Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2008
January 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 01:18, 23 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has improved significantly in the past month, and has been through a peer review and has been granted GA-status. Article is similar, though by nature more limited, to Tulsa, Oklahoma and Houston, Texas both FAs.Grey Wanderer | Talk 07:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments:
- issues on internal links as per MOS:LINK
- English words used in the common sense are not be linked. Examples: nicknames, education, medical, technology, insurance, bachelor's degrees, graduate degrees, etc.
- It's more helpful to link a word, if it's linked at all, when it first appears in the article. Examples: United States, University of Columbia
-
- In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line.
added I think I got them all, anybody willing to double check would be welcome.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's helpful to provide conversions to and from metric and US units. The template {{convert}} might be useful.
- added
- The lead might need some cleanup. For instance, the paragraph about Columbia history can be summarized in a sentence or two, and the rest can be discussed in the history section.
- done I summarized the history section in three sentences and combined it with the rest of the intro, instead of giving it it's own paragraph.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the geography section, it seems that the climate subsection is not needed; it might be combined with the lead. It might also be helpful to write a sentence or two that summarizes the climate table. References are also needed in this section.
- The section on media is too short and might be combined with another section like demography.
- expanded by User:Breakyunit-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more citations are needed in the sections culture and demography, especially for the figures in demography. Josuechan (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for now.
- The geography section is small...the prose is choppy. I would merge & summarize Geography and city scape
- There is hardly any information about the economy of the city...it says Columbia accounts for 3% of MO's GDSP...how much is that ($ value)? You could move some of the information from demographics (unemployment rate, per capita, etc) to this section.
- The sister cities section should be added below the media section
- The format used on the FA Tulsa, Oklahoma is to make the sister cities a subsection of Government and law, this avoids creating a whole section just for that. Let me know if you still think it should be changed.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Response: Haven't had a chance to take a look at the recent modifications as yet...I'll do so tomorrow and provide any additional thoughts. Good job addressing FAC comments though. AreJay (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this article starts off strong but a couple of sections in the article need some more work. AreJay (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the significant unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process. Tony (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
- check links —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
After a fairly straight-forward GA nomination, I am confident in the overall quality of this article and would like to give FA a shot. Ian Svenonius is a somewhat unknown/obscure musician, and this article represents the sum total of all the information I've been able to find. To my knowledge it is easily the best resource available anywhere on the subject. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - As per my (rather extensive, I like to think) GA review. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: there are too short sections (such "background"); it's GA. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. "Too short" isn't really an actionable criticism, nor does length have anything to do with the FA criteria. To quote from the criteria directly, an article must be " "Comprehensive" [meaning] that the article does not neglect major facts and details." In my opinion the article covers all the bases without going into unnecessary details that don't relate to the person. The article could, for instance go into more details about his individual bands/projects, but most of that content is better suited for the bands' pages, not this one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- This Oppose is not actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I'm changing my vote to neutral. I'm not familiar enough with some of the remaining sources to judge how reliable they are. I think the improvements that have been made to the article make it flow better, and it reads clearly. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose. I am concerned with the quality of the sources listed, and I think the article does not flow very well; too many short paragraphs and short sections break up the flow.
Too many of the sentences begin with "Svenonious". Can some of them be rewritten to vary the word choice and improve the flow?After the first time you refer to him, he should only be referred to as his surname, not his full name or first name.I don't think "posthumous" is the right way to describe the compilation of singles; that is generally understood to mean that a person is dead.There are a lot of very short paragraphs. Can some of these be combined?Better! Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)The Discography section needs to be expanded. For the section which include only a Main article link, try to summarize the other article in prose (possibly by taking some of the lead sections).- Many of your sources don't appear to be reliable sources. For example Brightest Young Things appears to be a fansite with random postings, as do some of the others, while the record sites are not third-party sources. Has he been covered in other secondary sources?
Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Karanacs. Many of your comments echo similar concerns I have with the article, so any suggestions you might have for them would be helpful.
- Fixed some cases of the sentences starting with Svenonius. Now there's only 4 sentences that still start with his name, and those are sentences that would've flowed awkwardly if I had changed them too much.
- Fixed all the cases of "Ian Svenonius" after the first time.
- I combined some paragraphs here and there. There's still a couple small ones, but they don't really flow into any of the surrounding paragraphs. If you think its still a problem I could do some more editing here and there.
- For some reason posthumous is a word that gets mentioned in every FAC/FLC/GAC, anything! Yes, it is the correct word choice, since the album was released after the "death" of the group. See Category:Posthumous albums for plenty of similar examples.
- The Discography section did seem a little strange. I expanded it a bit to include major releases, and I think it looks much better.
- As for the sources: I cited the Brightest Young Things source not so much as a source in and of itself, but as a transcript of the original Sassy article which isn't available online anywhere else. If you like I can take it down, but I think it's particularly helpful to be able to read a transcript of the article. As for the other sources, and whether or not they are reliable, I think the sources strike a nice balance. Sure some sources are from the labels, but there are also many from All Music Guide, eNotes, Washington Post, Vice, Pitchfork media, etc. In all, there are about 15 first-party sources, and 15 third-party sources, which seems like a pretty even balance to me. That said, I could rely on the third-party sources a bit more, so I'll see what I can do.Drewcifer (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- You did a lot of work quickly, thanks! It's already looking better. Let me know if you are able to use more third-party sources. For the reprints of articles, I would reformat the source to mention that it is XXX article from YYY magazine, reprinted at .... Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did a bit of work with the sources, and although it's a subtle difference I think it's an improvement. (diff) The majority of what I did was just find info cited to 1st party sources, and wherever possible swapped it with a 3rd party source. There's still some instances of 1st party sources (mostly quotations I think), but the balance is a little bit more towards 3rd party sources now. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments:Support all of my comments have been addressed. Good work! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)- "These groups have all been based in Washington, D.C." could be efficiently merged with the previous sentence.
Done
- I don't think that the term "militant vegan" is backed up by the reference.
- Done
- The first time in the article's main body that instruments are mentioned they should be linked.
- Done
- Sassy Magazine should always be italicized.
- Done
- The Sassy paragraph really ought to be expanded. It says that Svenonius went "into some depth about the band's sound and political motivations." Care to elaborate on what those sounds and motivations actually were?
- Done Expanded the section a bit.
- "The Make-Up" section seems a bit short, especially considering how much detail is present in that article. Some more information on the group's politics, sound and live performance style could help, particularly any aspects centered more around Svenonius.
- Done Expanded a bit with an extra paragraph.
- "Svenonius, Mae, and Minoff are now part of Weird War." redundant sentence, explained later.
- Done
- As David Candy is actually one of Svenonius's solo projects, a bit more detail could be added.
- I wish there was more to say, but as you can see from the David Candy article itself, there really isn't alot of information. Besides, most of the David Candy article is borderline OR - the David Candy material presented on the Svenonius page is pretty much the only sourceable stuff there is.
- A specific section encompassing Svenonius's political views and musical style would be nice, but it isn't really necessary so long as that information is presented elsewhere.
- Well, I'm not really sure a musical style section would be relevant, since all of his bands/projects sound vastly different. But a political views section might be worthwhile. I'll see what I can do.
- I added a little bit along those lines. I'm a little hesistant to go into too much detail, since these things are so closely tied to the bands, and I could just see the section turning into a rehashing of what the band's were about, which is already explained above.
- Well, I'm not really sure a musical style section would be relevant, since all of his bands/projects sound vastly different. But a political views section might be worthwhile. I'll see what I can do.
Otherwise the article looks good, and very deserving of featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please check the dead links report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what the check links thing is used for. Is this a new feature I'm not aware of? Drewcifer (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's the link at the top of this page;[3] it indicates a 404, not found error on a Vice TV [typepad.com] source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what the check links thing is used for. Is this a new feature I'm not aware of? Drewcifer (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—This is not nearly well enough written. I've picked out random issues at the top to illustrate why a complete and thorough copy-edit is essential.
- Thanks for the suggestions! These are the kinds of minor things it's difficult to notice after I've read the same words a million times over, so I appreciate you pointing them out.
- MOS breach: see logical punctuation under Quotations. Audit throughout, looking for quotes that start within a Wikipedia sentence.
- Done This is one part of the MoS I really disagree with, but I know better than to argue with the MoS.
- "countless singles"—too many to count? Great pity to avoid giving at least some indication (more than 30?).
- Done Replaced it with a much more useful tally of singles, EPs, and splits.
- "Currently"—one of those chronological terms that will become a distortion soon.
- Done
- Remove both "alsos" from the "Background" section. The last sentence in that section combines apples and oranges.
- Done Kind of. Removed the first also and split up the last sentence. The last also seems necessary though, since it wouldn't flow as well without it. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the word, right?
- "musical formation"—vague. Then "formation" "formed" repetition.
- Done Kind of. Fixed "musical formation". I'm not sure what you mean by formed repetition. You mean how each section says soemthing like "The _ formed in 1999"? I don't see what's wrong with that, unless you have suggestions.
- "And WAS known as".
- I'm not sure what sentence you are referring to. Is it "and known simply as "Ulysses"."? There's nothing wrong with either way or saying it, really.
Nearly every sentence requires surgery. For example: "Nation of Ulysses was known for their extremely physical performances, during some of which Svenonius recalls breaking his arm, his leg, and breaking his head open on numerous occasions." Tension between "some" and "numerous". "Breaking" twice, but missing from the second item. Needs recasting. Tony (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I believe I originally worded it the way it was because any other way didn't really work. I redid the sentence a little bit, but it's a difficult sentence to make any less awkward.
- "going into some depth about"—what exactly does "some" add?
- Done Reworded.
Comment - Is it neccesary to have the record label names in the discography section? The first sentence of the lead is really awkward - what about his nationality etc? Why does it start "IS has been..."? (more later) indopug (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I don't think there's much of a consensus as far as the label names goes: some FAs have them some don't. I'd argue that it is helpful in this case since his output spans many years, projects, and labels. I worked on the first sentence a bit, hopefully it reads a little better. If there's more stuff, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Change from British to American prose: "the band were" to "the band was". I don't understand what "The Make-Up dissolved early in 2001, and a year later, Svenonius formed the band Weird War, who are also known briefly known as Scene Creamers, in which he is still active." is supposed to mean. The lead has gross overlinking. "He attended the Corcoran College of Art and Design, where he studied fine art" to "He studied fine art at the Corcoran College of Art and Design." "The Nation of Ulysses described themselves as a rock and roll group in the traditional sense, but "as a political party"[2] and as "a shout of secession"." - is that right? Why is there a "but"? I think you missed a "not" or somewhere. I dont get the "In 1991, before the band had released any official recordings...: paragraph, is that supposed to be sarcastic/ironic or something? "Between his projects, Svenonius has released.." reads as if in-between his different groups he released all that. indopug (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're referencing with the band were/band was thing.
- Fixed up the Weird War/Scene Creamers sentence in the lead.
- Removed about half the unnecessary links in the lead.
- Reworded the fine art studying sentence.
- You're right, the NoU sentence was missing "not."
- I'm not sure what you mean with the "In 1991.." sentence being ironic. Just pointing out the chronology is all.
- Changed "Between" to "With" though I don't think that's the ideal word for that sentence...Drewcifer (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Change from British to American prose: "the band were" to "the band was". I don't understand what "The Make-Up dissolved early in 2001, and a year later, Svenonius formed the band Weird War, who are also known briefly known as Scene Creamers, in which he is still active." is supposed to mean. The lead has gross overlinking. "He attended the Corcoran College of Art and Design, where he studied fine art" to "He studied fine art at the Corcoran College of Art and Design." "The Nation of Ulysses described themselves as a rock and roll group in the traditional sense, but "as a political party"[2] and as "a shout of secession"." - is that right? Why is there a "but"? I think you missed a "not" or somewhere. I dont get the "In 1991, before the band had released any official recordings...: paragraph, is that supposed to be sarcastic/ironic or something? "Between his projects, Svenonius has released.." reads as if in-between his different groups he released all that. indopug (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find the usage of parenthesis generally
objectionable and that flow can be improved by removing them. Example 1: "Svenonius formed the band [Scene Creamers, later renamed] Weird War[,](also known briefly known as Scene Creamers) in which he is still active." - is this accurate? Example 2: "featured Neil Hagerty [,](of Royal Trux[,])Example 3: "Thomson[,](of the group Trans Am[,])on drums," --- if this doesn't work, it is because the information is truly superfluous, with few exceptions, especially in the case of shorter parenthesis. I am very amenable to elaborate and expound on this comment. Thank you for reading, Kiyarrllston 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments! I went through the article and did various things with various parenthes. However, I did leave one, since gramatically speaking, parenthesis aren't neccessarily a bad thing, and in the one case I left it was gramatically appropriate (a fact as an informative aside). You were right about the others though, most of them read much better without them. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- objection Addressed, you're very welcome.--Kiyarrllston 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me regarding this FAC. I have re-read the article. -I Weakly Oppose the promotion of this article to FA status. The complaint I have is regarding a feeling that the article could be more comprehensive and better organized. A clue to this is the number of citations - I would expect at least around 50. The organization is unusual for a biographical article - Background is hardly ever a part of a Biography, and more common in History articles; it in fact talks about Early life, Family, and notes that he is a vegan. These do not quite constitute a background to the story of his life... Is no account of his early life available?- "Politics" would be better titled "Political Persuation" or "Political Views" as it doesn't describe political actions but political leanings. - What do you think of splitting up the "Other projects" topic into: "Disc Jockey" "Writer" and "Actor" or similar? - thank you for reading this comment. I very much hope you will feel free to notify me whenever I can be of assistance.--Kiyarrllston 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your comments. I'll try and address everything. As I said in the nomination, this article is an amalgamation of pretty much all of the information out there about Svenonius. So unfortunately additional information about his early life just isn't available. However, as another editor of the article has pointed out on a few occasions, Svenonius is notable for his roles in various musical formations, not for being a vegan and not for who his parents are. That said, I see the early life stuff really as extra information: not necessarily notable, but nice to have to whatever extent is possible. And really that's what a similar section in any article is, FA included: somewhat irrelevant information about someone notable for something else, to the limited extent that it is available. Would knowing what elementary school he went to, for example, really make the article more comprehensive, in the sense that it covers all the important bases, or just add extra padding? I would argue the latter. I think that looking only at the number of citations is a bit of a red herring, as well: the true test is the quality of the sources, not the number. I believe there is a pretty good mix of reliable sources here: some interviews (ie direct quotes), some 1st party (record labels), some 3rd party (NY Times, All Music Guide). And really, altough there is only 33 sources provided, the number of in-line citations is much more (54 in total, I believe). As for the other stuff, I've changed the name of the Politics section to "Political views", per your suggestion. I'm not sure about splitting up the Other projects section though, as you suggested. That section covers alot of miscellaneous bases, and to split everything up into numerous sections and subsections would result in a very fragmented, strange read, in my opinion. For example, a "Disc jockey" section, as you suggested, would be one sentence, as would a "Writer" section and "Actor" section. Drewcifer (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for your warm reception to my comments.
- well - let me see - regarding the organization:
- "Disc Jockeying" would probably fit well within musical projects, and Writer section would include the "Soviet" collection of things he wrote, - leaving just actor - don't you think so? - i think you exagerate on them all being one sentence affairs.
- I don't know where the fact that he is a vegan fits exactly, but - the background section does look fragmented and truly on "miscelanea" rather than background
- I understand that it might currently be an amalgamation, I think FA quality means better writing style in the form of better organization than currently.
- I previously said to change the name of "Politics" to "Political beliefs" (or similar) - what did/do you think of this?
- regarding the comprehensiveness:
- As to early life - I mean obviously important things from his childhood - things that would be encyclopedic. - growing up in the suburbs vs. in the city, in homogeneous vs. in diverse, in a traditional envirionment vs. in a free one - I don't know - stuff that's not trivia.
- I said the number of citations was a clue - I didn't mean to stress the clue - ummm... - red herring is a pretty interesting article. - umm I do think the number is useful - in this case it might be only regarding the fact that Ian Svenonius is not regarded notable enough by the world community to have a large amount of work regarding his life...
- If he's a vegan - and he's notable for being a vegan - couldn't this be elaborated on? - why is he a vegan? 'Could this be part of a section called "Political beliefs" or "Personal beliefs"?
- I hope I am clear - please feel free to ask and/or discuss anything. Please let me know if you consider my comments helpful in improving the article
- --Kiyarrllston 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your comments. I'll try and address everything. As I said in the nomination, this article is an amalgamation of pretty much all of the information out there about Svenonius. So unfortunately additional information about his early life just isn't available. However, as another editor of the article has pointed out on a few occasions, Svenonius is notable for his roles in various musical formations, not for being a vegan and not for who his parents are. That said, I see the early life stuff really as extra information: not necessarily notable, but nice to have to whatever extent is possible. And really that's what a similar section in any article is, FA included: somewhat irrelevant information about someone notable for something else, to the limited extent that it is available. Would knowing what elementary school he went to, for example, really make the article more comprehensive, in the sense that it covers all the important bases, or just add extra padding? I would argue the latter. I think that looking only at the number of citations is a bit of a red herring, as well: the true test is the quality of the sources, not the number. I believe there is a pretty good mix of reliable sources here: some interviews (ie direct quotes), some 1st party (record labels), some 3rd party (NY Times, All Music Guide). And really, altough there is only 33 sources provided, the number of in-line citations is much more (54 in total, I believe). As for the other stuff, I've changed the name of the Politics section to "Political views", per your suggestion. I'm not sure about splitting up the Other projects section though, as you suggested. That section covers alot of miscellaneous bases, and to split everything up into numerous sections and subsections would result in a very fragmented, strange read, in my opinion. For example, a "Disc jockey" section, as you suggested, would be one sentence, as would a "Writer" section and "Actor" section. Drewcifer (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Retracting FA candidacy Svenonius himself contacted me today, and he expressed some dissatisfaction and discomfort with some of the information in the article. So, I've edited the article to ease his worries, but done so to an extent that a shot at FA seems impossible now. Thanks for everyone's comments. Drewcifer (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Should we really exclude information because of his personal preference? If he thinks that the information is inaccurate, that's different, but if he thinks that the information is private then that may be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problem. I mean, I'd hate to be involved in a perceived violation of privacy. However, if this information is freely available in the sources you used then it really doesn't make a huge difference. But anyway, I'm not really involved with this article, so I think that whatever choice you make is the right one.
- Additionally: You removed the mention of Svenonius's veganism from the text but didn't remove the article, and you should either remove or keep both. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- agree with Brandt Luke Zorn--Kiyarrllston 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by didn't remove the article... Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think Brandt meant the American vegans category. Not sure what the position is on removing personal information on request though. CloudNine (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by didn't remove the article... Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- agree with Brandt Luke Zorn--Kiyarrllston 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the unresolved external links; there are problems with southern.net and southern.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
I've been working on this article for a while now, and have done my utmost to write a balanced, verifiable and well-written article. Personally, I feel that the article meets the FA criteria, but I'm hoping for constructive criticism that I can respond to and thus improve the article. Thanks Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm getting to it now—a user nominated about a week ago without contributing or acknowledging that I was preparing for FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, the peer review has been archived—it should never have been placed for peer review in the first place, really. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm getting to it now—a user nominated about a week ago without contributing or acknowledging that I was preparing for FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Peer review was a good place for it, because it would get other editors to look at the article; that having been said, this article isn't even GA-Class, so that's why I went that route. --Son (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Maybe a
passableGA, but an FA is too much for the article, methinks. The lack of hierarchical sections is particularly bothersome to me. The trophies section is given too much weight, and should be placed in the "Gameplay" section with a level 3 heading. Too much focus is placed on the gameplay and not on the critical reception. The lead also seems to lengthy and detailed. bibliomaniac15 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)- It's much better. In regards to the reception section, you mention praise for the multiplayer mode, the game's "hyper-responsiveness," and lack of originality. Could you elaborate on those with quotes from the reviewers? Also, be careful of punctuation and quotation marks. Be consistent with either the American way (punctuation within the quotes) or the British way (punctuation outside). bibliomaniac15 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "too lengthy and detailed"? I've cut down on the lead drastically—I honestly feel that a lead of that length is necessary to give an adequate and comprehensive summary of the article, but I must concede defeat as two admins feel that it's excessive. I've now fixed the heirarchical headings and "trophies", by the way. As for reception, I felt that five paragraphs should suffice—is there any topic relating to reception in particular you feel that needs expanding? As for gameplay, I'll work on cutting it down. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's late, so I'm not doing anything now in fear loads of typos resulting from lack of concentration. I've now realised that the reception section seems short compared to the VG FAs, so I'll add a large paragraph to that and elaborate upon the things that you've mentioned tomorrow. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Lead cut down; reception greatly expanded; heirarchical headings added; "trophies" cut down and integrated into gameplay; quotations all conform to AmE; soundtrack hidden table added. Anything else? Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose all references should be formatted the same way (wikilink the dates, too). Source this statement: "Smash Brothers Melee also made it into the Evolution Tournament of Fighting in 2007, a fighting game tournament held in Las Vegas, considered to be one of the largest fighting game tournaments in the world." I'll look for more soon. David Fuchs (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Changing to conditional support; full support when/if Clyde's objections are addressed. Good work. David Fuchs (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've sourced that statement, although I've removed the "considered to be one of the largest fighting game tournaments in the world" as it's simply not verifiable. All refs have now been formatted the same except the refs for magazines, which are different from website references. As for wikilinks, I already thought they were linked—could you be more specific? Ashnard Talk Contribs 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I mean the dates in the references, for example ref number 40. If they were all unwikilinked I'd be fine, but consistency is best. David Fuchs (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aargh; found the problem. I've inputted "7" as opposed to "07" for the dates, which annuls the link. Thanks for the spot; I'll fix it later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Reference dates fixed. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aargh; found the problem. I've inputted "7" as opposed to "07" for the dates, which annuls the link. Thanks for the spot; I'll fix it later. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I mean the dates in the references, for example ref number 40. If they were all unwikilinked I'd be fine, but consistency is best. David Fuchs (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. The Music section is too short and don't use a table like that because some browsers will not show it properly. Also, references 1 and 59 have formatting problems. You forgot to put a space after the reference. The article needs a copy-edit. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can have a "per above" oppose when I've basically fixed everything mentioned above. I've omitted the table and fixed the reference problem. No spaces after a reference—what an unsalvageable disaster. Ashnard Talk Contribs 06:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: A quick review of User:Kaypoh contribution page may shed some light on this oppose and the so many many others they have done this last few weeks. It can be frustrating when the turn-over time between reviews of someone "voting" is only minutes. In the last week the number of critiques they have completed has been astronomical. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
CommentSupportHas potential. Some things, mostly reference related:- This should be in gameplay, not the lead, or maybe keep only part of it.
Melee's gameplay system offers an unorthodox approach to the "fighter" genre as each character doesn't have an individual health bar, by which the player will die if it reaches zero.[2] Instead, the game is based on a "percentage system" by which increased hits on a player raises their percentage; the higher the percentage, the more likely it is for the character to be knocked off the stage.
- Done Shortened
- "inflicting damage does not always mean victory" probably should be "inflicting damage does not guarantee victory."
- Done Reworded
- "The higher the percentage value, the weaker the player is, and the easier they are to knock off the stage." OR. Perhaps a place the manual can reference?
- Done Done an IGN ref
- "As well as this..." Weak transition; perhaps additionally or something equally focused.
- Done Used additionally
- "During battles, items related to Nintendo games or merchandise fall onto the game field." This could use a ref. How do we know its items related to Nintendo and not just any item they designed?
- Done Referenced IGN guide again
- "Although the stages are rendered in the third-dimension, players cannot move along the Z-axis in any of them. Not all stages are available immediately, so some stages have to be obtained by the player by meeting particular requirements." Can these two be referenced?
- Done Half-way anyway. I cited the second statement, but I simply couldn't find a ref for the first
- Nothing in multiplayer is referenced with the exception of coins. Does ref 19 and 4 cover all of that material?
- Done Added two refs
- "Each of the trophies includes a description of the particular subject and details the year and the game in which the subject first appeared." This can be OR. Someone could turn on the game, see that, and add it.
- Done Added reference
- "All of the characters—except Mr. Game and Watch—are characterized in three dimensions even though their game of origin may have been drastically different to the graphical style of Super Smash Bros Melee." Who said this?
- Done Deleted this statement—it just seemed a flimsy observation
- "For the Ice Climbers," Another weak transition; see what you can do with it.
