadcasting Service (5 cites) are reliable. For references 45, 53,54, and 70 there are no p.s for pages and no page numbers are given for references 34 and 35. I see in the nominators blurb at the top that "whole books have bee written about....", it's a pity that more use has not been made of them. Graham Colm Talk 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 35 and (now) 34 link to the page that they get their info from. The Library of Congress ref (35) is just one page. I don't know what page the American Heritage article (34) was on back in '84, but you can read it by clicking now. I added p.s so all the refs should have them now.
It sounds like you want confirmation from someone else, but I believe the sources you mention are considered reliable. The Biography Channel and ESPN are the national cable TV channels devoted to bios and sports. They're both owned by giant media companies like Disney and NBC. MLB.com is the official website of major league baseball. PBS is like the US version of the BBC's TV arm.
Sports.ESPN.go.com is the correct address for ESPN. It's because they're a part of Disney's go.com network. My pop up blocker blocked an add from them, which is what I think you mean by spyware. If they're really installing spyware something will have to be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this, thanks. I will decide on supporting later. It's early days and I would like to see more reviews. Graham Colm Talk 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, for sourcing concerns as well.
  • I am not a baseball expert in any sense. But I recognize the role sports played in integrating social life in the U.S., and Robinson's part in that was extensive. I read two sections, Military career and 1947–Breaking the color barrier. In Military career you use a juvenile nonfiction book (by Denise Lewis Patrick) as a source in this section, an encyclopedia entry, a description of his papers, and another encyclopedia entry. Your bibliography includes Robinson's autobiography and five other biographies; why are these sources not used? The same sourcing pattern is used in 1947–Breaking the color barrier: most of the references are to web-based articles.
  • My point is this: Robinson, I'm sure you know, is huge. Freakin' huge. He deserves to have a hard-hitting FA, but that article needs to go to the main source of all of these various encyclopedia articles and tertiary sources you're using. They refer back to these books that you cited once or in Rampersand's case, nine times or so. You're depending on sources that are mediocre to write an article that should leave them all behind. Go to the books, use them primarily, and when you're able to compare the Wikipedia article on Robinson to Biography.com or PBS' articles and know that yours is better—better written, sourced, and more comprehensive, then it will be FA quality.
  • I also find the writing to be ok, but not particularly engaging or brilliant. I think you could infuse more quotes about Robinson's impact from his biographers, baseball historians, etc. Especially in the lead. The lead should have a whopper of a quote about his importance. You can find those quotes in the aforementioned books. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Military career section uses a children's book, a magazine article, and two articles from the Library of Congress. I could replace the childrens book, but I feel the other three should be acceptable. I can also fix the other problems you mention, except switching everything over to book refs. I was unaware of this requirement to use books. I guess I'll wait a while and see what others say. If books are required I guess I'll have to withdraw this nom, since that would require almost an entire rewrite. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the information being comprehensive, it's not a requirement as such. It very much depends on the topic. Many topics such as video games and pop culture articles have no books available and are quite short on print references. However, Robinson has had quite a bit of literature written about him. It's not the fact that it's web based vs. print based, but that the books are so much more comprehensive and better. Where is the best information about Robinson? In his biographies. There are excerpts and articles similar to what you are writing that are available, but for an FA the best sources should be your first stop. I know it is frustrating to face this at FAC, but Robinson is a pioneer in sports and social history in the US. He deserves this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you kind of quantify what proportion of sources need to be from books for you to support. Right now, about 20 books are sourcing about 35-40 statements. I am a bit frustrated I guess, but mostly I want to know if I should stop this FAC now, possibly to be restarted later, or if I should continue. I don't follow FAC, so I don't know if this will be a deal breaker. In your experience are other editors and whoever finally decides (Sandy?) going to say not enough books and fail it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much a ratio, I suppose. If you do not have these books at your fingers' reach right now, it might be advisable to withdraw the nomination, get most of them, read through them, change out the citations for the majority of web-based articles you're using now, and scan for more information, quotes, Robinson's own thoughts and feelings, and other information. What you will also be able to find are really interesting stories about Robinson that can be included in the article. You have the potential to provide a free article to the world on Robinson that will relate why he's such an interesting figure, and your article has the potential to leave all these other web-based articles behind in quality. Because the folks who wrote the articles you're using got paid and are moving on to something else. You're taking patient time to meet their quality and exceed it. Something else that can't really be received through many web-based articles is the energy in a good biography. Robinson's life stood for something, and you want to express that in your article; you want to go beyond merely describing his contributions and life story. You want to tell a story that grabs your readers, puts them on the field where he got spiked by other players, jeered at by fans and other teams, and saw his own team rally around him. I will help you copy edit it for this kind of energy if you find the sources. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peregrine has hit on it when he says "If books are required I guess I'll have to withdraw this nom, since that would require almost an entire rewrite". I would anticipate than an article sourced to Robinson biographies would contain different information than one sourced to television programs, short magazine articles, and children's books. These kinds of pieces are written for specific audiences and are often extremely selective, sensationalistic, and simplified. Reliable iographies tend to be more inclusive and complex. That is why we need to use the most reliable biographies we can find as a starting point for this article. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per Wikipedia:Lead section, specifically the subsection titled "First sentence content" on that page, I would suggest amending the first sentence of the lead section. While it is good that the first sentence is brief, it does not included the main reason why Jackie is notable, specifically that he was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era. I would suggest that the sentence should read something like, "Jack Roosevelt "Jackie" Robinson (January 31, 1919 – October 24, 1972) was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era." Please note that "Major League Baseball" is capitalized in my suggested version of the sentence. Hope this comment helps. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [54].

Croatia national football team

[edit]
Nominator(s): Domiy
previous FAC (02:42, 16 October 2008)

The language has been fixed up as I have had time to go through a lengthy peer review process as recommended here previously. Since no other problems were presented in the previous FAC, one could possibly conclude that this article meets all the criteria. So here goes. Domiy (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source check -

  • What makes The World Game (references 4 and 66) a reliable source? This is a blog, and was questioned during the previous FACs.
  • Reference 16 (ABOUT FIFA) is in all capital letters, which is not preferred. It should be changed to About FIFA. The abbreviation in caps is fine.
  • Is Croatian World Network (reference 19) a news company? Not familiar with it. That doesn't mean it's a bad source; I'd just like to know more about it. Same with Croatian Times (ref 90).
  • Reference 25 (WORLD CUP '98; Croatia and its Fortunate Sons) is another all caps, and should be World Cup '98; Croatia and its Fortunate Sons.
  • Little tip on reference 53: Sports Illustrated, a magazine, is really not the publisher. Instead, it's CNN Sports Illustrated.
  • Caps (FEAR FACTOR) should be removed in ref 62. There are a couple of other caps in later references that can also be removed.
  • Is Panstadia (ref 96) a published magazine? Is so, place the publisher in italics.
  • What makes Javno a reliable source?
  • Reference 106 (Croatia to receive penalty for 'human swastika') is from a newsgroup. A better source is needed here; an Associated Press story should be easily found elsewhere.
  • What makes OneWorld South East Europe (ref 117) a reliable source?
  • Why is euFootball.uk (ref 124) reliable?
  • Why is the Ana Rukavina Foundation reliable? It's not the charity mentioned in the text.
  • Does Croatian language need to be linked with each language indicator? It might be better to just have the tag with no link; we're trying to cut down on repetitive links.

This will do until Ealdgyth comes back. Some of these might well be fine, but I just don't know much about Croatia-related sites. It's better to ask and get an answer. Note that I didn't do a strong check of the Croatian-language sources, as I don't know the language. 66.238.221.0 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Forgot to log in. :-( Giants2008 (17-14) 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you Giants, I agree its better to be given a chance to answer some concerns rather than just people making assumptions. I will address the points in your order:
  • The World Game is an official website affiliated with SBS, a primary sports broadcaster in Australia. It is similar to the relationship between SkySports.com and the SkySports channel (in England). I don't see how it is a blog, reference 4 is a team run-through and reference 66 is an official published newstory. However, please note that either way, both these references aren't exactly even needed. They are secondary references which I included merely to offer more of an understanding about the team and the subjected statement. They can easily be removed and will be if it is arguably reached that the sources are unreliable.
  • Caps removed.
  • Croatiantimes is as ordinary as any other website. It appears that they cover all Croatia-related articles and stories and are run based on other references and affiliations (see this page). They are indeed a news company. Croatian World Network is run by Nenad Bach who is a recognized author in varied continents of the world. Furthermore, the story from that website is a direct translation of a Croatian version found here, as explained at the end of the story. The Croatian source used by the author in that story comes from the official website of the Croatian Football Federation, so it can be deemed reliable. I looked through both stories myself and the translation is pretty much spot on, just to clear that up :).
  • Caps removed.
  • Thanks! I have updated the publisher information to 'CNN Sports Illustrated'.
  • Caps removed.
  • Yes Panstadia is a magazine type source. It has been placed in italics. Forgot about that one.
  • I provided fair links in the previous FAC that directed towards Javno being a reliable source. They are run by a team of sanctioned editors in Croatia and the news service operates in both Croatian and English. Most people in Croatia relate immediately to Javno as a news service. Not always a primary source of news, but they get the point across. Their Terms of Use and site information clear all that up. See this and this too. They run in association with their own publishers and abide by correct copyright regulations.
  • If you have concerns over that news story from the Associated Press as it is from a newsgroup, then this reference is also another secondary one, meaning it is not a primarily needed source of inclusion. Nonetheless, it can be replaced with this mirrored story from the Jerusalem Post, which also credits the story coming from The Associated Press. The problem is that I am unable to find the actual story coming directly from the Associated Press. Hope that's not too much of a problem; this reference can be easily removed (or possibly replaced as well) without major problems. I apologies for including some sources which aren't exactly 100% necessary, but they can never be a problem as they only offer more insight into the subject and provide further research opportunity and choices.
  • The reference from OneWorld South East Europe (ref 117) has now been replaced with a direct story from BBC News, found here.
  • If you believe that a source is required to prove HRT is Croatia's primary broadcast station and that the current source is unreliable, I am happy to replace this source as I have now done so with two differing sources. I have gone ahead and put in [cat=126&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1793&tx_ttnews[backPid]=185&cHash=4d25942a86 this story] as a reference. Its not an official news story, but it proves that the station is Croatia's primary broadcaster judging by the informing memo released by the official organizers of the foreign satellite channel. I am also able to put in this reference as well, but I dont think Broadcastbuyer online is really a reliable source either.
  • Is it really possible to doubt a charity organisation website as an unreliable source? If the charity organisation says that proceeds will be donated to a charity, then they can't really say this on a false basis as that would have aroused legal issues by now. Once again, if a consensus is reached on this source being unreliable, then I will gladly remove it and the associated media statement.
  • I have removed the link to Croatian language in each Croatian reference. Domiy (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Most of the images appear to be fine. I suggest you email whatever permission has been granted for Image:Croatian first team.jpg to the Wikipedia Foundation at permissions@wikipedia.org and get an OTRS ticket for this image. If you have access to the email Roberta F (roberta.f@email.t-com.hr) or Nikša Martinac sent you, forward that with a copy of the image to the permissions department. There are two names of copyright holders in two {{information}} templates for the image as well. Please make clear who owns the copyright. Also, in the description, it claims the photo was taken "decades ago", but on the date it gives the exact date. Can you make that date exact in both lines, please?

Pending an OTRS ticket for Image:Croatian first team.jpg, the images check out fine. You may have to nudge someone to give you a ticket number on that. I would suggest User:Howcheng, since he is the only user I know who has OTRS email access. There are probably a few others, but...without User:Elcobbola, I don't know who they are. --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review revisited: First, I personally apologize for retracting what I posted before. However, I am a novice at checking images at FAC. I know some but not all, and there are some issues about the images in the article that were pointed out to me. For that reason, and because this article should be the strongest in text and visuals possible, I must present a new list of issues to face with the images.

  1. Image:Croatian first team.jpg: I have been informed that no email has been sent to permissions@wikipedia.org. I suggest locating the holder of the copyright and obtaining permission with the following statement: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. I have received permission for a dozen or so images in various articles using this and some very nice emails I have sent to various people.
    If you don't have access to the copyright holder and you must claim Fair Use as historical documentation, per NFCC #8 the image must impact the article in some way. As in, the image should be so famous that it affected the events in the article the image needs to help the reader's understanding of the material signficantly. If that cannot be proven and you have no idea who the copyright holder is, you may have to consider removing the image from the article.
  2. Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png the licensing for this image is incorrect. It has an author, Nuno Tavares, who seems different from the uploader, User:Squadoosh. You will have to contact User:Squadoosh to ask where they obtained this image, who Nuno Tavares is. If they are in fact the same person, and Squadoosh/Tuvares created it, {{PD-Self}} is the correct licensing, and Squadoosh should change it. If you have no luck contacting either of these people, you should consider creating one just like it and releasing it to public domain yourself.
  3. Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg - The source is questionable. After some points became quite obvious after they were shown to me, I now doubt the site owns the copyrights to these images. You can try some of these images Maksimir Stadium at the Commons. And I searched on Flickr for the the same stadium, and there appear to be some images that individuals have uploaded. The best thing to do would be to contact the person who has the image you like (and to cover your bases, contact a few more), ask them if they took the image and own the copyright, and then agree to the release: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Mail that into permissions@wikipedia.org with the image attached.
  4. Per my initial oversights, I may have to amend these statements to clarify. I apologize for the confusion. I am learning as I go. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Moni3 and Sandy!. I have fixed up the images and updated their pages, now including all required information (dates etc). The OTRS ticket is pending, there are a few users who edit this article and they are the pro's at the image tags etc. I'll contact them to help with this OTRS ticket inclusion, as I am not too familiar with this process. Alas, it will be done when they come back shortly. Domiy (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by User:Dweller

I'm opposing, based on the number of problems I uncovered just in the Lead section. If I have this many problems with the first four paragraphs, I can't believe that the article is Featured quality. Sorry.

Grammar and other language issues:

  • I'm puzzled by why the article is called "Croatia national..." and the article opens with "Croatian national...". Looks inconsistent.
  • Decide whether the team is singular or plural and stick to it. Either is fine, but a mix is not. Here you have both in one sentence: "Although they were authorized as an affiliate of FIFA in this earlier period, Croatia remained a constituent federal republic of Yugoslavia and was therefore unable to participate separately at the competitive level.". (my bold) Other examples: "Croatia has achieved several...", "Croatia is the only team"
  • "every edition of the World Cup" not sure if this is good American English, but doesn't work for my English English ear (eye!). Sentence works fine with the words "edition of the" simply removed. But there's tautology following the semicolon. In all, I suggest rewording to: "Since the team became eligible to participate in international competition, they have qualified for every World Cup and have missed only major event: UEFA Euro 2000."
  • "they have also played scheduled home fixtures" what does "scheduled" add?
  • "They were previously undefeated in competitive matches on home soil" delete "previously"
  • "Croatia has achieved several noteworthy victories throughout major tournaments, defeating opposition within the top-five of the FIFA World Rankings." Reword to "Croatia have achieved several noteworthy victories in major tournaments, defeating opposition ranked in the top five of the FIFA World Rankings."
  • "accommodate the award" win the award? take the award? not accommodate
  • " scrutiny towards" should read "scrutiny of"

Accuracy:

  • UEFA is not "the highest authorities of global football"
  • England were not top-five opposition at the time and pedantically the wins weren't in a major tournament
  • "Their FIFA World Ranking has been among the most volatile throughout history, ranging from third in 1998 to 125th in 1994." First, chronologically, that's the wrong order. Second, that's not volatility - volatile means it goes up and down, yo-yoing. Croatia zoomed up and havent plummetted back down. Did the RS call it "volatile"? I looked at the sources and can't see the word - nor can I see the sourcing of the assertion of being "among the most volatile throughout history" even if the word volatile is replaced.

POV issues:

  • "puppet states" comes across as POV - is it a quote from the source (currently no. 3)?