- Done Replaced with additionally
- Make sure you have removed all passive voice from the article (I.E. No "was first shown" "was developed" "was released")
- Done Half-way anyway. I've changed it when I saw it, but I may have missed some
- Legacy and sequel section is a bit...misnamed. Tournaments might deserve a subheading here as its not normally what you find in a legacy, and Legacy has a little to much info on Brawl. We want to mention that the game had a sequel, but what does stuff like "Brawl is the first game of the series to incorporate characters outside of Nintendo franchises, relating to the inclusion of Sonic the Hedgehog and Solid Snake from Sega and Konami respectively." have to do with the article on SSBM?
- Done The Tournament section seems too short for its own section, so I've placed a level-three subheading under legacy and removed that statement. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll look again after this stuff is addressed.--CM (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you and I have a different perception of what constitutes OR. As for the lead, I'll say this again: its supposed to be built as a summary, meaning that the reader can have a very good idea of the article by the lead only. I can't just omit any reference to gameplay. Too many VG articles seem to have a lead that mention nothing of gameplay, only the genre. Thnaks for the comments though, I'll get working on it soon. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- When I read it, it felt like you were introducing and fully explaining an aspect of gameplay, not summarizing it. From the look of it, the gameplay paragraph is still about the size of the other two paragraphs combined. Considering you have one sentence on playable characters, one on tournaments, two on reception, two on development, and four on gameplay, it caught my attention. I was looking for a constructive way to resize it.--CM (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you and I have a different perception of what constitutes OR. As for the lead, I'll say this again: its supposed to be built as a summary, meaning that the reader can have a very good idea of the article by the lead only. I can't just omit any reference to gameplay. Too many VG articles seem to have a lead that mention nothing of gameplay, only the genre. Thnaks for the comments though, I'll get working on it soon. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a more succinct way to word it, so I've deleted the explanation and reworded the sentence. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is still more passive voice. There's some in the last paragraphs of development, then some more going all the way to the end of the article. If you have a "find in this page" or "find" button, its not too hard to do. I see eight in dev., one in music, two in reception and five in L&S. Also "almost every single move" probably should be reworded or consider cutting out single.--CM (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a more succinct way to word it, so I've deleted the explanation and reworded the sentence. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've reworded that sentence. As for the passive voice, I've just fixed quite alot now, but there's probably some lurking about. I'm not sure what you mean by a "find in this page" button, though. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's still some more. If you have firefox (don't know about Internet Explorer) go to edit, then find. A tiny window pops up, and you can input words to find them in the page.--CM (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've reworded that sentence. As for the passive voice, I've just fixed quite alot now, but there's probably some lurking about. I'm not sure what you mean by a "find in this page" button, though. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have that, but at the severe risk of sounding stupid, how do you use it to find the passive voice when you're just inputting words yourself? Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was will do it. If you find a was then a verb (was made, was announced) you got yourself a passive voice. Any form of be (was, were) with a verb means you have a passive voice as well. The prose isn't as compelling or as tight, at least that's been my experience. If you try to remove all passive voice, redundancies are eliminated, and sentences are more to the point. --CM (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done As compelling as what? Anywho, I've gave it the runover with the "find" button. Anyhting else? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Active voice (is more compelling). There's a "was supposed" still, and I question the mdash in this quote "have questioned its status as a fighting game—[59] GamePro summed Melee as..." Why not just a semicolon? However, these are minor, and I will change to support. Good work. As a final note, you may want to keep on eye on Brawl to keep this article relevant and correct. I doubt it will affect this article to any worrisome degree, however.--CM (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed them now. It's been a pleasure, Clyde. I'll now use that "find" technique to rid any future articles that I may work on of the passive voice. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as not up to FA standard. Too many unnecessary details - do we really need an instruction manual style description of single and multiplayer? In fact, the gameplay and character section should be reduced and more basic context needs to be provided. Also, and this is I admit a stylistic point and not necessarily actionable, but the article is quite boring to read as it is written. Eusebeus (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- "quite boring to read as it is written."—I don't follow. Can you explain this please? Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. To those not familiar with the game, the lede provides little reason for wanting to learn more about it; the remaining article is likewise a dull slog through uninteresting details. We don't restrict FAs for being of limited interest or scope, so it is not an actionable issue, unlike the prose & presentation. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interest is, at its core, based on the reader. Leads can be compelling, but I don't think even the best lead could interest me in something like say, High School Musical or Thermal conductivity. It appears you don't find this topic very interesting. What you may consider "a dull slog through uninteresting details" someone else may see as facts about the highest selling video game for Gamecube (best chance within the lead to grab the reader). The article needs to be comprehensive, and to remove large chunks of gameplay and characters wouldn't give the reader a good grasp of how the game is played. Most importantly, I don't understand why you mention you think the article is boring; you yourself say it is not actionable, and it does nothing more than bring down the nominator. Instead, where do you think the article lacked sufficient basic context for the reader's understanding, and what are some spots in gameplay and characters where it could use the chopping board?--CM (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The writing usually has something to do with it. This is simply not written to FA quality. Eusebeus (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean—it's not engaging or it gives undue weight to particular aspects? You're comments just aren't helping me to improve the article right now. Please specify. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The writing usually has something to do with it. This is simply not written to FA quality. Eusebeus (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interest is, at its core, based on the reader. Leads can be compelling, but I don't think even the best lead could interest me in something like say, High School Musical or Thermal conductivity. It appears you don't find this topic very interesting. What you may consider "a dull slog through uninteresting details" someone else may see as facts about the highest selling video game for Gamecube (best chance within the lead to grab the reader). The article needs to be comprehensive, and to remove large chunks of gameplay and characters wouldn't give the reader a good grasp of how the game is played. Most importantly, I don't understand why you mention you think the article is boring; you yourself say it is not actionable, and it does nothing more than bring down the nominator. Instead, where do you think the article lacked sufficient basic context for the reader's understanding, and what are some spots in gameplay and characters where it could use the chopping board?--CM (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. To those not familiar with the game, the lede provides little reason for wanting to learn more about it; the remaining article is likewise a dull slog through uninteresting details. We don't restrict FAs for being of limited interest or scope, so it is not an actionable issue, unlike the prose & presentation. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Eusebeus on writing style needing improvement
Query "During this time, IVGF gave out a record" - what was the specific record broken? "most money paid out in videogame contest"? was it in Guiness Book of World Records? I see no source for it being held for three years, - reference (Chris Lenzi GotFrag.com) does not say it broke a record at all...
--Kiyarrllston 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't write this or source this statement, by the way. I've just looked for a source there, but couldn't find one, so I've removed any mention of "record". As for the writing, could you be more specific? You know, give me something to work on? Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - But with the suggestion that another image is added to the Development section. User:Krator (t c) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers Krator. For images, you may have to consult User:Hbdragon88, as he removed some images from the article, saying that there were too many, although none from development. Images really are a weak point for me. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor Support since the article was vastly improved (it used to be crufty and to lack references). If the FAC ends up failing, it will certainly pass as a GA. igordebraga ≠ 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- There were too many images at the time, such as one in each section for the gameplay and one for the trophies. In fact, I'm not sure how necessary the image from Brawl is (fourth total). I suppose if someone happens to have an image of the demo as presented at E3 or Spaceworld...that would be the perfect image. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that. The Brawl image does demonstrate a returning stage and graphical enhancements in the game, which is helpful, but a development image would be preferable. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- There were too many images at the time, such as one in each section for the gameplay and one for the trophies. In fact, I'm not sure how necessary the image from Brawl is (fourth total). I suppose if someone happens to have an image of the demo as presented at E3 or Spaceworld...that would be the perfect image. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. As a matter of knowing what to improve, what makes it minor and not a full support, just so I know what to improve upon. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Nearly nearly there - having played this alot I had to read it. I have given the text a little massage but was overall pleased with the prose. I was wondering if anything of the following could be found:
- To make less US-centric. Any figures on sales in Europe or Australia, or other countries for that matter would be a good idea to place into that section, if possible
- Sorry, but I can't find anything on any other sales
- Any more on the music - i.e. fans' favourites - issues with development etc.
- DoneI've inputted two comments about this relating to the game's official website
- Any elaboration on characters chosen in development (and glitches)
- Done I couldn't really find anything on glitches, but maybe it's because of the dodgy Japanese translation. I have added a sourced statement about the references to clones the official website, and how the media refers to them as clone.
- Any other creative issues or background would be great.
- Sorry, but I don't really know where to look because the statement's quite broad. There's not much of this info out there.
- Any discussion on impact or role it had on boosting Gamecube sales over the other 2 consoles.
- DoneI couldn't find anything about comparisons between the other two, but I have added a comment about software to hardware ratioes and it being a system seller (all sourced).
it may be that none of this can be found or sourced but any extra would push it further into the 'credit' side of FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers. I'll get back to you with a full rsponse to your comments tomorrow, probably. I'd do it now but test revision beckons. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- More replies. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional oppose Sorry, but I can't support until the Tournament discussion is resolved. When a compromise is reached, it has my full support. Otherwise, it fails stability IMO.--CM (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers Clyde. You do realise that we are having a discussion as opposed to edit warring. Neither of us have implemented the changes. Nevermind. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah but the desired end result of a discussion is some sort of content change within the article. Since some change is inevitable, I can't support knowing that content is being added that may not be well-written or properly referenced. Until it's resolved, I wait.--CM (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers Clyde. You do realise that we are having a discussion as opposed to edit warring. Neither of us have implemented the changes. Nevermind. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I could argue with you further, but I figure that the best thing to do is to resolve the senseless debate. Best regards. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's more, the debate isn't about the content any more, just the principles involved in evaluating sources. So the debate is no longer pertinent to the actual article content itself . What may be added won't even amount to one sentence, but a phrase saying to the effect of "attributed to Smashboards(source)" if anyone wants to add it. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the unresolved external links; there are problems with smashbros.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
- Nominator: This article, currently a Musical Theatre A-class article, seems to exemplify, I feel, what is needed from an article about a stage musical. It meets all MoS and other WP guidelines... - Dafyd (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Co-nominator: I feel this article, which I have helped build from Start-class, now has the potential to make a featured article. Reviewers should be aware of the tremendous effort that editors (including myself but particularly Dafyd) have put into getting the synopsis as short as it currently is - Wicked has an enormously complicated plot which utterly defys efforts to shrink the synopsis section any further. Happy‑melon 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Couldn't you get a bigger picture? here's one. Also, do those musical numbers have to all be in bold? indopug (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Non-free image criteria states images should be of a small resolution.-Wafulz (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
But the current image stretches in the infobox and appears pixelated. indopug (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you've rectified the problem. Cool indopug (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done Musical numbers have been debolded. — MusicMaker5376 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please remove "Planned Toronto Production" per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done - I don't know where that one came from. Happy‑melon 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I posted some autopeer review suggestions on the talk page. The article is actually in pretty good shape so the extent of peer review suggestions is not that long. I would have taken care of them myself, but it seems my efforts to be associated with the article are not entirely welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the comments were either single-issue or false positives, and all have been responded to. It was nonetheless useful. Happy‑melon 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed a few. I only have a moment, but will point out some of them here:
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
- October 30 and February 21 will continue to cause a false positive after checking. However, I just found May 2007. Check again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- That section was added after I did my check. Thanks for fixing it anyway. Happy‑melon 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- October 30 and February 21 will continue to cause a false positive after checking. However, I just found May 2007. Check again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5cm, use 5 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 cm.[?]- E.g., 1 hour would be correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I'll make sure this is done. Thanks! Happy‑melon 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. 800,000 people and 30 cities are equally problematic. The point of this auto peer review bullet point is that you have cases where numerals are followed by units without the non-breaking space. The importance is that there are a variety of screen resolutions and default image size preferences that cause lines to break differently on all readers' pages. Without a non-breaking space it is possible that the numeral will appear at the end of a line and the units will appear on the next line. This is annoying for a sophisticated reader to see who knows it should not. You need to reread the entire article looking for numerals followed by units and fix all instances. This includes infoboxes because someone with a 800x600 screen resolution may have a scrunched box that causes 22 bars to break.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous. I'll still make sure it is done, however. Happy‑melon 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I ran a check for
"# ", replacing all instances that were not dates or within ref tags. Please let me know if I'm still misinterpreting this. Happy‑melon 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)- I will trust that you have solved the problem now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. 800,000 people and 30 cities are equally problematic. The point of this auto peer review bullet point is that you have cases where numerals are followed by units without the non-breaking space. The importance is that there are a variety of screen resolutions and default image size preferences that cause lines to break differently on all readers' pages. Without a non-breaking space it is possible that the numeral will appear at the end of a line and the units will appear on the next line. This is annoying for a sophisticated reader to see who knows it should not. You need to reread the entire article looking for numerals followed by units and fix all instances. This includes infoboxes because someone with a 800x600 screen resolution may have a scrunched box that causes 22 bars to break.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I'll make sure this is done. Thanks! Happy‑melon 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- E.g., 1 hour would be correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I should comment that I have finally had a chance to look at most of the rest of the peer review. I have not done a check on the weasel words issue, but everything else seems to have been addressed. If I get a chance later I will look at the weasel words issue more closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
- You seem to have missed a few. I only have a moment, but will point out some of them here:
- Most of the comments were either single-issue or false positives, and all have been responded to. It was nonetheless useful. Happy‑melon 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article needs a short section describing the various recordings of the musical. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it? Wicked (album) is linked from the article and contains much of what might be contained in a recordings section. The track listing is elsewhere in the article; the Grammy win is mentioned under Awards; the Stuttgart recording is referred to in the Other productions section. I may be wrong, but I think that adding a recordings section would only duplicate content that is already present elsewhere... - Dafyd (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)- Actually, yes, I think you're right - I'm working on it now. - Dafyd (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done - Dafyd (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice. No London recording?
- Nope. There was talk of it, but it's never materialised. - Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice. No London recording?
- Comment: It says "Nominated for 4 Olivier awards." Didn't it win any? If not, I don't think the nominations are really worth noting in the intro. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done - It didn't win any. I've removed the reference from the intro, as they're also mentioned further down. - Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Why is the TOC embedded to the left? That makes the text between the infobox and the TOC look funny. Why not leave the TOC where it would normally default? I think that FAC articles generally leave the TOC alone? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done - Happy-Melon explained why the TOC was floating, but I'm not sure it makes much of a difference...- Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate all of your prompt and hard work on this article. It is definitely improving. I have made some comments on the talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment re: Intro paragraph to the "Synopsis" section. This is the first article that I have seen that has an intro/overview paragraph at that top of the "Synopsis" or "Plot" section, which is striking, since I have edited hundreds of articles about musicals. I believe that any such information should go in the WP:LEAD or in a textual analysis section, and that the Synopsis itself does not need an introduction - it should launch right into the summary. User:MusicMaker5376 disagrees with me and thinks that it is helpful. It would be very useful for independent FA editors to comment on this issue at the article talk page, as it may set an important precedent for the WP:MUSICALS project. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just wanted to clarify that I think it's useful in that it gives slightly more detail than the lead, but not as much as the synopsis. Some comments I've seen in the past indicate that readers may not want to read a complete overview. I think a brief encapsulation at the beginning of the synopsis is helpful in that regard. — MusicMaker5376 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the development section is a little slight for an FA article: Is there more information about the writing of the book and/or music?
- Also, more information is needed about the Broadway production team, especially as many of them were nominated or won awards. Was the production team new for Broadway, or had they been involved in the pre-B'way production?
- Also, is there any other information about what "retooling" was done for the B'way production after the pre-B'way production?
- Also, what are the major differences between the novel and the show? The article says that there were major differences, but it does not describe them in any detail.
- Also, need to add some brief cast info about various productions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- CommentI was finally forced to think clearly enough about musicals as part of the WP:CFD debate for Category:Musicals by nationality. In this debate my argument is that Category:Chicago musicals could and should be considered separately from other such categories because productions are commonly cast for Chicago runs. Why is this significant for WP? The answer is quite simply that each production run is a notable and sectionable element of an encyclopedic entry for a successful and notable musical. Let’s take Wicked. Chicago facts are strewn haphazardly about the article. It might seem logical to lay out an article with a section entitled production runs. By the time a musical article reaches B-class it should at least have a paragraph dedicated to various production runs. A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run. Such a paragraph or section could be laid out as follows:
Musical X had a production that was cast for an indefinite run in [[City, State]] X1 at Notable theatre X. from Month DD to Month DD, YYYY. Notable Actor X1 was cast for notable role Y1, notable actor X2 was cast for notable role Y2, . . . Notable actor X# was cast for notable role Y#. In addition actor z1, actor z2. . .actor z# were cast for notable role zz1, notable role zz2, … notable role zz#. The production was originally scheduled to run from Month DD indefinitely. Casting was done by Famous casting agent X at Famous theatre XThe City X opening was a gala affair attended by notable person x, notable person y… (Jersey Boys would include Frankie Valli and Bob Gaudio here; Color purple would include Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson here, not sure about Wicked). Eventually a closing date was scheduled for the City X production of Month DD, YYYY. This closing date was extended until Month DD, YYYY. The production was sponsored by Sponsor X among others. This production run was notable because it . . .fill in the blank. (example it set records for a Chicago showing of a broadway musical – think Wicked, or it set records for a showing with an All-black cast – think Color Purple). After the conclusion of this production run the same cast continued perfoming on a national tour that next went to [[City, State]] X2 and eventually continued in [[City, State]] X3, [[City, State]] X4, [[City, State]] X5 and is scheduled to go to [[City, State]] X6, . . . [[City, State]] X#.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've struck out some things that aren't really encyclopedic when it comes to the musical as a literary work. This is what we're trying to stress in the articles -- that the musical exists apart from its productions. Notable productions, obviously, are important, but we'd rather express the importance of the work as a whole than any incarnation of it. Putting too much emphasis on productions invites systemic bias. — MusicMaker5376 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I like that, Tony - clear, concise, full of what is needed. As well as the things MusicMaker struck out, I'd suggest that the casting agent is unimportant... Now, as our resident Chicago expert (meant in the nicest possible way!) would you be able to source the info and put it into the article...? - Dafyd (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, re: casting agent. I meant to strike that out.
- Also, the problem with mentioning the cities that the tour visits is that the tours usually visit in the neighborhood of 30 cities, which, admittedly, is too many to prozize. When you take into account shows that have multiple touring companies internationally, it becomes a little unwieldly. — MusicMaker5376 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you make something encyclopedic out of either of these tour details: http://www.cheappremiumtickets.com/Theatre/Wicked_Tickets.cfm or http://www.ticketspecialists.com/theater/wicked_tickets.htm ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Each production section will vary slightly from my vision no doubt. In Chicago, much was made of Opray Winfrey bringing The Color Purple (musical) to Chicago since she starred in Steven Spielberg's The Color Purple (film) and since she is OPRAH. I am not sure what her official role was in its local presentation, but it seems she was a sponsor of some sort and this would be notable and encyclopedic in the Chicago section of Color Purple. I imagine for some other productions such notable facts may emerge. I will look up things for Wicked Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't checked those links, but, yeah Oprah is The Mighty O -- she takes a crap and it's notable. She is the producer of the Broadway prod of Purple -- in the course of try-outs and whatnot, it went to a couple of towns. Having Oprah as producer is notable. — MusicMaker5376 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- In those links, it doesn't look like it goes past a couple of months ago. Does anyone know if the tour has stopped? And, Tony, I would ask that you bear in mind that tours go on for years and years -- Jesus Christ Superstar is still touring; I think with a couple of companies. So, while Wicked has only hit 15 or so cities since the tour started, it can really grow to LOTS AND LOTS. I really don't know if that's something we want to invite into the article. — MusicMaker5376 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The tour is still going - according to the official site, it's booking until August 31 in Ottawa... Also, Tony, thanks for adding that bit about the Behind the Emerald Curtain tours - it's done in NYC and LA, too, so we should probably come up with a global way of mentioning it. - Dafyd (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps the "Other Productions" section can just be "Productions"? A paragraph of the Behind the Scenes would be appropriate there. — MusicMaker5376 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The tour is still going - according to the official site, it's booking until August 31 in Ottawa... Also, Tony, thanks for adding that bit about the Behind the Emerald Curtain tours - it's done in NYC and LA, too, so we should probably come up with a global way of mentioning it. - Dafyd (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a bit. I think someone may want to review it and rearrange it a bit for flow. I would still like to know a bit about who brought it to Chicago and anything I could about its opening, but the encyclopedic nature of that is a matter of opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's covered in the Stone quote: "the producers created a new road show...." — MusicMaker5376 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It seems like we have enough now about the Chicago production. This musical has lots of productions (and it will keep having more and more), and if each of them gets this much info, the production section will be too long. The original production should be the longest, most complete production description (see my suggestions above for what info is still needed). I also agree that we should not name all the cities on the National tour. Maybe we could name a couple of the longest stops, like this, "setting American touring records in St. Louis and [city], among others, and stopping at an expected total of 31 cities through the scheduled end of the tour in 2009." Nice job, everyone - the article is making good progress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just think that a line like that is going to invite people to add their hometown: something that would be supported by sources and, therefore, difficult to justify deletion.
- But, yes, this article is rocking my socks. — MusicMaker5376 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Above I said "A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run." As you are all aware I am a generalist who pops in on various Chicago related articles. I don't know very much about any specific topic and Wicked (musical) is no different. I was trying to make a suggestion related to what I feel should be added for Chicago which I feel is a major run. I think most notable musicals will have a main run in NYC or London and at least one other (a National tour). The demographics of Chicago are changing with numerous downtown high rise condominiums and apartments being built within two miles of the Theatre district. Chicago is already at the head of the class of second run tour cities and will become more prominent as more potential patrons find themselves living proximal to this form of entertainment. I don't think the article is improved with a couple dozen repeating blurbs with trivial content. I think the article is improved with major secondary runs such as Chicago having a substantial section. I think that more than a half dozen is probably excessive and that the rest should be lumped together as other production runs. I am not exactly sure where to draw the line, but when there is nothing linkable other than the date and city we may have gone to far. A production with notable performers in a notable theatre may deserve a separate section, but as the article stands it seems there are several too many production subsections. In the context of this article, I think only runs that are contributing newsworthy records and performances should have separate sections. I do not understand the likely eventualities of this musical with respect to global production, but think there should be a few less production subsections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you think the "productions" section in general should be shorter, but the section on the run in Chicago should be longer?? Is that a fair summary? Happy‑melon 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I agree with Tony, to a point. Looking at, for example, Les Mis, there's no way we would ever have sections for every production, and I think Wicked should probably be the same. Many of the productions are not particularly notable in their own right - the only thing is, I would include Chicago in the "not very notable" category (as well as LA) - simply because, in terms of the other productions, it's nothing terribly special. It's not different to the other productions artistically, its records can be mentioned elsewhere... That said, for the time being, while there are only 8 productions worldwide, I think each deserves a section. There's enough that's notable about each. All the domestic (US) productions have broken records, and the international runs are important in terms of the musical's development (translations, reworkings, record breaking). If, in the future, the productions section gets unwieldy, it can be scaled back and summarised. - Dafyd (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for giving the wrong impression. Chicago is currently accorded approximately the exact amount of dedicated text space that it warrants. I do wish I had taken this photo after the leaves had fallen or thought about retaking it yesterday when I walked by yesterday. I should be careful when I say shorter because this is an entry to serve the international audience and not our parochial domestic interests in the musical. It is not clear to me why other productions have notable statements to make other than that it is playing in a particular city. I think sections should be given for encyclopedic entries of note. It is possible to make an entry encyclopedic with non-notable info on this subject, but as I try to explain above we must strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- We can cross that bridge when we get to it - personally I would say in that instance a List of productions of Wicked would be in order - that would make a nice FL to go with this (fingers crossed) FA!! Hell, bring Wicked (album), List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked and Wicked (musical) cast lists up to FA and FL, and we've got ourselves a featured topic
:D. Returning to reality, however, I agree with you Dafyd: Chicago is no more notable than LA, Stuttgart or Melbourne, we just have (thanks to Tony's wealth of local knowledge) a lot more to write about for that particular production. The Chicago section currently looks pretty well perfect to me. Happy‑melon 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)- Addendum. I think a 7 production section should be written as such. I disagree that Chi and LA are not notable. I think from the perspective of artistic differences they are probably rehashes of broadway. From the international encyclopedic perspective it is newsworthy to be the longest running broadway musical and all-time top grossing performance for a city such as Chicago. I also feel that since notable performers have assumed the lead roles it has a very sectionable character. I don't follow the LA newswires and do not know what might make a section for LA encyclopedic. I think an international reader should be able to find Chicago info in one place. I am not sure what an international reader should want to know about other productions, but like I said we should strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- We can cross that bridge when we get to it - personally I would say in that instance a List of productions of Wicked would be in order - that would make a nice FL to go with this (fingers crossed) FA!! Hell, bring Wicked (album), List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked and Wicked (musical) cast lists up to FA and FL, and we've got ourselves a featured topic
- I apologize for giving the wrong impression. Chicago is currently accorded approximately the exact amount of dedicated text space that it warrants. I do wish I had taken this photo after the leaves had fallen or thought about retaking it yesterday when I walked by yesterday. I should be careful when I say shorter because this is an entry to serve the international audience and not our parochial domestic interests in the musical. It is not clear to me why other productions have notable statements to make other than that it is playing in a particular city. I think sections should be given for encyclopedic entries of note. It is possible to make an entry encyclopedic with non-notable info on this subject, but as I try to explain above we must strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I agree with Tony, to a point. Looking at, for example, Les Mis, there's no way we would ever have sections for every production, and I think Wicked should probably be the same. Many of the productions are not particularly notable in their own right - the only thing is, I would include Chicago in the "not very notable" category (as well as LA) - simply because, in terms of the other productions, it's nothing terribly special. It's not different to the other productions artistically, its records can be mentioned elsewhere... That said, for the time being, while there are only 8 productions worldwide, I think each deserves a section. There's enough that's notable about each. All the domestic (US) productions have broken records, and the international runs are important in terms of the musical's development (translations, reworkings, record breaking). If, in the future, the productions section gets unwieldy, it can be scaled back and summarised. - Dafyd (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you think the "productions" section in general should be shorter, but the section on the run in Chicago should be longer?? Is that a fair summary? Happy‑melon 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Above I said "A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run." As you are all aware I am a generalist who pops in on various Chicago related articles. I don't know very much about any specific topic and Wicked (musical) is no different. I was trying to make a suggestion related to what I feel should be added for Chicago which I feel is a major run. I think most notable musicals will have a main run in NYC or London and at least one other (a National tour). The demographics of Chicago are changing with numerous downtown high rise condominiums and apartments being built within two miles of the Theatre district. Chicago is already at the head of the class of second run tour cities and will become more prominent as more potential patrons find themselves living proximal to this form of entertainment. I don't think the article is improved with a couple dozen repeating blurbs with trivial content. I think the article is improved with major secondary runs such as Chicago having a substantial section. I think that more than a half dozen is probably excessive and that the rest should be lumped together as other production runs. I am not exactly sure where to draw the line, but when there is nothing linkable other than the date and city we may have gone to far. A production with notable performers in a notable theatre may deserve a separate section, but as the article stands it seems there are several too many production subsections. In the context of this article, I think only runs that are contributing newsworthy records and performances should have separate sections. I do not understand the likely eventualities of this musical with respect to global production, but think there should be a few less production subsections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- ←What I meant by "no more notable..." is that as and when the production section grows too long, I will support removing both Chicago and LA (and Osaka, Stuttgart, etc) to a subpage (probably List of productions of Wicked) and summarising these productions on the main page. The Broadway and West End productions, however, I would leave on the main page if/when that division occurs. Wikipedia not being paper, there's no reason to remove the Chicago information, but I think it would lose a fight to stay on the main page when Amsterdam or Tokyo get moved away. I hope that clarifies my position. Happy‑melon 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Two events that are equally notable do not deserve equal treatement on WP. One may have a plethora of free pictures while the other has only copyrighted pictures and forbids picture taking. I would prefer to see more about the former. Additionally, an encyclopedic event may happen at one and not the other. One may spawn numerous secondary accounts due to freedom of the press while another may have no secondary sources for WP to cite. Finally, one may have a better tertiary voice to relay the secondary source information. In each of these cases, events of equal note will not and should not get equal billing on WP. Let's say Chicago's production is on the same level for artistic notability, it's encyclopedic notability and viability may be far superior. Right now amsterdam is in the commons section and Tokyo has nothing encyclopedic included in its subsection making it a better candidate to be moved to the common heap than Chicago. It is very common for two subjects of equal notability to have very different levels of detail here on WP. One Tony Award winner could have a stub-class article while another of equal note may have a GA-class article. We don't treat the two articles equally. The same can be said of subsections of an article. Where encyclopedic information is presented it is treated differently then cases where it is absent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is precisely what I'm saying, except I would replace "deserve" with "require". In fact, two events which are equally notable should have equal treatment... but it's not our fault if, for the reasons you describe, that is not possible. Happy‑melon 09:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Two events that are equally notable do not deserve equal treatement on WP. One may have a plethora of free pictures while the other has only copyrighted pictures and forbids picture taking. I would prefer to see more about the former. Additionally, an encyclopedic event may happen at one and not the other. One may spawn numerous secondary accounts due to freedom of the press while another may have no secondary sources for WP to cite. Finally, one may have a better tertiary voice to relay the secondary source information. In each of these cases, events of equal note will not and should not get equal billing on WP. Let's say Chicago's production is on the same level for artistic notability, it's encyclopedic notability and viability may be far superior. Right now amsterdam is in the commons section and Tokyo has nothing encyclopedic included in its subsection making it a better candidate to be moved to the common heap than Chicago. It is very common for two subjects of equal notability to have very different levels of detail here on WP. One Tony Award winner could have a stub-class article while another of equal note may have a GA-class article. We don't treat the two articles equally. The same can be said of subsections of an article. Where encyclopedic information is presented it is treated differently then cases where it is absent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to comment on the statement that the Chicago section is a bucnh of local news. There is a huge difference between international level encyclopedic content and local new. E.g., Local news would be that a Buffalo, New York national tour stop broke a four day weekend box office gross record. Something between would be that a St. Louis, Missouri four week tour stop set a city record for attendance/gross. Setting an All-time performance gross and broadway musical run lengthr record for Chicago is international encyclopedic content. In the former cases, they only become encyclopedic as a part of a list of similar records, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In an unrelated series of edits related to the above statement can you tell me if you think these edits] at The Color Purple (musical) added encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not bad, but overdoing it a little. I'd think that Mayor Daley has been to quite a few opening nights in his tenure as mayor. — MusicMaker5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- That, of course, begs the question did he attend the Wicked opening night? It also begs the question how many productions of Wicked, or the Color Purple had such press coverage or red carpet attendees? Furthermore, it begs the question how many cities generate that type of press coverage for an opening?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- But, again, it's Oprah. In Chicago. The notability of that event is somewhat skewed -- especially in the amount of ink it's going to receive. — MusicMaker5376 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That, of course, begs the question did he attend the Wicked opening night? It also begs the question how many productions of Wicked, or the Color Purple had such press coverage or red carpet attendees? Furthermore, it begs the question how many cities generate that type of press coverage for an opening?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not bad, but overdoing it a little. I'd think that Mayor Daley has been to quite a few opening nights in his tenure as mayor. — MusicMaker5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In an unrelated series of edits related to the above statement can you tell me if you think these edits] at The Color Purple (musical) added encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair Use Concern; I am not well versed on FairUse. Someone who understands Fair Use well needs to check all those Fair Use images. WP:OVERLINKing should also be examined; for example, why is lion linked, and why are all those well-known cities linked? Words commonly known to most English speakers do not need to be linked. See WP:MOSLINK. There are unformatted incomplete references, example: 'Wicked' Shatters Box Office Records Worldwide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't assume that just because you know plenty about these cities, that no one else would consider the links to provide useful context. Linking "lion", however, is a little excessive - I'll have a look at those and the references. I am also not a Fair use expert, but I doubt it represents a problem. Happy‑melon 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I re-linked lion so that it points to Cowardly Lion. I think that's where it went before, but I'm not sure. Since that's the lion in question, it makes sense to link there, right? — MusicMaker5376 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was originally linked simply to lion!! Good idea to link to the Oz version. Happy‑melon 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I re-linked lion so that it points to Cowardly Lion. I think that's where it went before, but I'm not sure. Since that's the lion in question, it makes sense to link there, right? — MusicMaker5376 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't assume that just because you know plenty about these cities, that no one else would consider the links to provide useful context. Linking "lion", however, is a little excessive - I'll have a look at those and the references. I am also not a Fair use expert, but I doubt it represents a problem. Happy‑melon 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I will de-link the repeated names of the actors in the production section. I will leave them linked once in the section (even if they have been linked somewhere further up in the article), but then de-link them in the rest of the section, OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Headings
Comment: Might it work better if we cut down on the number of headings in the production section? Have a heading for each of the English-language productions, but then have "Foreign-language productions" including Osaka, Tokyo, and Stuttgart and "Planned productions" for the others. — MusicMaker5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's too bad. You could consolidate the foreign language productions if you don't think there's much more to be said about each of them, but Australia will open pretty soon, so I think it's OK where it is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because, after looking though the guidelines, I think that this would pass. Granted, although this particular article has not gone through peer review or a good article nomination (WP:GAN is so badly backlogged on sports that it's not worth it to let the article sit and wait there), I've been though a few with other baseball articles, and from them I can't see what else is really needed. Any improvements I can do, though, I'm willing to do what I can to make it FA. Wizardman 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Your references are a little off. For sections in which only one source was used, such as the first paragraph in the body of the article, you dont need to repost the inline ref for every sentence. Jose João (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I notice you have retrieval dates for many of the references, but a lot of them don't have links. Doesn't a retrieval date imply that the source was accessed on the web? BuddingJournalist 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean all the Sporting News references. I went through paperofrecord.com to access them, and the accessdates as such are the dates I viewed them. If they are unnecessary for news articles I'll remove them, I was just used to adding them in. Wizardman 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. No don't worry about it; it was just confusing at first because there weren't any links to accompany the retrieval dates. BuddingJournalist 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean all the Sporting News references. I went through paperofrecord.com to access them, and the accessdates as such are the dates I viewed them. If they are unnecessary for news articles I'll remove them, I was just used to adding them in. Wizardman 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of most of the references come from SABR, as anybody can join that organization for a fee, try to replace sources if possible. Thanks Secret account 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Will fix what I can; at least the authors cite their sources there. Wizardman 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sources: the authors should be stated—this needs major fixing.
Not done: I really wish I could add in the authors, but any reference which does not have an author is the result of me being completely unable to find one. Any Sporting News ones I can double-check for, but any others without an author unfortunately I cannot fix. Wizardman 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done with the ones I could feasibly do. Wizardman 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- 11-2: en dash, not hyphen. And similar examples.
- "a fifth infielder." and many more examples—see MOS on final punctuation in quotations that start within a WP sentence. Big fix required. Yet some are consistent with the MOS requirement.
- "seventeen" yet "13". Where's the boundary between naming and numerals?
- I try and use 10/ten as a boundary. I went and fixed seventeen, since it should've been 17, and I'll re-read over to see if I missed any. Wizardman 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done, I think I got them all. Wizardman 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I try and use 10/ten as a boundary. I went and fixed seventeen, since it should've been 17, and I'll re-read over to see if I missed any. Wizardman 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Military and return"—loosely worded title.
Tony (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have conferred with other editors and they believe this article is worthy of FA consideration. PGPirate 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, well written article, tells me everything I would need to know about the subject. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 12:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I have a number of issues with the article before it could be considered FA worthy, in my opinion...
- Title is "2007 Hawaii Bowl", "Hawaiʻi Bowl" is also used. The naming should be consistent throughout the article.
- You've cited the spread betting in the lead but not "Many viewers believed East Carolina to be large underdogs." - firstly I don't like "large underdogs" and secondly this needs multiple citation or one stating, as you have, many viewers...
Doing... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The spread betting in the lead say 12 1/2, in the infobox it's 10 1/2...
- Ensure there are no spaces between citations and text/punctuation (e.g. [3] in the infobox).
- See WP:HEAD - "Selection Process" should be "Selection process".
- "... and has suffered ..." tense change.
- " the ninth-highest totals in the nation." needs citation and context - including NFL?
- Doing... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "...all-purpose yards ..." for FAC this needs to be accessible to all - this is a little bit jargon really, needs explanation.
- I wikified all-purpose yards, do I need to further explain it in the article? You say "this needs to be accessible to all", is there a cite that the general population cannot read. All cites should be free for everyone to read.
- No, what I meant was the jargon made it difficult for a non-American football officianado to understand. Wikilinking helps. When I re-review I'll try to point out anything else I find... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wikified all-purpose yards, do I need to further explain it in the article? You say "this needs to be accessible to all", is there a cite that the general population cannot read. All cites should be free for everyone to read.
- "77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius). " - use the {{convert}} template for this.
- I'm not keen on the short paragraphs each cited with the same reference for the match summary sections. I know it's a match report but the really short paragraphs and short sentences make for awkward reading. 23 paragraphs? Too much for me. A lot of work should be done on flowing these paragraphs together to improve the prose and hence readability.
- Doing... ?
- "With the ensuing point after..." reads strangely (to me).
- Should use hyphen for yardage (e.g. 41-yard line, not 41–yard line) per WP:HYPHEN.
- Doing... ?
- " 5 minutes and 53 seconds" vs " two minutes thirty-seven seconds " vs "three minutes, 59 seconds "- be consistent.
- Is there a preferable format? Or can I choose what I want and just stick to it?
- I don't believe so. Just stick to numbers less than or equal to ten in words. Be consistent with comma separation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a preferable format? Or can I choose what I want and just stick to it?
- Scoring summary doesn't seem to render correctly for me (the right hand edge is missing on expansion) - I'm using IE7 under XP.
- I did not complete that table. I do not know how to fix it.
- Perhaps you should seek out the original author? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did not complete that table. I do not know how to fix it.
- Time of final field goal is 0:00 in table and "four seconds remaining" in the text.
- The play began with four seconds remaining, and ended at 0:00
- I understand, but does the normal reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The play began with four seconds remaining, and ended at 0:00
- "Statistical Comparison" why double caps? Same for "Individual Leaders".
- Citations should be in numerical order (currently you have [38][37]).
- Ensure all "Retrieved on" are filled in correctly (so they generate readable dates).
- I put all the dates in the correct format (xxxx-xx-xx). For some reason, it works for some cites and not others. I do not know what happened.
- Perhaps some more work here... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the templates wikilink the access dates and some don't. It's a giant pain in the rear end. Karanacs (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps some more work here... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I put all the dates in the correct format (xxxx-xx-xx). For some reason, it works for some cites and not others. I do not know what happened.
- Check dead links, there are at least two.
- Title is "2007 Hawaii Bowl", "Hawaiʻi Bowl" is also used. The naming should be consistent throughout the article.
- That's what I have so far. Let me know if I can explain or re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The prose is very choppy and needs a little more tender loving care. Reference formatting is an issue, and I have some concerns over the reliability of certain sources used. Here are the details:**Needs a copyedit - some parts of it seem too informal, such as "big underdogs" and "good enough", there is some repetitive phrasing, and there are obvious typos like "a offensive shootout" instead of "an"
-I used the term "big underdogs" because it came from the cite I used.
- In the lead, I think the host school wikilink should go to the overall Hawaii football team, not the 2007 edition (because no Hawaii Bowl game has ever featured the 2007 Hawaii Warriors) ;)
- I would wikilink to Conference USA and the WAC in the selection process section
- Even though they are wikilinked in the first paragraph?
- Need a reference for the fact that it was the first time the two teams had ever met
- The game recap section is full of very short paragraphs. Can they be better merged so that they flow?
- Need a reference for the fact that Johnson and Avery were voted MVPs
- The references need to be properly formatted. Each reference should include the name of the publisher. Dates should be wikilinked
- The dates are in proper format. I do not know why they are not wikilinked. Which refs are missing publishers, I cannot find them.
- I have doubts about whether the following arereliable sources: ref 2 and ref 3
- I don't see why these refs are bad. I changed the Aweful Announcing one though.
- In the lead, I think the host school wikilink should go to the overall Hawaii football team, not the 2007 edition (because no Hawaii Bowl game has ever featured the 2007 Hawaii Warriors) ;)
Karanacs (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it soundly meets the criteria. Samsara noadmin (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have a few structural and other minor points that I think need to be addressed.
The sea otter was formerly sometimes referred to as the sea beaver, : is it necessary to bolden an former and inaccurate name?- The sea otter's long whiskers and front paws are sensitive and help the otter to find prey by touch. Can this be added to the previous paragraph rather than sitting all on its lonesome.
Also, since smell and touch are discussed, what about other senses? Which sense, in particular, is used to locate prey (I'm presuming touch, but this is never explicitly spelled out.- Distribution and habitat Hasn't distribution already been handled in taxonomy? Do you need to rehash it?
- Does this solve the concern? Samsara noadmin (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely the intro isn't the right place for it, the intro should be summarising info in the article, not presenting info not held elsewhere (and abstract of sorts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you rephrase that in an actionable way? Samsara noadmin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely the intro isn't the right place for it, the intro should be summarising info in the article, not presenting info not held elsewhere (and abstract of sorts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does this solve the concern? Samsara noadmin (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fur trade and Recovery and conservation are currently both major subsections; wouldn't it make more sense to have a single major subsection (relationship with humans) with Fur trade and recovery as subsections (and the various sub sub sections below them)? :Also, these are charismatic animals, do they draw tourism and cultural interest? Are they flagship species used to promote conservation? I also vaguely recall some opposition to them as competitors with humans for abalone and sea urchins - worth at least addressing.
Overall this is close and I look forward to supporting it after these mostly small changes have been made. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm delighted to see this nomination! I've been working on this article for the past two months. However, I think this FAC is premature, as the article does need the expansions that Sabine's Sunbird mentions. I have the sources and just need to finish putting everything together. Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The nomination is exciting and well-deserved. Clayoquot has put in enormous amounts of quality work in the past several months and the result is easily already as good as many other FA's. That said, there are a couple of major points and several minor points I would add to Sabine's suggestions:
- 1) More on evolution and phylogeny! What is the relationship to other Lutrinae? Other Mustelids? Other Caniforms (Pinnipeds, Ursids, Procyonids)? What is the fossil record? What is known about how it colonized the Pacific Ocean? A phylogenetic tree would be very welcome.
- 2) More on interactions with humans! Sea otters have shared habitat with indigenous people of the North Pacific for tens of thousands of years before they were described by Europeans. They were an important resource, both material and cultural, to the Ainu, Koryak, Aleuts, Inuit, Tlingit, Haida and other peoples. This deserves more than the one sentence in the current version. (Coincidentally, just today I went to a Kuril Island archaeology seminar where the speaker showed a whalebone amulet carving in the shape of a sea otter, maybe 1500-3000 years old, they had excavated just last summer... it was pretty amazing).
- You sound like you're the only person here qualified to cover that aspect. Wanna lend a hand? Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I can do some work on this, but not immediately. Real life is rearing it's ugly head!... Eliezg (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added a section on human cultures. It is largely lifted from the (rather excellent) Russian article, and I can't actually personally vouch for all of the sources - so that might be an issue. I don't know how to make the image look more compatible with the style. It's OK, but the caption is different from the other captions. It is difficult to obtain information easily on otters in North American coastal cultures, so I don't have any information there. Also, I think this should be a subsection within a larger section on "Relationships with humans", but that requires structural surgery that I am unwilling to perform. Best, Eliezg (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I can do some work on this, but not immediately. Real life is rearing it's ugly head!... Eliezg (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- You sound like you're the only person here qualified to cover that aspect. Wanna lend a hand? Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- more minor points:
- 3) Dentition formula needed
- 4) References could be compacted: there are lots of repetitions ("Silverstein, p. 38"', "Love 63"'s etc.) that can be flattened.
- 5) Some passages are a little choppy.
- 6) I strongly second Sabine on structural changes! It's tricky to balance Range/Status against the History of Exploitation, since the former is a consequence of the latter. But I would still suggest put brief comments on the Range, Habitat and Status by region first, followed by an extended "Relationship with humans" section that includes the history of exploitation and conservation efforts.
- One random thing I'd like to rave about is the picture captions. It's not often on Wikipedia that they are as informative and conscientiously related to the content as they are here - even if they are almost all very similar shots of swimming sea otters! Anyways, looking forward to seeing what happens. Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The nomination is exciting and well-deserved. Clayoquot has put in enormous amounts of quality work in the past several months and the result is easily already as good as many other FA's. That said, there are a couple of major points and several minor points I would add to Sabine's suggestions:
- Comment. A lovely article! Superb well-chosen images. Some small things (and there may be a few more to come):
- By current rules, the caption of the image at the top should have a full stop.
- Done Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is ugly and even slightly ambiguous: "in late winter/spring and then again in late summer/autumn." Such slashes are not good form; and "winter/spring" might itself be taken as a unified period. Try this: "in late winter or early spring, and then again in late summer or early autumn." Better style in continuous prose.
- I've put it in, giving you credit; don't think anyone will remove it. ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence dashes (that is, dashes other than those marking ranges and the like) are inconsistent. One is just a spaced hyphen. Choose one style and apply it consistently. Also, some range-marking en dashes are spaced, but should not be.
- Citations need to be made regular and consistent. Ranges of pages sometimes appear with "pp." (or "Pp."), sometimes with just "p."; sometimes with an en dash, sometimes with a hyphen; sometimes the hyphen is spaced, sometimes not. Full stops are not always rationally deployed in the notes (why is there none for note 79?), and other punctuation seems occasionally arbitrary and inconsistent also (see note 90, and others).
- Done I think I caught all instances of this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- For all of these points see WP:MOS. There's not much effort needed to fix these!
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A few more points:
- 1) Perhaps the "keystone species" concept should be removed from the lead? While it is important, it is also a somewhat subtle and, in my view, distracting concept. It is also, in fact, a somewhat speculative/qualitative concept.
- 2) The physical description needs comments on pelage coloration, range of tones and darknesses, difference with age, etc. This is important anyway in a description of species, but particularly so in view of the particular importance of otter fur.
- 3) "Physical characteristics" should be separated from "Behavior" and expanded.
- 4) Diet should be separated from Hunting/Feeding Behavior, probably included in Ecology. It should also contained some quantitative data on the role of various prey items as well as differences throughout the range, which are significant.
- Not to be a stick in the mud, but I think there is enough work that needs to be done on the content and structure of the article that an FAC might be premature. A peer-review would be beneficial. Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Why spend the effort on two processes, when one would suffice? The outcome of peer review would be a FAC anyway, why not just do it now and get it done with? There isn't *THAT* much in the article to do, and there's no giant rush. Peer review is more for articles that don't know where to go. I think it's pretty clear here what needs to be done. pschemp | talk 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- In my experience, FAC reviews are most useful for attracting attention to fixing formatting and maintaining consistency with Wikipedia style. They are relatively weak on assessing content. The subject of this article is essentially scientific, and it has some shortcomings as an overview of a biological organism. By the time everything is addressed, including some relatively fundamental structural changes outlined above, it will need another full format reading. The only content related comments or contributions that have been made so far have been my own, and while I am a professional in a related field, I am not comfortable with being the ONLY person to assess the article for it's content. My impression is that Clayoquot, who is almost solely responsible for bringing this article to the condition it is now, feels the same way... Oh, wait, forget "think"! Here are Clayoquot's exact words from above: "I think this FAC is premature... Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks." Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article is already much longer than other species FAs - compare with the condor, also nominated and going well. It is fairly clear that it's already comprehensive. Keep in mind that you're writing an encyclopaedic article, not a mini-textbook. As for credentials, I don't think I want to be having this debate. My recent impressions of peer review are that you'd be lucky to get one decent commentary. SPR, meanwhile, is defunct. If there are people that you want to look at the article, why not invite them here? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Super-quick note before I run to catch a bus for the weekend: As the person here who is probably most familiar with the source material, I know there are some significant content gaps. My plan is to keep writing to do the obvious things, discuss the non-obvious change requests on Talk, and only then drop a note on the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects plus a few FA writers to ask for further feedback. I would follow this sequence whether a discussion continues to happen at this particular FAC nom or not. The article may change only 10% or so via this process but it's important to get there. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article is already much longer than other species FAs - compare with the condor, also nominated and going well. It is fairly clear that it's already comprehensive. Keep in mind that you're writing an encyclopaedic article, not a mini-textbook. As for credentials, I don't think I want to be having this debate. My recent impressions of peer review are that you'd be lucky to get one decent commentary. SPR, meanwhile, is defunct. If there are people that you want to look at the article, why not invite them here? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- In my experience, FAC reviews are most useful for attracting attention to fixing formatting and maintaining consistency with Wikipedia style. They are relatively weak on assessing content. The subject of this article is essentially scientific, and it has some shortcomings as an overview of a biological organism. By the time everything is addressed, including some relatively fundamental structural changes outlined above, it will need another full format reading. The only content related comments or contributions that have been made so far have been my own, and while I am a professional in a related field, I am not comfortable with being the ONLY person to assess the article for it's content. My impression is that Clayoquot, who is almost solely responsible for bringing this article to the condition it is now, feels the same way... Oh, wait, forget "think"! Here are Clayoquot's exact words from above: "I think this FAC is premature... Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks." Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Why spend the effort on two processes, when one would suffice? The outcome of peer review would be a FAC anyway, why not just do it now and get it done with? There isn't *THAT* much in the article to do, and there's no giant rush. Peer review is more for articles that don't know where to go. I think it's pretty clear here what needs to be done. pschemp | talk 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This piece needs a lot of work. It is overly-long, has structural problems, and I would like to check the trustworthiness of the sources.Mike Bate (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great work. This article is, when compared to other FA mammal articles, obviously not overly long and it is comprehensive in its coverage of the organism. The sources look fine to me, and your use of in-line citations is sterling. I do, however, see some small issues with the images when compared to WP:MOS#Images: there some places where images are stacked on top of each other in a row on the right. Better spacing is needed, and I'll try out a different alignment. Other than that, I definitely see this as being FA. VanTucky 08:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've made the image alterations I think need doing. Good luck! VanTucky 08:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Support—very good indeed.