Sorry, because this is a very good article, but it's not FA quality yet. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Dweller!. I am a little a negative towards your points for opposition. Please be aware that opposing an article is a big issue, so the system shouldn't be abused. I've noticed that you have complained about very small issues, ones which can also be scraped off as incorrect even. Please consider my points and think about your vote, hence as I said above in accordance with Giants2008, its much more accurate and sensible to ask questions, get an answer and THEN make your decision. This process seems to have already been proved as working well based on the fact that you have just opposed on small issues which can easily be resolved or shredded away. I would like to remind everyone that this article has already been through numerous peer reviewers, both officially and unofficially, and all of the major points in the article were fixed up in that process.
  • The same thing happens on other pages, not just football national team ones. This just helps with disambiguation issues, as the user won't have to be completely accurate when searching the page. In essence, both 'Croatia' and 'Croatian' are correct. I have gone ahead and made it the same as the article title in any case.
  • When there is a mix of such, it is because the sentence can and sometimes does rotate from referring to the Croatian team to the actual Croatian republic.
  • Your next point is a clear POV. I appreciate your help, and I am fixing up all your raised issues, but if you really wanted to contribute some points based on your own language preference then you should have participated in the peer review and made some additional adjustements to the page yourslelf instead of just telling people they are wrong simply because an article does not meet your own personal language preference. If this were the an eligible point, then it would be impossible for any article to satisfy the criteria because no piece of writing could possibly satisfy numerous different English-language style preferences. The sentence you just pointed out is one of many which was covered in the peer review. Semicolons are used often throughout this article, it makes it much easier to connect each sentence and is much more professional.
    • POV? What POV? I'm asking if it works in American English, and then made a suggestion that would eradicate the issue either way. However, a tautology is a problem regardless of American or English English. Incidentally, use of plural for the team is English English, so if you decide the article is in American English, you'll need to make the team singular. Your choice, but the article must be consistent. If the Peer reviewers missed it, I'm terribly sorry for you, but that doesn't give you carte blanche for the article to pass FAC. Furthemore, please don't tell FAC reviewers they should have participated in the Peer Review. It's a pointless comment and can do nothing other than irritate. I have no objections to semicolons, just poor use of English, such as tautologies (and mixed use of regional English). --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a small point like this is another one based on possible preference. The word 'scheduled' means that it is a planned and organized home match. Of course, the sentence does still work fine without that word, but this is another infinite issue; every article on WP has a few sentences with unnecessary words included. It holds its own advantages without really downgrading the article. Again, if you had problems with such a minor issue, you can easily go ahead and edit the page in a minor matter yourself or participate in the peer review, bringing them up as a means of opposing isn't really fair or acceptable.
    • Isn't every single match played by Croatia "scheduled"? They don't just turn up for training and find that an international side has mysteriously arrived for a game without anyone knowing. yes, it's a small point, but I'm arguing that the Lead (just four parags) is littered with small points which bring the quality down below FA standard. WP:WIAFA demands "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Redundant words that seem to suggest implications that don't exist bring the article's quality down. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another minor issue which has been fixed up.
  • This recommendation is incorrect. The article is talking about the team as a whole, not a single personal squad which achieved the results. Therefore, 'has' is much more accurate and appropriate. This is not an article on the current line-up of the squad, it is an article of the entire team itself throughout history.
    • The "has" v "have" aspect is just one of the fixes in the sentences, but as we're discussing it, you misunderstand: it's not a present/past tense issue, but a singular/plural, and part of making consistent the English English plural usage for the team that you've chosen. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor issue been fixed up.
  • Excellent. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either 'of' or 'towards' is perfectly fine. This is another point you have pulled out based on personal preference. Remember the old saying; if it is not broke, then don't fix it.
  • FIFA and UEFA are the highest authorities of Croatia's global footballing participation, as later explained in the Hierarchy section of the article. Additionally, UEFA control all European football, and Europe is factually one of the largest and most football-active continents in the world. Therefore, because UEFA hold a high seat in the control over football, especially in Croatia's case, they are, along with FIFA, the highest authorities of global football.
  • Qualifying for a major tournament is at many times still mentioned as a major tournament. The major tournament itself is commonly called 'the finals of the tournament' or something similar. Every nation's major tournament campaign includes their qualifying process as well. Additionally, the sentence doesn't really need to contain every team in the top-five. I said Croatia defeated opposition within the top-five of the World Rankings and then gave some examples. I put England as the last example to give the idea that the stipulation doesn't really have to apply to them as well. They certainly have been in the top-five of the rankings before, and prior to their major downfall, they were ranked fairly higher.
    • You incorrectly imply that England were a top five club. This is misleading and must be addressed. And I think you'll find you're in a minority on whether qualifying tournaments are major tournaments, but that's the lesser issue here. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP never has to rely on a source to write an entire article. Sources are used as a means of delivering communication and proving they are correct. The article doesn't have to follow the exact words of the source, otherwise it could be put down for copyright. I know what volatile means, and you pretty much repeated my understanding definition of the word. Yes, it means that it goes up and down, just like Croatia's FIFA World Ranking. The sources provided clearly explain that Croatia were ranked 125th in 1994, went up to 3rd in 1998, and since then have had quite a ride. This information is still in the sources provided; it says that they were previously ranked around 12th and experienced a later downfall when they were ranked around 14th onwards, until finally coming back as high as 6th a few months ago, and so on. Additionally, they were ranked 5th not so long ago as well, and now they are back down to 7th. I hope I'm getting my point across about how it is more appropriate to ask questions or think more thoroughly before you act. If this is not volatile to you, then nothing possibly can be. No that word is not in any of the sources, that doesn't mean it cannot be included. WP relies on editors to write their own work in accordance with factual information found in sources.
  • I feel that you don't really know the actual meaning of the word "puppet state". There is an article on WP named Puppet state, I suggest you take a look at it as it itself is well referenced. The meaning of puppet state can also be found here which does coincide with what ref number 3 says - "During World War II, Germany and Italy founded the NDH (Independent State of Croatia)" - this means it was a puppet state as Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, but temporarily controlled by another unofficial power. The same goes for the Banovina of Croatia. This is in no way POV, but rather factually correct information. Domiy (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I hope you're not accusing me of "abusing the system" - I'm a pretty experienced FAC contributor, both as reviewer and nominator. You should know that the system is not a vote, nor is it even a !vote. Small issues, if they proliferate in a small space constitute a large issue, which is why I took the trouble to spell out in detail what I found. However, if I have erred on any, I'm always happy to reconsider. However, I would point out that if reviewers at FAC find significant problems, it's because peer review or copyediting has missed them. That happens all the time; it's annoying, but that's life.
I'll look through your detailed reply and respond asap. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to all your responses. My objection to this nomination stands, as this article does not conform to WP:WIAFA. I'm sorry that the other reviewers didn't do a better job; perhaps they were put off by aggressive / incorrect responses to suggested improvements? --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - After my partial source review, here are some comments on other aspects of the article. Also left a note above.

  • In most articles that I've seen here, footnotes go before the references. I like the idea of having a separate section for footnotes, though.
  • Pre-independence: "During this time, Croatian sides were temporarily formed and competed seperately in unofficial matches, primarily due to unstable national borders which were controlled under a De jure government...". I'm pretty sure that De should be de-capitalized.
  • Kranjcar and Bilic's revival: "Josip Simunic was mistakenly issued three yellow card warnings by Graham Poll, making him the only player to receive three bookings in a single match." Is he the only player in football history, or just in the World Cup? You might want to clarify this.
  • Stadium: Capitalize stadium in the photo caption to match the other uses of Stadium in the section. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks Giants! I have used the story from the Jerusalem Post instead of the previous news group one, and went through and clarified all these other small things. Additionally, I went through the lead section and made sure the team is constantly referred to as 'it' rather than 'they'. Domiy (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The sheer number of errors in the use of the English language surprises me, and must be corrected for this to reach FA. Let me, purely by way of example, go through the first couple of paragraphs: First paragraph: "team supremacy" excuse me, what is that?

  • "by 1993" Why not say the year the team became a UEFA and FIFA member?
  • "the national team was previously sanctioned" Oh? What penalty did they get?
  • "Although the team was authorized" Perhaps "recognized" is meant?
  • "monarchy power" excuse me? What does that mean?

Second parapraph:

  • "it's first appearance" grammar error.
  • "third-place" Why the hyphen? And why is the no doubt noteworthy third place finish mentioned twice in the lede?

Just looking down through the article, I see quite a few similar odd usages and mistakes. I would suggest going through the article carefully. These are small points, admittedly, but a FA is supposed to have outstanding, compelling prose. I think we are still a long way from that with this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, if you do not know the definition of some words used in an article, it does not mean they are incorrect. Again, no article is supposed to cater for every tiny specific need; this is impossible. FAC prose is supposed to be professional, if you don't understand what a word means, then use a dictionary.

  • Team Supremacy - here.
  • I could say both years, but I have chosen not to do so in the lead. The first few paragraphs clearly acknowledge that the team was formed in 1990 and was a fully certified member of both confederations by 1993, that leaves only a possible space of three years, so anyone can easily find out that they were obviously acknowledged between these three years. This information is thoroughly mentioned later in the article anyway. While it would be more than appropriate to include this information, it does not in any way mean it is incorrect not to do so.
  • They got no 'penalty'. The definition of "sanctioned" is here. While I see how it is possible you got the wrong idea of the word (because it has two different usages and possible meanings), that still doesn't make it incorrect. Sanctioned means that the team was authorized and made 'eligible' or 'official', as opposed to being an unauthorized side.
  • Either word is fine, again it doesn't mean that the current usage in any way incorrect.
  • Monarchy power - here. It means that the nation was temporarily, officially or unofficially, ruled by a single person or affiliated government. During the time of Yugoslavia, this was the case with two temporary puppet states which were formed under a Croatian name, Independent State of Croatia and Banovina of Croatia. Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, just temporarily separated under its own government ruling from Ante Pavelic and others. Also, please note that a wikilink is provided to the meaning of "monarchy". You should do some further reading before you ask accusing and opposing questions like this.

And thank you for your other grammar issues. Domiy (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what sanctioned means; my comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I know what supremacy and monarchy mean, thank you very much, I did quite well on my college entrance exams back in the Stone Age, the point is, that "team supremacy" and "monarchy power" do not make sense as English phrases. This is merely symptomatic, the article is simply strewn with such usages, and it is NOT the job of a FAC reviewer to do the dirty work for the nominator by pointing out every one, clean it up yourself please if you'd like to see this as a FA. And please remember that English is a subtle language, the many words we have mean that all words with identical meanings do not carry identical connotations, and there are a lot of jarring word usages in the article, a few of which I have pointed out. The prose is not up to FA standards; my oppose stands for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment I should also add that, speaking as someone who has gone through four FAC's as an editor, with each being successful, that you maximize your chance of getting your article through if you work with reviewers in a friendly and collegial way. Everyone has their own wikistyle, I merely offer a suggestion that the nominator consider well his/her tone in dealing with reviewers. Reviewers want to see FAs, but they want to keep standards up, and they want the nominator to accept their comments in good heart. Being a FAC reviewer is a thankless task, and it is something I only dabble in, and I have great respect for those who have made it their wikitask to review most or all articles, especially considering the abuse they take from some editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The recent copyedits are a good start, but more is needed. Substantively, I'm concerned by footnote 24, which only goes to show Croatia's Independence Day and says nothing about the status of the team. I'd like to see some evidence that the team in question sprang into being Croatia's national team when it declared independence. Without official recognition from the nation, or FIFA or UEFA, I don't see why this would be so. Arguably, another organization could have started a team and (through whatever means, including bribery) had its team recognized as official. Additionally, the statement that Croatia could not play matches because FIFA still recognized Yugoslavia as reprsenting Croatian territory needs a citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your concern. However, in a democratic matter, I must point out that such is not necessary at all. WP requires citations/references for challenged statements only, that is statements which can easily be declared incorrect in a sensible manner. I assume you don't fully understand the process and regulations of FIFA and football representation at national level. I will tell you from an experienced point of view, these statements are easily correct without direct references. There is no way FIFA would ever allow a national team to play officially in competitive matches if they were not part of an officially recognised republic. This is an easily recognised fact. There are sufficient references which already explain how the team was formed. The same goes for the Yugoslavian statement. There is absolutely no way FIFA would recognise Croatia as a fully certified national team while they were a part of Yugoslavia. Just think about the complication this would cause. They were still the same country, hence a national team has to represent a separate national republic; this would be impossible by common logic. These are already recognised facts. Domiy (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not from this perspective. Since FIFA didn't recognize the side as Croatia's official side until 1992, its status in October 1991 needs establishing. Keep in mind also that Croatia was not internationally recognized at that point. You address this nowhere in your response. And as for your FIFA point, you yourself say in the article that there were temporary "national" sides when Croatia was occupied by the Axis, though still legally part of Yugoslavia. Please keep in mind that the average reader is not going to "fully understand the process and regulations of FIFA and football representation at national level" and is going to want to see that kind of statement supported by references, not just take your word for it. It is a bit of a circle, really, Croatia now regards its independence as October 8, 1991, but few if any countries recognized it at that point, and certainly Yugoslavia regarded it as part of its sovereign territory. That impacts your "common logic" point, if you think about it, arguably a Croat player could have chosen which side, Croat or Yugoslav, to play for. "Just think about the complication this would cause." I think references are needed here. You may also want to separate out the pre-Independence Day activities into its own subsection.
Please read my initial point. I am saying this in the most friendly manner, you are incorrect. And to tell you the truth, the reason I am not putting in references here is because such doesn't exist. Notice how well referenced the article currently is, I went though a great deal of effort finding all the sources. I have had no luck finding a source which directly states what you are asking; this certainly doesn't mean the statement is incorrect. It is indeed correct, so much so that nobody has even bothered to produce an article or statement about it. I have looked extensively in many source possibilities, including magazines and historic documents. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that the team which (according to you) came together spontaneously for the love of the game automatically became THE OFFICIAL Croatian national team upon an initially unrecognized declaration of independence is far from obvious. A neutral editor has told you this. There are serious WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems here. If you can't verify it, even if you know it to be true, take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the crying shame about this article is that the editors use the passive voice to cover over things that might be very interesting for the reader. I'd really be interested in hearing more about how it came to be that a team, of whatever status, was established in 1990, even while the Yugoslav team was (with Croatian players) enjoying considerable success, and about the efforts to get FIFA and UEFA to recognize the football federation, as well as about the pressures on the players to either stay with the Yugoslav team or jump to the new Croatian side. Did any stay with Yugoslavia through the end of the Euro '92 campaign? Yet in the article, the passive voice is way overused. The team just forms out of the blue, with none of the effort it took to do these things detailed. While I suspect there is some desire to adhere to Croatian political correctness (it is certainly visible in some of the other articles about Croatian/Yugoslavian football), this article could be very compelling if it gave more information about what was needed to carry on a football program in the time of the Balkans War. The same goes for the teams of the WWII era puppet states. How did these teams get organized? What was the purpose in having them play "international" friendlies? What was FIFA doing in recognizing them (not that FIFA had much power in 1941, I don't think England was even a member yet)? Did FIFA subsequently take away their status? Why were there Croatian teams in the 1950s? To say that they existed, without giving some information about why they were there, cheats the reader and raises comprehensiveness concerns.
Again, its good that you have such a concern and good feedback to give, but you are expecting information which doesn't exist. I have 'left out' this information because it isn't existent. There were no "efforts" to get the team recognised by FIFA. It's not a difficult recognition to earn. The FIFA criteria is fairly simple, if you have an officially recognised republic with a sufficient amount of competing players and an organised football federation which is willing to abide by the rules of FIFA, then you pretty much qualify for recognition. All you need to do is apply and wait. There were no efforts prior to Croatia's independence because everybody (including the nation and team themselves) knew it was impossible for them to become a member since they were a part of Yugoslavia. So all they could do was wait until they met the criteria. This is just what they did. They waited until they were declared independent. Your point about player's choice and "pressure" is seemingly biased as well. To be fair, you aren't expected to really know this so I will tell you know, such pressure did not exist. All the Croatian players were very eager to represent Croatia. I'm fairly certain that a few of them even admitted that Croatia would be the only national team they would want to represent; so if the Croatian team didn't exist, they still wouldnt play for Yugoslavia. Please consider the fact that these two countries fought a war and already had a bad history behind them, why would any Croatian player want to represent the country they just fought in a difficult war? There was no pressure at all, they all jumped to the Croatian side almost immediately. The puppet state national teams were organised as a means of desire. A group of Croatian, managers and other organisers wanted to form a separate team. It's not hard to figure out why. Why do footballers play football? It's their passion and life. The same goes for this team. They wanted to play football because they were footballers. The teams were organised because it became difficult for some players to play regularly in the Yugoslavian teams, and mostly because (once again) they just wanted to be recognised separately from the opposing Yugoslavian republic. They played friendly matches at their own will; these matches were mainly self organised. Why? Because the team wanted to play football against an opponent. There is no real significance over why they played friendly matches. And yes, it is later mentioned that the team lost their recognition and were only temporarily a FIFA member. Their status was taken away because the puppet states were broken off and Yugoslavia came into full power again. There is also no significance as to why there was a Croatian team in the 1950s; if there were a significant meaning, it would be mentioned. However this is not the case. The team existed quite simply because it wanted to. The players wanted to play seperately, even if it was in only a few unofficial games. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you need to explain that with WP:RS. If it was an expression of defiance against Yugoslavia, it could be very interesting to the reader. And I think you simplify too much, the membership of Croatia and other Balkan states in international organizations in the early 1990s was very contentious. Kinda like this FAC. My comprehensiveness concerns remain. Things just don't happen spontaneously.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a host of odd usages (also found in your reply to me, and I urge you to seek a editor to help out who is a native English speaker) as well as MOS goofs like titling the section "Team Image" in all caps. Note that suggestions of ignorance re WP procedures or other areas of knowledge, as are common by the nominators both in this FAC and in the previous FACs, aren't going to advance this article towards FA. Please also keep in mind that Sandy is a champion nitpicker, and she won't pass this article until it meets FA standards, no matter how many times you nominate this article or how many editors you irritate into going away. Right now, it just isn't even close. It is better than it was, but it is not FA standard. I'm not even sure if it is GA standard, and am very tempted to ask for a reassessment if this article doesn't wind up passing here.
You are not automatically correct just because you point out some issues which are related to the WP guidelines. Please also note that this isn't a time to insult other people's work or other articles. This article passed GA because it meets the GA criteria, which is much more lenient than this FA criteria. You should also be more accurate in what you declare. Right now, it is easy to conclude that this article passes most of the FA criteria. It is sufficiently referenced, contains images, sticks to the point while not going into unnecessary detail (something which you wanted seeing as you want the article to include blatantly obvious and unnecessary information) and also has engaging language to some extent. Pointing out a few issues here and there (some of which have been proved wrong anyway) is not a sufficient ground for saying this article is not even close to the FA or GA criteria. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've failed FAC four times. Res ipsa loquitur. As for GA, we may see if you can't salvage this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple, quick and aesthetically pleasing conveyance of information regarding the Golden Generation of the Croatian squad. Naming every player in the squad at that time, and then going through to expand upon which position they played in and which formation was used is a waste of time and space, and goes into necessary detail. However, with the diagram/image, it is much easier and appropriate. Words cannot explain where each player was positioned on the pitch; it may be possible to concert this into prose, but it would be very long and unnecessary. It would also become pretty much impossible for someone who is not knowledged on football to understand. Hence the use of the image. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this needed for a general article on the Croatian team?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the final analysis, this article has tremendous potential to tell a compelling story. It isn't doing that yet, it isn't even close, and to be blunt, the attitude of the nominators, and their unwillingness to make changes to satisfy legitimate concerns, is getting in the way and making this article the Harold Stassen of FAC (or maybe that's unfair to Roman Catholic Church).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this article tells everything there is to tell. You would have had a lot of fun during the FAC and FARC of Scotland national football team; it seems that your points may have had some place there. Scotland is a much more historic and 'story-telling' team than Croatia. As I have already said, there is no story to tell on this article. Everything necessary is included; you are just asking for some additional facts which do not exist. Domiy (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that taking a team from effectively nothing to the World Cup semifinals in eight years is a hell of a story. Scotland has more of a history, but not so dramatic. If you told this one better, you'd have your FA. My oppose stands on prose, comprehensiveness and image (both the ones I brought up and also Dweller's and those unresolved from prior FACs). Please go back and reread my advice about how you should be working with reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If you wish me to reconsider based on actual changes to the article, please let me know either here or on my talk page. I will likely be without internet access unless I find a cafe, until December 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a reconsideration couldn't hurt; will save me time of nominating this again. A lot of changes have been made, however your 'story telling' desire remains an ongoing instability. There are many reasons for and against that approach, so it isn't really applicable just yet. Domiy (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I will be happy to reconsider when you change the article per my objections. You haven't even taken care of the image problems you promised Dweller that you would, let alone my concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [55].