- I suppose the O rather than o is necessary in the title ... lower case would be preferable unless it violates some other rule.
- Please delink the single years (1741, etc) and centuries.
- En dashes for ranges should be unspaced. Hyphens --> en dashes in the reference list (page ranges).
- Consider not bolding in the Taxonomy section. (See MOS on this.)
- "grooming. Grooming" Tony (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- "1880's—See MOS; no apostrophe.
- "sea beaver,"—See MOS on final punctuation and quotation marks (punctuation after closing marks).
Support - I fixed ref 18 which was a bare url, myself. No other problems Jimfbleak (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Normally I would support this article. It looks to me like it meets all of the criteria and its use of images and their captions are among the best (if not the best) I’ve seen. However, Kla’quot, who seems to be the main contributor to this article, has said that (s)he does not think this article is complete. If the primary contributor does not think an article is complete to the degree of 10%, then I’m not sure what to do. I don’t buy the earlier argument that it is plenty long because it is longer than the also FAC Andean Condor since each article has its own possibility of length- ranging from lion at 105,000 bytes to Cape Fear Shiner at 15,500 bytes. Anyways, while I don’t think that this article’s quality is going to magically drop as Kla’quot finishes it, I don’t feel right supporting an article with 10% of it left to complete. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(Tangential discussion on wiki processes moved to Talk page) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the article not at Sea otter? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Post-closing note: closed in deference to the principle editor, Clayoquot, who wanted more time to finish the article.[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:39, 21 January 2008.
This has been worked on by a stack of editors, including myself, for a while now. Recently it's been a bit more stable, but it retains a high quality. A recent peer review is available here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- Some refs are missing publishers and publishing dates.
- Doing... Some references don't have publishing dates, but am still working on. The Windler talk 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- "On the 14th of November 2007" - not correctly formatted
- Image captions shouldn't have fullstops if they're not complete sentences.
- Not done I'm not sure what pic you are refering to. The Windler talk 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The entire team of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything on July 14, 2006." "Chaser member Chas Licciardello along with Chris Taylor (right) and ABC crew, doing an Ad Road-Test on Godfrey's vacuum cleaners." "Imitation insecurity passes used by The Chaser to breach the APEC Australia 2007 restricted zone." All are descriptions and not full sentences. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- "the first thirteen episodes" - should be "the first 13 episodes"
- Not done Per MOS:NUM, numbers that are one or two words should be worded. The Windler talk 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The important thing is consistancy. Why are other numbers in the article that are one or two words not worded? Epbr123 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- "on 17 February 2006 at 9.45 pm" - should be 9:45 pm
- "to appear in court on 4 October 2007[40];" - ref belongs after punctuation
- "on stage in his musical 'Dead Caesar'." - italics needed, not apostrophes.
Epbr123 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the first para that indicate the density of problems throughout.
- "satire group"—unidiomatic. "satirical" would be better, but a repetition.
- Audit for commas: more are needed for easy reading (either side of "The Chaser" in the second sentence, for a start).
- "Knight is however a writer for the show, and Firth did roving reports for the show from the United States, until he left the group to start his own satirical newspaper in mid-2007." "However is better at the start of the clause, followed by a comma. "For the show"—ungainly repetition. "Did" is a little tired. "His own" would be OK if satirical newspapers had already been raised as an issue in relation to the other members. Replace with "a".
- Why is that little-known country "the US" linked? I can just see all of our readers interrupting their progress and rushing to that article.
Then: MOS issues aplenty, like the period in the caption. And do not refer to it as "ABC": the is always required unless it's an epithet. It's not American ABC. Tony (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly Done - I've gone through about 90% of the article trying to fix such problems. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Be consistent with italicising titles. I spot three Sunrises and one Chaser's War On Everything left plain. If you must link articles on countries, only do it once - there's no need to link every inclusion of "United States" etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Italics. Some instances of shows that aren't italicised as of yet (as pointed out by GeeJo) and all newspapers (e.g., The Age, The Courier-Mail, etc) cited in the article must also have italics. Spebi 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Kiyarrllston 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: "fines to parking inspectors" is not a "reason"
- Oh wow...your one reason for opposing took me all of one edit to resolve. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did not formally name a reason for opposing. - let us do away with formalities.
- Kiyarrllston 05:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS was my oppose invalid for the period of time where it had no examples?
- PPS is my oppose invalid now?
- PPPS "They instead broadcast scenes[,] where the members were seen[,] as arrogant" - seems horrible phrasing - perhaps "Channel 7 broadcast scenes that they judged made the Chaser crew look arrogant"?
- PPPPS Sorry if this is a bit annoying - would changing my vote from "Oppose" to "Weak Oppose" soften the impact of my behavior? Please believe me that it has nothing to do with you - Although I believe we have "met" before... - and we did disagree... (would me supporting make you feel that it wasn't about you?)
- PPPPPS Oh! Happy New Year!
- Oh, sorry, I figured that comment in the "PS" was part of the oppose (since it was in the same edit). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS I'd say yes.
- PPS I'll deal with this stuff, so yeah, I'd think so...
- PPPS Done
- PPPPS I don't think it's about me or anything like that. Our last meeting was on my last FAC ;)
- PPPPPS Same to you :)
- Oh wow...your one reason for opposing took me all of one edit to resolve. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral can I do that? I just wanna comment - as I said on msn, the whole show content section seems to need a cleanup and is very OR-ish. Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relevant discussion here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know. My argument still stands. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relevant discussion here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Questions Is IMDB a reliable source? (I somehow thought this website can be edited by any users) Also, ref 29 & 42 don't work for me, please check them. PeaceNT (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done - I fixed the refs. IMDB is only being used to cite an awards list, which as far as I'm aware is reliable - if an alternative, more reliable (I'm aware of the issues with that site) ref can be found, I'd suggest replacing (and would be happy to do so). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done - I've linked to the official AFI announcement of the 2006 award winners including TCWOE and Hansen. --Canley (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wheaty Oppose
- - I'm guessing that, as often happens, the plot does not have any available references - so when the article says "Seeming to replace "In Other News ...""- this "seems to" is actually "In the eyes of our wikipedian editor"
- That would be a correct assumption. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "There was much debate surrounding whether or not to" - "much"? "whether or not"? - who debated with who? - I suggest "[person x] and [person y] debated whether to" or "[The group] debated whether to"
- I find it hard to believe that the Reception section is comprehensive. - the "Awards" section seems to speak to a positive reception not truly mentioned.-Can you find reviews outside the "current affairs programs"?
- I'll take a look - there isn't that much (that I know of) outside puff peaces by ACA/TT. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- --Kiyarrllston 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS:have you looked at The World Without Us FAC?
- PPS:Thanks for reading this comment
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:39, 21 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I originally helped promote the article to GA Status. The article had been peer reviewed and I have corrected all the issues which came up in GAR. I believe the article meets the FA criteria.
- Nominator Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: --Reinoutr (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Article contains quite a bit of in-universe prose, even in the introduction (e.g. "Following her retirement as Batgirl in 1988, Gordon was crippled ..." and "Prior to her career as a vigilante, Barbara Gordon developed many technological skills.."). Please realize that there are more, these are just examples.
- References 70-86 contain extra "[" and "]" symbols for external links, should be removed
- Comment: I've filled out the templates for citing episodes using Wikipedia:Citation_templates. As far as I can tell, if filled out the template properly, but the "[ ]" still appear. I am not sure how to correct this... Or perhaps I can use the cite_website template instead? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes these templates can be a pain to work with. I fixed them for you now: [16]. The "episodelink" and "serieslink" values were only meant for Wikipedia articles, not for external links. You could only use the "url" value for that. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I've filled out the templates for citing episodes using Wikipedia:Citation_templates. As far as I can tell, if filled out the template properly, but the "[ ]" still appear. I am not sure how to correct this... Or perhaps I can use the cite_website template instead? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- References 70-86 contain extra "[" and "]" symbols for external links, should be removed
- Reference 86 external link goes to the wrong location
- Oppose per comprehensivity concerns. I'm a bit worried that many of the books listed as references are not cited in the article.
- Comment: Daniels, Les. DC Comics: Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes and Arant, Wendi. Benefiel, Candace. The Image and Role of the Librarian literally reiterate themes/quote which are already cited in the article by other sources. these can be previewed on google scholar if you would like to verify this claim. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I went back and added two interesting bits of info from The Image and Role of the Librarian which were not mentioned by other sources. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Daniels, Les. DC Comics: Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes and Arant, Wendi. Benefiel, Candace. The Image and Role of the Librarian literally reiterate themes/quote which are already cited in the article by other sources. these can be previewed on google scholar if you would like to verify this claim. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many of these have valuable reliable information about the character. The ones that are cited need page numbers. Once source completely ignored is the Batman history by Les Daniels; I own the book and it provides a reasonable amount of information. As listed above, some of the prose needs to be less in-universe.
- A lot of the footnotes pass Ref 70 need publisher info (what site did they appear on?). Try to combine some of the smaller paragraphs.
- Comment: the template for citing episodes at Wikipedia:Citation_templates does not require publisher info, but it does link to the website (tv.com) Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're citing a link, though, so use Cite Web and credit the website. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The long sections featuring quotes about The Killing Joke and people arguing for the character's mobility to be restored seem to give undue weight to criticism of the character developments. How did people react to her crippling in 1988? That's more relevant than what a multitude of modern critics think about the story now. I think you can do with removing the D'Orizio and Hudson quotes completely. The D'Orizio quote in particular seems tangential. You might be able to summarize and/or quote a small portion of Hudson's comments. The "critical and editorial commentary" needs to be restructured to be more encyclopedic; right now it seems more like an essay about the character being in a wheelchair and what that represents.
- Try and cut down the "Birds of Prey" section a bit more" (the sentence about the Huntress joining is unnecessary for this article, for one; mention the character elsewhere if necessary).
- You don't need the "Alternate versions" section at all; move the details about All-Star Batgirl into the publishing section (to paraphrase Alan Moore, they're all imaginary stories; a Batgirl title is a Batgirl title being published by a notable real-world publisher by notable creators).
- Place the "Alternative versions of Barbara Gordon" link under a "See also" section, or delete/merge there's no real-world notability to the entries. If you can address these comments contact me and I'll review the article again. I do think it's a good article overall, and I wish that more comics character articles were of this quality. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately I do not own any of the books that are listed as sources. I was able to read portions on all of them which were cited in the article using google scholar. I have not tried using google scholar for the Batman History by Daniels, but if I can preview the book I'll add whatever I can.
- I approached the quotes by D'Orizio and Hudson as a means to display frank reactions to the killing joke displaying both points of view. I also brought the issue to the Wikiprojects Comics page and the consensus (although small) was that it warrants inclusion in the article. I would personally prefer not to remove either completely, though I would agree to summarizing both. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: I can source from the Daniels Batman book for you. I would recommend trying to get the others from a library if you can; Google book search often doesn't give you access to every page (but you were able to view all the pages that discussed Batgirl, then you can ignore me). I undertstand giving balance to the different reactions, but it's not the best way, especially since that D'orizio quote is more about how women are treated in comics in general. For an example on how to tackle this, I cited some information about the controversy surrounding the death of Jason Todd from a number of sources. Try and approach it like I did over there. Also, have you looked at mainstream media sources? You'd be suprised at what you can find. Go through time.com, nytimes.com, msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, and guardian.co.uk for starters. Even if you come up empty, searching through mainstream news media should be your first course of action when looking for online sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply:I've gone to my local library and my college library as well and they don't have the best selection for comprehensive books on comics, much to my dismay! I was really hoping my school had daniels book when I was looking for it months ago, but no luck. In addition I have also tried looking through mainstream media website for information on Barbara Gordon, but so far I have come up with squat. I will do another run through on those sites you mentioned to be safe.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did another run through on mainstream news websites but they do not have any valuable information on Barbara Gordon. I found about 4 brief articles which (barely) mention her television adaptations. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: There are a awful lot of quotations, couldn't these be turned into prose?--Nydas(Talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: according to WP:QUOTE, As a matter of style, quotebooxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it; quoteboxes may be acceptable in certain circumstances, especially when the quote is itself notable, and a major part of the article's topic. This is the only reason I've been weary about turing the quotes into prose. One of the complaints in GAR was that there was no real world accountability for Barbara Gordon's claim as a female icon (Batgirl) and as a disabled icon (Oracle). The quotes selected in the article specifically reflect these issues in addition to the controversy of the characters mobility. My only concern is that changing quotes into prose may alter the tone of the subject matters, particularly in the "Critical and editorial commentary" section. I will look through the article to see which quotes can easily be changed into prose and I would appreciate more comments on this particular topic. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- 2 quotes from the batgirl section of the publication history have been changed to prose. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- 3 quotes from the killing joke section of the publication history have been changed to prose. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's better. Be careful about assuming that the character really is a disabled or female icon, though. If that were so, it should be possible to find more stuff from outside the world of comics.--Nydas(Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- as mentioned in the article and in many of the references, she is considered to be iconic, though this status is only casually mentioned by observers. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 01:39, 21 January 2008.
I have written the article recently, and it has undergone a successful peer review. I have decided to directly nominate the article at FAC, instead of GAN, because I believe the article meets all the Featured Article Criteria. Cheers, Feedback ☎ 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not a support or oppose but is a concern that most of the article is sourced from the WWE website, which is not an independent source? I am unsure what the usual practice is with Pro Wrestling articles. The article is certainly comprehensive enough and while there are some stylistic issues, written reasonably well. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The article is basically a recap of the event, and because WWE was the host of the event, it has many different articles including extensive recaps for each match and each show before and after the event; so everything I basically needed was what the site included. However, the minimum third-party sources in the article include information WWE.com did not supply. Also, there was no important backstage trouble or consequences to be added, so I didn't need information from sites with "inside sources" like WrestleView or ProWrestlingScoops (unlike December to Dismember, where the event influenced many contract releases and the fate of WWE's ECW brand). Feedback ☎ 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:TheGiantTheKingThePoser.jpg needs fair use criteria for this article; it only has it for Cyber Sunday. — brighterorange (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I know there is a push for WP:PW members to be the only group not allowed to vote on FACs from their own project, but I just don't think this is up to Featured Article level. A few of my concerns are:
- Almost all of the sources are primary sources from WWE. As has been discussed in the past, writers paid by WWE are not considered reliable sources for WWE-related articles. It was mentioned in the peer review that this would prevent it from reaching FA level, but this has not been addressed.
- Which statements in the article need back-up from third-party sources? The article is basically a recap of the shows and the event, which is nothing controversial or that can suffer from COI, when WWE writes its articles. They are facts; no need for third party sources to back them up. However, if you find a statement that needs back-up from a third-party source, then please answer the beginning question.
- Done -added third party sources to every match result and recap Feedback ☎ 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which statements in the article need back-up from third-party sources? The article is basically a recap of the shows and the event, which is nothing controversial or that can suffer from COI, when WWE writes its articles. They are facts; no need for third party sources to back them up. However, if you find a statement that needs back-up from a third-party source, then please answer the beginning question.
- A blog-style entry on about.com is cited 18 times. I'm not convinced that this should be considered a reliable sources.
- About is a very reliable encyclopedia, and Eric Cohen may be seen as more reliable than any of WWE's writers (who make many many mistakes).
- Done - I have replaced the About.com link, with the recap from Slam Sports!
- About is a very reliable encyclopedia, and Eric Cohen may be seen as more reliable than any of WWE's writers (who make many many mistakes).
- References are out of order in a couple of places.
- Please mention where.
- Prose is confusing and unencyclopedia in several places and needs a thorough copyedit. I strongly recommend listing this article with Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors.
- I need more opinions on this one first.
- There are too many in-universe statements in the article. For example, "(Cena) tossed his foe’s hardened forehead into the steel ring post."
- This is not an in-universe statement. This happened in real life, physically, in the view of thousands of people and millions watching on television. I don't see the problem with this statement.
- This does not conform to WP:MOS, which states that names should be given in full the first time and that only the last name should be used for subsequent mentions.
- The names are written fully the first time, and are written with only the last name or fully again in subsequent mentions. This is the guideline.
- I don't think the picture of Kevin Federline is important enough to warrant inclusion in the article, as it seems to have almost nothing to do with this article (there is no mention of a connection between Federline and Booker T).
- The picture kills 4 birds with one stone. It shows who Big Show, Kevin Federline and who Booker T are. And it also shows the reader that Booker T and K-Fed formed an alliance in an early stage, which eventually saw K-Fed intervene in the Champion of Champions match and help Booker T win and defend his championship. Feedback ☎ 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to list it for copyediting, look for additional sources, address some of these concerns (and others that might be brought up) and then nominate it for GA status with a request for the reviewer's opinion on what else is needed for FA level. You're off to a good start, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by all of my concerns. While this article could get to GA level with serious copyediting and more sources, it is not at a FA level. Copyediting isn't something you need more opinions about--it is essential if this is to get above B-level. And it was the "hardened" (because, according to the storyline, Samoans have thick foreheads) part that was in-universe, although "tossed" isn't the best choice of words, either, and there are other examples that I could have also used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added third-party results for the show, and what I meant to say is that I think the article is written extremely well, and want more opinions on how it's written; to see if more people think it's badly written like you do. Feedback ☎ 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Adding the extra sources definitely helps. I do still believe that it needs copyediting. I don't think it's poorly written, but I don't think the prose is sufficient for this to be considered one of Wikipedia's top articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added third-party results for the show, and what I meant to say is that I think the article is written extremely well, and want more opinions on how it's written; to see if more people think it's badly written like you do. Feedback ☎ 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This article is very hard to read for someone not familiar with the ins and outs of wrestling. The opening line (after the lead) is already and an example "The November 6, 2006 edition of Raw began with Kevin Federline, who after interfering in John Cena's match the night before at Cyber Sunday, came out to the ring to challenge Cena one-on-one at Raw's first broadcast of the year on January 1". It is assumed the reader know what Raw and Cyber Sunday are, without knowing these the line makes no sense. When these words are that essential merely wikilinking is not sufficient (ie it does not give in depth extra information, but is essential for basic understanding). Such "jargon" phrases with key importance in lines are scattered throughout the article. In my opinion this article has to be thoroughly "dejargonised" (is that is a word) to make FA status. Arnoutf (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The lead explains that Raw is one of the brands, and the context of the article clearly state that it is a televised show. However, Cyber Sunday is a PPV that appears once a year and has special features others do no; so explaining to someone who really did not know what it is, would be like copying the Cyber Sunday article into this one. That is why a wikilink is very appropiate. However, I did add "Cyber Sunday PPV event" to the passage even though the article explains so later on. Feedback ☎ 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm re-nominating Hybrid Theory as an FAC, because it recently passed as a good article after some changes. The main difference from this nom to the old nom is that the article went through a thorough copy-editing, which is the reason it did not pass. (done by Malachirality). But I still could not find anything about the artwork. Sorry. Anyways now, since most of the common mistakes have been fixed, I think it has the potential to become a featured article. It's also currently undergoing a second peer review, so tell me what you think. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose and close Articles cannot be on FAC and PR together. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)- Okay, please withdraw your opposition, for the PR is now archived. Any further scrutinies of the article shall be conducted here. (SUDUSER)85 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just removed the peer review from WP:PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, please withdraw your opposition, for the PR is now archived. Any further scrutinies of the article shall be conducted here. (SUDUSER)85 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support per my previous vote. A serious article indeed. --Brand спойт 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Overall, I can't find anything wrong with this article. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: The article is well-sourced and well-written. 72.148.42.192 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Article is very well written and organized. The only thing I can suggest is mentioning any form of criticism towards the album in the Reception section for a fair representation. Perhaps mention why it only got 3 stars from Rolling Stone. However, this is really a small thing - the article is neutral for the most part. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I followed your suggestions and brought in an excerpt of Rolling Stone's review into the article as a reference. I also moved the "Accolades" section below the general "Reception" section for connectivity purposes. I think it looks better now. Thanks for the tip! (SUDUSER)85 08:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: well written... :) --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
ConditionalSupport on a couple of very minor fixes below: prose is crisp and clear.Final para on Songs has odd sentence:
- Although it did not become a single, another song from the album is "Points of Authority". - need to highlight why this song is mentioned. Maybe move last sentence next to this or expand a bit. Just hangs oddly otherwise.
- Done Maybe it should be removed, I don't know? Anyways, I reworded it to Another song from the album is "Points of Authority". (SUDUSER)85 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Although it did not become a single, another song from the album is "Points of Authority". - need to highlight why this song is mentioned. Maybe move last sentence next to this or expand a bit. Just hangs oddly otherwise.
A word or two describing Sputnikmusic would be helpful- Done reworded to "Sputnikmusic, a music review website..." (SUDUSER)85 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise possibly the best Album article I have seen up at FAC (but I haven't looked at many) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done All changes you addressed have been fixed. (SUDUSER)85 08:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Quite a bit needs to be done before this goes FA:
- Lead
Needs restructuring. 1st para should be about recording, music info while the second about release and reception.("Hybrid Theory peaked at #2", "he album was a commercial success")- Done (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont think grammy nom mention is neccessary in lead.- Done removed. (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
A quote by a critic surmising the albums nature/impact would be nice- Done Added what Ruhlmann said about the album in the lead. (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
remove mention of RIAA.- Done (SUDUSER)85 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Background
link chester, first time in the body of article."Bennington's Phoenix band" sounds awkward (like rock band);change to "band in phoenix"- "itself to" - "itself as"
"Welsh electronic music producers" to "Welsh electronica band"- I don't really the point in this though, I mean they are actually producers and not a band. Overlooking this. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Zomba - make it Zomba records for clarity
- Recording
I'm not sure if lyrics belongs here at all. Anway that block quote is rather ugly with the white spaces it creates, and requires the mention of RS magazine twice. Make that into normal quote.- Done You're right the lyrics don't belong there, I expanded the point a little and put in the Songs section. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
However, they were initially turned down by most major, and several independent record labels. - Reword- Done changed "turned down" to "rejected" (SUDUSER)85 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
played 42 different showcases - seems unencyclopedic.- Done (SUDUSER)85 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
universal feelings, emotions, and experiences, and as “everyday emotions... - LOT of redundancy there
- Done removed this. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The rap sections in most - The rap sections of most- Done fixed (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Songs
draws from diverse inspirations - is that correct usage? I'm not too sure- Done reworded to "The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
aftermath feelings - sounds weird- Done removed the whole thing, don't think that's a reliable source. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
album eventually produced - why eventually?- Done rmv (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"single, was gradually recorded in increments after Linkin Park struggled with "Runaway",[14] and features a guitar" - change to - "single, which was gradually recorded in increments after Linkin Park struggled with "Runaway",[14] features a guitar riff and electronic percussion in the introduction which transition into a bridge with distortion-heavy guitars and aggressive drums."- Done reworded (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
in which a girl named (Katelyn Rosaasen) is abused - huh?- Done removed the whole thing; comes from unreliable source. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"Papercut" was the album's third single, and its lyrics describe paranoia. - change to - "Papercut", the album's third single, features lyrics describing paranoia.- Done reworded (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
song and is later - song which is later- Done One of the many things removed because of rewording. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
(the two also directed the music video for "Papercut") - mention this in the Papercut part itself“Brad wrote this riff, then went home. Mike - mention last names in [brackets]Cite the above quote (even if it is the later cite itself)
- Release
remove all mention of eminem, keys and u2 and their albums... unnecessarylink 44th grammys, billboard 200"Following the success" - huge sentence - split into two with the self tour in the other sentence.appearing on charts - appeared- Although the notes are no longer on their website, they are available on fansites. - remove. Links to fan sites arent allowed (copyvio)
- Done removed the fansite link (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In all, Linkin Park played 324 shows in 2001.- and the second disc - while the second
- Reception
If "Initial reception of the album was positive", why did an earlier RS review give negative comments while a later one gave positive ones? I think the tone of the section should be changed to "Mixed reviews" right at the start.AMG is not italicised- Again, remove that block quote; I mean, what is he even trying to say? Its so full of puncuation marks I cant even comprehend.
- Done did still include a chopped review though, the reader has to know why RS only gave the album 2.5 stars according to what ShadowJester07 says above. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ruhlmann also said - remove also- "described Hybrid Theory as " and "Hybrid Theory has its obvious drawbacks." and "Rock Sound"- MoS errors.
I think the whole kater recordings section should be shifted to the release sectionin the traack listing mention 2002 japan for the bonus discAll information is from the CD.[48][I] - no need to mention that. also remove that cduniverse as it links to non-free unauthorized content
- Sources
- Remove ALL fansites... "songsfacts" is NOT notable/reputable source of information. Seeing how this article sources a lot of its information from fansites, i'm afraid it is not yet ready for FA.
Indopug (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support fits the bill. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Object Rockdetector.com isn't a reliable source. I'll remove my objection once an alternative source has been found. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I removed the link. the information can be in the charts section. So please withdraw your objection. (SUDUSER)85 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Suduser85, do not remove my objection by yourself. That is frowned upon, and isn't the way FAC works. Editors remove their own objections (which I have now done). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Object I've decided to take another cursory look at the article, and found other issues;
- "Throughout the following years, the album continued to sell at a fast pace and was certified diamond by the RIAA in 2005 for selling 10 million copies in the U.S.[20]" - Whether the album sold at a fast pace or not is an opinion, and therefore a personal observation. For example, why wasn't it certified diamond in 2003 or 2004? Perhaps that would have been a fast pace, but being certified in 2005 means the album sold at a slow pace. For you to deem it to have sold at a fast pace, you must have compared it to the sales of others (therefore, making your own personal observations).
- "Four singles from the album were released throughout 2001, three of which were chart successes on the U.S. Billboard Modern Rock Tracks charts.[22]" - "Chart successes"? According to whom? This is yet another personal observation - please stick to the facts, and not add your own personal observation. Whether they were chart successes depends on how an individual person measures success. How do you measure chart successes? How high the song peaks? How long it stays on the charts? For example, why didn't "One Step Closer" get to number on the Modern Rock Tracks charts? As it didn't, perhaps some could deem that as a failure. How you have measured chart success in this instance seems to be the fact that three entered the top ten of the Modern Rock Tracks charts, while one didn't. That is a fact, but that being a "chart success" is your own personal observation (POV).
- "The album also charted in 11 other countries at fairly high positions and ranked among the “top ten” in the charts of the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland." "Fairly high"? Yet another personal observation, per the reason given for the alleged "chart successes".
- "The band was signed by Warner Bros. Records in 2000, due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue, who joined the label after resigning from Zomba.[4][5][6]" - Whose opinion is it that Linkin Park's signing with Warner Bros. Records was "due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue"? Whose observation is this? A critic's? A member of the band's? Please attribute this opinion to whomever believes it, or else this is merely a personal theory. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The rap sections of most of the songs were significantly altered from the original, while most choruses remained largely unchanged.[10]" - "Significantly"? Whether something has been altered "significantly" or not is an opinion. You may deem something to be altered significantly, whereas someone else may disagree. Your source is just a track listing for the demo, and in no way way verifies that sentence since there's no text at that URL. Furthermore, the source is the "Linkin Park Assocation", a fansite. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In my opinion, the "Linkin Park Assocation" does not fall under this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" - According to whom? Yet again, this is another observation and isn't factual. This time, it's the opinion of whomever wrote that biography for VH1.com. Either attribute this opinion to whomever felt it, or rid of it. At the moment, it's written as though it's a cast-iron fact. Simply put, it's not. It's an opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
These are just examples of POV found within the article, and indicative of a wider problem. I will list more once these have been addressed. This time, let me withdraw my own objection (should I personally feel you've addressed my objections). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to say that I feel that this FAC is not really necessary. Why I say this is the problem is with all the sources - All the main sources are not reliable, but they are the only sources with the main information. The main thing is that no sources are actually from reliable mediums, and because of that, I think that this FAC should be closed. As for the other editors who took their time to review the article, I would just like to thank all of you. (SUDUSER)85 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you say the sources are bad? Billboard, MTV.com, NYTimes, VH1.com are fine, Rockonthenet is used reasonably. A few sites are not really familiar to me, but the only one that really jumps out is forfeitthegame.com. Hang in there. Two minor things: is "100, 000" intentional? and would you consider only using two columns for refs? Gimmetrow 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am looking at your main sources, and they all seem reliable. The only one that does seem unreliable as Gimmetrow mentioned is forfeitthegame, which is a fansite. xihix(talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you say the sources are bad? Billboard, MTV.com, NYTimes, VH1.com are fine, Rockonthenet is used reasonably. A few sites are not really familiar to me, but the only one that really jumps out is forfeitthegame.com. Hang in there. Two minor things: is "100, 000" intentional? and would you consider only using two columns for refs? Gimmetrow 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per Suduser85. If there are problems with the sources, the article cannot be a FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not an actionable oppose because the user has not said what sources are not reliable. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Suduser requested on my talk page that this FAC be withdrawn, but others have said the sources are reliable. Unless someone else is taking over this FAC, I will need to honor Suduser's request to withdraw it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
- MOS breach: final punctuation after closing quotes where the quote starts within a WP sentence. Lots of fixing needed.
- Edu justification for fair use is a bit feeble. "This sample shows the song's shifts between the verses, which are soft and melodic, and the chorus which is heavy and abrasive." Is that unusual for their style, or that of other bands in this style? What do those vague epithets mean, anyway? Tony (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.
The article Shaktism is about the Goddess oriented sect of Hinduism. The article recently passed the GA process. I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because IMO it meets the FA criteria - well sourced and broad in coverage. The article is expanded mostly by User:Devi bhakta, while i have just helped him do so. Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Review by Dweller
- Oppose but jolly close
- POV: I'm certainly no expert, but the section "Misperceptions" may have POV issues, most notably the section title itself. It's not our place to judge controversy, just report on it. Lay out what the opposing sides say without being judgemental.
- Opposing sides are laid out, For e.g. Other schools like Shaiva and Vaishnava, being viewed as superior (granting moksha) and the view of "serious theologians within Shaktism". Shaktism has a close relation with Tantra, but not all Shaktas practice the controversial (as viewed in mainstream Hinduism) ways of Tantra like panchamakara. Many confuse Tantra and Shaktism to be the same. "Misperceptions" aims to clear the doubts.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're certainly clearing doubts with wording like this:
- "These prejudices are based principally on ignorance and misunderstanding – both on the part of uninformed observers and unscrupulous practitioners of the left-handed Tantric practices traditionally associated with some Shakta systems."
- To my mind, that reads as editorialising in a POV manner. I'm not sure how your response above addresses this, or the inherent POV of the section title. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- It might be noted that the sentence is referenced, though a rewording can be worked on, if the reviewer insists.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another user has retitled the section, and I agree that the new title is an improvement. I also agree with Dweller that the phrase "these prejudices" presents a POV problem, and I have accordingly changed it to a neutral phrase. The rest of the sentence, saying that misconceptions are caused by (a) outsiders' ignorance of authentic practice, and (b) some insiders' unscrupulous practices, is the scholarly conclusion of the source cited, in a 300-plus page study of the issue. Please let me know if further work is needed here. Thanks! (Devi bhakta (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
- It might be noted that the sentence is referenced, though a rewording can be worked on, if the reviewer insists.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- MOS: Some MOS issues, notably section names.
- Done Section Names. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comprehensiveness: Worship section seems a bit of a mess, but this may be my ignorance. It seems to me that the first two subsections are not about worship and a subsection that should be included (everyday worship, as opposed to that on festivals) is missing.
- The Worship section has sub-sections about the two sub-denominations Srikula and Kalikula and their worship. "Festivals" talks about the major Shakta festivals and "Temples" about Shaktas' places of worship. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Licensing: I know almost nothing about licensing of images on Wikipedia (I'm generally an ignorant person) but the acknowledgement in the photo caption strikes me as odd. Either we can or can't use it.
- That was done on request of GA reviewer.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with it. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strasupport - acciderbolina Dweller, it's fantastic :)--Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
There isn't nothing of POV... --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I want to be as helpful as possible - this article is not comprehensive and is unencyclopedic in many ways. The "Misconceptions" (I had to correct the title, btw - there is no such thing as "misperceptions") violates WP:NPOV and is unnecessary. The constant quoting of "Bhattacharya" and presenting the rival viewpoints is not the way to write an encyclopedic article - its not a seesaw between POVs. The "History" is too short and general - "Shaktism" is different from worship of female deities, so I don't see the connection of the brief notes on the pre-Vedic practices. The explanation of philosophy is insufficient. Compared to the deficiencies of the other sections, the "South Asia" section is quite large. It is unnecessary - one section describing the practice of Shaktism in different parts of India and the world. 71.178.134.184 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bhattacharyya laid the foundation for modern scholarship in the area of Shaktism, and he is quoted as befits his looming position in the field; however, numerous other scholars, of both East and West, are also heavily quoted. As the primary writer of this article, I believe that the resulting article does accurately represent the literature and the topic.
- As regards the History and Philosophy section, I would note that it is intended only to summarize the linked daughter article, History of Shaktism. Could you kindly have a look at that article and let me know if your stated concerns are addressed therein? Thank you for your input! (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
- Re: "(I had to correct the title, btw - there is no such thing as 'misperceptions')" ==>
- Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
- Misperception \Mis`per*cep"tion\, n. Erroneous perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.85.12 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments by user:Fowler&fowler: The article consists of little more than lengthy quotes and lists. Where is the prose? Consider the first section Shakti and Shiva (as of December 27, 2007). Of the eight paragraphs in the section, seven are quotations; the sole "prose" paragraph reads, "Shakti (i.e., the Supreme Goddess as Power, or Energy) is considered the motivating force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos. The cosmos itself is Brahman; i.e., the concept of an unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that provides the divine ground of all being. Masculine potentiality is actualized by feminine dynamism, embodied in multitudinous goddesses who are ultimately reconciled into one." I won't even bother pointing out all the problems in the paragraph because I fear I will receive the "little green check marks" response (when none will have been asked for). This article is not salvageable. The authors will do everyone, including themselves, a service by withdrawing the article, figuring out what it means to write prose, working on the prose for at least a couple of months, and then worrying about FAs and the like. Sorry to be blunt, but this article really shouldn't be here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AGF Oppose: I have seen Devi bhakta and Redtigerxyz put a lot of hard work into this article and I commend them for doing so. I would really like to see such a wonderful topic become an FA one day. However, I share most of Fowler's concerns. I will be much closer to supporting this article once the bullet-point lists are converted into paragraphs of prose and the quotes are paraphrased. Half of the article at the moment appears to be more suited for Wikiquote. GizzaDiscuss © 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply: We, the editors of Shaktism, are trying to address the concerns expressed, primarily the quote issue. We will be working on the conversion of the quotes into prose in the following days. As such, we request some time to mend the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment
First of all, I would like to commend the authors of the article for trying to write on a difficult subject such as this. However, I would like to see lots of changes too.
- I am skeptical about such sentences as (and would like clarifications about the time period mentioned) From the Goddess's earliest known appearance in Indian paleolithic settlements more than 22,000 years ago, through the refinement of her cult in the Indus Valley Civilization, her partial eclipse during the Vedic period'.
- This criticism is of particular concern to me. The sentence mentioned above is a summary of the History and Philosophy section -- in, particular the full, detailed article entitled History of Shaktism, which was specifically removed from the main article due to a concern that its inclusion made the main article too long. However, this comment marks at least the third or fourth time someone has noted the article lacks in historical/philosophical coverage.
- Now, I am assuming that those users who take the time to comment on the article are also those most likely to read it closely -- meaning that if these people fail to notice that the History of Shaktism exists as a sub article, then casual readers are probably even more likely never to see the History article. Thus I need to ask, very sincerely: Should I stop worrying about length, and return the History of Shaktism "daughter article" back into the main article? (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
- P.S. You note "such sentences as" ... If there are other sentences that make you "skeptical", could you kindly note them specifically so that I may properly address your concerns? Thanks (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
- Need clarification on The religious historian V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1896-1953) expressed it thus:. Here, is the scholar religious minded or is he a scholar on religion?
- I am not sure that I understand the distinction. Wouldn't the second by definition be the first? At any rate: Dikshitar was (in the 1920s-40s) a professor of history at St. Joseph's College, Bangalore; then (in the mid-1940s onward) Lecturer, later Reader, and finally Professorial Chair of the Department of Indian History and Archaeology at the University of Madras. He was also Honorary Reader in Politics and Public Administration at the same institution, and General Editor of the Madras University Historical Series. A posthumous bio notes that he belonged to a group of "avant-garde historians who introduced a new methodology into the study of Indian history"; he contributed "innumerable" articles on "various dimensions of Indian history" to scholarly journals both in India and abroad, including both "original treatises [and] translations." (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
- Added the above info to the article as a footnote at Dikshitar's first reference. (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
- I would like the prose simplified in Shakti (i.e., the Supreme Goddess as Power, or Energy) is considered the motivating force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos.
- It is interesting because precisely this sentence was singled out for special ridicule by user:Fowler&fowler above. Interestingly, if you glance back through the early history of the article, you will note that it is about the only sentence from the original article that survived my recent expansion! I guess that is either a tribute to the fact I edited as much as I did, or else a condemnation that I stopped without removing more! ;-) In any event, point taken, I will completely rework this poor sentence! (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
- As mentioned earlier by other users, the list can become prose.
- I believe Redtigerxyz has already addressed this; do you have another list from the article in mind, or should I disregard this? (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
These are just a few examples. The same sort of simplification and clarifications are sought through out the article.
- Obviously, more specific examples would be appreciated. Having written most of the article, I am probably not a good one to judge where "simplification and clarifications" are called for. In a re-write of this complexity, I need all the guidance I can get. (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
I will come back and take a look later when copy edits are completed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been though a Peer Review, all concerns have been addressed, and I believe the article covers all criteria for a featured article and covers the city in depth. Wongm (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: You have fact tags and one-sentence paragraphs in the article. Were these not caught in the peer review? --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Moni3. I see a few unreferenced paragraphs, fact tags and short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. References 2, 17, 30, 35, 40, 41, 43, 59, 67, 79, 86, 88, 89 and 94 have formatting problems. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Done Fact tags, unreferenced paragraphs, reference formatting and short paragraphs addressed. Done a bit of copyediting as well. Wongm (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply:
- Oppose—1a. Here are samples from the opening. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by someone unfamiliar with it.
- Reps: largest/city/state/Australia/largest/state/city/largest/cities/Australia/city/state/City, all in five lines.
- "car manufacturer Ford Australia, and"—remove the comma.
- "Geelong was named in 1837 by Governor Richard Burke, with the name derived from the local"—"with" is a poor connector, and it's already overused.
- MOS: double quotes required for terms.
- "mid-1850s".
- Get rid of the US spelling: "rivaLLing"
- "The city then diversified into manufacturing, rivaling Sydney, Hobart and Melbourne as woollen mills, ropeworks, and paper mills were established,[5] but the next few decades saw the population stay relatively constant, until the 19th century."—Does "but" introduce a contradiction here?
- "Geelong was proclaimed a city in 1910, with industrial growth from this time until the 1960s establishing the city as a manufacturing centre for the state,"—FOR the state? Sounds like Soviet-style state-ownership of industry. "Growth establishing the city" is ungrammatical, and again, "with" as an unsatisfatory back-connector. "... 1910; from this time until the190s, industrial growth established the ...". Tony (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have listed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Geelong, Victoria for an outsider to check it. Wongm (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this is a very thorough, detailed, well-written, accurate and interesting article about baseball catcher Raul Casanova. Alex (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose – I believe the article fails some of the featured article criteria, and should be improved on some points:
- Fails 1.(b): the article barely addresses the years between 1972 and 1990.
- Fails 1.(c): many facts in the article don't have source references.
- Fails 2.(a): the article has a very short lead section; the lead is not a good summary, some information in the lead is not in the article.
- I noticed many sentences start with the word "He", some copyediting could be useful.
- I also think the section 'professional baseball' should be split up into subsections.
- Strong Oppose This article is horrible. The lead section sucks and there are not enough references. The article is not comprehensive and needs a personal life section. --Kaypoh (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to comment in a constructive manner. Instead of saying the lead "sucks", provide something actionable, such as "The lead is not comprehensive, and fails to include major points from the article, such as [example] and [example]." This both promotes a better atmosphere and better helps the nominator to improve the article. Pagrashtak 02:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, not even close to featured. There needs to be many more sources, the lead and the sections "The Draft" and "Overall Analysis" are uncomprehensive, and there is no image, to name a few problems. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Lee Smith (baseball) and Bob Meusel as examples of baseball players FAs, and follow that lead. Secret account 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Article is in a bunch of tiny chunks rather than prose paragraphs, the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded, etc. Take Secret's advice and look at those two FA's. Wizardman 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not even close. See all above. Also much of the problem identified in the peer review have not been solved. Furhtermore, I think there is a reason for the quality hierarchy. Jumping from start classto FA is very ambitious, try to get it to Good Article first; that is easier to achieve; although the article would need substantial improvements even for that. Arnoutf
12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Western Chalukya architecture is an important step in the development of South Indian architecture. The Western Chalukya architecture of 11th and 12th centuries is considered a conceptual link between the 8th century architecture of the Badami Chalukyas and the 12th / 13th century Hoysala architecture. This temple building style flourished in medieval Karnataka in southern India. The topic is well referenced and cited and is on the same lines as the earlier FA, Hoysala architecture. Please provide constructive feedback on format, grammar and presentation that would help make this a FA.
thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why is the "A" capitalized in the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I just started that way. If it is an issue, I can move the article and make it lower case.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Article title modified. - KNM Talk 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by Redtigerxyz
- Support
Comment: As requested by Dineshkannambadi, moved my comments from article talk page here, I have not gone through the whole article yet and may have some more comments to add tomorrow. Also, I will also make minor edits to the article, whereever neccessary IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) {{fact}} tags added in article
Done. DK Added citations. Rectified sentences where applicable. Sometimes the meaning changes unintentionally during cpedits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Added more.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can the "Chaturmukha" image be brightened. The shadow is the most prominent thing in the photo.Else i suggest, it be removed.
DK This image is considered unique and only second in workmanship to the famous Saraswati image in Gadag (Cousens, p78, 1926). Thats the reason I added the image. I will change the image to a Jain tirthankar which is clearer, if you insist.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I have added the image of the Jaina also.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it may be the most beautiful piece, but whats the point in keeping it when it blocked by a huge shadow? My suggestion: Brighten it or remove it.About the other Image - Jain tirthankar in "Temple Deities", the same murti can be seen in "Early developments" Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG, thus a case of WP:UNDUE. So one of them should be removed, Preferably the one in "Temple Dieties" be removed as the other one shows the murti as well as Door panel decoration. Update the image heading of Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG in "Early developments" documenting the fact the temple diety is also seen.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done updated image caption, removed repeat image.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will try the brightening up myself.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can someone fix the tilt in Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In Temple Deities, "The temple has two other shrines dedicated to Murthinarayana and Chandraleshwari, the parents of Mahadeva, the Chalukya commander who consecrated the temple in 1112 CE" The 2 commas make the meaning not so WP:OBVIOUS.
DK Done rectified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are the Surya (called Suryanarayana) shrine at the Kasi Visvesvara" Is the temple called Suryanarayana shrine or Suryanarayana, the other name of Surya, is quoted?
DK Done I have corrected this. The Surya is portrayed as Suryanarayana. Hence its still Surya, the Sun god.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Janardana, a name of Vishnu? Thus the temple is probably dedicated to Vishnu. Check who the main diety is. Challenging "Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are ... the Janardana and Durga Temples at Hirekerur in the Haveri district".[1] The ref does not say so. Thus OR IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Done I have rectified this. Yes, Janardhana is indeed a form of Vishnu. However, the other temples mentioned are clearly neither Shaiva (dedicated to Shiva) or Vaishnava (dedicated to Vishnu). I can remove it if you feel the sentence is unnecessary, though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is 'Dravida' same as the Dravida of the this wiki article or is it an architectural term?If former applies, link the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dk Reply The term Dravida style of architecture means architecture that developed in Southern India, distinguishing it from the Nagara style of Northern India (which itself is sub-divided into Kalinga etc based on region, and latina, Sekhari, Bhumija based on shapes of towers). Here Dravida is a general term and a broad Southern classification within which scholars use terms such as Pure Dravida (as in the some temples of Pattadakal and those at Mahabalipuram), Karnata Dravida - the variant that developed in Karnataka region and so on. The Dravida article tends to focus on linguistic groups (which is better accepted) and racial classifications (which as you may know is very controversial). However, one can broadly tie all these classifications together and call it Dravida or South Indian. Instead of linking it to Dravida article, maybe I should just provide a bracketed explanation and call it Dravida (meaning South Indian). What do you think?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC) In fact this explanation already exists in the "Evolution" section in the very begining. Scholars do classify dravida generally as southern Indian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment, Dravida redirects to Dravidian people. Maybe something like: Dravida (south Indian), may be added at first occurence. Also sometimes dravida is spelt with a capital "D" (Dravida) , sometimes as lower case. Dravida (if proper noun) or dravida (if common) - one standard form be used. Most of article uses dravida.[17] But IMO, it is a proper noun as it refers to an unique style of architecture. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dk Reply Ok. Will do. I will take care of the other concerns also tonight.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Dk Reply I have made dravida lower case, provided (south Indian) and (north Indian) bracketed explanation for first appearence of the terms dravida and nagara respectively.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am adding link to Dravidian architecture, which a suitable link for Dravida style of architecture.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is singular and plural of Mandapa same or is the plural Mandapas? Please Check. "On occasion there can be two or more open mantapa." in Basic layout.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Dk Reply mantapas is ok and is used in Kamath (2001), p116.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Drammatic overuse of phrase "The best example(s) of" or just "the best" or another variant "The finest examples of".[18] [19]. The article has many instances when a feature is discussed then you have "the best example of" X, Y, Z temples. The repetitive nature of the article makes reading a little boring (If I may say so) after a while. Needs to a copyedit to eliminate this.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Reply I have cpedited this repetitive phrase out, for most part.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"The best examples of this style are the Muktesvara Temple at Chavudayyadanapura in Haveri district, which was renovated in the 13th century and whose vimana can be best described as sharp and tidy" in Unique plans - who describes the vimana as sharp and tidy? If a personal view, it should be removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Dk Reply I have modified the sentence slightly and provided citation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will go through whole article again and then only strike this out. Not now, Maybe in the evening. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- "during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style, the finest examples of which are " in lead. "examples of" repeated twice. The word "example" 5 times in lead.
- "example(s) of" thrice in last para - "Temple Dieties".
- "example(s) of" thrice in "Unique Plans"--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Reply I have taken care of this issue now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no info in text form about Stepped well (pictured).
Dk Reply Yes unfortunately, none of the books I own describe the stepped wells. But a recent book published by Gerard Foekema "Architecture of Indian subcontinent" has a few lines on it which i have lined to in citation 47.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- That raises another issue: I observed that some pictures are placed with no reference in the text, looking out of place. Examples: The Image:Sculpture at Siddhesvara temple at Haveri.JPG is more revelant in Sculpture than in Temple Deities. While the Jain Tirthankar should be in Temple deities. etc. I suggest a rearrangement of pics so that placed "where they are appropriate to the subject." (WP:FA?) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done movd images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- The windows of Manikesvara Temple (pictured) not discussed in text. The temple finds mention only in the list at the end.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Challenging "Unique Plans" title. Is it really unique - Being only one of its self ? Can it be referenced that the plans are really unique? else it may be a violation of WP:NPOV (a glorification of the subj).--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Dk Reply Yes, the 16 pointed and 24 pointed uniterrupted plans are isolated cases in India. All stellate plans (according to the author) in north India are the 32 pointed interrupted type, making the 16 and 24 pointed ones unique. However, so as not to draw undue attention to this issue, I have changed the title of that section which has all the citations needed. I can however add more if you so desire. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- The {{KarnatakaHistory}} looks out of place in Architectural elements. The template be placed elsewhere or removed.