Acid dissociation constant

[edit]
Nominator(s): Petergans
previous FAC (23:04, 25 October 2008)

The article has been extensively revised in the light of FAC-type comments and I believe that it now conforms to WP:MOS. There has been much discussion regarding references. The current text follows Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines.

The content of this article is mostly “”common knowledge”, that is, it can be found in a wide variety of text-books on physical, inorganic, organic and analytical chemistry.. Whereas no one text-book covers all the subject matter, the advantage of WP is that it is not tied a specific teaching program and can provide broader coverage. The fact that a number of text-books are cited provides the general basis for verifiability and reduces the need to support every single paragraph with a citation. The items in acid dissociation constant#further reading provide additional verifiability support. Note also that I follow the normal procedure in chemistry, of placing the reference number close to the item being referenced, whenever it would be ambiguous as to what is being referenced if that reference were placed at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Petergans (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I spent some time after the last FAC trying to identify MOS issues with the article, and everything I could find has been fixed. I also went through the content from the point of view of a layman with a moderately technical background; everything I found that needed clarification has been improved upon or expanded. The article now meets FAC standards and I am happy to support. Mike Christie (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although accurate and comprehensive, this technical article would be less of a chore to read if some attention was paid to the prose. Throughout the article complicated phrases are used to express relatively simple thoughts. Here are some examples:

  • "For a quantitative understanding" - does this mean "to measure"?
  • "...also a prerequisite.." - how about "necessary"?
  • "When operating under the assumption that.." - why not "If it is assumed" or even "Assuming that.."
  • "..has a limited solubility.." - "does not dissolve well"?
  • ".. with the addition of.." - "by adding"?

These are just a few random examples; there many more. There are other problems such as "it has a measurable pKa range" - so what is the unmeasurable range? Here, "all protons have been removed", have they, or are they still there but no longer free? I also noticed that Pauling's rules are linked in the body but not the Lead and I fixed one typo. I feel bad by opposing this FAC because I know the amount of blood sweat and tears that goes into these candidates, but the article does need more work. Graham Colm Talk 13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are getting at, but I fear that we are dealing with differences between the language used in science and in general. The phrase "quantitative understanding" was chosen carefully. It actually means understanding of quantities that cannot be measured experimentally, as opposed to "qualitative understanding" which means knowing, roughly, what is going on. "Prerequite" is used because the pKa values have to be determined before the other study can begin. "solubility" is a quantitative concept, but "dissolving well" is qualitative, and so on. I put this question to Graham Colm: Surely the use of precise language is important in a featured article, even if the language is somewhat convoluted? The "chore" is rewarded by a deeper understanding of the topic. May I also add that the language has already been given a very thorough going over by Mike Christie, as detailed above. Petergans (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course precise language is needed, but I disagree with you regarding convolution. I am watching this page and I will be interested to see what other reviewers have to say. And, with regard to precision, why is there a mixture of " pKa values" and "pK values" in the article? Graham Colm Talk 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reinstating my oppose because of this edit summary:[56]. Graham Colm Talk 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the specific point, the subscript may be dropped if it clear from the context that subscript "a" is implied, not the alternative "b". Petergans (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments. An excellent article, with no obvious errors or omissions (although my chem degree is very ancient). Very clear exposition. Three quibbles

  • A knowledge of twice in last sentence of lead
  • Factors that determine the relative strengths of acids stray struck through sentence
That was work in progress which is now complete. Petergans (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final refs not in numerical order
jimfbleak (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 9 (Project: Ionic..) is lacking a last access date.
donePetergans (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as IUPAC.
done Petergans (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come? I used the citation gadget on my toolbar, which made no mention of author. Petergans (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the "home" page for the information in this ref http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/pkatable/. The sidebar at the bottom says "This page by Hans J. Reich" also, which would indicate authorship. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Reich is the copyright holder for the web-page, but ref. 20 gives the table title "Bordwell pKa Table (Acidity in DMSO) " as Reich has taken the data from Bordwell, who in turn extacted it from the literature. Please suggest how this reference needs to be modified. Petergans (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 22 (Rochester, C. H....) needs a page number/chapter/section
This is a general reference as with those in the applications section.Petergans (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 23 (Olah...), current ref 43 (Dunn...), current ref 43 (Martin...), current ref 44 (brenner...), current ref 45 (Scorpio...), current ref 46 (Beynon...), current ref 47 (Perrin...), current ref 48 (Garfin...), current ref 49 (Hulanicki...), current ref 51 (Avdeef...), current ref 53 (van Leeuwen...), current ref 55 (Stumm...), current ref 56 (Snoeyink...), current ref 57 (Millero...).
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 40 and higher numbers are in the "Applications and Significance" section. I asked Peter about specific page numbers for these in a review I did on the talk page; it seems that for many of these references much or all of the work cited covers the topic discussed. I think that means it's OK not to cite page numbers in those cases. Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. How big are these works? If they are 200 pages plus, it's going to be hard to satisfy WP:V if folks have to look through 200 pages. I mean, by that logic, I could just cite a biography of William the Conqueror to two footnotes and have done with it (there are two major scholarly biographies at the moment) since "much or all of the work covers the topic discussed"... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V has nothing to do with how much work someone has to do to verify the citation: if it did, we would ban all non-Internet citations and all citations in languages other than English. On the other hand, for example, there are plenty of verifiable citations that Person X is a criminal, but they should not be used for other reasons (eg, X was acquitted on appeal). Whatever happen to WP:AGF? Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm, calm, please. I am not suggesting that you've made up anything, just that generally if the work is large, we try to cite a range of pages, or chapters, for the ease of readers following up on citations. I'm not sure why asking for a smaller range of information than a whole work is assuming bad faith. I even asked what size the works are, because if they are small works, then yes, citing the whole work makes sense. Note that WP:V says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, after this comment I'll let Peter reply, since he's familiar with these sources and I'm not, but here's an example of what I meant. "Assessing the hazard associated with an acid or base may require a knowledge of pKa values" is cited to "van Leeuwen, C.J.; Hermens, L. M. (1995). Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction". My understanding is that the entire book deals with assessing hazards, and that the need for a knowledge of pKa values is not something that is mentioned only on a specific page. The reference serves not only to verify, but also as a general index to the topic. Since the applications and significance section covers topics at a high level, this seems reasonable to me. I also suspect the statements made here are so generally accepted in the field that they would not be regarded as controversial, and so do not need citations; again I'll wait for Peter to comment on that. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the page numbers for the risk assessment book. It took all of 30 seconds of Google Books search. I think there may be some culture shock at work here. In my experience, giving page numbers when citing books in chemistry is largely optional in the real world, because all chemistry books worth citing have good indexes and tables of contents. Textbooks and other technical books tend to go through several editions, so the page numbers change even if the facts don't change. As a reader, it is generally more useful to rely on the indexes and forget about the page numbers. --Itub (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan (Itub ) has made all the points that I was making when there was an edit conflict. Petergans (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that in chemistry they don't do page numbers, but this isn't a chemistry book, it's wikipedia. I'm fine with using general references when the work is entirely and only on the subject of the information being sourced, but I'm pretty sure that, for example, the 300 pages of Acidity Functions isn't given over entirely and completely to the Acid Dissociation Constant. I am really not asking the editors of the article to do anything that other articles don't have to do either, or that isn't supported by policy. You're welcome to cite chapters or sections, but when the work isn't devoted completely to the information being sourced, the burden is on the editors to make sure it's verifiable. To use an example from my own writing interests, most scholarly history works have good indexes and tables of content, but this doesn't allow me to just cite a book without a page number or range on a wikipedia article. However, since we're arguing in circles here, I'm more than happy to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it should be something all reviewers consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the reference to acidity functions isn't a reference, it's a note as to where more information can be obtained. It is arguably redundant to the wikilink to our acidity function article, but it is truly fair to say that the entire book deals with acid dissociation constants, mainly at a level which would be inappropriate for this article. The sentence should even need a reference, it is so blatantly obvious to anyone who knows what an acidity function is: however, those who propose articles for FA must suffer the consequences, as must the articles themselves it seems. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not bite Ealdgyth. I am thankful for all her thorough reference checks at FAC, and it's not really her who made up the rules. My opinion is that if it just takes a minute to find something in a book by using the index, the spirit of WP:V is fully satisfied (readers are perfectly able to verify the content of the article, and the policy template at the top of WP:V refers to "use common sense"...), even though the letter of the policy says something about including page numbers. But I don't mind including page numbers when I write; I see it as relatively innocuous compared to some of the many other hoops that need to be jumped at FAC. --Itub (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way to resolve this issue would be to move all the general references into Further reading, which is what they are there for. Page numbers would then not needed. To have do that would be, in my opinion, a triumph of style over content, but I'd rather do it than prolong this discussion any further. Petergans (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article, while otherwise well-written and excellently-sourced, is incredibly arcane for most readers. If this were an article about an obscure concept or "deep science" topic, it would be more understandable. That is not the case in this instance, where the article is about a ground-level chemistry topic. The Manual of Style is relevant to this concern, as it addresses both jargon and the accessibility of technical articles. If the current editors are unsure of how to achieve this goal, it may be helpful to recruit an editor or two with some experience in improving the accessibility of scientific topics. This is by no means intended to denigrate the effort expended on the article. I truly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this article, the quality of the sources and the comprehensiveness of the information provided. Vassyana (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent some time reviewing the article and trying to improve the readability. It may be ground-level chemistry in your eyes, but to me, with no chemistry background, it seems quite a technical topic, so I'm not sure what to say there. On the readability question, could you provide some examples of unnecessarily technical prose? Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really more wikt:arcane than "Prince of the Cumbrians and later King of the Scots. The youngest son of Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and Margaret" or "he became a hanger-on at the court of King Henry I and experienced long exposure to Norman and Anglo-French culture"? Both of them are examples from today's featured article, the bit that's currently on the front page, not the article itself, which is full of examples of terms needing explanation for non-specialists. The acid dissociation constant is neither ground level or specialised. It is usually introduced round about the first year of university studies in chemistry, depending on the country, but is sufficiently complicated that the latest official reference from IUPAC was in 2006. I would invite the opposer to strike the opposition as excessively subjective. Physchim62 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that arcaneness lies in the eye of the beholder; for example, I personally find some featured articles about sports hard to understand and full of jargon. I know that "other crap exists" is not a fashionable argument in Wikipedia, but since featured articles are officially considered to be Not Crap, I will venture to try it here. --Itub (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David I of Scotland is hardly anywhere near as arcane and incomprehensible to a general reader as acid dissociation constant. The strength of an acid in solution is a basic chemistry topic. As you mention, adc is common in first-year chemistry studies. I'm not looking for a miracle or complete rewrite of the article. I am simply looking for some explanation and presentation that will allow a general educated reader to make sense of the topic. I am not a chemist, but I am familiar with the topic and the article was difficult to parse for me. If I already have some passing familiarity with the topic and I find the article difficult to digest, it certainly does not meet WP:MTAA. Vassyana (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would really help if you could give some specific examples of sentences or paragraphs that you feel could be improved. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The strength of an acid in solution is a basic chemistry topic, but if we covered only the basic level stuff, in a way understandable to the "general reader" we would either end up with a very short article or would have to include a large chunk of a general chemistry textbook as part of the article. The article would also be incomplete and would look more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. In my opinion, this article already goes out of its way in trying to explain related concepts that are not the main topic of the article, all in the name of accessibility. For more details, see my post in the previous nomination.[57] If you have any specific suggestions on how it can be made more accessible, it would be very helpful. --Itub (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, unfortunately, inevitable that non-scientists will have difficulty in reading scientific articles. The level of difficulty will vary from one person to another. Even people with a scientific background may have to work hard to understand an unfamiliar topic. I think the test should be: if someone is interested in the topic can that person appreciate it, even if it requires some effort over and above the normal effort of reading. Does the article meet that test Vassyana? Let me just add that there is no jargon in the article, only well-established scientific terminology. Petergans (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) (edit conflict) Let me be clear in stating that I am not asking for anything to be removed from the article. On the contrary, it would be a detriment to the comprehensiveness to effectively neuter the coverage. However, as currently written and presented, anything outside of the basic definition of the topic is beyond the capacity of the general reader. I strongly disagree that the article "goes out of its way" in any fashion for the sake of accessibility. As I mention above, I know what the article is about and have some familiarity with it, but I still have some serious difficulty in parsing the article. This leads me to believe the article will be almost entirely incomprehensible for the general reader. It is exceedingly difficult to pick apart specific examples for an endemic problem, as this often leads to "patchwork" solutions that do not address the underlying issue. Some specific suggestions:
  • The lede. It is dense and difficult to follow. Avoid equations in the introduction. Replace jargon with simpler language. Explain in the plainest language possible, without oversimplifying into the realm of inaccuracy, what the article is about. A couple of examples of what would leave a general reader baffled before they even get through the lede:
  • "In aqueous solutions, acids that release a single proton are partially dissociated to an appreciable extent in the pH range pKa ± 2."
  • "Structural effects, such as intra-molecular hydrogen bonding, can also be important. pKa can be experimentally determined by potentiometric (pH) titration, but for values of pKa less than about 2 or more than about 11 spectrophotometric or NMR measurements may be required."
  • Presentation. The introduction should not be so technical and jargon-heavy that a lay reader will not bother to get through the lede. The general reader should be able to walk away with a solid understanding of what the topic is basically about and how it basically works, while chemistry savvy readers should still be able to walk away with a technical understanding. These are not mutually incompatible goals. The article could generally progress from a layman's explanation to technical details.
  • Some basic examples of what needs to be made clear:
  • Be clear and explicit that "hydrogen ion" means a proton.
  • Be clear and explicit that dissociation, in context, simply means the donation of a proton.
  • Be clear and explicit that the adc indicates how readily an acid will donate a proton.
  • Some examples of clear language are already extant, but (for a general reader) they are essentially buried in the article. For example, the following is found only after the arcane lede and three mildly technical definitions:
  • "The acid donates a proton to the base. The conjugate base is what is left after the acid has lost a proton and the conjugate acid is created when the base gains a proton."
The article is informative, comprehensive and interesting. In contrast, it is equally inaccessible for most readers. The topic is not so specialized or arcane that an accessibile presentation is an unduly burdensome request. Vassyana (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had the slightest suspicion that these criteria were applied consistently to featured article candidates, then I might have some motivation to address them. However, I think this is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, of FA reviewers pushing an article to be worse in their attempts to make it jump through arbitrary hoops. Physchim62 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vassyana, I understand your concerns, but you are making the assumption that simpler language is always possible. If that were true it would have been done already. You are confusing jargon, which is a kind of slang, with scientific terminology which allows for precise expression of concepts. Let me deconstruct the sentence "In aqueous solutions, acids that release a single proton are partially dissociated to an appreciable extent in the pH range pKa ± 2" to illustrate what I mean. aqueous - in water; solution - to distinguish from solid or gas; acid - a particular kind of chemical compound; single - to distinguish from acids in general; proton - the particle that is released; partially - to distinguish from complete; dissociated - as in the topic title; appreciable - giving rise to an observable effect; pH range - a quantitative statement showing how the title subject can be applied. The lead-in is necessarily terse as it is a summary. BTW you have not answered my question, above, so I will repeat it. If someone is initially interested in the topic can that person appreciate it, even if it requires some effort over and above the normal effort of reading? Please try to give an objective answer, not just one based on your personal experience. Petergans (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am asserting that some complementary simpler language is possible for entry-level topics, not that it is always possible for academic topics. I have stricken the reference to jargon, as it is inaccurate as you correctly point out. However, the absence of jargon does not preclude problems with general accessibility. There is no reason that a general audience treatment cannot accompany the more precise and exacting treatment. I did not raise an issue with the terseness of the lede. I expressed concern that it was dense and difficult to follow. To put it another way, the lede is complex and bewildering for a general reader. No, I do not believe the article would generally be appreciated by someone with an initial interest in the topic. For the most part, it will only be useful and interesting to readers with a solid grounding in chemistry and/or familiar with the specific topic. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I can't help chipping in here. I'm sure that Vassyana is acting in good faith, but I think he is misguided. To make the article "accessible" it would have to be dumbed down to a level at which it is essentially meaningless in terms of the article title. I don't think that it's an FA criterion that the reader doesn't have to put in some effort on the more intellectually demanding areas. The Problem of Apollonius isn't an easy read either (first sentence starts In Euclidean plane geometry, Apollonius' problem is to construct circles that are tangent...) - perhaps that article should be sent to FA review? jimfbleak (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have started this discussion. I never meant to suggest that scientific terms should not be used or imply that the article should be turned into baby food. It was the use of expressions like "when operating under the assumption that" and other wordy phrases that rattled my cage. I have withdrawn my opposition, but I wish the nominator would make some effort to address these criticisms—I cannot see any changes to the article that have been made in an attempt to reach a consensus on this. Graham Colm Talk 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I'm not asking that the article as a whole be "dumbed down". I state multiple times above that I am not looking for material to be removed. I am asking for additional material that allows a general reader to comprehend the topic. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the MoS is inconsistent, and Vassyana is only using those parts which appeal. The article as it stands in 69k of wikitext. A relatively high proportion (compared to other FACs) of that is in tabular material, equations and references. WP:SIZE comments that "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." The article is at 5000 readable words, without counting tables and equations, by a quick run through a well-known word processor. Let us accept that, with equations, technical language and tabular material, the article is 'content-dense'. So, should the authors:
  1. expand the article, thereby risking FACR 4 and WP:SIZE (personally, I find it ironic that this should even be suggested, given that Vassyana apparently finds the article difficult to read already); or
  2. move material to other articles, thereby risking FACR 1(b); or
  3. remove material, thereby risking FACR 1(a–d), and in particular FACR 1(a) which states that the prose should be of a "professional standard"?
The "readable prose size" of the article is only 27Kb; I don't think there's any risk of the article becoming too long. I don't see any suggestions to trim it by moving or cutting material, so I think we're OK there. I'm not sure what Vassyana meant by "additional material", but given his earlier comments it may be that he is still looking for some rephrasing.
I copyedited the article myself, and by the time I was done I felt the article was clearly written. However, every copyeditor has blind spots, and I think it's entirely possible that another pass by a copyeditor familiar with technical writing would help. Graham's example of wordy prose ("when operating under the assumption that") could probably be improved. The point at issue doesn't seem to be whether the material is accurate or complete, just whether it could be rephrased in a way that would be more readable to a non-technical audience. Chemistry reference works are likely to elide explanations that are helpful to general readers; but conversely, few general readers will find their way to this article, and some understanding of the background facts of basic chemistry can be assumed. We're not going to explain what an atom is, for example; and I'd say that the fact that a hydrogen ion is a proton is something that doesn't need to be made explicit here. But another look at the prose with an eye to readability is a good idea. I will ask someone to take a look, but they may not have the time or inclination to help, so it would also be good if the chemists reading this could try to look at the prose with a fresh eye. There may well be places, such as the phrase Graham mentioned, where improvements can be made. Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the lead, to try to introduce the subject as clearly as possible to people with no background in chemistry. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim!, at last we have another editor who sees the bigger picture. The Lead is much improved—the whole article needs similar attention (IMHO).Graham Colm Talk 21:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that TimVickers reverted his edits per objections here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment. If that's an "improvement" in the eye's of FAC reviewers, then I can only implore the nominator to withdraw the candidacy. While acting in the best of faith, Tim has substituted precise and incorrect terms for precise and correct ones, so nixing the scientific value of the lead. Physchim62 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, which piece did I get wrong? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the problem? But you said "terms" so there must be something else. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the worst, with serious errors on both lines edited, but this is also very confusing from the point of view of complex formation. Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the science on the article talk page, as this page is already getting long. It seems that my objection to the second edit wasn't Tim's fault at all: my apologies. It's amazing how you miss things when you've read an article too many times… Physchim62 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Physchim62, the scientific content has been seriously degraded and some edits are unacceptable. May I make two pleas:

  1. Don't edit the text unless you are thoroughly conversant with the subject matter and understand the technical terms.
  2. Do your edits first in a sandbox. Its going to take me ages to work through the dozens of multiple edits from the last few days.

One of the things that concerned us when preparing the article for FAC was length. If, as now appears to be the case, length is not an issue, I can certainly expand some parts and give more explanation. Petergans (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since I seem to have accidentally introduced other errors that I didn't catch, I've reverted my changes. I'm sorry to have caused any problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the exact comment now, but one previous criticism was that the older version of the article used a sort of 'semi-summary' style. Another way of improving the readability would be move some of the discussion of, for example, non-aqueous solvents to their respective articles, linked with a {{main}} tag but retaining enough information here to illustrate the importance of the specific (linked) topic. IMHO! Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final revisions

  • Thank you, Tim, for withdrawing your edits. The current text has been very finely honed over a long period of time. Clarity cannot be improved by merely tinkering with it. I have therefore gone through the entire text again, trying to improve clarity. The major changes are
    • modified lead-in
    • introduced the image for the thermodynamic standard sign
    • removed the paragraph "When operating under the assumption ..." This was added by user:eaglefalconn and I have left it in up till out of respect for that editor. In its place I've added a brief description of how to make a buffer solution, in the section monoprotic acids.
    • clarified the bit about strong acids
  • If any further changes might seem desirable then please be specific about them; I can't amend generalities. Petergans (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would strongly suggest putting the sentence of the lead

    For an acid-base equilibrium between a generic acid (HA) and its conjugate base (A−), HA ⇌ A− + H+. Ka is defined, subject to certain conditions, as

where [HA], [A−] and [H+] are equilibrium concentrations of the reactants.

in words.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: After reading part of the article, it's completely inaccessible. I'm a master's student in physics, (I started in chemistry), and I can barely make sense the lead even after multiple reads! The lead contains weird sentences, some with vague statements such as "under certain conditions" (which?), or some overly technical/precise such as "the larger the value the more the acid is dissociated, at a given concentration, into its conjugate base and the hydrogen ion." etc... Needs to be re-written so readers don't spent half an hour trying to figure out what exactly is the article talking about. More examples below
  • Introduces technical concepts with little to no explanation for laypeople
Monoprotic acid/polyprotic (in the lead), what are they?
  • Gibbs free energy is thrown as if we all know what it represents
  • Same goes for enthalphy
  • Exothermic and endothermic could probably be changed into (releases energy) and (absorbs energy) or something similar
  • "Acidic behaviour can also be characterised in non-aqueous solutions." such as...?
  • "Pauling's rules" wikiling that would probably be a good idea.
  • Etc...

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The lead is far too technical. Describe the formula (Ratio of Products and Educts). Don't assume the reader to know what is log_10. etc... There are so many examples which have been described above. Vb (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to last two The artice conforms to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nowhere in those criteria does it say that the article has to understandable by everyone. Rather, the first sentence is "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation". This is a professional presentation of the subject matter. For an elementary introduction look to a school chemistry book. Petergans (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria states it must be "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"...the comments above demonstrate a not well-written article.--Jorfer (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What JEF said. "Professional" does not mean "understandable by only trained professionals". There are things in science that are too complicated to be really understood by layfolks because they are so arcane and abstract, just pick any subject in condensed matter physics. What the acid dissociation constant is is something that can be understood even by high school students. While there's a lot more than what high school covers that can be said about it, it never becomes so complicated that scientists that are not chemists can't get the hang of it. This is not about sacrificing scientific accuracy for a lie-to-children type of thing, it's simply about writing for a non-specialist audience.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These comments apply only to the lead-in. The lead-in is a summary, not the place to introduce details. Once the reader starts on the body of the article, the language become much simpler and explanations are given. Rutherford is quoted as having said that any scientific topic should be capable of being explained to a barmaid. I agree. If I had an attentive barmaid and a day or two to do it, I could explain it to her. After that, she would probably be able to understand the lead-in, but I would probably be banned from the bar!
In reply to Jorfer, both jimfbleak and Vassyana have said (above) that the article is well-written. Mike Christie has said that it is clearly written. Petergans (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. IMO, the lead is the place to summarize things in a way people can understand them, and I do not consider articles with such a technical lead relative to the subjects inherent complexity to be Wikipedia's finest.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply repeating your point is not getting us anywhere. Believe me, if I knew of any way to present this complex material in a simpler way it would have been done long ago. Tim Vickers made an honest attempt at broadening the appeal. While this was welcomed by some, like Graham Colm because it appeared to do the job, in fact it was completely unacceptable from the scientific point of view. What is needed is constructive criticism. So far I have only seen suggestions which amount to dumbing down and these are not professionally acceptable. Petergans (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As a Chemistry Education major, I feel this article is not Featured Article status. I have not gone through the entire revised article, but the parts that I have I find access and comprehensiveness issues. The ones I am about to mention are easily fixed but point to a lack of quality:

  • Kb is explained as "Historically the equilibrium constant Kb for a base was defined as the association constant for protonation of the base, B, to form the conjugate acid, HB+." An explanation of this in simpler terms should have followed. The Kb is the inverse of the Ka. It is the opposite of the Ka, which has the formation of the conjugate base on top, as the Kb has the formation of the conjugate acid on top.
  • How can you mention Kw without mentioning that at SATP its value is 1.0×10−14. This is the value that the entire pH scale is based off of.
  • I had to change "In common parlance the acid is said to be fully dissociated." to "It is thus referred to as fully dissociated (even though it is technically not)" which was then changed to "Hydrochloric acid is said to be "fully dissociated" in aqueous solution because the amount of undissociated acid is imperceptible." The third statement is not even true. Of course the undissassociated acid is perceptible, that is why it has an estimated pKa of -9.3 and not -infinity. Negligible would have been the appropriate word to use there.--Jorfer (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It makes more sense to state that Kb is the inverse of Ka? It may be mathematically true, but is neither informative nor always chemically intuitive. Kb is the association constant of a base with a proton. It does not require that you care about the conjugate acid. Its just an equilibrium constant like the acid dissociation constant. And for this reason, there is no article on base dissociation constant, because its a redundancy (hence the term historically).
The pH scale is not in any way dependent on the value of Kw. Nor is the definition of pH. The only thing dependent on Kw is whether we consider something acidic or basic in aqueous media, which as the current article addresses is not the only possible solvent and that pKas will change across solvents. I will agree that not mentioning its value was an oversight, but its not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
I don't understand your quibble with how I originally phrased the point about HCl dissociation levels. The first variation of that sentence says everything that the second and third one says in fewer words. Also, that estimated pKa does not come from experiment, it comes from estimation from determining the change in Gibbs Free Energy for the reaction. So no, imperceptible may still be correct. EagleFalconn (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three of Jorfer's bullet points are wrong; this is the perfect example of the dangers of oversimplification. 1) Kb is not the inverse of Ka. In water, it is Kw/Ka. It is not even the equilibrium constant for the reverse reaction, and it could only be called an "inverse" in a very loose sense. 2) There is no such thing as a pH "scale". A common misconception, usually introduced in middle or high school, is that pH can only go from 0 to 14, which look suspiciously related to Kw. But in fact, pH is not fundamentally restricted to this range, even in water. However, I agree that mentioning the value of Kw wouldn't hurt. 3) As far as I know, the association of HCl in dilute aqueous solution is in fact imperceptible (i.e., cannot be detected experimentally using current methods). The pKa can be estimated from extrapolations from other solvents, or thermodynamic or theoretical data. But as far as I know it can't be measured directly in aqueous solution. --Itub (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the article discusses everything in terms of Ka, it is simpler to explain Kb as the opposite of Ka (acid association is the opposite of acid disassociation). For Itub, since Kw is accepted to be a constant at a given temperature and pressure, Kw/Ka = Constant x 1/Ka, thus Kb is inversely proportional to Ka, since it is the value of the opposite process.
Regardless of the actual legitimacy of the pH scale as presented in middle and high school, the pH value of 7 is considered neutral in it because of the SATP value of Kw.
My quibble about the HCl acid sentence is that it originally used the term parlance, the word vernacular easily would have improved access to the article without taking away any content as has been argued about making the article make more sense. Whatever the case, further explanation was important in improving access to the article. The problem with imperceptible was negligible gives a better idea than imperceptible even though imperceptible does not mean unable to be perceived which I originally thought before looking it up. Since the pKa is said to be taken from thermodynamics, it is perceptible (temperature can be felt so it is perceivable), so even though imperceptible can accommodate a barely perceptible phenomenon, negligible would be more exact.
The point of this is that this is just evidence of an article not ready for featured article status rather than the sole problems needing to be fixed to be featured article worthy.--Jorfer (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Kb is not the opposate of Ka! See my and Itub's earlier comments to this point.
pH of 7 is considered neutral for water ONLY.
Parlance - Noun, Manner or mode of speech. Vernacular - Adjective, using a language or dialect native to a region or country rather than a literary, cultured, or foreign language (both from Merriam Webster). A subtle difference, but regardless of which term you prefer it doesn't significantly change the meaning of the article enough to merit voting it down. As you mention, you previously incorrectly used the word imperceptible. You should probably look up thermodynamics since you're misuing that word too. Please stop critisizing content of articles for which you are not well versed. EagleFalconn (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't want to call it the opposite that is fine, but it should at least be explained as the inverse. The fact is that it can be thought of as opposite because if Ka represents the forward reaction, Kb represents the reverse reaction. The inverse relationship between Ka and Kb needs to be noted.
  • OK, it only applies to water, so I may be exaggerating the values importance, but water is the most common solvent. We agree that it should be mentioned though, so no more as far as that.
  • Vernacular - Noun or Adjective (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vernacular)...In the case of the former: "the native speech or language of a place"
  • Fair enough, Thermodynamics does not involve just enthalpy but entropy as well. Whatever the case, whether indirectly or directly, if a value can be estimated for it, then it must be able to be evaluated empirically which, whether directly or indirectly, will involve a perceptible process.