Done Dk Reply Moved to a less conspicuous location.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why has the {{Western Chalukya Temples}} template been created if it is to be used for 1 article? Just incorporate whole code in the article. Thats makes editing the article simple. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Here, I request that the template be maintained. This is consistant with all other FA's I wrote. Some reviewers frown upon a "list" of temples and discourage lists. I either created a template for temples in architecture articles or a template for Kings in regular history articles. I want to expand this template and include more temples, further provide date of consecration, kings who commissioned it, may be even a column for articulation style etc (dravida, nagara). This way I can keep all details in one template and link from there to subarticles.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dk Reply I will look into this.thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I will look into your questions and concerns later today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Though 2 small things to be done, those do not stop me supporting a great article and I trust Dineshkannambadi will resolve it too. IMO, now; the article is almost "WP:PERFECT". The word "almost" is included as perfection "is not attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The article has a lot of images relative to the amount of text. It makes me wonder whether we need a new category of articles that are more strongly based around images. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Every image in the article is directly related to an architectural element or development that has been described in the article. I can reduce the images but find another reviewer suggest that the number the images are insufficient. Also, the number of images is consistant with my other architecture related FA.thanksDineshkannambadi 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by User:Tony1
Oppose—Improved writing; "small- star" errant space; huge white space in "Notable temples: PLEASE fix! Can't the images go to the side of the table? En dash for year range at top of table. Oh, and en dashes for page ranges in the reference list. Tony (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)1a. Long sentences, often complicated in structure, and redundant wording. Here are a few random examples from the top.
- DK Reply I will deal with these issues right away. I somehow missed your comment. sorry about that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply fixed en dashes. Will work on other issues tommorow. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply Improved white space by adding additional col to template and dated monuments from sources.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK question Not sure what this means - "small- star" errant space. Can you please tell me.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply reduced sentence length.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Large and small temples built during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style,
well known among which areincluding the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district." It's a longish sentence with an awkward bit in the middle (well-known, please).
- Done reduced length of many sentences, improved prose.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The influence of this style is seen up to the Kalyani region and beyond in the north-east, in the Bellary region in the east, in the Mysore region in the south, and in the Bijapur-Belgaum region in the north, where they mix with the remnants of the Hemadpanti temples." What does "they" refer to? What is being mixed?
Done DK Reply clarified and broke into multiple sentences.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Caption: "11th c. CE"—c. means "about". You'll have to spell it out.
Done DK Reply spelled it out as "century". The exact date of consecratin of a few monuments is debated based on inscriptional evidence. So even historians simply give the 11th century/12th century rather then exact date.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Though Western Chalukya architecture identifies as an independent tradition by virtue of the various modifications attained by its builders, closer examination reveals that its basic plan can be traced back to the older pure dravida (south Indian) temple plans that developed simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions, then under the control of the Badami Chalukyas and Pallava empires respectively." Phew. "Although" is nicer in a formal register. Replace "identifies as" with just "was". Remove "various". "Attained" is strange here. Remove "closer examination reveals that", which is not quite necessary here, is it?
Done DK Reply corrected per above advice and reduced sentence length somewhat.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Study ... has revealed ..."—This is a bit laboured when you give the reference anyway. Why not just state it? "In the W C style, there is/was a distinct ..." I don't know; it's kind of complicated to unravel and simplify, but someone must do it. I'm getting confused about was/is, style/building. Avoid repetitions such as "architectural" in the one phrase. What is "articulation"—link or explain on first occurrence.
Is user Fowler&fowler still around? Or Samir? They might agree to help. Tony (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply the meaning of articulation (according to the scholars referenced) is given in the section "Temple complexes" and subsection "Basic layout" and goes like this, Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation.
Done DK Reply I have reduced usage of "architectural" term, chopped many long sentences into smaller ones, explained "articulation" on first occurance. Will continue to improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I will look into these issues as well as others that may exist.Dineshkannambadi 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I will continue to look for long winding sentences, complicated sentences and simplyfy it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Disappointed to find a glitch in the first sentence: "between the 11th and
the12th centuries". "about fifty monuments have survivedto date" "their stylemixesis mixed with the". "These vanished structures"—ungrammatical. Now if these are just random pick-ups in the lead, there must be an awful lot in the rest. Tony (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Dk Reply I have taken care of these examples you have shown and will continue to cpedit and improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I will look into this right away. I will also request an experienced copy editor to help me with this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Reply I have requested another user, not connected with the article to do a copy edit and improve prose. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Reply I would like to thank user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and user:Epbr123 for their copy edits and spelling checks to improve the prose in this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - A well-referenced, interesting article which we have come to expect from dinesh.Bakaman 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Meets FA criteria. Well-written, and well-cited with ample images. "Architectural elements" section might require some minor alignments regarding images. Overall, very impressive work. - KNM Talk 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - Well referenced and meets FA criteria. Naveen (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong support- Another beautiful FA from Dineshkannambadi, well referenced and meets the FA criterias. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OpposeHuge whitespace in "Notable temples" section. I see a few wordy phrases ("are known to be"..."it is considered"..."it is known"), POV ("well known among them"..."an indicator of the prolific temple building activity"...""..."undoubtedly an important seat, if not the main seat") and weasel words (""may have been influenced by""..."it seems that"). But it's good enough for GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I will look into your concerns shortly. However, it would be appreciated if you could point out which sentences you see these "phrases" in. As far as blank space, is there a wiki policy on that? I am not sure. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Dk Reply I have corrected several weasel words, wordy phrases etc. If you have any more concerns, please indicate the entire sentence and how you want it re-worded.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply I have reduced white space in "Notable temples". Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by Michael Devore
- Spelling variants
Here are a few spelling variations I found when looking through the article on the first passes. I'll try to do another couple of passes later today.
- Chavudayyadanapura and Chaudayyadanapura
Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Banashankri and Banashankari
{ DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hirehadagalli and Hirehadgalli
DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- There remains one variation in the current version. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Done now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nanesvara and Nannesvara
DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- There remains one variation in the current version. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Done now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Basavana and Basavanna
DK Reply This is ok. Basavanna is a person, "Basavana Bagevadi" with single "n" is a place where he was laid to rest.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Two are in the template Western Chalukya Temples. One is in the template Karnataka. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will look into this today.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply All spelling issues have been corrected.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wording
While reading through the article I found sentences where the structure is likely in error. I generally do not make higher-level content edits on writing style, leaving the task to those more talented in that area, but I'll list found problematic sentences should you want to make changes.
Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". This reads as a sentence fragment; as the simplest fix I would recommend adding an are before categorised.
Normally, Chalukyan temples were built facing the east – although, exceptions include the Siddhesvara temple at Haveri. Wikipedia prefers the unspaced em dash for interruption, see Wikipedia:Mos#Em_dashes. (In fact, there are editors on WP with a history of making wholesale changes from space en dash to unspaced em dash.) A second problem, potentially, is that the sentence may have too much interruption: an interruptive dash, followed by the interruptive although, immediately followed by a pausing comma. Consider dropping the comma, or perhaps the entire although, (you use a lot of althoughs in the article). This may fall under stylistic decisions, however.
- Done DK Reply The article has been copy edited by so many, I am not sure who introduced the "although", though I have no issue with it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Other sentences in the article have a space en dash and will probably be altered in the future by one of the aforementioned editors if you don't do it yourself, e.g. at articulation – namely, stones – each, and others.
Temples that fall in this category are the Mahadeva Temple at Jalsingi and the Suryanarayana Temple at Kalgi in modern Gulbarga district. The article probably should have a 'the' before modern. No preceding the is correct if you dropped district, or if district was capitalized as part of the full Gulbarga name. You already have a the on two other Gulbarga district phrases in the article, so consider that, too.
Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That wraps up my smattering of higher-level copy edit suggestions. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)]
- DK Reply I missed your comments which you typed onto the talk page. I have copied it here. I shall look into your concerns today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
comment
I did a modest rework of your first paragraph to make it read better (to me), while keeping your original sentence content to match the references. I didn't know what the references say and was therefore conservative in changing things around so as not to make the refs invalid. I'll try to get to the second through nth paragraph as time allows, but it's rather slow going given my unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
Clearly there is still room for improvement, so I won't be putting any scheduled League copyeditors out of work here. Revert if you don't like the changes, my feelings will survive intact. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was rather more aggressive in reworking paragraph 3 to get a better read, but I think it retains your meaning. Michael Devore (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As Western Chalukya architecture is now edited by Finetooth, I won't be making further changes to the article except on the unlikely chance I clearly see a problem. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Thank you for your copy edits to improve the prose in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments by user:Fowler&fowler
Oppose The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going away for a few weeks, so I won't be around to offer any more comments or to follow up, but perhaps users SandyGeorgia or Tony1 can take another look at the article. Here is the first paragraph of the lead. (The text is in italics and my comments in parentheses. Sorry, if I sound too casual or brusque; I'm in a bit of a hurry.)
Western Chalukya architecture (Kannada: ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಚಾಲುಕ್ಯ ವಾಸ್ತುಶಿಲ್ಪ), also known as Kalyani Chalukya or Later Chalukya architecture, is the distinctive building style developed under the rule of the Western Chalukya Empire in the Tungabhadra region of central Karnataka, India, between the 11th and 12th centuries.
(The lead sentence defines the architecture as "the distinctive building style." The reader now wants to know what makes the style distinctive, but the following sentences drop the ball.)
Western Chalukya influence was at its peak in the 12th century, when it dominated the Deccan Plateau.
(The sentence is vague: what does "Western Chalukya influence" mean here? The influence of the empire or of the architecture? There are grammatical problems: the subject is "Western Chalukya influence," and therefore "it" clearly refers to the influence, i.e. "Western Chalukya influence dominated the Deccan Plateau," which makes is doubly vague. Also, the "Deccan Plateau" is a geographical feature; it is like saying that Mughal architecture dominated the Indo-Gangetic Plain (rather than the architecture of northern India). But the main problem for me is one of cohesion/coherence: the reader—after the first sentence—is looking forward to be told what is distinctive; instead, she/he gets a detour, to something that is irrelevant to that focus.)
- DK Reply First of all, Western Chalukya influence means "political and cultural" influence, both of which have a direct impact on architecture. I will add this. Secondly, you need to get to the heart of the article to get the details. You cant expect me to explain what their influence was and what their achievements were in the LEAD section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f response to reply: No, you don't need to describe the influence, but clarify what influence you are talking about. Even so, what does it mean when you say, "Western Chalukya (political and cultural) influence dominated the Deccan Plateau?" Do you mean: "The Western Chalukya empire significantly influenced the politics and culture of the entire Deccan Plateau?" As for addressing what is distinctive about the architecture, you do need to say something, i.e. provide some identifying highlights. See Sicilian Baroque or Deconstructivism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. DK Reply Clarified "political influence". Added generally what was distinctive about their style (decorative ornamentation).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Although, the central Karnataka region held its position as the nucleus of cultural activity, (something must be missing here) where the workshops built monuments with vigour.
(Again, the sentence is not grammatical, but, more importantly, what is the point of the sentence? The reader is still waiting to be told what is distinctive. "workshops built monuments with vigour?" Well, workshops don't really build monuments; they might turn out the building blocks of monuments (sculpture, ornaments etc.), but not the monuments themselves. Also, "vigour" would apply to the artisans or builders, but not really to workshops.)
- DK Reply The point is to tell the reader where the architectural activities thrived. When you write of Mogul architecture, would you not want to explain where the architecture thrived?. You write something must be missing here. If you cant tell what is missing, I cant correct it. Again you are wrong in making a assumption. A workshop includes all sorts of guilds; sculptors, architects, masons, even miners who mined out the stone shafts. So your assumption that workshops dont build monuments is wrong. BTW, I used the term used by Dr. Adam Hardy, its not my invention.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f response to reply: 1) The sentence, "Although (no comma here) the central Karnataka region held its position as the nucleus of cultural activity, where the workshops built monuments with vigour." is not grammatical (beyond the minor comma problem). You have the subordinate clause, but what is the independent clause? It can't be, "where the ..." 2) If the point of the sentence is to explain where the architecture thrived, then why not simply say: "The central Karanataka region was the centre of architectural activity."? 3) As for "workshop," here are some dictionary definitions: 1) (American Heritage) "A room, area, or small establishment where manual or light industrial work is done." (Webster's Unabridged) "a small establishment where manufacturing or craftwork is carried on by a proprietor with or without helpers and often without power machinery." If the word "workshop" is being used in an unusual manner, then perhaps it needs to be qualified, for example: "large medieval workshops" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply Added "large medieval workshops", removed "Although".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
These structures are a local variant of the basic dravida (south Indian) plan and termed "The Karnata dravida" tradition.
(Well, now it belatedly does mention the architecture, but instead of explaining it, it gives it another name, this time the tradition rather than the architecture, all of which is very confusing to a reader. The reader has no idea what the basic dravida tradition is. Also: "These structures?" You didn't refer to them in the previous sentence. Which structures are you talking about? The monuments?)
- DK Reply I will change the word "structure" to "monuments". I will also add in brackets what karnata dravida means. This is a summry style article. You cant expect me to write in detail about pure dravida tradition here. But if you patiently read through the article, you will get an idea, I am sure.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f response to reply: I'm not asking you to detail anything. I guess what I am saying is this. The subject of the sentence is "These structures." The compound predicate is problematic. The structures are not variants of a "plan," but rather built according to a plan. Similarly, the structures are not termed "Karnataka dravida" tradition, but rather define (or form, or belong to) the tradition. Do you mean local variants or regional variants? Do you want "variant" in the singular? The qualifier "basic" assumes some sort of familiarity on the part of the reader: either provide a link, or don't mention it. I guess if I had to write it, I might say something along the lines of: "These monuments, whose plans were regional variants of the pre-existing dravida (South Indian) temple plan, were to define the Karnataka dravida tradition."
- Done DK Reply Replaced my sentence with Fowlers sentence for clarity and provided link..Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Temples of all sizes built during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style.
(The sentence is ambiguous. Does it mean that all temples built during this era were built in the WC style? Or, that temples of all sizes have survived and together define the WC style? Still no explanation of distinctiveness.)
- DK Reply I will reword this to ensure it means "Temples of all sizes built by the Western Chalukyas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply I have clarified who built the large and samll temples.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Notable among them are the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district. Other monuments with notable craftmanship include the Siddhesvara Temple at Haveri in the Haveri district, Amrtesvara Temple at Annigeri in the Dharwad district, Sarasvati Temple in Gadag and Dodda Basappa Temple at Dambal, both in the Gadag district.
(Well, now the text goes off on an extended tour of the different locations. If the point of the lead is to list the geographical locations of the architectural style, then there should be a map, instead of the photographs, accompanying the text. In other words, an average reader would be hard put to summarize what she/he has read up to this point.)
It's not just the lead paragraph. I see the same problems in all sorts of random places.
- DK Reply I dont agree that there should be a map. Now you are being vague by using the term all sorts of random places.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f response to reply: OK, I'll provide a longer list below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Evolution section: Although Western Chalukya architecture was an independent tradition by virtue of the modifications achieved by its builders ...
(Doesn't make sense. Modifications of what? If they are modifications, how are they independent?)
- DK Reply Please patiently read thru the article and the modifications will jump at you. You cant expect me to write that in the first line of the first section after the lead. Historians normally consider the extent of modifications before calling a style "independent". Going by your arguement, no architectural style can be considered "independent". For example, the Western Ganga style is really not considered independent because it is much closer to pure dravida than Western Chalukya style is. BTW, these are the opinions of experts such as Cousens, Hardy and Foekema, not mine. I have provided the citations for your benefit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f's response to reply: I'm simply talking about the sentence: "Although Western Chalukya architecture was an independent tradition by virtue of the modifications achieved by its builders, its basic plan can be traced back to the older pure dravida temple plans that developed simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions." It seems you have the independent and subordinate clauses switched. I think you probably mean something along the lines of: "Although the basic plan of the WC style could be traced back to the older dravida style, WC architecture came to define an independent tradition as a result of the many innovations introduced in it." Also, "simultaneously" means "occurring at the same time." You can't have "simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply I have replaced my sentence with Fowler's sentence and removed the term "simultaneously".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Temple Deities section: Identification of the original presiding deity to which the temple was dedicated to, in case the temple had been appropriated by another faith, is made possible by inspection of certain features.
(Passive voice makes it too convoluted. "in case the ... faith" is a restrictive phrase. "certain features?" Too vague. Doesn't invite the reader to the sentences that come next.)
- DK Reply How do you propose I reword it.? The "certian features" will become clear in the next few sentences. I can remove the second occurance of "to".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f's response to reply: Something along the lines of: "If the temple has been converted to that of another faith, the original presiding deity can sometimes still be identified by looking for some salient clues." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Response Changed sentence per above comment.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In section Temple Complexes (Basic Layout): Common to both plans are the use of two or more doorways and porches giving entrance to the main hall. Unlike the northern Indian temples, which have a small closed mantapa leading to the shrine, and the southern pure dravida temples, which have a large open pillared mantapa, the Chalukyan architects found a compromise and retained both.
(How could these sentences have escaped copy editing by a number of editors? It should be "Common to both plans is the use ..." The subject in the next sentence is "the Chalukyan architects." Surely, they are not being compared to north Indian temples. Other problems too.)
- Done DK Reply fixed the grammar. Now architects are compared to architects.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I will copy edit this sentence.What other problems?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I see these problems pretty much everywhere I look. Other problems? Too much jargon in technical explanations. Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I though the idea was to explain what their "modifications " were. I thought the idea was to show the reader how Western Chalukya architecture" varied from pure southern and pure northern Indian styles. Now you you say "too much technical details", earlier you said "not enough detail". I am confused.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Response I am going to break up this mass into smaller manageable pieces.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- F&f response to reply: Well, in the lead I was asking for some identifying highlights, some salient features, something brief to hang my hat on. In the other sections, I find there is too much jargon, or rather an uneven combination of vague words and jargon. Look at the first paragraph of the Basic Layout section: The plan of the Western Chalukya temples can be classified into three features: the basic structure, the features of architectural articulation and the decorative features.
- DoneDK Reply Dr. Foekema says "distinguished into three features", but I have used "subdivided" as you suggest.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The basic structure defines whether the shrine has a pradakshina (path for circumambulation) or not, the size of the shrine and of the sanctum inside, and the basic distribution of the building. Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation. These are either stepped/stellate or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners and the latter have only four projecting corners. There are two basic kinds of architectural articulation: the southern Indian dravida and the northern Indian nagara types.
- Done DK reply The term "whole of shrine" is confusing. Its the "entire wall of the shrine that pocesses the projections and recesses".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture".
In the first sentence you must mean "subdivided into three components." To "classify" is to assign to a class. "architectural articulation" needs to be explained briefly in simpler words, and not just as you do in a later sentence by describing what it is included in it. The next sentence "The basic structure defines whether the shrine has ..." is a disaster. The basic structure doesn't define ...; rather, it is those ... properties that define the basic structure. What is "basic distribution" (too vague)? Is it the blueprint or floor plan? Need a better choice of words. Look at the predicate: one part starts with "whether;" the others don't. That's like saying, "The Health report defines whether a person smokes or not, height, weight, blood lipid levels and basic health," when one means something like, "The Health report includes information on whether a patient smokes or not, as well as the weight, height, and blood lipid levels of the patient; in addition, information from a physical exam is included." The next sentence, "Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation" is too ambiguous. "Patterns that include the whole of the shrine?" (The shrine is not a pattern.) "such as projections and recesses" (Are they the ornamental components or the patterns?) Next sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate or square/rectangular" (The jargon is not explained.) In the next sentence: "In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners and the latter have only four projecting corners." you mean, "In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners; in the latter, only four do."
- Done DK Reply I have rectified the meaning which may have changed over various copy edits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
But, the grammar aside, it seems to be a clunky explanation of those terms. The next sentence, "There are two basic kinds of architectural articulation: the southern Indian dravida and the northern Indian nagara types." gives us some information, but we don't know what to do with the information, as the sentences that follow talk about something entirely different.
- DK Reply Is it the right thing to do (in a summary style article) to go into explaining what is dravida and what is nagara here.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence, "Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". is incomplete. Where is the predicate? Do you really want "depictions?" This is just one paragraph. I see this pretty much in every paragraph of the text. That is why I think this is not an easy fix: the article needs to be withdrawn, organized clearly, rewritten in clear, grammatical language, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done DK Reply Sorry but I dont see how the sentence is incomplete. Could you please explain how? The correct word is "representations", not "depictions". I have made that change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I have read your lengthy set of negative comments and I shall try hard to solve as many of your issues with the article as possible. Its too bad you wont be around to acknowledge my efforts, now that you plan to go away for Christmas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I will try and make suitable changes to the article to improve the grammar and clarity, though this may take me a day or two, given the number of issues.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
DK comment Rewritten in clear, grammatical language, this article has gone through formal peer-review and has undergone several rounds of copyedits by different editors. If you have specific issues on any grammatical issues, please point them out, and I will try addressing them. Again, thanks for your efforts on reviewing this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by Mattisse
Comment - Agree with Fowler&fowler«Talk» 's statement above: "Where is the predicate? Do you really want "depictions?" This is just one paragraph. I see this pretty much in every paragraph of the text. That is why I think this is not an easy fix: the article needs to be withdrawn, organized clearly, rewritten in clear, grammatical language, and then resubmitted." Fowler&fowler«Talk»
DK Comment I have gone through your comments and find them very vague and unclear. You seem to have a problem with many sentences, but you dont state what is the actual problem.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Although the article has noticeably improved over the last few days, much to your credit, I believe you want the article to be the finest it can be. Why not take the time to make this article sparkle, rather than rushing it through FAC? For example, IMO, the article suffers from the following problems:
The writing style is dull and clumsy, not sparkling as befits an FA e.g. "The features that became common in the 11th century were used in addition to adding new features."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There remain many ungrammatical and oddly worded sentences: e.g.
- "Western Chalukyan figure sculptures are well rendered, one such sculpture worthy of mention is of the Hindu Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati Temple in Gadag city."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by user:Fowler&fowler on Dineshkannambadi's response to Mattisse's review. I am afraid you are being a little cavalier in your responses to Mattisse's criticisms. Her concerns are neither vague nor unclear. She's doing you a big favor by pointing out examples of prose that would not be acceptable in any Wikipedia article, let alone an FA. It is not her job to provide the corrections as well. If you are truly unable to figure out the problems (both grammatical and stylistic) in a sentence like, "Western Chalukyan figure sculptures are well rendered, one such sculpture worthy of mention is of the Hindu Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati Temple in Gadag city," I am afraid you don't inspire much confidence that you will attend to the remaining deficiencies in the text. You say that the article went through a formal peer-review. That doesn't justify the presence of mistakes. We are not talking about "mistakes" that are (in reality) disguised stylistic preferences of individual editors, but glaring mistakes of grammar and diction that no one would disagree about. If you think she is being vague, why don't you invite any of the editors who participated in the formal peer-review or for that matter any of the editors who have gone on record as supporting this FAC to defend Mattisse's examples. I will provide more criticism later in the day, but I would urge you to take Mattisse's comments seriously. If you don't understand them, find someone from the League of Copy Editors who does. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "But in the overall arrangement of the main temple and of the subsidiary shrines, they leaned towards the northern style ....",
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Apart from an occasional exaggeration in its pose, each principle deity had its own pose depending on the incarnation or form depicted."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also "found popularity" is oddly worded. Words like linga should be either linked to an explanation or explained.
- DK Reply was already linked.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "At Hangal, the architects were able to provide a sekhari superstructure to the shrine while the lower half received a nagara articulation and depictions of miniature sekhari towers. This style of workmanship with a square plan are found at Muttagi and Degaon."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In all three cases, the shrine is a 16-pointed uninterrupted star, a plan unfound anywhere else in India..." - there is no such word as "unfound".
- DK Reply corrected typo. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th-century characteristics become prominent."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "These differences manifest in the articulation and in the shapes and ornamentation of individual architectural components, giving them a unique place in Chalukyan architecture."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Too much weasel wording and passive voice. e.g. "Sometimes called the Gadag style of architecture, it is considered a precursor to the famous Hoysala architecture of southern Karnataka". And again in the very the next sentence: "It is known that the early builders the Hoysalas employed originated from important centres of medieval Chalukyan art." And again, "This change is observed in the Muktesvara Temple..."
- DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I would stress that words that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be either linked or explained. There are many words in the article that I do not know the meaning of.
- DK Reply This is perhaps the primary problem, in that you may not be intimate with or have the basics of Hindu architecture. Please point out which words you dont understand and I shall link orexplain it .Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
These are just examples randomly picked. If you go through the article following the many good suggestions given to you above by many other editors, it should noticeably improve the article. You tend to use their suggestions on the sentence they provide as an example, rather than generalizing the suggestions to the whole article. You cannot expect the FA editors to copy edit the entire article.