--Jorfer (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamics is a significantly broader field than just entropy and enthalpy. In fact, enthalpy is not even a fundamental concept within thermo, it is a derived one. Just because a value can be estimated does not mean it can be measured. See statistical thermodynamics and Partition function (statistical mechanics). Short story: There are events for which there are incredibly small probabilities of occuring, but by probability they must take place on some level. However, we are not capable of measuring these events and are in some cases will always be incapable of measuring them due to quantum mechanical limitations. EagleFalconn (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support and Strong Comments. This article is exceptionally well written, with the possible exception of the lead (see below). It leaves out no detail, and is presented in such a way that any reader with a high school understanding of chemistry and an introduction to basic equilibria would be able to follow. Regarding the lead: While the lead is somewhat opaque, I think this is a resolvable issue. See my proposed lead here. It maintains the vast majority of the details of the lead, which follows a logical structure of qualitatively defining the ADC, quantitatively defining it and then defining some of its basic aspects, followed by its broader applications.
    The proposed lead is fine apart from one point. The temperature dependence of Ka is mentioned a couple of sentences later. I have added a sentence to explain that Ka values are dependent on the ionic strength of the medium in which they are determined. I have substituted it, with that modification, into the article. Petergans (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are worried about "undefined terms" in the lead: This is not a basic chemical article. It does require an introduction to chemistry. But what you are requiring in terms of detail and introduction in the lead would require an article to be created, "Introduction to the Acid dissociation constant article." It is logically inconsistant and a slipperly slope for Petergans to not be able to assume that (and I'm pulling examples out of the FAC Nom comments) readers will not know what a logarithm is, the structure of the atom (Hydrogen ion = proton), dissociation = splitting of a chemical compound into two or more parts (all previous suggested by Vassyana), definitions of exothermic and endothermic, that non-aqueous is defined and discussed later in the article (and the lead does actually link to a later part of the article), monoprotic versus polyprotic acids....should we start including these in the lead of every chemistry article? EagleFalconn (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unreadable for non specialists. Especially the lead is incomprehensible to non-chemists. Commenting on the issues above a summary or lead should be the hook for the article. Is the lead is more complex for the interested non-expert reader than the body text of the article, the lead fails big time. In my opinion, simplification is sometimes acceptable for the lead; where the body text of the article has some depth that maybe too technical, these should not feature in the lead. Missing out on some sections in the body text means missing out on details, losing it in the lead will result in a reader never starting the body text at all. Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent revisions, the opening paragraph is much better. The whole introduction is however now very long. Some further copyediting maybe needed. I have striken my oppose since I think you are on the right track (and should not be blocked by my oppose if you continue on this track). I will not be able to attend to the discussion due to horrendous real life deadlines for the next few weeks. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arnoutf - Out of curiosity, what is your background/familiarity with chemistry? I will grudgingly continue to conceed that the lead may need revising to be non-expert accessible, but theres only so much of a general chemistry textbook that it makes sense to include in the lead. Unless you know what types of acids there are, some basic equilibrium chemistry etc the acid dissociation constant is a worthless article to read anyway. Thats why there are wikilinks in the lead so that you can go to those articles, understand them, and then come back and understand this article.
Also, I strongly disagree about the body being "too technical." To be less technical would result in using qualitative ideas where only quantitative ones are appropriate, or handwaving concepts or artificially invoking them where this is not necessary. There is NOTHING in the lead that I consider to be overtly technical except the mathematical definition of Ka. There is terminology used, but as I said before, if you do not understand the terms used in the lead you are NOT capable of understanding the article anyway. Which, again, is why wikilinks exist. EagleFalconn (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a while ago but it is pre-university high school (graduation mark A), and several material science courses during my MSc/Engineering degree. After that I went on for a PhD in science and society (ie social sciences). So no, not a chemist.
Also note that the body text is much more easily to understand than the bodytext (which is not bad, but could use some prose instead of the formulas). So sorry for any confusion there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

OK, for another example of why this article is not featured article status worthy: "The case of phosphoric acid illustrates this point. In fact salts of either H2PO4− or HPO42− may be crystallised from solution by adjustment of pH to either 4 or 10." This illustrates how the article both lacks comprehensiveness and quality writing (not to mention spelling...crystallized is misspelled). It lacks comprehensiveness because it begins to use the example but does not specify which pH each one is crystallized under. Someone with a scientific background like me would know that they are respective since a higher pH means a lower concentration of Hydrogen ion which means that more HPO42− will have to be disassociated (which will crystallize at a certain concentration) to reach equilibrium. Thus the pH of 4 corresponds to H2PO4− and 10 corresponds to HPO42−.--Jorfer (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both crystallized and crystallised are acceptable spellings of the word. The second is the form more common in England. It is impossible to specify exactly what pH under which each is crystallized because it would depend on what salt you had. The pH will change depending on whether you use sodium, potassium, molybdenum etc etc. Someone with a scientific background, (maybe) like you, should probably have figured out thats why it wasn't explicitly stated. Furthermore, someone with a background in English, like me, would read that sentence and notice that what it is saying is that you can crystallize those anions at a pH of either 4 or 10. Ergo, what you are critisizing is already addressed in the article. EagleFalconn (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the question is why are we even mentioning two specific pHs? Also, let's be civil, there is no reason to be condescending.--Jorfer (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two pH's are mentioned because they provide a reasonable range at which most common salts of those anions would be expected. See the relative abundance chart next to the comment. EagleFalconn (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so why don't we state that: the salt of H2PO4− is more likely to occur at a pH of 4 and a salt of HPO42− is more likely to occur at a pH of 10. Why are we trying to be cryptic? I understand how the math works behind this, but the person that would need to read this page most likely doesn't. The picture is meaningful only for someone who understands the math behind it. Let us show that 10-2.15 over 10-4 gives the ratio of Phosphoric Acid's conjugate base (and successive conjugate bases) to Phosphoric Acid at a pH of 4. The only way to make this article more understandable to a broader audience is to explain, explain, explain.--Jorfer (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think reading may be aided by providing a definition for certain words and phrases which are not wikilinked in their first instance. For example:
    • "equilibrium constant" in the Definition section is never defined and is not wikilinked, defining it would make the article a bit more accessible.
    • "Aqueous solution" is also never defined, providing a simple definition in the first instance of this phrase would be a big help.

Wrad (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have wikilinked equilibrium constant in definitions, though it was wikilinked in the lead (point is still well taken). Defined aqueous in both the lead. EagleFalconn (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dweller

I saw the comments about the FAC at WT:FAC. I think I'm well placed to comment, as a scientific ignoramus, who often nominates at FAC articles about cricket, a subject entirely alien to most (ie American) Wikipedians, bringing bagsful of problems regarding jargon and "impenetrability".

I'll say what I see.

More anon. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason why the elements of the equation are defined in a different order to which they would naturally be read? (Ie left hand side, then top line, left to right, followed by the bottom line)
Added sentence "Like all equilibrium constants, it is the ratio of the product of the concentration of the products to the product of the concentration of the reactants." Does this clarify why the mathematical definition is as it is? EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikilink to acid might be a good idea, preferably in the very first sentence. Wording might need adjusting for this.
Done. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not your fault, but equilibrium constant seems a pretty poor article. It could at least do with an intelligible definition at the top of the Lead. If one of your editors could fix this, that'd be useful, as people like me will depend on it as a fairly important explanatory link, that currently doesn't explain. Just a suggestion.
This is on mine and (I believe) Petergans' hitlist after this article. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very confusing that "conjugate base" links to conjugate acid. Given that you're saying, as I understand it, that this article is about a relationship between an acid and a base, the wikilinks here imply it's between an acid and, erm, an acid.
Short answer is that the conjugate base of an acid is the acid minus 1 hydrogen ion. Conjugate acid would be a base plus one proton. They're related concepts, which the current article on conjugate acids doesn't explain. When I/Petergans decide to take on equilibrium constant, this article will need a brush up as well. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my first look at the article, my eye glided right over the "Ka" in the first line, as it is ensconced in the middle of a bunch of words, which, even better, are bolded. That little bunch of italicised meaningless letters went right over my head, or, more to the point, they didn't go into my head anyway... and I was a bit flummoxed when hit with the term a sentence later. I suggest you delete it from the opening line, and introduce the concept of the term having an expression of this sort when you introduce the equation, ie, "The usual definition of an Acid dissociation constant (rendered Ka in equations) is..."
I've removed Ka from the first sentence and included the explanation right before the math part. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, on reflection, I don't believe that the equation should be in the Lead at all.
This one I can't bend on. The equation needs to be in the lead because the ADC is a quantitative concept, and any lead that is going to purport to summarize the topic is going to need the equation. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the Lead at least say straight away that the strength of an acid is indicated by the magnitude of the ADC; that is the larger the ADC the stronger the acid? And, that for strong acids knowledge of it is of little value, but for weak acids, i.e. those found in biological systems, it is important? This would provide the lay reader with some understanding. Graham Colm Talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. The term "strong acid" has three distint meanings - an acid which is completely dissociated in solution, a solution containing an acid at high concentration and an acid which is very corrosive. The amendments (next post) try to address this but it is not very satisfactory. Better not to talk about the strength of an acid. Graham has accused me of behaviour " bordering on arrogance". No, sir, you seriously underestimate the difficulty of providing simpler explanations without degrading or dumbing down the content. This example illustrates just how treacherous the use of plain English can be in a context like this one. Petergans (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to incorporate your suggestions into the lead without breaking the flow of the prose. Let me know what you think. EagleFalconn (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Dweller (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment I have to say, I'm really caught by this article. I find it almost 100% unintelligible, even by following the wikilinks. This is partly not the fault of the editors, as the wikilinks lead to many very poor articles themselves. However, and this is a crucial point, if I was reading one of those other articles, I would not be able to come here and understand what this topic was talking about. How can I approve that an article espouses our highest standards of writing, if I can't understand it? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a text book. Encyclopedias are supposed to be good at making their topics comprehensible, at least in terms of framing the topic, for any reader prepared to dig a little and cross-reference the technical terms. I am prepared to that, but still can make no headway. I have come across another FA that is a good parallel - 0.999... includes material maybe 75% of which I didn't understand, but it succeeded in explaining what the issue was and why it was important in an accessible manner, before then delving into the technicalities. However, and it's a big however, this clearly meets the WIAFA criterion for "professional" writing (boy, does it meet that), so I feel it's difficult to oppose. The best I could do was to drop a line to User:Raul654 and request his input. And in the meantime, I'll scratch my head a little more and see if I can get myself off the fence. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Dweller. Be careful not to confuse professional writing as in "writing for a professional audience" with professional writing, as in "writing at the level of a professional author/writer". As far as I understand Wikipedia asks for the latter. Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by what right can FAC reviewers judge that an article is "writing at the level of a professional author/writer" in general, let alone in any particular field? What about writers who are usually paid for their work and who write for WP for free: there are at least two who have contributed to this article. Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other issue (professional audience) is much harder to judge. If the style, ease of uderstanding and argument, flow of prose and structure of the article is good it is professionally written. That is judgable for FAC reviewers. If you want to judge whether it is for a professional audience my guess would be that "I don't understand it, so it must be for a professional audience" is the only cue reviewers have on topics where they are no experts on. Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a good article, and I imagine that some college students taking basic chemistry will learn from it. However, in my opinion, it is not up to FA level yet. Since I'm aware that no two experts will agree on how to present basic topics such as this one, the authors should not feel obliged to follow my suggestions for the article. On the other hand, I must speak as I find, and I do not find this article representative of Wikipedia's best work.

  • Objections per criterion 1a: I find that the level is unnecessarily high, particularly in the lead. This article is not BRST quantization or some other necessarily difficult topic. Rather, it describes the equilibrium between the gain and loss of a proton in a molecule, which is perhaps the simplest chemical reaction and a topic covered in 7th-grade chemistry classes (at least it was in mine). In my assessment, the lead does a poor job of conveying the essence of the ideas, unless the reader is already familiar with them. A motivated novice reader might be able to understand the lead by following the wikilinks, but only if the leads of those articles are better written than this one. To me, the thermodynamic explanations are particularly poorly written and poorly placed within the article; I would be sincerely surprised if non-scientists would be able to learn from them. I believe the article would be improved significantly for most readers if the authors made more effort to rationalize the concept of pKa, its dependence on chemical groups and its variations with environmental conditions.
Although I appreciate that the article cannot and should not recapitulate chemistry textbooks, and that the material should not be dumbed down or made incorrect, I suggest that the authors be more accommodating and give focused help to non-scientists reading the article. My advice would be to describe the protonation and deprotonation reactions separately, and the qualitative factors favoring each. You might explain that equilibrium is reached when their rates balance, a fact obvious to us, but not necessarily to others, even chemistry students. My teaching experience suggests that discussing the forward and backward reaction kinetics can also help students to gain an intuitive understanding of activity. I appreciate the authors' careful use of “conjugate base/conjugate acid”, which confuses many students. However, because of that confusion, I've found it better to focus on protonation states rather than trying to explain what is the conjugate base of hexalysine.
  • Objections per criterion 1b: The article is not comprehensive on some points. (1) I was surprised to see no mention of computational methods to predict pKa values. (2) I think a discussion of the analogous dissociation of deuterium would help some readers to understand the factors involved. (3) Another good topic for chemistry would be other reactions coupled to deprotonation, such as H-D or thiol-disulfide exchange. (4) I found the experimental determination section deficient, particularly in its use of the word “spectrophotometry” to cover all forms of optical spectroscopy including fluorescence and its implication that spectroscopic methods including NMR are reserved for extreme situations below pH 2 or above pH 11. Other methods have been used historically, such as volumetric and calorimetric methods, as I'm sure the authors know. (5) More history of the concept would be good. (6) I appreciate the need for summary style to keep Featured Articles short, but the applications section seems rushed and random. (7) At the risk of adding yet another random example, chelation changes due to titrations might fit there nicely, with picturesque applications ranging from soils and plants (why do blueberries grow in acidic soil?) to modern biochemistry (elution of His tags from Ni columns, metal-ion binding in proteins and nucleic acids).
After our discussion on the Talk page, I appreciate the recent additions to the Hammett equation, but I think more discussion of the physical/chemical factors affecting pKa's would help the article become (a) more comprehensive and (b) more accessible to non-scientists. A good qualitative discussion might go a long way towards bridging the gap with non-scientists. The variation of pKa's in a well-chosen homologous series of molecules, or the same functional group placed in different environments, could help to illustrate such factors. Aside from the well-known example of maleic and fumaric acid, there is little discussion of the interaction between pKa and molecular conformation, and interactions between titratable groups, that is, pKa shifts arising from the protonation states of nearby groups. For protein scientists, canonical examples would include Linderstroem-Lang's 1928 application of Debye-Hueckel theory and titrations of poly-lysine peptides, but those might be parochial.
On other points, I find the article overly comprehensive. (1) I'm not sure that the present tables of pKa values add much to the article that couldn't be incorporated into the text. I'm unclear why the authors chose to focus the tables on molecules, especially when the chosen molecules have redundant functional groups. The absence of molecular structures makes it hard for non-chemists to get anything out of such tables, although I understand that row spacing was a consideration. Have the authors considered instead a table of characteristic pKas of common functional groups bound to a common root, say, a methyl group? Such a table might tie in nicely to the discussion of homologous series and factors affecting pKa's. (2) The discussion of monoprotic versus polyprotic acids seems overly long, using space and reader focus that might be employed better in another way.
  • Objections per criterion 3. The images do not seem up to FA level. (1) The lead image could be improved by highlighting the proton being transferred in a different color. Readers might not know what to look at in the present lead image. Even better would be an animation showing the (de)protonation reaction. (2) Several of the images seem redundant, such as the percentage formation plots for citrate and phosphate. (3) The images are not always well-integrated into the text, and their captions, while admirably brief, don't always make a clear point in themselves. Again, the authors should remember that they're writing for people who don't know the subject, rather than for those who do. Riddles are obvious only after you know the answer. (4) The x-y plots seem to be of below-average quality; can they be improved? (5) As an aside, why is ionic strength given in one figure with units of mol dm-3 instead of the more usual Molar?
I hope that the authors don't feel beleaguered by the criticism here and above. The authors can take pride in their work, but I hope they also see that the article can be improved, particularly to make it more helpful for novices. Since I'll be teaching this subject again next semester to undergraduates, I'm interested in helping to improve the article, not just to criticize it. Proteins (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has anyone yet considered the viability of writing an "Introduction to.. article? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets the FAC requirements. Improvements can be thought of for the lead and especially increase links to related topics such as acid, ionization, chemical bond and Acid–base reaction. This single article cannot be expected to encompass all related aspects. Retract, on rereading the comments of others, I see that the prose can be much simpler and direct. Shyamal (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I supported above, and my support still stands, for the reasons I gave there. However, the length of this FAC, and the nature of some of the comments, lead me to make three suggestions to the nominator and the other editors who have worked on this article.
    1. Withdraw the FAC. Resubmit it later if you are interested in doing so. The comments from Proteins are detailed and knowledgeable, and appear to have led to some modifications to the article. I would suggest that if Proteins is willing, he/she would be a valuable asset to the article as an editor and/or reviewer prior to any future FACs.
    2. Find an uninvolved editor to work on the lead. The editor should be a very good writer, either unafraid of scientific complexity or already versed in this topic, and able to appreciate the need for precision as well as the value of clear prose. If you can find someone who meets these criteria, and who is willing to work with you on a detailed review of just what the lead needs to say and how to say it, either the lead would become clearer or the editor would be able to explain to a future FAC just why the lead needs to stay as it is. Either outcome would be helpful to the reviewers here.
    3. The comment to GrahamColm about scientific illiteracy was rude and uncalled for. Even if Graham were in fact ignorant about science, this would be an uncivil remark about someone who has devoted time to trying to help the article achieve featured status. There are many who have contributed here who would like to see Wikipedia break new ground (as Petergans commented at WT:FAC) by featuring a physical chemistry article for the first time. Insulting their scientific knowledge is not only rude, but is likely to discourage those who could help the article from any further involvement. I'd like to see Physchim62 acknowledge that the tone of his edit summary was uncalled for, and I'd like to see the next FAC (and I hope there is another one) free of that kind of comment.
    I also want to add a comment about the difference between precision and accuracy. Some of the concerns expressed about proposed changes to the lead appear to be based on the inaccuracy or imprecision of the resulting statements. It's important the lead be accurate; it is not so important that it be precise. The lead can make general statements about the relationship between pKa and the strength of acids, for example, which may not be precisely expressed, so long as the statement is qualified in such a way that the reader understands they are not reading a precise description. The qualification renders the description accurate by pointing out that it is imprecise. Some modification of the language along those lines might be worth considering.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own view as how to improve the article would be to work on Brønsted–Lowry acid-base theory and equilibrium constant, the two principles which underlie the chemistry discussed in this article. If we can get clear and accurate descriptions of those two complicated concepts, acid dissociation constant would be much easier to write.
I won't withdraw my comment about "scientific illiteracy", much as it might pain many people (not least the editor concerned). There is no point in sending scientific articles to WP:FAC if the result is a deterioration in quality, yet that is the result I have seen on many, many occasions. If my memory serves me right, I have never proposed an article at FAC; although I have collaborated on the reviews of articles proposed by others, as here. I would certainly never recommend an editor to send an article to FAC, and even less a scientific article such as this. The problem lies with FAC system, not with the editors of these articles: a small number of self-selected individuals set themselves up as the judge-and-jury of writing over a huge range of subject areas, applying their own idiosyncratic interpretations (there are as many interpretations as editors) of Wikipedia guidelines as if they were law. No individual editor can change the current sclerotic system, but that doesn't mean that editors should stand by while Wikipedia's best articles are degraded, even if it is with the best of intentions. Physchim62 (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you if it was just people not familiar with the subject matter that were keeping this article from becoming a Featured Article, but you have users that are familiar with the subject matter like Proteins who are objecting to it becoming a Featured Article; that should tell you something.--Jorfer (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misunderstood me somewhere. I couldn't care less if the article makes it to FA or not, as the star has become so devalued (not only in scientific articles, I might add) as to be worthless. What I do care about are the quality and accuracy of the article, as it describes a subject which is widely taught in schools and universities, and not only to chemists. Several editors have made helpful comments; several editors have made unhelpful edits: the two groups overlap, such is life on a collaborative project. Let me just quote the first paragraph from the version of Group (mathematics) that was featured:

In mathematics, a group is a set of elements together with an operation that combines any two of its elements to form a third element. To qualify as a group, the set and operation must satisfy a few conditions called group axioms, namely associativity, identity and inverse elements. While these are familiar from many mathematical structures, such as number systems—for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group—the formulation of the axioms is detached from the concrete nature of the group and its operation. This allows one to handle entities of very different mathematical origins in a flexible way, while retaining essential structural aspects of many objects in abstract algebra and beyond. The ubiquity of groups in numerous areas—both within and outside mathematics—makes them a central organizing principle of contemporary mathematics.

And reviewers criticize the lead of acid dissociation constant for being arcane! As a chemist, I know more than the average person-on-the-street about group theory – I've even taught it at university level, if only to other chemists – but I still find that paragraph (and the rest of the article, for that matter) hard going. The article appeared on the main page on 5 November, it is not an old case. Physchim62 (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I for one, find that piece of writing to be much clearer and much more concise than what was (still is?) on the lead of this article. The only thing I would change about this is the word "ubiquity" which has to be looked up for most people. So instead of jumping the gun and depicting nearly everyone here, including professional scientists and graduate students, many with a background in chemistry, as unproductive and unhelpful, and to insult our efforts and feedback to make your article better, you should instead try to listen to what we are saying. I passed List of baryons as a featured list a few months ago, and don't be telling me that particles physics is a simpler subject than something that is covered in 1rst year chemistry. Sure it took efforts, namely a peer review, the first try failed, but after addressing the valid concerns, of people, it passed.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-written lead

It is clear to me from the discussions here that nothing short of a radical re-write of the lead would be needed to accomodate the reservations of many contributors. I have now done this in a way that I hope will meet with consensus. Would all those who now feel able to support the promotion of this article please indicate. I suggest you put "now support" or "still oppose" next to their name below. I also invite Proteins to withdraw his opposition on the basis that the article is already of FA standard, and ask him to collaborate on making the further improvements which he outlines. Petergans (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Colm (Talk) It looks like I have been invited to comment. I think this FAC should be archived and the lessons learnt be used to further improve the article. Re-submission a later date would allow us all to appraise the article with refreshed eyes. Graham Colm Talk 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Headbomb (talk)

Comment, I think it would be simpler to simply closed this and not promote it, and re-submit it immediately after closure. This is a huge archive (86KB so far), and it would be wise to plan ahead for another very long discussion. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vb (talk)

Proteins (talk)

Comments (1) I would be willing and happy to work on this article, or an "Introduction to..." article, if that were preferable. You can count on my help. (2) If I understand how FAC works, it won't matter whether I change my !vote to support, if the objections listed above have not been addressed. (3) I'm happy to see the improved discussion of spectroscopic measurement of pKa values, but most of my other concerns have not been met. (4) I appreciate the nominator's truly valiant effort to re-write the lead, but to me it seems worse than the original for comprehensibility. :( The shorter Itub version is significantly better than both, but in my opinion, it and the whole article are incomplete and not yet at that polished level that I associate with FAs. I'm sorry, truly. (5) I'm leaving in a week for a workshop, and I'm quite busy otherwise, but I'll try to contribute some pieces of an improved article before I leave. (6) The authors might re-read Pauling's treatment of acid dissociation constants in The Nature of the Chemical Bond to see what I mean about teaching from homologous series and explaining the physical/chemical factors at work in pKa's. Such homologous series might be well-represented on Wikipedia with a <gallery> at the start of a subsection, one for each major factor determining pKa's. The gallery images would be the molecules of the series, their captions the individual pKa's, and the surtitle would describe the effect causing the change in pKa. Such galleries might make the article more comprehensible and picturesque and also allow you to do away with some of those tables. A kindly meant suggestion, Proteins (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the chloracetic acids and reference to Pauling. The remaining part of Pauling's section 7-3 is largely outdated by advances in quantum mechanical calculations and by the Hammett equation.
Proteins makes some very creative suggestions, but he should not use the FAC discussion to make them. I, for one, don't know how to make an animation, and I am just not qualified to write about proteins. These are examples of things that Proteins should do himself by editing the article. He has indicated that he is prepared to do them, so he should go ahead with them and withdraw his opposition to FAC.
One further point. Proteins has made reference to his use of WP as a teaching resource. Fair enough, but WP is an encyclopedia, and not a text-book. Text-books can give much more pedantic detail. Petergans (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's benefit, I believe we should focus on improving the article, and not on a small bronze star. The decision to promote lies with the FAC director and his delegate, and only they can determine whether the various unaddressed objections have merit. (1') I repeat that I'm willing to help in resolving my concerns and those of others, but given my schedule, that won't happen on the typical FAC timescale. (2') I didn't mean that you should copy Pauling directly, but rather consider using his method of illustrating physical/chemical factors determining pKa values with judiciously chosen homologous series. That approach will help, I believe, when you discuss the thermodynamics and computational methods for predicting pKa. Pauling's lucid prose is worth emulating as well. (3') I don't insist on animations, although I'm sure that you would find them easy to learn. Briefly, you create the individual frames using your favorite molecular visualization program and combine them into GIF or OGG Theora format using the GIMP or some other convenient software. Once you've made one, you could probably make a dozen in an afternoon. My main point, however, was that you should spend more time improving your images, both for their instructive value and as images. (4') I don't intend that this article be a textbook presentation; I just find it unnecessarily obscure and incomplete. (5') Please don't feel as though you're beset and all alone. Others will help you to improve the article; it's a wiki, after all. I'll volunteer to make a few candidate animations and galleries of homologous series, which we can review together to see if the article might be improved by them. Hopefully, that will warm the atmosphere. Proteins (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller (talk)


Arnoutf (talk) (copied from above by PG)

After the recent revisions, the opening paragraph is much better. The whole introduction is however now very long. Some further copyediting maybe needed. I have striken my oppose since I think you are on the right track (and should not be blocked by my oppose if you continue on this track). I will not be able to attend to the discussion due to horrendous real life deadlines for the next few weeks. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorfer (talk) Still Opposed - Though I feel with User:Itub/ADC lead the intro will be of Featured Article status, my comments on the body have not been addressed. The body does not need to sacrifice precision to become better; it just needs to include further explanations and clearer use of language, which I have highlighted in my comments here. By the way, I congratulate Petergans and Itub on overhauling the lead. This shows the good that comes from the Featured Article process.--Jorfer (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Vickers (talk)

Vassyana (talk) Still opposed. Itub's verion of the lede is somewhat clearer, but I still do not see how it would be accessible to someone unfamiliar with the subject. As pointed out by numerous reviewers, this is a subject covered in secondary school and first year university chemistry. The lede should at least be comprehensible to the average first-year university student. I truly cannot understand why the suggestion to use an introductory-level presentation and then moving to more precise & technical matters is so controversial for an intro-level chemistry topic. Vassyana (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is not comprehensible about my proposed lead? I'm looking forward to making it more readable. However, I'm a bit puzzled about what sort of "average first-year university student" you have in mind. Despite being taught in first-year chemistry, this topic is not as "basic" as people here seem to imply. I'm looking right now at the table of contents of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Chemistry. The relevant chapter, "Acid-base equilibria", is chapter 23. This is one of the last chapters (the book has 28), after the student has been introduced to solutions, chemical kinetics, chemical equilibria, intermolecular forces, and chemical bonding. Would you expect someone who doesn't know chemistry and jumps straight into chapter 23 to understand any of it? What can we assume that the reader knows before reading the lead? --Itub (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is not already familiar with the topic, it won't make much sense to them without serious study. I don't understand your question about the generic target, as it is fairly self-explanatory... the average freshman. It is a topic that is regularly explained to secondary and incoming university students. Actually, chapter 23 is "Acids and Bases" as a whole. Chapter 27 is "Cranking Up the Heat: Basic Thermodynamics". Based on your argument, basic thermodynamics would not be a basic concept, which is simply ludicrous. Regardless, I'm not asking for the article to sacrifice the detailed content or to even include lies-to-children type oversimplification. All that I am asking is that a non-specialist with no more than a cursory education in chemistry can walk away with a reasonable understanding of the basic points of the topic. This can be handled through addition, as the readable prose size is well under the limit. As it is currently written, the article is obscure (at best) to anyone without a prior understanding of the topic it covers. Vassyana (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean an average freshman who already took several months of general chemistry and is now studying the chapter about acids and bases, or the average freshman who is majoring in Elbonian studies and does not know what a logarithm is?
Sorry for the misquote, and yes, this book is unusual in putting thermodynamics at the end. Many other books puts it before acid-base equilibria. Obviously, not every chapter depends on every preceding chapter; for example, acids and bases don't require a lot of knowledge about gases. But they do require knowledge about the other topics I mentioned.
Anyway, do you have any specific suggestions for making the lead more readable? Any technical terms needing explanation or linking, or anything that should be removed from the lead and deferred to the body of the article? --Itub (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the Idiot's Guide, the way its goes about presenting the formula and dissociation is a great template. It does not unduly sacrifice technical detail or accuracy, nor does it indulge in large explanatory tangents, while presenting it in a digestible fashion. Some of the way it avoids disruptive side explanations is by making certain elements clear by context. An average educated reader can walk away with the full basic gist of the topic. Breaking it down into direct suggestions: 1) Explain concepts that can be explained very briefly. An extra phrase here and there isn't going to hurt the quality if well-written, but will go a long way towards making the article more accessible. 2) Try to organize the information into more a building block format, as commonly done in science education (A and B, therefore C). Overly simple example: a) These are acids, in the definition most relevant to this topic. b) This is dissociation. c) This is equilibrium as it relates to this concept (no need to rehash equilibrium as a whole). d) a+b+c = acid dissociation constant. 3) Try to organize the information and rewrite it somewhat so that the context and interaction of facts is clearer to a reader. For example, the Idiot's Guide does a great job of making "HA"'s meaning clear to a reader mainly through context and discussion of the main topic. Does that all make sense? Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at 1 and 3, but 2, as I understand it, is something we can't do because Wikipedia, unlike the Idiot's Guide, is not a textbook. We (according to conventional Wikipedia lead style) have to cut to the chase and give a definition upfront, preferably in the very first sentence, without "building up to it". It should be closer to the inverted pyramid style IMHO (my current version of the lead does define what it means by equilibrium and some other things, although it does it after giving at least a qualitative definition of the acid dissociation constant). We don't start the lead of Death of Hitler with a mini-review of World War II or of Hitler's life, or Death Star with "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...." If someone comes to these articles without knowing who Hitler was or what Star Wars is, they are looking at the wrong article. Same goes for someone who comes to acid dissociation constant without knowing what an acid is. Like you correctly pointed out, the title of the textbook chapter is "Acids and bases". That is a wider scope that what my Freudian slip implied (acid-base equilibria) and much, much wider than "acid dissociation constant". I don't have access to the book, but I'm sure it does not begin the chapter with the concept of acid dissociation constant, because of the scope of the chapter, and because it is a teaching aid, not a reference. --Itub (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The avoidance of 2) makes sense as you present it. Again, I will say that your version of the lead is significantly clearer. 1) and 3) would likely be sufficient enough to address my concerns. Regardless of how it is done, I will be satisfied (and happy to support the FAC) as long as the result allows a non-specialist with only a cursory education in chemistry to walk away with a reasonable understanding of the basic points of the topic. Vassyana (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad (talk)

Peregrine Fisher (talk)

Shyamal (talk) Some careful copyediting by a fresh eye is needed in this and the primary authors should take unacceptable copyedits as indicators of problems in the text. It would be good if knowledgeable copyeditors and the primary authors can run some positive iterations of reading and re-writing. Shyamal (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • when their concentrations do not change in with the passing of time. -> "change with"
  • Strictly speaking it should be a quotient of activities, but when Ka values are determined in a medium of high ionic strength concentrations can be used in place of activities. -> pedantic tone in use of "speaking"
  • but when Ka values are determined in a medium of high ionic strength concentrations can be used in place of activities -> comma needed ?
  • An acid which releases one proton, -> an acid molecule ?
  • in the approximate range -2 to 12 in water -> that seems like a wide range to be termed approximate - can be trimmed
  • measuring the concentration of the hydrogen ion -> measuring the concentration of hydrogen ions ?
  • A polyprotic acid is an acid, such as phosphoric acid or citric acid, which can release more than one proton. - one proton per molecule ?
  • Current practice is to determine the pKa value of the acid conjugate to the base. - of the base  ?
  • Factors that determine the magnitude of pKa values include Pauling's rules for acidity constants - gives an impression that nature follows published rules

Ling.Nut (talk)