- DK Reply I though it was a reviewers responsibility to read the article fully and then make suggestions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I question the basic overall organization of the article. Are the sections presented in an order that makes sense? It is hard for me to follow the article, but maybe others feel differently. Mattisse 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Again you are being vague. What is overall basic organization.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Mattisse, thanks for your review of the article. I believe all these changes you suggest can be made within the FAC itself. I dont see the need to pull it out. thanks for your effort in improving the article. If you have specific suggestions how the article can be improved, plese spell it out and I will surely consider it.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
user:Fowler&fowler's comments of December 18
(I am traveling. I managed to find a weak connection to the internet; hope I can stay connected.) I am afraid there are still too many problems. I see some improvement, but mostly in the parts that I have already commented on. Here, for example, is the second paragraph of the lead. There are problems in every sentence of the paragraph. (PS. I haven't had the time to read user:Mattisse's comments with great care, but I agree with most of them. I have now read user:Mattisse's comments and I agree with all of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
The centre of these architectural developments was the region of Dharwad district (presently divided into Dharwad, Haveri and Gadag districts), and about 50 monuments have survived, an indicator of the temple building activity of the Western Chalukyan architects.
- "The centre of these architectural developments was the region of Dharwad district (presently divided into Dharwad, Haveri and Gadag districts)," The region of a district is the region that lies within that district, not a larger region including that distict. "Darwar district," linked to the present-day district, can't be divided into other present-day districts that lie outside it. Better to say, "The centre of these architectural developments was a region encompassing the present-day Dharwad district and including areas of present-day Haveri and Gadag districts."
- "presently divided." The primary meaning of "presently" is "in a little while," or "soon." Although the word is sometimes used to mean "at the present time," this usage is disputed. It is better to say "currently." This, of course, will become moot if you rephrase as above.
- "and about 50 monuments have survived." Where? Better to say, "... ,
andwhere about 50 monuments have survived"
- "an indicator of the temple building activity of the Western Chalukyan architects" Even one temple is an indicator of temple building activity. I think you want to say, "where nearly fifty monuments have survived, evidence of the widespread/prolific temple building of the West Chalukyan workshops. (You have already used the word "workshop" to include architects, craftsmen, miners, etc. Clearly they all produced the monuments.) Or, alternately simple stop after "have survived," since you have already referred to the "vigour" of the workshops.
- Done DK Reply Done. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The influence of this style is seen up to the Kalyani region and beyond in the north-east, in the Bellary region in the east, in the Mysore region in the south.
"up to the Kalyani region and beyond." Redundant. If the influence extends beyond a region, it certainly extends up to the region. Need an "and" before the third comma. Better to say something like, "The influence of this style extended beyond (weasel word though: how much beyond?) the Kalyani region in the north-east and up to the Bellary region in the east and the Mysore region in the south."
Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Bijapur-Belgaum region to the north, their style is mixed with the remnants of that of the Hemadpanti temples.
- "remnants" means "that which remains," "remainder," or "residue." What does "remainder of a style" mean? I think you probably mean something like: "Among temples found in the Bijaput-Belgaum region to the north, the West Chalukyan style still predominates, however, influence of the Hemadpanti style can also be detected."
- DK Reply No. that is not what I want to say. The author just says "the two styles mix" and in fact implies the influence of Chalukyan style is not obvious but exists never the less. He does not say the Chalukyan style predominates. He uses the word "remains of Hemadpanti temples". I have simplified the sentence now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the west, apart from a few temples in Konkan, the Western Ghats practically acted as a barrier to the propagation of this style.
- Dangling modifier. "apart from a few temples in Konkan" the temples didn't act as a barrier. (I am assuming the temples are the exceptions.)
- "practically" is generally informal usage. "in effect" or "likely" would be better. A better way to say this would be: "Although a few West-Chalukyan temples can be found in the Konkan region, the presence of the Western Ghats likely prevented the style from spreading westwards (or, to the west).
- Done I have corrected the sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
All that remains of Western Chalukya monuments are their temples, built in the Shaiva, Vaishnava and Jain religious traditions. None of their military, civil and courtly architecture have survived. These structures may have been built with mud, brick and wood and hence were unable to withstand invasions.
- This is a crucial piece of information. It comes too late in the paragraph (after we have already talked about the temples). It should come first.
- "None of their military, civil and courtly architecture
havehas survived."
- "These structures ..." you can't have certainty in the second half of the sentence when you only have probability in the first. Better to say, "These structures may have been built with mud, brick and wood, and therefore may not have withstood invasions." Or, "These structures, which may have been built with mud, brick and wood, may not have withstood invasions."
Map: Lastly, I think a map of the region is an absolute must for an article with so much reference to geography, especially when most links themselves don't have any locater maps and when the geography will likely be unfamiliar to most readers.
- DK Reply I can have a map request made, since I dont know how to draw maps.
user:planemad is the expert. So, when the map gets done, it will contain "dots" showing the location and the corresponding place names.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So, as you can see, there are problems in every sentence of the paragraph. And this is still the lead. I will try to add something more, if I can find another connection later in the day.
As I had said above, this article cannot be fixed on the fly by responding to sample copy edits provided by the reviewers. It has too many problems of grammar, style, and cohesion for that. It needs to be withdrawn, reworked on with care, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I will take a close look at your comments later tonight. As far as improving grammar, style etc, we are doing it right here and quite well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK comment Fowler, I would like to thank you for the effort you are taking to improve the article, even when you are travelling. Your effort is appreciated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fowler. This seems to continue to need significant copy-editing.--Keerllston 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
DK Comment Based on some of the responses from reviewers, I have requested the League of Copyeditors to help me out in cleaning up grammar and other issues on this article. So, when that happens, I will provide full co-operation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by user:Mattisse
Comment I am wondering if organization could be improved discussing sculpture in one place under the heading of Scupture instead of some discussion of sculpture under Deities, especially since that section is so long? Also, I am wondering why Deities is the second important heading? It seems like that section covers a mixture of topics. At least some of the information in that section might fit better (for the sake of clarity) under other headings Mattisse 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I understand your concern. There are two sentences in the Deity section that one could argue belongs in the sculpture section. The first is the sentence is Apart from an occasional exaggeration in its pose, each principle deity had its own pose depending on the incarnation or form depicted. Consistent with figure sculpture in other parts of India, these figures were deficient in musculature and drapery. The second sentence is about the sculpture of Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati temple in Gadag and its drapery and ornamentation etc. The reason I kept them in the deity section is that the discussion pertains directly to the main deity of the temple, not sundry/decorative/epic frieze scuptures. This I felt was significant enough to keep it in the Deity section. Regarding why the Deity section comes second; It would have been the first heading, except I felt I should add a section on Evolution and that it should preceed Deities.
However, if there is consensus to move the above two sentences from Deities to the Sculpture section, I would be happy to do so.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: very good article! --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by user:Finetooth
Possible typo In the "Stellate plans" section, a sentence says, "Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th century characteristics become prominent." Since the rest of the paragraph describes change, I wonder if perhaps the second mention of 12th century is a typo. Shouldn't the text say, "...although the 13th century characteristics become prominent"? Finetooth (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply No. The second mention of 12th century is accurate. Dr. Foekema says some 12th century chracteristics were reinforced in the 13th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Time stamps in photos The red time stamps on some of the photos are distracting. The eye is drawn to them instead of to the temples and their architectural details. Since the date and time of data generation are given on the Wikimedia page associated with each photo, time stamps on the photos are superfluous. If you can possibly remove the time stamps from your originals and upload unstamped versions, it would improve the article. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK ReplyI will request someone who does this kind of image editing, though this as one may expect, will take time.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Where possible, I will leave out the date on the image, rescan the photgraph, if it does not impact the image in some way and re-upload. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply The images which have time stamps are from my photo CD collection. To remove the date stamps, I would have to process these images into positives, scan them back in and crop the date stamp, hopefully not impacting the image negatively. I will see how well this tuns out. There are cases where I cant crop the image manually, but can request a graphics person to erase them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Reply Time stamps removed from images by user:Papa November.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Illustrations, simple diagrams
Although the photos are extremely helpful to this article, I long for simple visual diagrams or illustrations of some of the geometric complexities presented here. It is difficult to convey an accurate sense of these structures using only words. For example, I can't quite wrap my mind around this sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate (star shaped) or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections are projecting corners and in the latter, there are only four projecting corners." An illustration or simple line drawing might be helpful here to show the meaning of "projecting corners" and how they differ in the two basic plans. In this context, what is a "corner?" Is a corner different from a "projecting corner?" Is "projecting corner" the opposite of "recessed corner?" If so, these terms are probably unfamiliar to many readers, who will need all the help they can get. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply The corners the authors refer to , I believe , are projecting corners and not the same as any ordinary corner or a recessed corner which would be a vertex. As such, in an uninterrupted stellate floorplan, the number of projecting corners would equal the number of recessed corners or vertices. This is why I provided the first two images, to present the general idea. Regarding line drawings, I will explore how I can do it, if possible. This is ofcourse time consuming.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure. I understand what you are saying above about the number of projecting corners equaling the number of vertices. Would it be accurate to call these corners "points"? I am thinking of the points of a star (not a real star but a stylized representation of a star). When imagining a stellate design, I see "points" rather than corners, though this may be an oversimplification of the architectural reality. Your mention of the first two images is logical. Let me think a bit more about this. Perhaps a sentence in the main text could direct readers to the particular photo or photos that illustrate the geometry under discussion. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Yes. Could you word it to that effect and redirect a reader to those images.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments by user:Finetooth December 25, 2007: I've tried, but I don't think I can. My best shot at improving this particular sentence is, "If stepped and stellate, these components form many projections, and if square or rectangular, they form only four projections." I eliminated what I felt was the confusion caused by the word "corner," which I don't think is necessary and which, I think, means "point." However, I'm not happy with my fix, partly because I'm not sure "stepped and stellate" is an accurate rendering of "stepped/stellate". Perhaps "stepped or stellate" is more accurate; it seems to me that at least the right-hand section of the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi is stepped but not stellate. In short, I am confused, which is not a good thing for a copyeditor to be. If I make changes beyond the roughly 150 I've already made, I run the risk of introducing error where none exists.
DK Reply Actually its not "stepped and stellate". As explained in one of the sections, a stellate floorplan was obtained from a stepped plan by rotating the projections by 11.5 degrees. The author sees both of these as one type of articulation, the other being the square plan. I have corrected your cpedit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If I were the main author, I would try to write for a hypothetical reader living thousands of miles from southern India and having little knowledge of it. I would imagine a reader fluent in English but untutored in architecture and completely ignorant of the temple architecture of India. For this reader, terms such as "articulation", "dravida," "nagara," "interrupted star," and "uninterrupted star" and many others must be explained as clearly as possible as early in the article as possible. This will be no easy task, but I have no doubt it can be done. However, a copyeditor with no special knowledge of the subject can't do it.
Done DK Reply I have provided many English language equivalents in brackets to terms such as "dravida", "nagara", "Bhumija", "Sekhari", "latina" etc., in some cases provided links to stubs like finial, aedicular, Stepwell etc. The terms "articulation", "interrupted", "uninterrupted" etc. is explained in brackets and in some other cases, the meaning of a particular Indian term is explained in the very same sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of the visual complexity of the subject matter, I'm still of the opinion that diagrams, drawings, and, yes, a map would probably be helpful. I didn't withdraw my earlier suggestion that illustrations beyond the photographs might be helpful. What I said was, "Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure." That was a hedge, not a retraction. If I were the main author and no other way to solve the problem of lack of clarity could be found, I would figure out how to do (or how to get someone else to do) the illustrations, maps, or whatever, even if it made me groan.
I've tried to think of other ways to make the subject matter clear, but I've failed. The first two images that you mention are positioned far away from the text that they might help explain. Moving them might damage the layout; in addition, those two images might be needed elsewhere as examples of other ideas in the text. I thought of assigning numbers to each photograph and adding notes such as "See photograph 4" in parentheses in the main text, but this seems clumsy; it would force readers to hunt for the photo, which might be anywhere. So, I've come back to thinking the article needs two more things I can't supply: visual aids and clear definitions of key terms. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can't agree more with user:Finetooth's comments, especially her/his last sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Reply The definitions have been provided now. If any are left out, which I may have felt is self explanatory, please point them out and I will make the meaning explicit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Providing clear definitions of key terms is something I can easily do and will work on it right away.
Visual aids take time and help from other users and can't be done overnight, but can be done on a ongoing basis even after the FAC closes. There are many types of floorplans; such as 16 pointed, 32 pointed, 24 pointed types in the interrupted and uninterrupted categories, stepped diamond its variations. So do we want to flood the article with only floorplans? You are right, line drawings can and will generate more questions and more clarifications. I question if this is within the scope of a summary style article. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Providing clear definitions of key terms is something I can easily do and will work on it right away.
Done DK Reply Provided line diagrams for the four main types of floorplans: interrupted stellate, uninterrupted stellate, square and stepped diamond. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code, as this causes problems when it is archived (if necessary, use bolded headings)." - heading code removed and replaced with bolded headings--Kiyarrllston 04:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching this. I was responsible, not DK. Finetooth (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments by user:Fowler&fowler December 25, 2007: I agree with user:Finetooth that diagrams are needed. In fact, they are a must. (I had been meaning to mention it last week, but couldn't find the time.) It is impossible to figure out what is what from the photographs alone. The explanations of the temple layout are still dense. For example, "open hall" is certainly not standard usage in English for what looks like a "pillared porch." Given the many meanings of the word "hall," terms like "open hall" and "closed hall" are best avoided in a Wikipedia article (even if they are used in the history books the main author has consulted). Similarly the explanation of "articulation" is still very poor. What is the wall of a shrine, when the word "shrine" is itself not clearly defined? Is it really the outer wall, or is it the outer surface (or outside) of the tower. As far as I can tell, stepped/stellate refers to the staggered star-like cross-sections (akin to mini-stories) that go into creating the pyrimidal tower. I am guessing that the inside of the tower is polygonal and not star-shaped, but I'm not sure. While a portion of the outer wall below the tower seems to have a cross-sectional shape similar to the tower, not all of it does, and in any case that shape is not evident from the photographs. For all these reasons, it is absolutely imperative that the text be accompanied by diagrams. As I have already suggested to the main author a number of times, I feel that he should withdraw the article from the FAC process, add a map of the geographical locations, add simplified diagrams of the temple cross-sections explaining various terms like stepped-stellate, closed/open halls, etc., organize the article better, improve the language (i.e. make is less discursive—not just have it copy-edited), let is simmer a little and then resubmit for the FAC. However, for some reason, he seems resistant to this idea. I will look at the text in a few days (when I have more time) and add comments on the language. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Fowler, the earlier reviewer has withdrawn his statement about "line drawings". I dont believe line drawings are necessary. This is a summary style article, not my PhD. thesis.
Moreover, I dont have the tools or the experience to draw line drawings and maps. If you know someone who does, please inform me and I will contact that person.Secondly, the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar. BTW, you have already given your opinions on the article, which have been satisfied. Feel free to continue to read the article and propose changes. If your proposals are reasonable, I will surely try to accomplish them. Thank you for you time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, user:Finetooth has not exactly withdrawn her/his suggestion, but rather is being polite in view of your reluctance. Secondly, that has nothing to do with my assessment that the article emphatically needs diagrams. I didn't get that idea from user:Finetooth. As I explained above, it was the first thing I thought of when I read the details of the temple layout, which remain poorly explained even as I write. The vast majority of the Architecture FAs do in fact have diagrams, floor plans, or vertical cross-sections, as do both the Britannica and Encarta articles on Indian architecture. As far as I am aware, many of the Wikipedia architecture FAs are written in summary style and very likely none of are extracts from Ph. D. dissertations. Here is a list of a few. Please contact the primary authors and find out how they made their diagrams. It is imperative that you do.
- 7 World Trade Center, Angkor Wat, Belton House, Borobudur, Buckingham Palace, Cathedral of Magdeburg, Freedom Monument (Riga), Heian Palace, Holkham Hall, House with Chimaeras, IG Farben Building, Palace of Westminster, Palazzo Pitti, Palladian architecture, Point Park Civic Center, Prince's Palace of Monaco, Queluz National Palace, Sanssouci, Scottish Parliament Building, Shotgun house, and West Wycombe Park
Done DK Reply Line diagrams have been added per request.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The same holds for the map of the region showing the locations of the different monuments. You had stated earlier that you would contact a map-maker, but haven't stated since how that is progressing. As for your remarks, "... the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar." Whose original requirement was this? From the start, I have unequivocally stated that the article's problems are much deeper than ones that would be fixed by a simple copy-edit. In fact, I began my first set of remarks (of December 17, 2007) by, "The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted." As for the copy-editors spending time on editing the article, that of course is very creditable and they deserve everyone's thanks, but I myself have spent time copy-editing the article line by line, as my many remarks above indicate; as an FA reviewer I shouldn't have to do that. An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't
behave been a Wikipedia FAC in the first place. Has it occurred to you that you might be both exploiting and exhausting other editors' goodwill by continuing to be recalcitrant in leaving this article in the FAC process? Lastly, as I have indicated above, in a few days, when I have more time, I will make the determination whether the copy edits have taken (i.e. helped the article enough) and add further comments here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- The same holds for the map of the region showing the locations of the different monuments. You had stated earlier that you would contact a map-maker, but haven't stated since how that is progressing. As for your remarks, "... the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar." Whose original requirement was this? From the start, I have unequivocally stated that the article's problems are much deeper than ones that would be fixed by a simple copy-edit. In fact, I began my first set of remarks (of December 17, 2007) by, "The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted." As for the copy-editors spending time on editing the article, that of course is very creditable and they deserve everyone's thanks, but I myself have spent time copy-editing the article line by line, as my many remarks above indicate; as an FA reviewer I shouldn't have to do that. An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't
- DK Reply Fowler, when you write that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be a Wikipedia FAC in the first place you are questioning the English language capabilities of people such as user:Finetooth and others who have graciously come forward to help me out, who have copyedited several FAC's towards a FA. This attitude I must say is not acceptable in wiki. Regarding any stylistic, grammatical, prose changes you further expect in this article, please find concensus with other copy editors. I cant trample on the edits of one copy editor to make another happy, unless I am convinced your suggestion is more appropriate. If you can find concensus, I can make the changes. What you may want in prose, someone else may not want. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Response to DK reply by user:Fowler&fowler: No, at no time have I been critical of user:Finetooth's edits; far from it, I am impressed by them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or rather a Shakespeare) to see that she/he is a superb editor. I did make an inadvertent tense-shift (which I have corrected since), but, even so, it is clear from my sentence, "An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't
be<have been> a Wikipedia FAC in the first place," that I was questioning the wisdom of submitting this article as an FAC in late November, not questioning the worth of user:Finetooth's or User:Michael Devore's edits. To the extent that I may have inadvertently implied the latter, I offer my unequivocal apology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Response to DK reply by user:Fowler&fowler: No, at no time have I been critical of user:Finetooth's edits; far from it, I am impressed by them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or rather a Shakespeare) to see that she/he is a superb editor. I did make an inadvertent tense-shift (which I have corrected since), but, even so, it is clear from my sentence, "An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't
- Fowler wrote (copy and paste from above comment). Has it occurred to you that you might be both exploiting and exhausting other editors' goodwill by continuing to be recalcitrant in leaving this article in the FAC process?
- DK Reply I am grateful to so many experienced copy editors who have come forward to help me. Fowler, Has it occurred to you that you may be both expoliting and exhausting another editor's goodwill by continuing to make extreme and unreasonable demands and asserting that this article must be removed from the FAC process?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
DK Comment Based on some of the responses from reviewers, I had requested the League of Copyeditors to help me out in cleaning up grammar and other issues on this article. user:Finetooth graciously completed a thorough copy edit job. user:Michael Devore also has played an important role in this process.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose continuing ths FAC - When this becomes an attack on the editors who help you, then I believe it is time to withdraw the article and carefully rewrite it. You seem to be expecting others to write the article for you. Editors are requesting that the article be grammatically correct and well written which is not being oppositional. Your opposition to suggestions, such as you were to my simple grammatical points above, is part of what is exhausting to other editors. I think the article is unorganized, the wording dense and unclear, and multiple errors still exist. Every editor gets exhausted before going through the entire article and there is no one who has carefully picked through the whole article. Bracket is still not disambigulated! (You do not mean bracked as punctuation do you?) No one has gotten that far yet. None of the edtors that helped you so much can rewrite and reorganized the article for you. You seem to forget how much time and effort Fowler&fowler«Talk» has already given you. League of Copy Editors cannot rewrite and reorganize the article. As you say, you have had many copy editors and the job is still not done. Mattisse 01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dk reply I have already mentioned above that I will be disambiguiating any complicated architectural terms in the next few days. BTW, I dont expect others to write my articles. The article is grammtically far better than it was two weeks back, that is the point I am trying to make. That is what needs to be appreciated instead of scorning at others efforts. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Matisse: FAC is not Peer Review - this has gone on long enough.--Kiyarrllston 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Matisse and Kiyarr. It's time to move on. Finetooth (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Finetooth, Matisse, and Kiyarr. It's time to pull the plug on this FAC. Since I am supposed to be on vacation (and since I am getting grief for getting back on WP), I will not be revisiting this page. However, I can do no better than to quote user:Finetooth: "If I were the main author, I would try to write for a hypothetical reader living thousands of miles from southern India and having little knowledge of it. I would imagine a reader fluent in English but untutored in architecture and completely ignorant of the temple architecture of India. For this reader, terms such as "articulation", "dravida," "nagara," "interrupted star," and "uninterrupted star" and many others must be explained as clearly as possible as early in the article as possible. This will be no easy task, but I have no doubt it can be done. However, a copyeditor with no special knowledge of the subject can't do it." I also agree wholeheartedly with user:Finetooth that this article "visual aids and clear definitions of key terms." I feel this task is not something that can be hurried through, but needs time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Comment A request has been made to user:planemad to draw up a map that shows places and placenames where this architecture thrived. I will have a map inserted as soon as he is free to complete the job.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Comment The good news is user:planemad has agreed to do the map for me.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Comment Fowler, thanks for all your efforts to improve the article. As I have mentioned earlier, I will be explaining any and every complicated term in this article in the next day or two. Your presence or absence from the article will not hinder my efforts.thank you again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Final comments by user:Fowler&fowler: "Your presence or absence from the article will not hinder my efforts." Not sure how to take that. In any case, let me be perfectly clear: what the three editors (user:Finetooth, user:Mattisse, and Kiyarr) and I are saying above is not that this article can be fixed in a few days and that we have confidence in your ability to fix it. Rather, we are saying that the article has deeper issues of clarity and organization, which remain unresolved. In addition, it needs visual aids—illustrative diagrams and a map, of the kind that the many architecture FAs listed above have. Most importantly, we are saying that this article has been an FAC long enough (exactly a month today); it has had help from numerous editors, including user:Finetooth from the League of Copy-editors, who is concurring in this opinion; it is therefore time to end this FAC. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Final comments by User:Mattisse: I wish to make clear that my mentioning problems in cohesion, organization, grammar and wording with the article was in no way "scorning at others efforts" (the many editors that have worked so hard to try to improve your article) as you allege above. I have the utmost respect for those fine editors who, in my opinion, have gone beyond the call of duty in trying to help this article, especially this late in the FAC process. Mattisse 14:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- DK Response Thank you both for your valuable comments and suggestions. The effort to improve the article continues on my side. I am currently working on disambiguiation and providing a map that was expected for the location of architectural developments. Thank you once again. Once these tasks are completed, which should be in a few days, I will indicate that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK response clarifications, meanings and disambiguiation of complicated terms have been dealt with with links, bracketed meanings. If anymore exist, please point them out and I will clean it up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Done DK Response Line diagrams of the main floorplans have been added. These were drawn by user:Papa November who used the diagrams from my earlier uploaded raster images. Thank you user:Papa November.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose and close per Mattisse, Fowler&fowler and others. The article has major prose and organisation problems. You cannot quickly address the issues during a FAC. You should improve the article, give it a copy-edit and PR, then try GA first. Then if it becomes a GA, copy-edit and PR again, until you think the article is ready for FAC. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - agree with the above statement by Kaypoh. I would add that the article needs an entire reorganization. Subjects should not be explained in more that one place in the article. The heading "Deities" covers several subjects. And why is "Deities" the first and most important heading anyway, as I read nothing unusual about them regarding Western Chalukya architecture in this section? Mattisse 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment by HPN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, "Deities" are very important when discussing any South Indian architecture. The architectures are influenced by the choice of deities (and thus by the stories in puraNas about them) immensely. As I see it, the present section is not carrying anything outside the subject. In fact, there is some very valuable information about salient features that aid to identifying the architecture in that section. --H P Nadig \Talk \Contributions 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - An excellent effort. Took me several days of free time to go through this exhaustive article. This article will be one of those that would be cherished the most. The photos are priceless and of great quality. It is conspicuous that a lot of effort and research has gone into this. Congratulations.