  • Conditional Support. As part of an evolving position on articles by the folks in white coats, I'm moving toward accepting the idea that such articles need not be written for the "general audience." Bear in mind that by no means do I reject the idea that the lede should be significantly easier to digest than the body; I'm only saying that the lede cannot take the place of a Chem 101 textbook. I'm moving toward accepting the idea no one would even glance at this article unless they were studying chemistry, and anyone who was studying chemistry would have the resources at hand to fill in the blanks. So here are my conditions:
  1. I Support only the User:Itub/ADC lead lede.
  2. I take on board earlier comments that laymen and even some Chem 101 students might believe "strong" is purely and simply a synonym for "corrosive". With this in mind, I would suggest rewording the first sentence in order to move the wikilinks to strong acid and weak acid to the fore. Of course then the wikilinks in the later paragraphs of the lede would be un-wikilinked. NOTE: My terminology will be imprecise/flatly wrong. This is just the idea of it:
    An acid dissociation constant, Ka, (also known as acidity constant, or acid-ionization constant) is a quantitative measure of the strength of an acid in solution. When converted to a logarithmic scale, it is used as the measure which distinguishes weak acids from strong acids.
  3. I suggest simply removing the following sentences. They certainly do not have any unity with the rest of the paragraph. Their position is misleading; it makes the first sentence seem to be topic sentence. I'm thinking they don't even need to be in the lede at all though:
    pKa values can be experimentally determined by potentiometric (pH) titration, but for values of pKa less than about 2 or more than about 11 spectrophotometric or NMR measurements may be required. The latter methods are preferred with non-protic solvents.
Thank you for your conditional support. About the sentences you suggest removing: I agree that that paragraph lacks cohesion, as it resulted from merging fragments from different paragraphs. However, I think it is important to include them somewhere in the lead, because they are the only sentences that discuss how the ADC is measured, which is a key part of the article. I'll think about other places where these sentences can be placed, but I welcome suggestions. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the new lead is a good step towards explaining a bit more to non-chemist readers. However, it is now too long. I think the best solution is to explain more but include less details on polyprotic acids, thermodynamics, and buffers, which although related are not necessary to give the general reader an idea of what the acid dissociation constant is, what it is good for, and where does it come from (basically, the "what", "why", and "how"). I've posted a suggested trimmed version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. --Itub (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support with this lede. It concisely places of the topic in context, as required. The WTF factor has been removed. William Avery (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New oppose. It is great to see editors working on technical articles and some fantastic work has gone into this article. I would love to support it, but I have to agree with Proteins and others that it doesn't meet the standards for our very best work yet. The prose is reasonable and there are many moments of clarity, but the quality is patchy, and overall the prose is not engaging or of a professional standard. The coverage is good, although it possibly goes into too much detail, partly (I suspect) because the back-up articles are not very good, making the use of summary style difficult. For instance, Activity (chemistry) and Ionic strength are as clear as mud, yet essential to understand the meaning of parts of the article.
The topic of this article is not rocket science (well, some of it might be :-). I agree with User:Vassyana and others that this is bread and butter chemistry (not(?) literally :-), a simple and very important kind of equilibrium constant. It should be more accessible, and I think some reviewers without a scientific background have been generous and modest in supporting because they found the material out of reach. Having said that, I agree that much of this article will inevitably not be accessible to a reader without a scientific background, and the first section does make a decent effort to convey the basic idea to a general reader.
For me, the main problem is that the article is hard going for the scientifically literate, but nonspecialist, reader. This is no good, as such readers are prime audience for all but the most specialist parts of the article. The prose is a problem, and could really use a copyedit by a scientifically literate editor who is good at that. Judging by some remarks made above, they may also need a thick skin. I hesitate to comment on specifics when I see an editor told he is wrong that K_b is the inverse (reciprocal) of K_a, when in fact it is K_w/K_a with K_w approximately constant. This kind of "oversimplification" occurs in chemistry all the time. When measuring K_a in terms of concentrations rather than activities, a approximately constant quantity is being discarded, and activity (according to our article) is only dimensionless because the units are fixed. On the face of it, the definition of K_a in the lead is not dimensionless, so taking its logarithm is meaningless; again, units have been fixed. The article does explain some of these issues (the concentration of water is approximately constant).
However, contrary to the view that the article cannot be made clearer without dumbing down or oversimplifying, there are actually a few places where precision is lacking, and clarity with it. Anyway, ignoring the lead (which is too long and detailed - Itub's version is better), let me raise some specific issues.
  • The equilibrium constant for this "dissociation" reaction is known as a dissociation constant. However, since the liberated proton combines with a water molecule to give a hydronium ion (also called oxonium), Arrhenius later proposed that the "dissociation" reaction should be written as an acid–base reaction. Why the quotes? This isn't use-mention distinction, and certainly not scare quotes. "dissociates" is quoted again later on, making me begin to feel sorry for this poor distrusted word :-)
  • It also puts acids and bases on the same footing as being, respectively, donors or acceptors of protons. How can something which donates be on the same footing as something which accepts?
  • In fact the bicarbonate ion is amphiprotic "In fact" adds nothing here. Also, water provides a simpler example.
  • It is important to note that, in the context of solution chemistry, a "proton" is understood to mean a solvated hydrogen ion. In aqueous solution the "proton" is a solvated hydronium ion. Don't note what is being noted. Also when I checked the references I did not see them using the word "proton" to mean solvated hydrogen ion. For instance, in water, care is taken to distinguish between the donated proton and the solvated hydronium ion it is part of.
  • For the specific equilibrium between a monoprotic acid, HA and its conjugate base A−, in water Why mention monoprotic here? Polyprotic acids also have this equilibrium - only several of them.
  • Activities of the products are placed in the numerator, activities of the reactants are placed in the denominator. Since it is an equilibrium, "product" and "reactant" are not terribly precise. What is meant here is that, for the dissociation constant, the products of dissociation are in the numerator. Cf. the later discussion about association constants, which are essentially the reciprocal.
  • In the case of VO2+(aq), the vanadium is octahedral, 6-coordinate, whereas all the other species are tetrahedral, 4-coordinate. "6-coordinate" presumably refers to 6 water molecules around the ion with an overall octahedral geometry. I had to figure that out for myself, though. The link helped a bit.
  • VO2+⇌ H3VO4 + H+. There appear to be some water molecules missing here.
  • DMSO is widely used as an alternative to water. Yikes, I hope not :-)
  • The apparently unlikely geminal diol Apparent to whom?
  • The reason for this is that when the solvent is in its standard state its activity is defined as one. For example, the standard state of water:dioxane 9:1 is precisely that solvent mixture, with no added solutes. To obtain the pKa value for use with aqueous solutions it has to be extrapolated to zero co-solvent concentration from values obtained from various co-solvent mixtures. Neither brilliant prose, nor clear and precise.
  • These facts are obscured by the omission of the solvent... How dare they!
  • Ascorbic acid is an example of this effect. No, it is an example of an acid. Suggest "exhibits this effect"?
  • Structural effects can also be important. The difference between fumaric acid and maleic acid is a classic example. Another imprecision in weak prose.
  • The first point to note is that when pKa is positive Unencyclopedic prose construction.
  • including those for protein-ligand equilibria Relevance? I also think Proton affinity is a bit of a stretch.
I hope the above late comments are helpful, and can be taken in the spirit of a peer review. It seems to me to be likely that this FAC will be closed soon anyway. Good luck improving the article. I hope it will be featured in the future. Geometry guy 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say "the prose is not ... of a professional standard"? I can accept that you may not like my style. That's one thing. It's quite another to impugn my professional integrity. Petergans (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misunderstanding. The "of professional standard" clause in the criteria refers to professional standards of copyediting. It has absolutely nothing to do with content or professional integrity. And actually, I do like your style. Much of the article is very good, but it needs copyediting. Geometry guy 22:13, 6 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [58].

Bob Chappuis

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger
previous FAC (00:24, 24 April 2008)

I feel that this is an interesting article of sufficient breadth and depth to qualify at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Two infoboxes? Please decide - this looks ridiculous.
    • It is fairly common and non-controversial for an athlete who is notable for a second reason to have multiple infoboxes. I know of no policy that this goes against. Military service box sections have been incorporated into politician infoboxes (see Jon Corzine and Jack Kemp) to lessen the confusion, but nothing has yet been done for athlete military combinations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but in the Corzine and Kemp examples, there is only one box. In the Chappuis article, there are two separate infoboxes and one of them has that ugly "click here if you have a free image" space in it. It is a terrible layout and, apparently, completely unnecessary. Why don't you just combine the boxes? Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was that athlete infoboxes have not been streamlined to incorporate double infoboxes in a unified single infobox. As far as the click here goes, we need help finding a military picture of this guy so that placeholder image seems appropriate. If this does not pass here, I will post it at WP:MILHIST A-Class review where the military guys might know how to find a military image for the guy. Is there a way to combine the military info in the main box? The MILHIST guys might be able to help us in this regard as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The email address is: permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Chappuis.jpg - I'm on the fence about this non-free image. No real effort went into constructing a fair use rationale for this specific article. For example, the generic statement "The image is needed to identify the person for educational purposes in an encyclopedia entry and significantly improves the quality of the article" does not really explain why we need this image and I'm not sure what having the cover really adds to the text. The text says he was on the cover of Time. Must we have that cover as well? If so, please explain why. It is certainly not to "identify the person". There is already a picture of him.

I'm sure we can resolve these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said that 398 covers were of athletes. To demonstrate rareness, we need to say 398 of how many total covers. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. The fair use rational says that his appearance is an example of a "rare" phenomenon. We need to show that: there are only 398 Time covers that feature athletes out of [X] number of total Time covers. Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - If memory serves me right, the last FAC was one of the last sports candidates that I didn't review. It's like taking a trip back in time, only this time I have a clue of how to review articles. Nice to see you back to work on sports pages; it at least gives you a break from Chicago buildings. First batch of comments is below.

Busy in real life at the moment, so I must stop here. I'll be back to read the rest on another day. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while, but I'm finally back to continue the review.
  • 1948 Rose Bowl and All-Star Game: Comma after 1947 Chicago Cardinals?
  • "In the 15th game College All-star vs. NFL champion match" Don't understand this. Should game be removed?
  • Celebrity: "In addition, his time at Michigan defined an era in a way that became a permanent reference." Maybe so, but how did he define it? The latest addition to the criteria is that subjects should be placed in context. I'm not sure yet how this criterion works, but this seems to be a perfect example of where more context is needed. It would add some flavor to the article, and beef up a short section.
  • Professional football: "However, Chappuis passed up the Steelers offer" Steelers could have an apostrophe.
  • Two All-American Football Conference links. I'd remove the second, and define the AAFC abbreviation (place the initials in parentheses after first use).
  • Watch the capitalization of the college all-star game. Some inconsistencies there.

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 November 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [59].

Slovenian presidential election, 2007

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone
previous FAC (01:36, 23 September 2008)

After I believe all the issues raised at the first FAC have been fixed, I am renominating the article. The images now have proper OTRS, the references are attributed to reliable sources with direct quotes where needed and copyediting has been done. Thank you for your reconsideration. --Tone 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

*Image:Danilo Turk.jpg - At Flickr, this image was not released under a CC 2.5 license, as is claimed on the image description page - all rights were reserved. Second, the image description page claims that the image was released through OTRS, but there is no OTRS ticket number.

That's up to people at commons to decide. If any problem appears, the image can be removed. At the moment, I am happy with the description there. By the way, there are two sources for the photo, it is possible that the admin of the other website released the copyright. Any suggestions what else could be done? --Tone 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OTRS ticket number to confirm and the license cannot be verified - at present, this image does not violates the copyright laid out on Flickr. This image needs to be deleted from the article or an OTRS ticket needs to be obtained. Awadewit (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new photo has been recently uploaded to Commons, a gfdl one. I have temporaly changed it, when the otrs problem is resolved, the old can be put back. --Tone 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Coat of Arms of Slovenia.svg - There is ultimately no source for information for this image - where did the information to make this image or its parent image come from? Also, who are the authors of this image and when was it made and/or uploaded?
The image was, according to the Commons page, created and uploaded by User:Zscout370 in 2005. The source is the flag of Slovenia. I don't see any problems here. --Tone 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons page lists the uploader - that is not always the same as the creator/author. Please add the uploader's name to the author field, if you know that they are same. We cannot use the svg image as the source - it is a user-generated image. We have to have a reliable source that depicts the flag. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source added. --Tone 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author issue still needs to be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed now. --Tone 16:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Glasovnica za predsednika republike 2007.jpg - The source listed is "Slovenian WP" - what is that exactly? The metadata hints that this is an amateur photograph taken by the user listed in the image description. Is that correct? If so, the source should say something like "own work" or "self-created".
I fixed that now. --Tone 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author and the uploader are not the same, how can we be sure that the author released the copyright? We need a statement from the author on the image page releasing the copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added the link to sl: wiki where the image was uploaded first. That should do the trick.

With some careful attention, these issues should be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inconsistent date formatting: " ... 11 November 2007 ... " but " ... On December 22, Türk was sworn ... ". Which is it? Also, see WP:MOSNUM regarding percentage ranges and spelling out vs. using digits for numbers, example: " ... with nearly 3 in 4 voters ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think the prose is of the standard required. There are too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs, and too many awkwardly-worded sentences (e.g. "The Slovenian National Party (SNS) nominated its leader, Zmago Jelinčič, who had already run for the office at the 2002 election, finishing third with 8.51% of the votes."), along with a few run-ons ("Peterle replaced the head of his campaign, and concentrated on questioning Türk's role in the 1991 secession from Yugoslavia, alleging that at the time when Peterle as the Prime Minister struggled for Slovenia's independence, Türk continued to act as an official representative of Yugoslavia in international institutions."). In my view, a complete rewrite would be required to get the prose to FA-standard. I also have some concerns with 1b and think that a few of the shorter top-level sections could be merged (for example, the five sentence "First round results and reactions" could easily be merged with "first round campaign"). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates formats are now consistent through the text and through the references. Regarding the sections, this was discussed at the previous FAC. A new paragraph is used when a something unrelated with the previous paragraph is introduced. Merging them would make the article less comprehensible IMO. By the way, where do you see problems with 1b criteria? The reason why I left the campaign and the 1st round results separate is that the paragraphs deal with different things again. Also, we have 2nd round and results separate. Regarding the prose. I went through the text several times. Since I am not professionally trained in writing English texts, I'd appreciate if you could point out other bad formulations so that I can fix them (a good practice for me as well). Thanks. --Tone 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more improvements to the text have been made. If I left anything, please point it out. --Tone 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's been poor of me not to have followed up on this in the last week; I swear I'll get to it within the next twenty-four hours. Apologies, and thanks for your patience. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, missed my own deadline; that's unlike me. Anyway, to demonstrate what I mean by the writing quality, I took a section of the article at random ("Leading candidates") and went over it with a fine toothed comb. Here's some of what I found:
  • "Pahor himself confirmed that he is ready to run for the office." - wrong tense.
  • "Instead, Social Democrats nominated Danilo Türk, a former Slovenian ambassador, high official in the United Nations, and a professor at the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Law." - faulty parallelism here, as the indefinite article is included in the first and third items, but not the second. Alternatively, if "former" is only intended to modify the first two items, there should be a conjunction.
  • Some of the party names are preceded by "the" and some aren't, with no apparent reason for the differences. Even within a single party (e.g. Liberal Democracy) this isn't consistent.
  • "All of them managed to collect the enough support votes with Peterle reaching the required number in the first 4 hours of collecting." Superfluous "the".
  • "...who had been campaigning for months and cultivated the image of a "man of the people"..." Tense shift.
  • Besides the above objective problems, there are plenty of stylistic problems, in that much of the wording is awkward and inelegant. Many words are repeated unnecessarily from sentence to sentence, for example.
I'm sorry to be the sole opposer like this, but in my view the article requires a rewrite by a native English speaker. I'd offer to do it myself, but I'm frankly unlikely to have time to do a proper job until the new year. It would be great of somebody else could step in within the next few days and do so, because most other elements of a featured article are in place. Let me also add that, having visited a few years ago, I very much agree with Todor Bozhinov's comments about Slovenia rocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now undergoing a copyediting. User:Scapler was kind to help. --Tone 21:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done! The article is pretty thorough and well-written; it provides a good introduction and background. The sources look fine in terms of credibility (generally usually the top Slovenian media or well-known international news agencies and publications). I found the article very well illustrated for an election article, with photos of all major candidates and a handy map. Overall, I do think some paragraphs can be merged: although they do represent different lines of thought at present, they are related in most cases, like the short nominations paragraphs in Leading candidates. I don't consider that a big deal really: I'm all for reviewing the overall quality of the article instead of focusing on almost-bureaucratic WP:FA? details (copyright of the Slovenian coat of arms?!) and subjective stuff like writing style. If someone's opposing because he doesn't think the prose is good enough, please provide a thorough review so the stuff can be fixed, or even copyedit it yourself; the ultimate goal is to improve the article after all! And one last thing that didn't influence my supporting decision, however: Slovenia rocks! :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by karanacs. Disclosure: I know very little about Slovenia, and nothing about their political system, so this article was my introduction to that topic. I thought that the article had too much detail in some places, and not enough in others. The prose is also okay, but needs work. There are grammatical errors, and there are many sentences which don't read well. (For a non-native speaker, this is quite well done, but I recommend getting a good copyeditor to do a bit of polishing.) Please note that the issues below are in many cases just examples of areas to be fixed:
  • I don't understand why the referendum is mentioned in the lead. Yes, it was held on the same day, but that does not appear to be directly related to this election (and it is not mentioned in the body of the article at all)
  • The first sentence of the lead seems very unwieldy to me (The 2007 Slovenian presidential election was held in two rounds, on 21 October 2007 and 11 November 2007, in order to elect the successor to the second President of Slovenia Janez Drnovšek for a five-year term) but my brain is tired and has not come up with something better.
  • I am unclear from reading the lead why there were two rounds of elections and who exactly won the election
  • In the background section, I am not entirely sure why we learn about Drnovsek's change in lifestyle - that seems to be unnecessary detail to this article.
  • In the requirements for candidacy, what is meant by "support votes"? Do they have to file a petition? I'm a bit confused by this.
  • Why did Peterle, Turk, and Gaspari decide to run as independents? It looks like they were already endorsed by multiple political parties?
  • It seems weird to me to have the same pictures in the infobox and in the body of the article.
  • There seem to be many awkward sentences. Examples only:
    • The candidates appeared in televised debates during which they discussed various topics, including the rules governing the voting of non-resident nationals, which had been changed by the National Electoral Commission during the campaign
    • The campaign was backed by the Prime Minister Janša and the Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel who went so far as to confirm Peterle's claims on the Foreign Ministry's official website. - no need for "the" before PM or FM, "went so far as to" is overly wordy -> could just be "who confirmed"
    • "Later, he also stated that he would work closely with Janša's government during Slovenia's six-month EU presidency." - Later and also are redundant
    • Türk's candidacy was also endorsed by Zares, a splinter party made up of many of the members of the National Assembly who left the Liberal Democracy, which quickly disintegrated in opposition after 10 years in government,[21] and the pensioners' party DeSUS - seems to have too many ideas in it
  • The First round campaign section does address some of the issues facing the candidates, but there is really no information on what type of campaigning the candidates did (beyond debating). What did they do?
  • What impact did the journalists' petition have on the election or campaign? Were their complaints directed partially at measures in place due to the election? I'm not sure why this event is important in relation to the campaign
  • Need a citation after every sentence with a quotation, even if that means some citations are repeated in subsequent sentences. This is an issue in multiple places in the article.
  • Nowhere in the article is it explicitly explained how many people go to a runoff, or what percentage of the vote is necessary to win
  • Jelincic is described as "flamboyant", but we are never told in the article what he did during the first round that might have made him appear such - how did he differentiate himself from the others?
  • How much time was allocated for campaigning in both the first and second rounds?
  • I am not sure what this means: "Since the EU presidency was closing"
  • Make sure all newspapers are italicized in the references. It appears that some, like International Herald Tribune, are not
  • Any other information about the supposed movie that Artur Stern was making?

Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [60].

The Teen Idles

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

An article I wrote about a fairly obscure (yet very important) D.C. hardcore punk band a while back, that I feel is comprehensive, well-written and easy-to-read. There's a lack of free images on the subject, but I feel the article reads well without them. Hopefully this candidacy will motivate me back into editing Wikipedia regularly. CloudNine (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand that this may not be a solvable problem, but I simply don't think this can be a featured article with no images. Does not fulfill Criteria 3 for that reason. Criteria 3 doesn't say anything about it being ok to not have images if none can be found after all. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem dealt with, fair play to you. I won't give my support vote just yet though, I want to give it another lookover Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it doesn't say that a featured article should have images, which is the key thing here. I've read a number of featured articles that have none (because they either don't apply or there are no free ones). CloudNine (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not add some non-free images? There are several non-free images of The Teen Idles out there. Wikipedia allows non-free band images if the band is no longer active (i.e. it is not possible to create a free image of the band). Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about some non-free images, but a non-free image would probably be acceptable. I think this image, credited to Lucian Perkins at the Dischord Records site[61], would be good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Used to have that image in the article, but it was removed by someone else because it didn't meet fair use requirements (I tend not to bother to find non-free images anymore as a result). CloudNine (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let the image nazis discourage you. I've restored the image for now. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. On the picture issue, pictures are not a requirement, the criteria merely says "where appropriate". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — Some things I noticed at a brief glance:
  • The Teen Idles history began when Washingtonian Ian MacKaye discovered punk rock through a local college radio station, Georgetown University's WGTB. - "The Teen Idles history began" → "The Teen Idles began".
    • Technically the Teen Idles (as a band) didn't form then, but the history behind it began. Is there a better way of phrasing it?
  • The two became friends and quickly discovered their shared interest in punk. MacKaye and Nelson saw their first punk show in January 1979 — a benefit concert by The Cramps for WGTB. - Em dashes are unspaced.
    • Fixed.
  • The Slinkees then renamed themselves The Teen Idles. - Remove "then".
    • Fixed.
  • After about a dozen concerts, opening for bands such as the Untouchables, The Teen Idles decided to tour the West Coast in August 1980. - "A dozen" → "12.
    • Fixed.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose... Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little concerned about several sentences from this article appearing verbatim on this blog. Did one source copy the other or are they both copied verbatim from another source?
    • No, the blog most definitely copied the Wikipedia article. The blog entry was "written" months after the Wikipedia article. Looks like a copyvio to me.
  • The lead mentions the band's influence on straight edge, but straight edge isn't even mentioned in the article body. A good source is Ross Haenfler's book Straight Edge which discusses the Teen Idles on pages 8 and 9.
    • It's not mentioned by name, but the trademark Xs are discussed in the paragraph describing the band's final gig. I'll see if I can work in more information (perhaps even a separate section). Do you have a copy of Straight Edge?
      • That's definitely an improvement. Were there any other ways that the band influenced Straight Edge besides the X's?
  • The article should mention the issue of the band's youth more prominently. The band and their fans were commonly dismissed as "teeny-punks" and had to struggle to be taken seriously. Take a look at the book Dance of Days for more info on this.
  • I'd like to see more books cited in the references. There are a lot more books than just Our Band Could Be Your Life that discuss the Teen Idles.
    • Good points. I'll try and pick up those books from somewhere. CloudNine (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can find Straight Edge and Dance of Days on Google Books if you need to. Also, it looks like some sources claim the band only earned $600 from touring instead of $700 as is stated in the article. You might want to double-check the figure and add a citation for that sentence specifically. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support (as fanboy, alt rock project member, now a contributor and friend of the nominator). I think its a fine artice that can pass after a few bits and pieces are added. "All Ages" has a lenghtly interview with Mackaye (ever read a short interview with Mackaye?) and he mentions the band at a few points. He talks about the origions of the Straight Edge 'X', and its appearance on the Minor Disturbance EP. I could add a section on this, and that might give rational to use feature the EP artwork. I'm asking here first in case you might think it might be off-topic. The other thing is, yes as per above there are a lot of books out there on straight edge, and it might be an idea to get other perspectives. Small fixes needed here and there re prose, but nothing drastic - its quite well written. Ceoil sláinte 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I'm taking a while to read through some other sources (to be honest, I didn't know the Teen Idles appeared in several other books in detail). I'll let this FAC gain as much review as possible, and then try to address all the issues. CloudNine (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Just say the word and I'll add the section. Ceoil sláinte 12:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure; but almost they were the first straight edge band, and the article should be weighed in that direction. Ceoil sláinte 13:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shoehorned it into the ablum section. Its mostly quotes, but I think relevant. Ceoil sláinte 14:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the same. I'm inclined towards a support, but we'll see what can be dug up. Ceoil sláinte 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Reworded as "The Teen Idles were among the first punk groups from the early 1980s hardcore movement..." Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I just don't feel like I really have a good understanding of this band. That may be because I know nothing about punk, or because they didn't do that much, or because there isn't more info to be found (or there is, but we haven't found it yet). Contrarily, there is some detail in the article that I feel is a bit irrelevant. If there are more books available that discuss the band, I highly recommend that you make use of them. Interlibrary loan can help, but it would likely mean withdrawing the FAC for now until the books come in.

  • Is it important that we know how MacKaye and Nelson met? I can see that having more relevance in their individual articles but don't see its relevance in this one.
Its important to punk historians - ;) - at least, as the birth of Fugazi, which is what we are really talking about here, and it encompases Teen Idols, Minor Threat, Rites of Spring and Embrace; all significant early hardcore bands, and has been mythologised to a degree that beggars belief, frankly. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for overlinking - for example, don't need to link WGTB twice in one paragraph.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How old were MacKaye, Nelson, et al when they started playing in The Slinkees? Were they all in high school?
Would have been about 16, but I clarified as "teengaers". Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After about local twelve concerts" - what?
Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teen Idles decided to tour the US West Coast during in August 1980" - decided on their own - no sponsor? Did they have gigs lined up or did they just show up at each city and try to find a spot to play? How difficult was it usually for this kind of tour without being on a label of any sort?
  • Why were they hassled by police?
In the late 70s, US punks were routienly beaten up on the street by concerned members of the public, and because a number of them were also squatters, they were tarnished and seemed to have been espically targeted by The Man. Rollins has been very articulate about this, and a friend of the band, and hammered by dudes with mullets and moustashes a good few times; tring to find the copy of the autobio of his I know is somewhere in my attic.Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is good background to have, and I think it should be included in the article for people like me who are unfamiliar with the history of punk. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People were freaked out by how fast we were" - fast at what?
Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info about Inner Ear/Don Zientera is not presented in the best way - it doesn't flow well at all
Reworded to make a bit clearer. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that perhaps too much detail to have? It still doesn't read very well to me. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grindle's disillusionment with the band" - what disillusionment - that they weren't successful, that he didn't like touring, that he was getting tired of his bandmates?
  • not sure what this means - "was a key event for all-ages shows"
Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite get the inclusion of the story about the Xs for underage club goers. What is the purpose of its inclusion?
Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • any info on how many copies, total, they sold of their album or of the 1996 issue of their demo sessions?
Not very many, likely less than 1500 at the time. This kind of info is usually paticularly hard to find for independant releases. As the figures are so low (the phrase is more talked about than heard), labels tend to be silent as to the actual volume. Marketing, see. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • did the album get airplay around the country? was their music ever played overseas?
This is covered by the "one of the first to break out of their regional scene" statement. Can find no info re oversees. Germany would be the most likely place they would have recieved attention, but I can't speak German well enough to trawl the web archives of their radio stations. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sentences with quotations need a citation, even if that means the citation is duplicated in subsequent sentences.
Done, as far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the X is explained again later - perhaps just leave it out of the first section?
  • The X stuff makes more sense to me, but the article has not fleshed out how this was "a key event for the popularity of all-ages shows". Obviously, this had been done before in California. What made this particular show a key event? What impact did it have in the future? Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, all of you points are astute, but all can be resolved. Will let you know when the corrections have been made. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved - thanks Ceoil! A few more issues:

  • Probably need a cite for "The band adopted the marking, and though it was initially meant to signify youth, it became a wider emblem for bands prepared to play to audiences under the legal age to be served alcohol."
  • Perhaps straight edge could be explained a bit? I had to follow the wikilink to figure out what it was.
  • Should the lead clarify that the record label was created specifically for this band?

Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sound samples possible? indopug (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This FAC seems to be stalled, I'm asking for reviewers to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of my concerns above still stand. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which ones have been addressed/still stand? Thanks for your edits so far. CloudNine (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article still doesn't discuss the issue of the band's youth (other than the fact that they were underage). I think this deserves a little more prominence in the article—not just saying they were teenagers, but talking about how this affected their place in the local punk scene. Dance of Days has some good material on this. Also, did the band influence straight edge in any way other than introducing the black X's? If so, that should be mentioned. Finally, I still think the article could use some more book citations, although this has improved substantially since the article was nominated. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (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 User:Maralia (18:21, 1 December 2008) [62].

Truong Dinh

[edit]
Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!)

Vietnamese militant leader, fought against French invasion in the 1860s... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I was hoping that discovering the specific museum might lead to specific author information, but apparently not. I've marked the author as "unknown". We'll work on the presumption he died at a normal age. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goody. reinstated. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Tu Duc.jpg - Can we get some verification that this is indeed a 19th-century drawing? Does one of your books discuss it, for example?

These should be easy issues to rectify. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first and commented out the second. It's probably scanned from some old thing but not used in any books I could find. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article contains a lot of good information, but I think it still needs some polishing. I also have concerns about one source:

  • I'm a little uneasy about the balance of this article - over half of it is dedicated to an exploration of the historiographical debates surrounding Dinh. I'm wondering if this is the appropriate balance for a biography article. I hesitate to ask you to restructure the article and to place the details about Dinh's disputes with Hue in the body of the biography because I know nothing about this time in Vietnam's history. Help me understand this choice better. :)
  • Is there any other information about Dinh's wife? We hear that he marries this woman and then that she gets a good pension after his death. Anything else about their life together?
Unfortunately, the old Confucian Vietnamese history style is to deliberately stay mute about wives (or mistresses) of public officials and mandarins. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever scholars are named in the next, please identify them and their expertise.
  • Dinh took advantage of his improved socio-economic status to recruit a group of impoverished people, whom he organised for clearing land and founding a đồn điền (military colony) in Go Cong. - awkward construction - It seems odd to pair clearing land and founding a colony - one seems like such a vaster undertaking than the other.
  • This occurred after Emperor Tu Duc's 1854 order, which granted General Nguyen Tri Phuong permission to organise southern levies in this manner. - I did not understand the connection between the military colony described in the previous sentence and the information in this sentence.
  • The first paragraph of "French invasion of 1859" does not flow well - it starts out with the attack and then gives the reasons for the attack. What do you think about presenting the reasons first and then the actual attack? This would also make the following paragraph, which begins with the razing of the Citadel, flow more seamlessly into the narrative.
  • Around 150 guerrillas commanded by Truc ambushed the vessel, killing some of the crew before sinking and burning the boat. - The boat was first sunk and the burned or first burned and then sunk?
Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the overall Vietnamese military performance was not as successful. - Since this sentence is at the beginning of a section, its comparisons need to be explicit - "not as successful" as what?
Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The treaty was accompanied by financial compensation to France - Why was France receiving financial compensation?
War reparations/punitive taxation. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make this explicit in the article? Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actions of Dinh in the wake of the Treaty of Saigon has long been a bone of contention - colloquial and not entirely clear - be explicit that it is the French and Vietnamese doing the contesting
Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French had long accused Huế of surreptitiously supporting Dinh in contravention of the treaty - Do the French no longer do this? Is it really "had" or should it be "have"?
I think saying that they "did" is what is needed, as this is what they said in the 1860s. I don't think the French govt/army cares about it now frankly. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs explaining the French view that the Hue court violated the treaty in the "Defiance of Hue" section could be condensed - there is some repetition in them.
  • The paragraphs explaining the Vietnamese view regarding the violation of the treaty in the "Defiance of Hue" section could be trimmed, perhaps by removing a quotation or two.
  • In light of Dinh's disobedience of Tu Duc, his justification for his defiance is discussed against the backdrop of the Confucian expectation for him to defer to the emperor's "mandate of heaven". - This sentence is hard to follow - perhaps an inversion is in order? Begin with Confucius and the mandate of heaven?
  • The above postulated explanations of Dinh's behaviour are seen as plausible, given the chaos engulfing Vietnam at the time and the lack of conclusive documentation. - Seen as plausible by whom? Since this is a controversial area of history, we should probably be explicit.
done. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about putting the lines from Nguyen Dinh Chieu's poem about Dinh in a quote box?
  • The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section seems to belong in one of the sections about the historiographical debate.
  • Nguyen, Thanh Thi (1992). The French conquest of Cochinchina, 1858–1862. University Microfilms International - Is this is a PhD dissertation? How do we feel about using dissertations as sources? Frankly, I wouldn't use one unless I saw it cited in other scholarly works as some sort of groundbreaking dissertation. Most dissertations aren't worth much - the only worthwhile parts get published as real journal articles anyway. (I say this as a dissertation writer, sadly.) This source is used a lot in the article, so I think we need to extra careful.
It's cited by thsi book on googl books by Choi Byung Wook. Usually I wouldn't pay attention to PhD theses too much, but this one was done at Cornell, where there is a big SE Asia history program and her supervisors have written a few notable books and have chaired a few conferences on Vietnam and such and their conference proceedings are turned into books. It seems to available in a few Australian unis in hardcopy, does that mean it that it was a relatively influential one? The other thing is that the source was mainly used to raw events, such as various military engagements. All the parts abour style and character and conjecture/inferences etc, were from journal articles and textbooks by staff academics I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable professors who were there include John K. Whitmore, David G. Marr, Keith Taylor, example conference - [63]. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about the person's supervisors doesn't wash. This person's work has to stand on its own. It doesn't matter, for example, that my dissertation director is a world-famous novel scholar and an Austen expert. If I want to be taken seriously in Austen studies, I have to publish something myself. What has Nguyen published? What conferences has s/he appeared at? If the dissertation was published in hardcopy, that might indicate someone thought it was important, but the true test of importance in scholarship is citation. If the dissertation is only cited in one book, I would be worried (is that book her dissertation director's book? even worse!) Dissertations are not rigorously fact-checked, so I really think this source should be replaced if we can't find better evidence of its importance. Awadewit (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, okay, I'll wait and see what unfolds. No, the guy who cited it was not her professor. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second cite [64]. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these seminal books on this topic? And we still have only two? Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copyedited this article a bit while I was reading it, but I would like to see another copyeditor go over this article - there are some wordy passages. Find a copyeditor who can reduce redundancy. I'm not the best person for that. :)
  • Now that dates no longer have to be linked, you might think about unlinking the dates in this article.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Williams (ed.) (2003), p. 739.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2008&oldid=260621805"