- I have one doubt though: should "Amrtesvara Temple" become "Amruteshwara Temple"? "sha" has become "sa" on all occasions. Is this intended? As far as I know, the letter "sha" becomes "sa" in Tamil language. We could also consider using phonetic notations (if permitted) while mentioning the names of each temple. Cheers. --H P Nadig \Talk \Contributions 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply Your question on the sha vs sa in Kannada deity/temple names is not surprising. In modern Kannada sha is prevalent and may have replaced sa, just as ha has replaced pa since the 12-13thth century. However, the books I have sourced from keep to sa. I tried to compare these books I have referenced from against other articles and see a mixture of usages. So I just kept to the method followed by the authors. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, Dinesh. I'm curious to know what the majority of authors have used. These are originally Sanskrit words, not Kannada (There's also a typo where it says "Amrtesvara"). If the author is a native speaker of Tamil, he would've obviously preferred "sa" instead of "Sha" as they are not accustomed to pronouncing "Sha". Shouldn't we be writing the names the way they are pronounced presently in the region? --H P Nadig \Talk \Contributions 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply Actually the authors are not from India. Foekema is Dutch, Hardy is English and Cousens is perhaps English, not sure. Regarding how the names sould be written, I have had some trouble with this issue. The authors may have used the names directly from old_Kannada inscriptions. As an example, in Modern Kannada, we call the great Chalukya King "Pulakeshi II". But his own personal edicts call him "Polekesi" where "kesin" is originally Sanskrit for "hair". Some authors even use "Pulakesi". Since I am providing citations from books, I felt it is better to stick to the authors' way of writing it, just to avoid controversy. I can try and look up what other authors such as Dhaky, Sinha, Fergusson call the temples. And as far as the typo is concerned, the book says "Amrtesvara" as opposed to "Amrutesvara". thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply here [20] is a link to a book on a Kalyani (Western) Chalukya temple construction, "The Temple of Muktesvara at Caudadanapura" by Dr. by Vasundhara Filliozat, a visiting scholar from Univ. of Paris. She too uses the "sa" designation for the temple. Another example is [21] in item #29, the "si" usage for a temple name, instead of the modern "shi" usage.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Why have scanned images of (simple) diagrams from a book been added to the article and justified as images of book covers? They are surely not that. In any case, a book cover is allowed under non-free (fair) use if the article discusses (only) that book. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply When I choose the options for the correct license for the image file, it was "book cover or a page from the book". But once I went a few steps further into uploading the images, I could only find the "book cover" option. I will look into this issue ASAP, perhaps as early as today, and have it corrected. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply The license issue has been resolved.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I believe the article is in a very good shape now after so much work being done. I support promotion of this article to FA. Gnanapiti (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I am aware there may be MOS issues, but it would be easier for me to proceed in improving this article further if they were pointed out. Otherwise, I feel this article meets all other criteria for FAC. Ameriquedialectics 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible to talk about the history/making/importance of the fight song rather than just putting the lyrics there? bibliomaniac15 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll just remove for the time being...
there is a link to the fight song in the infobox.Ameriquedialectics 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)- Or rather, there used to be. Someone reformatted the infobox template code awhile back and removed some of the values. Still, the fight song was rather crufty. Ameriquedialectics 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are numerous WP:MOS violations that need to be fixed.
- Need to have metric conversions for each standard unit (for example, I see acres, pounds, feet, etc without conversions).
- Done I believe I got them all. Ameriquedialectics 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Need a non-breaking space between all units and their qualifiers (for example, 1200 acres should have a non-breaking space)
- Done I believe taking care of the metric conversion issue solved this problem, as they are all templated now. Ameriquedialectics 05:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It also covers things like $435 million, 40 years, 52 minors, etc. Could you take a look at those, please? Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Think I got them all now. Ameriquedialectics 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It also covers things like $435 million, 40 years, 52 minors, etc. Could you take a look at those, please? Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The history section is too short to need subheadings. Either expand the sections or remove the subheadings
- Done Removed subheadings Ameriquedialectics 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In unit conversions, if you write out the first number, write out the second one also
- Done I believe I caught the only instance of that in the campus section. If there are others please let me know. I really appreciate your critique. Ameriquedialectics 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the list of colleges needs to be turned into prose, and I don't believe you shoul dinclude all of the information that is currently there. See other university FAs, such as Texas A&M University, Cornell University, and University of Michigan
- Done Forked individual academic units to University of California, Riverside academics, summarized some info in first paragraph. Ameriquedialectics 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Spelling_out_numbers, numbers should be spelled out when they bein a sentence
- Done I believe I forked the only instance of that to University of California, Riverside academics (corrected in the content fork). Ameriquedialectics 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's one more instance in the Administration and Finance section. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please make sure that citations are ordered: for example, this sentence More specialized collections not administered by the library but by individual academic colleges include an herbarium, one of the world's most important citrus variety collections, and one of the largest entomological museums in the United States. has citations [63][10]11 -> [63] shoul be last.
- Done Changed a ref and removed some duplicates from the lead section. Ameriquedialectics 08:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The rankings and libraries sections have a lot of very short paragraphs. Please try to combine these if possible
- Done Edited into paragraphs. Calling it a night for now. Ameriquedialectics 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In the housing section, you need citations for the number of students housed and the plans for new family housing, as well as that 76% of all first-year students lived on campus
- Done Edited and provided available information as I could find it. (The actual student housing site contains provides almost no useful information on this.) Page 40 of the LRP provides the housing #s I put into the text. Ameriquedialectics 10:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Campus security section paragraphs are too short to stand alone - please combine if possible
- Done Removed Campus Security section per WP:Notability, moved emergency notification systems to the lead paragraph. Ameriquedialectics 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"economical" should be "economic"
- Done Got it. Ameriquedialectics 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You should be able to easily find citations for the fact that the Women's Basketball team has made it to round 1 of the playoff, that the soccer team won, and that the baseball team won a conference championship. Also need a cite for the cross country team's "best season ever"
- Done Got these and overhauled the whole section. Ameriquedialectics 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Full dates within references should be wikilinked (i.e., ref 2)
- Newspapers and magazine names should be italicized in the refs. You can use the citation template with newspaper= instead of publisher=
- Done In most cases, this was accomplished by both changing "publisher=" to "newspaper=", and, most heroically, by changing {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} to {{citation}}, which should make fans of consistency and fans of the {{tl|citation} template very happy. szyslak 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...But now, the last two citations show up in the reflist as links to Template:Citation/core, and I can't figure out what's going on? Either it's a server problem or something that can be fixed by someone with more experience with that template than me. szyslak 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted back to the last stable version. No need to change every "cite web," as in some cases these are only websites not other media. Thanks for helping anyway Ameriquedialectics 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is taken care of now. Ameriquedialectics 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- don't forget about US News and World ReportKaranacs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Got them and all other media that publish rankings lists. Best, Ameriquedialectics 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- don't forget about US News and World ReportKaranacs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...But now, the last two citations show up in the reflist as links to Template:Citation/core, and I can't figure out what's going on? Either it's a server problem or something that can be fixed by someone with more experience with that template than me. szyslak 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
All websites need a publisher listed separately (see 34 and 35 and 36)
Karanacs (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done If I didn't catch them all, just let me know, but my Internet access might be sporadic for the next couple days (and will definitely be back on on Monday). Once I have access again, I plan to tackle Tony1's copyediting concerns as well. szyslak 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think Karanacs' initial concerns have been addressed now, please feel free to point out anything else. Ameriquedialectics 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
A few minor things here and there... as per WP:UNI's article guidelines, the Athletics section should be embedded inside the Student Life section. And Scotty the Bear in Infobox University might need a <br /> ("bear" is getting cut off to the next time at the moment) I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks...
<br />took care of that issue in the info box. I confess to having little interest in student life or athletics, but will integrate those sections once I've gathered some refs for them. Ameriquedialectics 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—The writing should do justice to both the standards of the institution and WP. Here are random examples, mostly from the lead, of why careful copy-editing is required, preferably by a new collaborator with strategic distance from the text.
- FYI, UCR links to this article, under "related links," on its Chancellor search website: [22]. I would say the standards of the institution have been satisfied. Ameriquedialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- "1,200 acres (5 km²)"—hectares, please. Or start with square miles.
- MOS breach and a clumsiness: "extending the citrus growing season in California from 4 months to 9 months"—"from four to nine months".
- OK, word order here is what we call a marked theme; I don't think it needs marking. And collections are equated with the institutions (the second and third items) that house them. "Significant science collections at Riverside include its famous Citrus Variety Collection, Herbarium and one of the largest entomological museums in the United States."
- I'm not sure what you mean here by "word order" being a "marked theme." (And I'm well aware of the idea of markedness in linguistics.)
Also, as should be obvious, the collections are all housed at UCR... unless you mean noting the respective academic departments that administer them, which I think would be too much detail for the lede, I frankly don't know what you are saying.Ameriquedialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I thought you were speaking prescriptively as opposed to descriptively. Fixed the issue with the science collections. Ameriquedialectics 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean here by "word order" being a "marked theme." (And I'm well aware of the idea of markedness in linguistics.)
- "The campus is currently projected to grow by 6% annually through 2010"—MOS says not to use fluff words such as "currently" (there are others in the lead, too—perhaps "as of 2007"?); the meaning is in "is". "Through" is an Americanism I like, unless it's ambiguous, as it is here (during 2010, or through to 2010?).
- Done I felt "currently" was an appropriate adverb to use with respect to the rankings because they change every year, but i'm not going to argue over it. Ameriquedialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who still puts clunky dots in "PhD"? MOS suggests not to, too.
- "In 1994, the UC campuses began receiving more applications than anticipated." Don't like this. "Since ... received"? Unsure, but do something. Tony (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean remove instances of passive voice? If so, I'm working on that. Ongoing. Ameriquedialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tony1 suggests the phrasing "Since 1994, the UC campuses received more applications than anticipated" (or similar) instead of "In 1994 ... more applications than anticipated". It has nothing to do with passive voice, and personally I don't think changing "anticipated" from passive to active would be helpful. The only way to do so would be to add superfluous verbiage like "more ... than the university anticipated". szyslak 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 18:32, 1 January 2008.
After having edited this article, I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's getting there. The page may not perfectly present a featured one but with your help (comments and suggestions), it will. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I closed the peer review myself; I did not fully and correctly archive, as this is something nominator is expected to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for rushing this article to be nominated without knowing further the process for nomination. Sorry also because I don't know how to archive. Could someone fix this? Thanks a lot. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I closed the peer review myself; I did not fully and correctly archive, as this is something nominator is expected to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments Citation 25 needs fixing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Fixed already. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- ""Gimme More" was generally well-received by music critics. Blender Magazine complimented the song for being an "unsettling disco dazzler," rating it four out of five stars[19] and Guardian Unlimited called the song "futuristic and thrilling."[20]." Firstly, Blender Magazine and Guardian are not music critics, but are publications. The Guardian did not call the song "futuristic and thrilling" either. Alexis Petridis, writing for that specific publication, did so. One critic's opinions is not representative of the publication as a whole. Othe critics whom write for that publication may have found the song appalling, but were not commissioned to review it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I fixed some. I changed it to
added publicationscritics for the reviews and I fixed the reviewers as well. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- ""Gimme More" was one of Spears' most remixed single.[64]" - "Single"? Don't you mean "singles"? LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done User:Phoenix2 fixed it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - Frankly, I don't have any regard at all for Spears or this song for that matter, but the article is well-written so that's good, especially for a single so recent; you must be quite the fan! One thing I'd like to suggest is expanding the commentary about the sample in its box, I dunno, maybe tell the reader about the structure of the song rather than just about the lyrical interpretations? Only then will it be suitable for fair use. Also the changes addressed by LuciferMorgan also need attention. Otherwise, you have my full support for it's a very informative article indeed. (SUDUSER)85 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I edited it with some re-mentioned "stuff", like the electro thing. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Objection: Copy-edit please? - Generally not well-written
"However, it was also welcomed as an improved performance to her highly criticized 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening." looks clunky to me.
"It is also influenced by electro elements which Kelefa Sanneh of New York Times described as "a nifty little electro-pop song." - ??? replace which with "and was therefore described by Kelefa Saanneh as [...]"
--Kiyarrllston 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea on reediting the first objection. Do you have some suggestions? Please... --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- that was described by Kelefa Sanneh of New York Times as "a nifty little electro-pop song." Is it fine? --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems we're not understanding each other regarding my second example - "nifty little electro-pop song" does not say that "it is influenced by electro elements" - it says it is an electro song. Are we on the level now?
- Done Yah. I got it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding my first example - "
However, it[The video was]alsowelcomed as an improved[ment]performanceto her highly criticized 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening." seems a little bit better - do you agree? - Hope I clarified why I object, hope this article can improve to FA quality.
- --Kiyarrllston 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you.=) --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose and close Articles cannot be on FAC and PR together. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done SandyGeorgia fixed it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not ready for FA:
- There is a tag on the article that says "This article documents a current single. Information is likely to change as the song remains on the charts." This means the article may not be stable.
- The article will be stable since its chart performance is almost dropping. Only that the charting week will be updated. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- This paragraph is too short and unreferenced: "The track is constructed in a verse-chorus pattern. Mixed by Araica, it interpolates background vocals by Hilson and Jim Beanz."
- Done I merged it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- References 2, 3, 6, 17, 28 and 32 have formatting problems.
- Could you pin point what that problem is? Like what formatting? Thank you. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- References always go after a comma or full stop, with no spaces in between. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. I also fixed some mistaken formats written as "cite web" which are actually "cite news." --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- References always go after a comma or full stop, with no spaces in between. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you pin point what that problem is? Like what formatting? Thank you. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Prose is not FA standard. My English is not very good, but I can see a few problems in the lead (but you must fix the whole article):
- "co-written among collaborators" I thought "co-written" and "collaborators" mean the same thing?
- ""Gimme More" is the first single since In the Zone" Do you mean "her first single"?
- "Dubbed as a comeback release for Spears however, the song does not feature lyrics about her musical return instead, it features racy lyrics incorporating uptempo beats." I think you put all the commas in the wrong places.
- "first hit radio stations and digital stores where it was a commercial success and was released in the form of CD" The way you use "where" and "and was released" to connect the sentence sounds funny.
- "in North America where it topped Billboard's Canadian chart" Again the same problem with "where".
- "In Australia and United Kingdom" Put "the" before "United Kingdom".
- "In both the US and Australia" The earlier sentence also started with "In" and two countries. You sure you want to repeat?
- "introduces Spears pole dancing which was panned by critics" sounds funny. Only after I read it three times, then I understand what you mean, that critics panned Spears (apostrophe?) pole dancing.
- Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You need to fix the whole article, not just the lead section. Can someone who is very good in English check whether the lead section is fixed correctly? Because some sentences still sounds funny. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am always addressing your objections. Thank you for that help. --βritandβeyonce(talk•contribs)12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome. :) Now waiting for someone who is very good in English to check the lead section. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be waiting for them until this one got FA. =) --βritandβeyonce(talk•contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose' Some misleading statements are within the article. Examples;
- "It was a huge club success by reaching number one on Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart on December 15, 2007 replacing Rihanna's contemporary "Shut Up and Drive"." - "Huge"? A "club success"? According to whom? Such adjectives are merely the opinions of whomever feel that way, and are not factual. People measure success in different ways, so therefore interpretations of what is and isn't successful differs from person to person.
- huge was removed. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The single was also successful in European countries." - Whether the single was "successful" in European countries is an opinion, dependant on whomever is drawing conclusions. The fact it charted in European countries is just that, a fact, and therefore irrefutable. Whether it was "successful" though is refutable, depending on one's criteria as concerns what is successful.
- Referring to "Hollaback Girl", editors used "a successful single in Canada." Maybe the word also needs to be removed. I changed it to this: The single was also successful in European countries peaking inside the top five and top ten on all charts it entered. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The single finally peaked on Billboard Pop 100 at number two.[45]" - "Finally"? What is the reasoning behind using this adjective. When someone uses this adjective, it's usually to show they're happy something has finally happened. Therefore, the word needs removing.
- finally was removed. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "It performed well in North America where it debuted at number nine on the U.S. Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart on September 6, 2007,[37]" - The fact it debuted at nine is a fact, but whether it "performed well" is an opinion.
- Referring to "Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)," editors used a phrase "performed moderately well in North America." --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Elsewhere, "Gimme More" proved to be a moderately successful track." - "Moderately successful"? How do you personally measure what is "moderately successful"? Singles which don't reach the top ten? Singles which aren't RIAA certified? Singles which quickly enter and disappear from the charts?
- The phrase "moderate success" which is near to "moderately successful" is being used in "Hollaback Girl." --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
These critical comments made within the article, ones that are misleading, need to be addressed. Other instances are also prevalent within the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for always using Gwen Stefani songs as a reference. Its just that they're worth emulating; they're all FAs. Just tell me further objections and I will address it as soon as possible. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Irrelevant of whether 17Drew used them, I am still objecting per criterion 1d. I personally don't find the Stefani articles flawless, but that's my personal opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for always using Gwen Stefani songs as a reference. Its just that they're worth emulating; they're all FAs. Just tell me further objections and I will address it as soon as possible. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- But letting some articles arrive FA statuses bearing this kind of "problems" would mean "inconsistency." We should be objective here and not subjective; as they say, it's all business. Anyway, I fixed the article. I removed adjectives that seems you don't like. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 18:32, 1 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was promptly promoted to WP:GA when it was nominated and remained quite stable thereafter. I have recently learned how to research the New York Times archives and have expanded the article to something that represents the fountain fairly completely, IMO. I think it is a very fine article now with great detail and breadth. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Objection Copy-edit Readthrough please?
"in addition to an artistic structure These children made" missing a period..."Unlit sculpture. (This actually happens every five minutes.)" - rephrase caption removing parenthesis in a manner such as "The sculpture is unlit every five minutes"
--Keerllston 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)- I have cleaned up both of these issues and am doing a general once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not informed as to your expertise in copy-editing - might I suggest recruiting a copy-editor?--Keerllston 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I gave it a once again once over. It should be improved. I hope you can support now or at least not oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not informed as to your expertise in copy-editing - might I suggest recruiting a copy-editor?--Keerllston 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up both of these issues and am doing a general once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. I think the article still needs a little work. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.
The lead is not supposed to contain information that is not in the body of the article; it should only be a summary of what is already there. The information that is currently in the first paragraph of the lead does not appear anywhere in the body of the article.
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)- Prose issues:
I don't like this sentence: "The fountain is known for its artistic contribution to Millenium Park both from the academic perspective of trained architects and from the human perspective of the ordinary city residents and visitors" It seems a little pretentious; I would reword along the lines of "The fountain has been praised by both trained architects and ordinary city residents for its artistic contribution to Millenium Park"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)"What does this mean? "The fondness of the public for the fountain made it a beacon for public opinion during a controversy on surveillance cameras."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)duplicated 2006 in (e.g., the water feature was opened on April 15, 2006 in 2006)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)overuse of phrase "a bit", especially in Architecture section--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think there are too many images for an article of this length, and most of the images are right-justified. Please consider culling a few images and rearranging the placement of others
- Holy cow. I just saw this after working most of the gallery into the article. I will revisit this later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- One suggestion: the picture in the infobox also appears in the series; maybe replace that one with either the night view or 50-foot opposing towers photos. In my opinion, the two pictures left in the gallery don't add much to the understanding of the fountain either; as long as the text is in the article, you could probably do away with those and be fine. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have rearranged to eliminate the gallery. We are now using all the great pictures that we should be happy to have for this article in ways that help depict the sculpture and its features. I don't think the article would benefit by deleting any of the pictures as they are now used.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still think 13 pictures in an article that is less than 20kb long is overkill. I think you could eliminate the last picture (water spouting) because it is almost the same as the third picture in the series. I also don't see a need for a picture of the unlit tower, and I don't understand the need for the pictures of the grating and the cracks. That information can be incorporated into the text, and the pictures don't add much. 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here is my explanation for the four pictures you contest. In truth probably an entire paragraph could be written on the drainage, which would justify the pictures. We have reference to the water recirculation in the article and the drainage system is unique. Those pictures thus help depict the sculputure. It is actually a surprise to many that the fountain is unlit at any time because it is unlit for just a few seconds between videos and people don't really notice. This picture documents that. The last picture is really present so that the last section has an image in it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that each included picture is illustrating something about the article. This includes the ones in the gallery. Hmmmm.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- One suggestion: the picture in the infobox also appears in the series; maybe replace that one with either the night view or 50-foot opposing towers photos. In my opinion, the two pictures left in the gallery don't add much to the understanding of the fountain either; as long as the text is in the article, you could probably do away with those and be fine. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Holy cow. I just saw this after working most of the gallery into the article. I will revisit this later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Too many unnecessary words wikilinked. Iron, pumped, nozzle, tubing? Those are examples of words that should not need a wikilink
Need a citation for the assertion that the "children made the design a bit of a legal challenge as well as a physical challenge"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Do you have any information on why the fountain was commissioned or why it was designed as it was?Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)- I have made it clear that the fountain was part of the Millenium Park opening. Do you want more?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that is good enough. I don't know anything about Millenium Park and wasn't sure whether that was a big deal or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I may be able to find something about the motivation for Millennium Park, but I am not sure it should go in this article as this is a main article created to expand upon a section of that article. I will look into it over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have found more on the motivation of the general park and added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I may be able to find something about the motivation for Millennium Park, but I am not sure it should go in this article as this is a main article created to expand upon a section of that article. I will look into it over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I enjoyed learning about this interesting place in Chicago. I would like to see it when the weather is good.Babybambam (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Babybambam (talk · contribs)'s second contribution to Wiki; first was to TonyTheTiger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I am visiting my mother for x-mas and showing her WP. She seems to have learned what is important:-)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Babybambam (talk · contribs)'s second contribution to Wiki; first was to TonyTheTiger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very Very Very Strong Oppose:
GA, 'cuz it's too short and there isn't the history section!!!! No GA - no FA! it's not ready! Brískelly[citazione necessaria]- The length itself is not a valid reason for an oppose as long as the article is comprehensive. Since the fountain has been in existance less than 10 years, there really isn't a need for a history section. Do you see any other gaps in the text? Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except the linking. My thought on the linking is that this is a very technical article from an architectural/engineering perspective and the links that you consider controversial are links to technical terms. They help the reader understand what things like tubing and nozzle mean in this technical article. Can you support now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- "There isn't the history section" seems to relate more to organization- an extension of "quality of writing" than to comprehensiveness. Length - "too short" would mean requiring expansion - it is rather hard to show incompleteness... - and I would not ask necessarily for examples - although such a comment is valid - the rationale for improvement is "needs expansion due to lack of comprehensiveness" - proof of this was not provided so we are left with only the reputation of the reviewer to back this comment up, and since Briskelly had not the reputation of other reviewers - like the very respected Tony1 - the directorship is not likely to take this claim as worthy of trust.--Kiyarrllston 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The length itself is not a valid reason for an oppose as long as the article is comprehensive. Since the fountain has been in existance less than 10 years, there really isn't a need for a history section. Do you see any other gaps in the text? Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Follow-up to objection "The artist intends to portray the social [[evolution]] of the city by [...]" -evolution which this sentence links to says at the very top: "This article is about evolution in biology" - I'm guessing not the intended link
- I see no problem with the evolution link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The article seems to continue to require copy-editing.
- I note that it continues to have 16 sources total. (a inordinately small number)
-of lesser importance naming a section "artistry" would hopefully mean that you talk about artistry and not about "background" or "miscelanea"
I encourage you to seek more reviews through Friendly Notices if you wish for more involvement - see WP:CANVASS for proper form
-Kiyarrllston 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article does not appear to have an issue with citation coverage. If you see specific instances in the article where something is not cited and should be, please mention it, but there is not a minimum number of citations required for an FA. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- hi there, there is indeed a minimum number of citations. I believe that number is "greater than one". I believe there is a maximum as well, per the size of the page. The "greater than" would depend on many things, in general I expect an FA quality article to have 50-100 citations.--Kiyarrllston 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
- ^ K. Kannikeswaran. "Templenet Encyclopedia, The Ultimate Source of Information on Indian Temples". Kalyani Chalukyan Temples. webmaster@Templenet.com. Retrieved 2007-11-10.